 |
 | 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 / March 2004Low Carb vs. HGbA1c
Type: 2 Began Low Carb: 12/01/2003 (3 months) 10/31/2003 HGbA1c: 9.5 02/25/2004 HGbA1c: 6.2 I started Low Carb with a goal of 50 carbs or less per day. Now, I try to do 20 carbs or less per day. Lab says normal is: 4.9 to 5.8 Retest of Fasting BG: 88 Cubit > Type: 2 > Began Low Carb: 12/01/2003 (3 months) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Retest of Fasting BG: 88 If it works for you...but don't attribute it to low carb...there are many factors that may and do affect BG. Just losing weight helps most newbies achieve better control. There is more than one way to lose weight. HbA1c is a measure of glycated cells. The number in you blood has gone down...good for you !! You cannot necessariy attribute that drop in A1c to any one cause, rather a combination of events likely lead to the drop. Having said that...Congratulations. Keep up the good work !! Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your kidneys checked regularly !! :: "Cubit" <no@no.not> wrote: ::: Type: 2 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: If it works for you...but don't attribute it to low carb...there are :: many factors that may and do affect BG. Nonsense....in this case, it can be attributed to LC... Just losing weight helps :: most newbies achieve better control. There is more than one way to :: lose weight. What the hell is a newbie in this case? It is true that there is more than one way to lose weight, but what does that have to do with this? :: HbA1c is a measure of glycated cells. The number in you blood has :: gone down...good for you !! :: :: You cannot necessariy attribute that drop in A1c to any one cause, :: rather a combination of events likely lead to the drop. It is very common to LCers to see A1c drop. Exercise does help, too. :: Having said that...Congratulations. Keep up the good work !! :: :: Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your :: kidneys checked regularly !! Obviously, you know little if anything about LCing. [cut] > :: Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your > :: kidneys checked regularly !! > > Obviously, you know little if anything about LCing. This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly physicals, my kidneys are fine (better, in fact, then when I was on low fat and had high readings). There is no basis in fact for kidneys going bad due to low carb. It's a myth. See the following: http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=207  SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly physicals, my > kidneys are fine (better, in fact, then when I was on low fat and had > high readings). There is no basis in fact for kidneys going bad due to > low carb. It's a myth. See the following: > > http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=207 Kidney disease IS prevelant in diabetics....and must be monitored !! >> This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly physicals, my >> kidneys are fine (better, in fact, then when I was on low fat and had [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Kidney disease IS prevelant in diabetics....and must be monitored !! Prevalent when bg's are higher than they should be. Bring the bg's under control and in most instances kidney function will return to normal, regardless of the amount of protein one ingests. > >> This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly > physicals, my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > will return to normal, regardless of the amount of protein > one ingests. Guess what...this might shock you but MOST diabetics DO NOT maintain good control (as defined by an A1c < 6.5). SO it stands that suggesting that someone newly diagnosed would have their kidneys checked....whether wanting to low carb or not. > > > Kidney disease IS prevelant in diabetics....and must be > > monitored !! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > checked....whether > wanting to low carb or not. What kind of diabetic health care team needs *you* to suggest what sort of work ups they ought to do for the patient they've just diagnosed as diabetic? For crying out loud, Gman. What do you think most health care teams do? Say "Congratulations, you're diabetic. Have a nice life!" ? Hell, my 'a1c is 4.9% and I still get called in for my yearly this that and the other diabetic checkups. I'd hate to see what they'd do if my control was *poor*. Carmen > > >> This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly > physicals, my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Guess what...this might shock you but MOST diabetics DO NOT maintain good > control (as defined by an A1c < 6.5). That's because they're eating the absurd high-carb diet recommended by the ADA. Most low-carbers DO maintain good control. > SO it stands that suggesting that > someone newly diagnosed would have their kidneys checked....whether wanting > to low carb or not. > > > >> This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly > > physicals, my [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That's because they're eating the absurd high-carb diet recommended > by the ADA. Most low-carbers DO maintain good control. And you of course have a cite for this statement ? >>>>This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > someone newly diagnosed would have their kidneys checked....whether wanting > to low carb or not. FWIW, I agree with every post of yours in this thread. I think I can understand why some people don't get it. As I see it, I think the primary problem is that if one reduces their carbs, they have a tendency to increase their protein. It isn't the low carbs that damage the kidneys, it's the 'lo carbing', with increased protein that does it. And this is the reason that the cost of meat has gone up, supply and demand.... less carbs, more protein. I think every newbie should be cautioned about this. ||||| This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly |||| [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] | carbs, more protein. | I think every newbie should be cautioned about this. No, every newbie should be cautioned about people talking out of ignorance with no basis in fact. Your statements perpetuate myths, much as the child in the dark who is afraid of the bogeyman. The Atkins controlled-carbohydrate plan is low-carbohydrate/moderate protein/high-fat. I do not eat any more protein now than I did before I began my low-carb way of eating thre years ago -- in fact, most days I eat less protein. It is the carbs and the fats that are flip-flopped; the protein remains essentially the same. Honestly, where do these senseless rumors come from? And the kidney myth is the biggest mystery of all. Please name one person who has died from kidney failure on a low-carb diet, or cite the studies that show the kidney damage caused by controlling carbohydrates vs. a control group that does not reduce their carbs. You can't of course, because it's pure fiction. Who thought this stuff up? SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > No, every newbie should be cautioned about people talking out of > ignorance with no basis in fact. Your statements perpetuate myths, much > as the child in the dark who is afraid of the bogeyman. What are these myths you talk about ?? > The Atkins controlled-carbohydrate plan is low-carbohydrate/moderate > protein/high-fat. I do not eat any more protein now than I did before I > began my low-carb way of eating thre years ago -- in fact, most days I > eat less protein. It is the carbs and the fats that are flip-flopped; > the protein remains essentially the same. Honestly, where do these > senseless rumors come from? And you know this because your tracked your meals before low carbing ?? Atkin's is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The dieted, when restricting themselves to induction levels of carbs achieves a great deal of weight loss in a very short time...due MOSTLY to water shed, NOT fat loss. The diet is euphoric because of the weight loss and buys more Atkins' crap. It has been shown that the longer the diet lasts the more a low carbers weight loss equals that of a person on a low fat diet. > And the kidney myth is the biggest mystery of all. Please name one > person who has died from kidney failure on a low-carb diet, or cite the > studies that show the kidney damage caused by controlling carbohydrates > vs. a control group that does not reduce their carbs. You can't of > course, because it's pure fiction. Who thought this stuff up? Maybe if you pulled your head out of your a.s long enough you might realise NO ONE said that...I said that a DIABETIC should have their kidneys checked and monitored regularly, especially if on a high protein diet. Diabetics are at a greater risk of kidney disease than the general population...it's called practising COMMON SENSE medicine !! 05:06:32 Sun, 7 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes >Atkin's is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The dieted, when >restricting themselves to induction levels of carbs achieves a great deal of >weight loss in a very short time...due MOSTLY to water shed, NOT fat >loss. The diet is euphoric because of the weight loss and buys more >Atkins' crap. It has been shown that the longer the diet lasts the more a >low carbers weight loss equals that of a person on a low fat diet. While this may or may not be correct (I don't know the facts about water loss, except that I am aware that most people seem to agree that a couple of lbs of water are lost in the first week or two), is it not the case that a higher proportion of those who try low-carbing find it easier to maintain the diet than other types of diet? Again, I don't have cites for this, but it would surprise me to find that it wasn't true, given the effortlessness of my own personal experience with it. If this is correct, it is a serious advantage for this type of diet. The other advantage, of course, is its effect on blood glucose and insulin levels. With the lowered insulin requirement and the fewer carbs too, more of the fat eaten is going to be burned as fuel and less is going to be deposited in the body of the dieter than on a calorie-equivalent high-carb diet (since insulin has the additional function of converting excess carbohydrates into fat for storage). I suppose if the dieter is burning all the carbs this won't happen, but for a diabetic with insulin resistance, that isn't going to happen. Or is it? Confused? I am. :-) SignatureMartin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not "bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones: http://www.ringamoby.com "Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin | Atkin's is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The dieted, when | restricting themselves to induction levels of carbs achieves a great deal | of weight loss in a very short time...due MOSTLY to water shed, NOT fat | loss. Now I KNOW that you're just a troll trying to cause a flame war; nobody could be this stupid. I know several people who have lost over 100 pounds-- and one who has lost over 200 pounds -- on a controlled-carbohydrate way of eating. Are you saying that she lost 200 pounds of water? BBWWWAAAAHHHAAAHAAAHAAA! What an idiot! -- Peter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > | Atkin's is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The dieted, when > | restricting themselves to induction levels of carbs achieves a great [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > controlled-carbohydrate way of > eating. Are you saying that she lost 200 pounds of water? To put it in perspective, in almost ANY diet, whether it's low fat, plain ole low calorie, low meat, high meat, whatever, some of the weight lost is ALWAYS water. Then the real fat loss begins due to increased metabolism and calorie deficit combined. Atkins (the Atkins diet I read about before the explosion of all the "products") for me, was about learning the fundamental difference between food and non-food. CM "marengo" <marengo@yourdrawersthelink.net <drop your drawers to reply>> wrote: > | Atkin's is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The dieted, when > | restricting themselves to induction levels of carbs achieves a great [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > controlled-carbohydrate way of eating. Are you saying that she lost 200 > pounds of water? Again...take off the freakin' blinders...I said NO such thing. Jesus f.cking Christ STOP reading my posts please.....you have a comprehension problem !! > It has been shown that the longer the diet lasts the more a low > carbers weight loss equals that of a person on a low fat diet. Well, I've done both low carb and low fat diets in my day, and I'm perfectly ready to agree that you can lose weight on a low fat diet. And in fact I did. As I did on low carb. The difference was that on low fat I was miserable and constantly hungry every waking hour of the day. Despite 9 months of sticking to it religiously the hunger never went away. It had a deliterious affect on my social life too. It made me wild with cravings to see other people with food, so I could never be in any sort of social setting where I might be exposed to seeing people eat. If it did happen I would have to get up and leave. I have a co-worker like that. He's been religiously following a low-fat vegetarian diet for over 10 years now, even since he developed heart trouble. But despite the length of time he will still never go out to lunch with us. Even after 10 years he still can't allow himself to watch other people eat. But with low carb that issue never arises. I'm satisfied with the amount of food i eat. I'm almost never hungry. I have no problems watching other people eat so am perfectly happy to go to lunch with co-workers or be in social settings that involve food. And now that I'm a T2 I have even more incentive to stay low carb. But just from a lifestyle issue, regardless of speed of weight loss, low carb is a liveable program for me and low fat is not. And surely that is the bottom line for anyone. It has to be something you can live with. :-) Debbie This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly physicals, my kidneys are fine (better, in fact, then when I was on low fat and had high readings). There is no basis in fact for kidneys going bad due to low carb. It's a myth. --------------------------------------- Amen to that, brother. I have had renal failure twice in my adult life (the last time was in May '02) and my kidneys are doing just fine with this WOE. (and Dr. agrees) It's just a bunch of bunk! IMHO, of course. Marty > [cut] > > :: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=207 Hear! Hear! I had a kidney transplant and have been low carbing for a year and a half to control insulin resistance issues caused by my anti-rejection meds and have also seen significant improvement in kidney function (its checked every month). If your kidneys are healthy, low carb is terrific! Best, Mary Sue Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@rcn.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > This kidney stuff simply must stop. After two yearly physicals, my > kidneys are fine (better, in fact, then when I was on low fat and had > high readings). There is no basis in fact for kidneys going bad due > to low carb. It's a myth. See the following: > > http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=207 This research tells nothing about protein loads on _damaged_ kidneys. Healthy kidneys can handle high loads. IMO no surprise, as the kidneys have been _made_ to handle the stuff. However most diabetics (here) are T2, and often a long history of diabetes before diagnose. It could well be that during this undiagnosed time nepropathy occured, detectable or not. SignatureCeeBee _Got no wockin' furries_ CeeBee burbled across the ether: > Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@rcn.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Healthy kidneys can handle high loads. IMO no surprise, as the kidneys > have been _made_ to handle the stuff. Your comment about protien loads implies that you think Atkins or any other lowcarb diet is high protien. Not so. That is a myth. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go to bed. "revek" <pphillps1962@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > Your comment about protien loads implies that you think Atkins or any > other lowcarb diet is high protien. Not so. That is a myth. The restriction of carbs is compensated by fats. You have to get your energy from somewhere - it isn't created out of thin air. In Atkins-like diets a lot of those (good) fats come from food sources like meat and eggs. A normal, balanced diet doesn't consist of the amount of those protein rich foods. That's why the protein load with Atkins-like diets is higher than with other diets. SignatureCeeBee _Got no wockin' furries_ So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams per day? In news:Xns94A512BD0F6E9ceebeechesterstartco@195.121.255.57, CeeBee <ceebeechester@start.com.au> stated | The restriction of carbs is compensated by fats. You have to get your | energy from somewhere - it isn't created out of thin air. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | | _Got no wockin' furries_ > So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep > throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams per day? To some people there is no such thing as too much protein as long as the meter says its ok. for answers like this I got to my dietitian or doctor. >> So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep >> throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams >> per day? > > To some people there is no such thing as too much protein > as long as the meter says its ok. What meter would that be that tells you if you are eating too much protein? ||| So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep ||| throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | What meter would that be that tells you if you are eating | too much protein? This was cross-posted from alt.support.diabetes; he was referring to the blood glucose meter used by diabetics. What he said was essentially true: as long as they are not eating enough protein to spike their blood glucose, then they're not eating too much of it. SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo ::: So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep ::: throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: as long as the meter says its ok. for answers like this :: I got to my dietitian or doctor. And you'd get a quite shitty answer, too. > ::: So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep > ::: throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And you'd get a quite shitty answer, too. True. Most doctors have absolutely no interest in nutrition and are quite happy to parrot what the medical associations tell them to say. Most dietitians are glorified social workers who parrot back what they learned in school. I once mentioned a very well known study on salt and hypertension (INTERSALT) to a dietitian, and found she had never heard of it. > > ::: So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep > > ::: throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > known study on salt and hypertension (INTERSALT) to a dietitian, > and found she had never heard of it. there is a reason why doctors require a license to treat patients. why don't you get yours and tell the doctors around the world what books you read so they will know as much as you? > True. Most doctors have absolutely no interest in nutrition and > are quite happy to parrot what the medical associations tell them [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > known study on salt and hypertension (INTERSALT) to a dietitian, > and found she had never heard of it. Wow...they regurgetate what they learned in school...what a novel idea. Go to school, learn something and repeat it to your patients. Do you think others do that too ?? Just because a professional didn't hear of a particular study does not make them incompetent, there are thousands of studies on any number of different subjects. > Wow...they regurgetate what they learned in school...what a novel idea. Go > to school, learn something and repeat it to your patients. Do you think [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them incompetent, there are thousands of studies on any number of different > subjects. actually gman and I don't mean this as a flame to the group. I like to be around people who know more then I do about a subject that I have an interest in. one of my biggest problems with some in this group is their posts seem to be very one sided. they never mention positive sides of low fat diets they never mention nevagitive sides of low carb diets. for every type of diet I have read both positive and negative points. if I read a book written by OJ he would appear to be an angel if I read a book written by nicole OJ would appear to be a devil. I feel the same way about books written by people like Atkins and Bernstein also. I am not saying if they are right or wrong - I just cant help but worry if I would be getting the full picture. it doesn't matter to the scientist working for the ADA what type of diet is right - they will always be here no matter if Atkins or Bernstein has a better diet. perhaps a diet like Atkins or Bernstein I myself do not take any medications while on the ADA diet. most doctors still feel it is safer to take the medications ( if needed) then for some who would feel - low carb proteins are a free food. yes I know even Atkins and Bernstein don't say that - but isn't that a trap that a low carber can fall into? I don't think any diet says its ok to have a 16oz steak for dinner - but there are some that do. Tom >> Wow...they regurgetate what they learned in school...what a novel idea. Go >> to school, learn something and repeat it to your patients. Do you think [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >there are some that do. >Tom Tom, I think you may suffer from selective reading, an affliction that tends to attack those who approach a problem from a pre-conception. There are many points of view here, some diametrically opposed to each other. I suspect I am one of those you refer to. I'll offer a challenge. Send me an email (hopefully you'll have more success than Norm) and I'll send back a copy of what worked for me. It's not rocket science, and I'm questioning some of my own premises as I watch the lipids debate, but I doubt that your doctor will argue with it. Mine gives it to his patients. I doubt you'll still think I support high fat, or high protein or high anything after you read it. What I do support is acceptable BGs and minimising complications. Remove starch to email. Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. | I suspect I am one of those you refer to. I'll offer a challenge. Send | me an email (hopefully you'll have more success than Norm) and I'll send [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. Here are the results of my HGbA1C and cholesterol after going on a low carb/moderate protein/high fat diet on December 15th, after being diagnosed as T2 diabetic: I made a pact at the time with my new Doctor -- who is pro-lowcarb - that she would give me 90 days with no meds to try to improve all the indicators with diet and supplements. I returned to my own version of fairly strict low carb eating, and this time watched excess calories as well. I had my 90-day return blood tests Tuesday, and she recently called me with the results. Here they are: 12/15/03 3/9/04 Weight: 270 232 ( -38 pounds) Fasting BG: 135 90 (- 45 !) HgbA1c: 9.0 6.0 (- 3.0!) Total Cholesterol: 234 188 (- 46 points!) HDL Cholesterol: 37 38 (+ 1) LDL Cholesterol: * 106 VLDL " * 44 Triglycerides: 625 219 *(- 406 points!)* * LDL and VLDL could not be measured previously because triglycerides were so high. Fasting BG, HGbA1c and triglycerides all moved out of dangerous zones to within normal or nearly normal ranges. My doctor pointed out that there is still a ways to go in further lowering triglycerides and LDL as well as raising HDL, but overall this was impressive. She told me that I'm "unique" (among her patients) in being able to control my blood sugars through diet (and nutritional supplements) alone, as well as dramatically lower triglycerides and total cholesterol also without medications. She said I'm her "best patient." (*blushing*) I really believe that it's more than just my low-carb eating plan that has made these dramatic improvements in just 90 days however; it's a combination of food choices as well as vitamins and nutritional supplements. For instance, I take a high-potency B complex daily along with 500mg timed-release niacin. Also for cholesterol I take daily antioxidants (E, A and C), as well as garlic and flax oil. Other supplements I take each day include L-Carnitine, grape seed extract, chromium picolinate, magnesium, zinc, selenium, green tea extract, alpha-lipoic acid and CoQ10. Plus a multivitamin. (I recently added 1 tsp of cinnamon to my regimen; I talked this over with the doc and she also was aware of the studies showing that a small amount of daily cinnamon can reduce cholesterol and triglycerides). I eat meats, chicken, fish and cheeses with no regard to saturated/unsaturated fat content, but rather watch the quantity of what I eat. I eat plenty of healthy veggies with each meal and I vary my menus; I never go hungry! Still no meds for me for cholesterol or diabetes. I know that my case is anecdotal and not a "study," but it's sure proof enough for me! Atkins and Bernstein rule! Of course as always, this is IMHO and YMMV. I hope that everyone here finds the right combination of what works for them in controlling their diabetes as I did -- be it low-carb, low-fat or a hybrid. - - - Peter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo >| I suspect I am one of those you refer to. I'll offer a challenge. Send >| me an email (hopefully you'll have more success than Norm) and I'll send [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] >Peter >website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo Congratulations. Brilliant result in that time frame. Funny how many of our doctors think we're unique, sad about all their other patients. It becomes increasingly obvious, whatever the diet, exercise and meds, that the ones who learn to control this thing are the ones who want to most. They are the ones who will listen and experiment until they find what works for them. The ones who allow someone else to take control are not reading here. Congratulations again. Cheers, Alan, T2 d&e, Australia. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. > So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep > throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams per day? The dietary recommendation I have seen is .8 grams protein/kg of weight. Someone that weighed about 200 pounds would be about 91 kilograms. Grams of protein would be about 83 grams. If a person is more active their total calories would increase and likewise the amounts of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. Total............. 2000 calories grams Carbohydrates 50%. 1000 ..../4 = 250 Fats......... 34%. 680 ..../8 = 88 Proteins..... 16%. 320 ..../4 = 80 A person on 100 grams of carbohydrates per day would have to adjust either the fats or the proteins to get the same amount of total calories. Frank || So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep || throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams per [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] | | Frank I limit my protein to under 100g per day. I', about 230 pounds now, so this fits exactly with your nprotein intake umbers. What I don'tagree with : Why in the world would someone who is diabetic eat 50% of their diet as sugar and starches (carbohydrates), which cause sudden rises and drops in blood glucose levels followed by wild insulin swings? It may help the agricultural, medical and pharmaceutical industries, but is diabetic suicide IMO. A much more sensible diet for diabetes can be found in "Diabetes Solution" by Dr. Richard K. Bernstein -- a diabetic himself who nearly went to an early grave by following the traditional low-fat/high-carbohydrate ADA recommendations, and instead became healthy and hale through more sensible nutrition. Every diabetic and pre-diabetic should read this book. SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > So exactly how much protein is too much? People in this thread keep > throwing out general terms, high, too much, what is that in grams per > day? It depends...if your kidneys are healthy and you maintain good BG control (if you're DM) you may not need to be concerned. If your kidneys are not healthy then you should discuss this with your MD. CeeBee burbled across the ether: > "revek" <pphillps1962@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In Atkins-like diets a lot of those (good) fats come from food sources > like meat and eggs. Wrong. Olive oil, butter, cream, mayo, avacados, nuts. There are plenty of high fat sources that don't rely on meat and eggs. And yes I know mayo has eggs in it, but in the amounts one uses it's not that much. A normal, balanced diet doesn't consist of the > amount of those protein rich foods. That's why the protein load with > Atkins-like diets is higher than with other diets. A normal balanced diet doesn't consist of a whopping pile of nutrient poor high starch items. I'd rather have a big bowl of spinach salad with some olive oil on it and some steamed mashed cauliflower with my 4 oz protien than a pasta meal any day. Far more balanced, nutritionally speaking. 4 oz of protien is not a high protien load unless you are fixated on percentages which are only one measure of balance, and a misleading one at that. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please He who laughs last is at 300 baud. "revek" <pphillps1962@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > Wrong. Olive oil, butter, cream, mayo, avacados, nuts. ...meat and eggs. As I said "like meat and eggs", not "only meat and eggs". > A normal balanced diet doesn't consist of a whopping pile of nutrient > poor high starch items. I'd rather have a big bowl of spinach salad > with some olive oil on it and some steamed mashed cauliflower with my 4 > oz protien than a pasta meal any day. Far more balanced, nutritionally > speaking. It's your notion of "a balanced diet" that clouds the discussion. You are not referring to a "balanced diet". SignatureCeeBee _Got no wockin' furries_ CeeBee burbled across the ether: > "revek" <pphillps1962@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > >> Wrong. Olive oil, butter, cream, mayo, avacados, nuts. > > ...meat and eggs. As I said "like meat and eggs", not "only meat and > eggs". As I see with your other posts, you play games with words to make them mean what you want so you can always be right. You are a classic troll and I claim my five pounds. Idiot. revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please By doing just a little every day, I can gradually let the task completely overwhelm me. - Ashleigh Brilliant > CeeBee burbled across the ether: >> "revek" <pphillps1962@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > As I see with your other posts, you play games with words to make them > mean what you want so you can always be right. No she speaks without knowledge then tries to make out she didn't mean exactly what she said. >In Atkins-like diets a lot of those (good) fats come from food sources >like meat and eggs. Heh. Bzzzt. > "revek" <pphillps1962@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > In Atkins-like diets a lot of those (good) fats come from food sources > like meat and eggs. ?? You picked that bit of trivia out from where? Whatever happened to olive oil, olives, a few nuts, avocados .... more than enough fat out of moderate use of those products. A normal, balanced diet doesn't consist of the > amount of those protein rich foods. And that amount would be? Cites? Statistics? That's why the protein load with > Atkins-like diets is higher than with other diets. What about the non diets like a lot of folk who just eat what they want, when they want? You have never seen normal every day people hoeing into a huge steak along with their fries? > CeeBee burbled across the ether: > > Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@rcn.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Your comment about protien loads implies that you think Atkins or any > other lowcarb diet is high protien. Not so. That is a myth. BULLSHIT. Unless you eat as usual without the carbs then you WILL increase you protein and fat !! > Unless you eat as usual without the carbs then you WILL increase you > protein and fat !! What do you eat in a day gman? And amounts? Give us a typical day's diet. || Your comment about protien loads implies that you think Atkins or any || other lowcarb diet is high protien. Not so. That is a myth. <unnecessary foul language snipped> | Unless you eat as usual without the carbs then you WILL increase you | protein and fat !! Hey, maybe you're starting to get it! You hit on the truth by accident though, I suspect. Most people who are controlling their carbohydrates don't increase protein and fats; they reduce their carbohydrates. This is why we lose weight; we aren't eating the calories we were formerly getting in carbs. If fat and/or protein was increased, we wouldn't lose weight. But on a low-carb plan we don't have to worry about eating *less* protein or fat; out calories are cut through fewer carbs. When we order a burger we throw away the bun; we don't ask for extra meat. We substitute cauliflower for mashed potatoes, not extra meat. We drizzle olive oil on our salads, not meat. We eat lots of salads. For the umpteenth time, the Atkins and similar low-carb plans are low-carbohydrate/moderate-protein/high fat. They are not "high-protein." I have been controlling my carbohydrates for three years now. I do not eat "high protein;" on the contrary, I eat *less* protein than I did before I began reducing my carbs; I eat less overall because my way of eating is very satisfying. No more fast food bugers, breakfast bacon/susage buscuits, etc. On the average I eat between 60 and 70 grams of protein per day. Only between 20 and 25% of my total calories come from protein. <10% is from carbs, the rest is from fats. You can see this for yourself; I'm willing to share my Fitday logs: http://www.fitday.com/WebFit/PublicJournals.html?Owner=GarconDeNC You only come across as ridiculous when you make an emphatic statement like you did when it has no basis in fact. SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo >From: "marengo" <marengo@thelink.net> >Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 09:05:56 GMT [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >You only come across as ridiculous when you make an emphatic statement like >you did when it has no basis in fact. Peter I have been doing this for almost 2 years myself... I actually lowered my carbs after the holidays from 50-100 carbs and I am only eating 20-30 carbs now..I eat a LOT less junk.. I eat a lot more veggies, than I ever did and I would say I eat moderate protein, high/moderate fat and lowcarb. I lowered my carbs because I noticed my BG numbers creeping up..and because Hubby started Atkins induction. For me before doing lowcarb/diabetic diagnosis, candy was a food group.. I drank 2-4 16 oz glasses of orange juice a day.. I ate meat, some veggies, loads of fruit, and Lots of bread and starches. Now, by altering what I ate, to NO juice, lots of water, only a bit of lowcarb candy, lots of veggies, some fruit and the same amount of protein as I had before, Im 30lbs lighter and a heck of a lot healthier.. I also found that in eating, I just dont want as much food as I ate before.. My A1c is at 5. and my cholesterol and trigs are doing great..Much better than before.. Now I just have to really really push myself to get moving on the exercise... For me, strange as it sounds Diabetes was the best thing to have happened to me. It changed my life and my husbands.. He finally started Atkins 6 weeks ago and he has lost 10 inches and 29lbs. As always YMMV and this is JMO Jeanne Type 2 Diagnosed 05/28/02 194/164/120 For me, strange as it sounds Diabetes was the best | thing to have happened to me. | It changed my life and my husbands.. He finally started Atkins 6 weeks [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | Jeanne Type 2 Diagnosed 05/28/02 | 194/164/120 Sound like you're doing great, Jeanne! Congratulations! I know what you mean; ina way my diabetes diagnosis last December was a wake-up call that shook me out of my doldrums. After nearly 3 years of low-carbing, that was the event that made it a truly life-long committment. SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo >For me, strange as it sounds Diabetes was the best >| thing to have happened to me. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >shook me out of my doldrums. After nearly 3 years of low-carbing, that was >the event that made it a truly life-long committment. Thanks Peter.. It is amazing what something as life changeing as Diabetes can do for you.. I was very lucky with an early diagnosis and right away I started reading, found this board and the Diabetic board and got some amazing advice. I listened, read and learned.. For me this is defintely a life long committment and I intend to have a LONG life..knock on wood.. :-) As always YMMV and this is JMO Jeanne Type 2 Diagnosed 05/28/02 194/164/120 > [cut] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > kidneys are fine (better, in fact, then when I was on low fat and had > high readings). High readings of what? > There is no basis in fact for kidneys going bad due to > low carb. It's a myth. See the following: > > http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=207 Hi, <GMan's nattering snipped> > :: Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have > your kidneys checked regularly !! > > Obviously, you know little if anything about LCing. It may be time for ASDLC to institute the IOM Award. <G> Take care, Carmen > Hi, > <GMan's nattering snipped> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Take care, > Carmen Going to nominate yourself ?? Maybe all you idiots should read ALL of the information presented !! The original poster identified themself as a diabetic who is low carbing. Low carbing typically means that they make up the calories with a combination of FAT and PROTEIN. Diabetics are at HIGHER risk of kidney disease...therefore, one on a low carb diet better make sure their kidney function is good and stays good. :: "Carmen" <carmensrt@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: Hi, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: one on a low carb diet better make sure their kidney function is :: good and stays good. Diabetics should always be concerned about kidney function on ANY diet. Period. Gaining control of BG goes a long with to preventing future problems. > :: "Carmen" <carmensrt@hotmail.com> wrote: > ::: Hi, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Period. Gaining control of BG goes a long with to preventing future > problems. Agreed ! > > <GMan's nattering snipped> > > > :: Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > better > make sure their kidney function is good and stays good. Nominate myself? Not eligible. I, like a number of others in ASDLC, am a lowcarbing diabetic. There's no evidence that low carbing harms healthy kidneys. Staying within a tightly controlled BG range is the best way to avoid diabetic complications such as kidney disease. Some of us find low carbing and exercise effective tools for doing so while avoiding medication. We speak from experience. Carmen > Nominate myself? Not eligible. I, like a number of others in ASDLC, > am a lowcarbing diabetic. There's no evidence that low carbing harms [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > carbing and exercise effective tools for doing so while avoiding > medication. We speak from experience. Who said that low carbing harmed kidneys? I didn't see that posted. This whole sniping thread came about because someone (now I forget who it was) said that low carbers needed to forget about the kidney function tests. These tests are vital for diabetics regardless of our diet because diabetics in general are more prone to having kidney problems. SignatureType 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/ ::: Nominate myself? Not eligible. I, like a number of others in ::: ASDLC, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: who it was) said that low carbers needed to forget about the kidney :: function tests. Who said that? Gman is the one who implied that because LCers eat mostly FAT and Protein -- the implication being that this is is bad for the kidneys -- and that since diabetics are known to have issues with kidneys, that combining both is more reason to get your kidney function tested. There is no other way to interpert what he said since the OP was clearly improving via LC -- which he wants to claim is not the reason for the improvemtns. These tests are vital for diabetics regardless of :: our diet because diabetics in general are more prone to having :: kidney problems. -- There is a widely held erroneous belief that LCing is bad on the kidneys. :: Type 2 :: http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/ > There is a widely held erroneous belief that LCing is bad on the > kidneys. And a wildly erroneous belief that Low carbing means high proteining (new word :) The ratio of protein to carbs may be higher but as in people like me, my protein levels are probably way less than what the nay sayers actually eat. "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > There is a widely held erroneous belief that LCing is bad on the > kidneys. If I follow the discussion correctly, this statement isn't made nor implied. A high load of protein on healthy kidneys of course isn't bad. A high load on damaged kidneys is bad. It has nothing to do with low carbing, but with taxing of _damaged_ kidneys. One way or another. That fact isn't so academical. Most T2's face diagnosis ofter years after the diabetes actually occured, and as often they have nepropathy - sometimes detectable, sometimes not. If I see how people here are occupied with tenths of percentages of HbA1c, and how they all did it with Low Carb, isn't it reasonable to give _every_ side of the picture? SignatureCeeBee _Got no wockin' furries_ >If I follow the discussion correctly, this statement isn't made nor >implied. Obviously the implication was made in the context of gman's response to 20gm carb per day quote, and many of us inferred the only logical way. >A high load of protein on healthy kidneys of course isn't bad. A high load >on damaged kidneys is bad. It has nothing to do with low carbing, but with >taxing of _damaged_ kidneys. One way or another. Right. But were were talking about *low carbing*, 20grms per day of carb is the context that gman specifically offered the warning on. We weren't discussing high protein, we were discussing *low carb*, which is typically high fat. >That fact isn't so academical. Most T2's face diagnosis ofter years after >the diabetes actually occured, and as often they have nepropathy - >sometimes detectable, sometimes not. And it's often improved by low carbing, as we've seen by anecdote and research on glycemic control. Diabetes is hyperglycemia, which causes kidney damage. Protein and fat are the last thing someone with kidney function to protect would want to avoid, keeping protein at adequate levels, and making up any caloric deficit with healthy fats. Susan > > Nominate myself? Not eligible. I, like a number of others in > > ASDLC, am a lowcarbing diabetic. There's no evidence that low [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Who said that low carbing harmed kidneys? I didn't see that posted. Gman implied it. > This whole sniping thread came about because someone (now I forget > who it > was) said that low carbers needed to forget about the kidney > function > tests. No, the whole thread came about because people objected to Gman's implication that lowcarbing was a reason for having kidney function tests done. Being *diabetic* is the reason for having kidney function tests done, just as it is why I have my 'a1c and eyes tested regularly. Low carbing is no more likely to cause kidney problems than lowfat is. > These tests are vital for diabetics regardless of our diet because > diabetics in general are more prone to having kidney problems. Exactly. Gman implied otherwise. Carmen "Carmen" <carmensrt@hotmail.com> wrote:> > Gman implied it. Where ??? Chapter and verse !! > > This whole sniping thread came about because someone (now I forget > > who it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tests done. Being *diabetic* is the reason for having kidney function > tests done, And that's what I stated...Jesus H. Christ you people are MORONS !! :: "Carmen" <carmensrt@hotmail.com> wrote:> ::: Gman implied it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: :: And that's what I stated...Jesus H. Christ you people are MORONS !! The "pack" wants you, gman! Hi, > ::: No, the whole thread came about because people objected to > Gman's implication that lowcarbing was a reason for having kidney [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The "pack" wants you, gman! Is it just me, or did he try harder in MFW? I feel slighted here. Take care, Carmen >Is it just me, or did he try harder in MFW? >I feel slighted here. > >Take care, >Carmen You mean he does this somewhere else? For practise? What's MFW? Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. Hello, > >Is it just me, or did he try harder in MFW? > >I feel slighted here. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You mean he does this somewhere else? For practise? > What's MFW? Yes, he's been doing this elsewhere - misc.fitness.weights. It's a considerably rougher crowd, and I don't know that he practices as much as builds up scar tissue from the beatings. <G> To understand that bunch try to imagine a quite intelligent group of people with a low stupidity threshold, a very colorful vocabulary and brass knuckles. He doesn't fare well. :-) Take care, Carmen > To understand that >bunch try to imagine a quite intelligent group of people with a low >stupidity threshold, a very colorful vocabulary and brass knuckles. I'm glad you said that was another group; I mean, it couldn't possibly be this one :-) Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. Hello Alan, > > To understand that > >bunch try to imagine a quite intelligent group of people with a low > >stupidity threshold, a very colorful vocabulary and brass knuckles. > > I'm glad you said that was another group; I mean, it couldn't > possibly be this one :-) <laughing> No, ASD is fractious, but MFW is a whole other realm. Highly entertaining if you can hang. ;-) Take care, Carmen > Yes, he's been doing this elsewhere - misc.fitness.weights. It's a > considerably rougher crowd, and I don't know that he practices as much > as builds up scar tissue from the beatings. <G> To understand that > bunch try to imagine a quite intelligent group of people with a low > stupidity threshold, a very colorful vocabulary and brass knuckles. > He doesn't fare well. :-) You're an idiot !! I'm still waiting for proof here... > > Yes, he's been doing this elsewhere - misc.fitness.weights. It's > > a considerably rougher crowd, and I don't know that he practices [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > You're an idiot !! I'm still waiting for proof here... This would be the point where you attempt to deflect attention from yourself by calling people names in the hopes that they'll killfile you and you can escape from the thread. Come on, try a tad bit harder. The old tricks are so...well, OLD. A number of people in two newsgroups have said they all interpreted your statement to be a slight against low carbing on the premise that it'll be potentially problematic for their kidneys. Instead of simply saying; "Oops, that's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion" (the adult approach) you expend all sorts of time trying to convince everyone that they were wrong to read the statement the way they did. Have you met Katie and Chris yet? Carmen > Nominate myself? Not eligible. I, like a number of others in ASDLC, > am a lowcarbing diabetic. There's no evidence that low carbing harms > healthy kidneys. Well, it looks like I'll be joining the group. :-( I've just faced a diagnosis of diabetes. Today I had a meeting a "diabetes educator" nurse and a follow-up with the doctor. I was very encouraged by what they said, as both were very supportive of the low carb lifestyle. The doctor even said that my higher blood sugar reading is a wake-up call that my body can no longer tolerate carbs as well as it did in the best. The diabetes nurse recommended a diet of about 100g of carbs a day. That is higher that what I've been aiming for, but certainly lower than the standard diet. My doctor does want me to lose weight, and starting talking about enrolling me in one of these 500-calorie-a-day liquid diets run by a local hospital, but I persuaded her that I was having success with LC and wanted to continue with that for now, and she agreed that that would be fine for me to do. Debbie Hi Debbie, > > Nominate myself? Not eligible. I, like a number of others in > > ASDLC, am a lowcarbing diabetic. There's no evidence that low [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > body > can no longer tolerate carbs as well as it did in the best. Well damn. I'm sorry you've joined the club. > The diabetes nurse recommended a diet of about 100g of carbs a day. > That is higher that what I've been aiming for, but certainly lower [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be > fine for me to do. Hopefully you can use the diagnosis as an added impetus to eat and exercise to your BG's advantage. I know you've been plugging away at LC for a long time, and your health care team's attitude and willingness to work with you should make it easier to keep the diabetes under control. Again, I'm sorry. That sucks, but it's not the end of the world. :-) Take care, Carmen | Well, it looks like I'll be joining the group. :-( I've just faced a | diagnosis of diabetes. Today I had a meeting a "diabetes educator" nurse [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | | Debbie My diagnosis came on December 15th. My HbA1c was 9. I returned to strict low-carb -- as well as reduced calories -- and my BG has been int he normal range ever since. I'm very fortunate to have a doctor who is a strong proponent of low carbohydrate eating to control diabetes and blood lipids as well as to lose weight. I go back next Tuesday (3/9) for my 90-day re-test of HbA1c, BG, cholesterol and triglycerides. Should be interesting; as of this morning I've lost 38 pounds since my last tests 10 weeks ago! BTW, my sister is a diabetic who follows the American Diabetes Association's diet (low-fat, fairly high carbs with even sugar allowed) and goes to ADA support meetings. She's on a couple of meds for her diabetes (glucophage and something else), continues to gain weight, and has slowly been developing heart complications as well as neuropathy in her feet and legs. She thinks I'm absolutely crazy because of my low-carb eating -- even though she sees the dramatic weight loss and health improvements. I'm especially hoping for great results in my blood tests; maybe with the empirical evidence I can convince her to change what she eats before they start taking her toes and feet ... SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > BTW, my sister is a diabetic who follows the American Diabetes > Association's diet (low-fat, fairly high carbs with even sugar allowed) > and goes to ADA support meetings. She's on a couple of meds for her > diabetes (glucophage and something else), continues to gain weight, and > has slowly been developing heart complications as well as neuropathy in > her feet and legs. It would seem she's not doing a very good job of the diet if she's gaining weight. Does she exercise ?? One loses weight with low carb initially due to water shed (mostly). In the long term, as long as the diet is still low calorie (low enough to create a caloric deficit) it will help with fat loss too. A low carb diet doesn't allow one to lose weight because it's low carb, it's because the diet is LOW CALORIE. Low carb / low fat...whatever works for you. Don't sit there and pretend that one diet is any better than another (ie ADA Food pyramid is worse than low carb)...if one is on a diet but doesn't follow it then it won't likely succeed. She thinks I'm absolutely crazy because of my low-carb > eating -- even though she sees the dramatic weight loss and health > improvements. I'm especially hoping for great results in my blood tests; > maybe with the empirical evidence I can convince her to change what she > eats before they start taking her toes and feet ... First of all, one subject does not emperical evidence make. Low carb might be the ticket for you...it has been proven to lower weight more quickly than other diets faster but may not be for everyone. A lot of diabetics cannot handle a high protein diet, a lot can. ::: BTW, my sister is a diabetic who follows the American Diabetes ::: Association's diet (low-fat, fairly high carbs with even sugar [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: It would seem she's not doing a very good job of the diet if she's :: gaining weight. Does she exercise ?? At lot of people -- a lot -- don't do well on low fat. :: One loses weight with low carb initially due to water shed (mostly). :: In the long term, as long as the diet is still low calorie (low :: enough to create a caloric deficit) it will help with fat loss too. Okay....so ? :: A low carb diet doesn't allow one to lose weight because it's low :: carb, it's because the diet is LOW CALORIE. And it's low calorie because people who follow it have less appetite, hence they natually eat less. Low fat doesn't do that for many people. Low carb / low :: fat...whatever works for you. Don't sit there and pretend that one :: diet is any better than another (ie ADA Food pyramid is worse than :: low carb)...if one is on a diet but doesn't follow it then it won't :: likely succeed. Low carb is typically better for most diabetics than low fat. Fact. As far as fat loss is concerned, its whatever works. :: She thinks I'm absolutely crazy because of my low-carb ::: eating -- even though she sees the dramatic weight loss and health [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: :: First of all, one subject does not emperical evidence make. True. But there lots of subjects here who are T2s and controling successfully with LC. I'm a T2, I've lost 120 + lbs, and my A1c is 4.8. Low carb :: might be the ticket for you...it has been proven to lower weight :: more quickly than other diets faster but may not be for everyone. A :: lot of diabetics cannot handle a high protein diet, a lot can. Once again, LC does not have to be a high protein diet. >My diagnosis came on December 15th. My HbA1c was 9. I returned to strict >low-carb -- as well as reduced calories -- and my BG has been int he normal [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >evidence I can convince her to change what she eats before they start taking >her toes and feet ... Congratulations. That's an impressive loss. Sad about your sister; sounds like my brother (who hasn't been diagnosed - yet). Good luck convincing her. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. >>><GMan's nattering snipped> >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > am a lowcarbing diabetic. There's no evidence that low carbing harms > healthy kidneys. Do you know if there is any evidence that high protein harms (or doesn't harm) healthy kidneys? > Staying within a tightly controlled BG range is the best way to avoid > diabetic complications such as kidney disease. Some of us find low > carbing and exercise effective tools for doing so while avoiding > medication. We speak from experience. > > Carmen >> Hi, >> <GMan's nattering snipped> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > risk of kidney disease...therefore, one on a low carb diet better make sure > their kidney function is good and stays good. I tend to side with you gman. Calorie restriction, exercise and weight loss does improve insulin sensitivity and slows development of diabetes, according to a well known diabetes intervention study. http://www.3fatchicks.com/diet-toolbox/articles/exercise-delays-diabetes.html Low carbing can have various benefits, which I do not deny. I am saying this to prevent someone not logically incluned from implying that Iwas against low carbing, from the previous paragraph. Some people here tend to attack others in packs, without really thinking very hard about the issues presented, or bothering to actually read articles and studies. i On 5-Mar-2004, Ignoramus15020 <ignoramus15020@NOSPAM.15020.invalid> wrote: > > Going to nominate yourself ?? Maybe all you idiots should read ALL > > of the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > thinking very hard about the issues presented, or bothering to > actually read articles and studies. Reread the thread Ig. Gman's first comment was that 20 grams of carb a day is very difficult to maintain. Then he went on to start beating the "low carb is bad for your kidneys" horse in an oblique fashion. Proper diet and exercise and its role in slowing or preventing progression to diabetes was not at issue. Carmen "Carmen" <carmensrt@hotmail.com> wrote:> > Reread the thread Ig. Gman's first comment was that 20 grams of carb > a day is very difficult to maintain. It is...tell me, how many people who try stick with it for more than a year ?? Then he went on to start beating > the "low carb is bad for your kidneys" horse in an oblique fashion. No I did not...wow...what color is the sky in your imaginery world ? > Proper diet and exercise and its role in slowing or preventing > progression to diabetes was not at issue. No, the FACT that diabetics are at an increased risk of kidney disease, therefor, it stands to reason and COMMON SENSE that a diabetic wishing to eat low carb would make sure their kidneys work fine and continue to work fine. NO WHERE did I say, imply or otherwise elude to low carbing damaging kidneys...take your freakin' blinders off !! > Carmen > "Carmen" <carmensrt@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > Reread the thread Ig. Gman's first comment was that 20 grams of > > carb a day is very difficult to maintain. > > It is...tell me, how many people who try stick with it for more than > a year ?? I've been low carbing for over 5 years and did the first ~2.5 at 20 grams. It's difficult to maintain if you don't want to - like exercise or anything else. > Then he went on to start beating > > the "low carb is bad for your kidneys" horse in an oblique > > fashion. > > No I did not...wow...what color is the sky in your imaginery world ? Nothing imaginary in my world. More's the pity some days. I could use some blue skies and fluffy clouds right now. > > Proper diet and exercise and its role in slowing or preventing > > progression to diabetes was not at issue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > carbing > damaging kidneys...take your freakin' blinders off !! Since I'm not the only person who read your statement that way I suggest you clarify what you meant, because it read like "because you're low carbing you need to pay extra attention to your kidneys". Or you could just do what you always do in MFW - sputter until everyone ignores you. The choice is always yours Carmen >No, the FACT that diabetics are at an increased risk of kidney disease, >therefor, it stands to reason and COMMON SENSE that a diabetic wishing to >eat low carb would make sure their kidneys work fine and continue to work >fine. NO WHERE did I say, imply or otherwise elude to low carbing damaging >kidneys...take your freakin' blinders off !! >> Carmen I've stayed out of this until now, but let me add my viewpoint. Whether or not you intended it to do so, I'm afraid that when I read your post I also thought you were making a point about LC being bad on the kidneys. Why? Because of the way you presented it. If you had said "All diabetics need to regularly check several things such as eyes, kidneys, etc." there would have been no association between LC and the need to check kidneys. But that isn't how you presented it. Instead, in a discussion =about LC= you added the point about =kidneys only= and didn't add points about any other things diabetics should be careful of. To most readers that carries a clear indication that you believe those particular points (LC and kidneys) are related. It also appears that you are getting so defensive about being correct in what you say you =intended= to convey that you are brushing aside some quite valid responses regarding kidney problems in diabetics being related primarily to high blood sugar levels. The OP had seen a big drop in his A1C, which in turn meant that his risk of developing kidney problems had been significantly reduced. Instead of noting that things had improved you issued a warning. Again, this came across to almost everyone as saying that there was a cause-and-effect between LC and kidney problems, even if this is not what you meant. I would suggest that both sides should leave it as an accurate idea that was poorly expressed, nothing more. How about this: "All diabetics should be careful to monitor their kidney function, especially since high blood sugar levels can damage the kidney. Because many diabetics have run high blood sugar levels prior to being diagnosed, it's especially important to check for already-existing kidney damage when diagnosed. Assuming there is no existing kidney damage, a LC diet (which controls blood sugar levels) can be very useful in preventing future kidney damage. If kidney damage already exists (or shows up later), consult with your doctor about appropriate levels of dietary protein." > I've stayed out of this until now, but let me add my viewpoint. > Whether or not you intended it to do so, I'm afraid that when I read > your post I also thought you were making a point about LC being bad on > the kidneys. Why? Because of the way you presented it. The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on going low carb, 20g a day. I simply suggested.."GET YOUR KIDNEYS CHECKED". I'm not the one being defensive. It appears to me that most of you LOW CARB fanatics are the ones being defensive and reading something into a statement that isn't there. I was responding to a post in ALT.SUPPORT.DIABETES so I really don't give a sh.t if some of you low carb kooks thought I was saying something else !! >It appears to me that most of you LOW CARB fanatics are the ones >being defensive and reading something into a statement that isn't there. I >was responding to a post in ALT.SUPPORT.DIABETES so I really don't give a >sh.t if some of you low carb kooks thought I was saying something else !! Hey, I think this is that "sputter until everyone ignores you" point Carmen was talking about. That didn't take long. > The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on going low carb, > 20g a day. I simply suggested.."GET YOUR KIDNEYS CHECKED". What is it about 20 gr carb that makes you think a person needs to have their kidneys checked? > > The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on > going low carb, > > 20g a day. I simply suggested.."GET YOUR KIDNEYS CHECKED". > > What is it about 20 gr carb that makes you think a person > needs to have their kidneys checked? Because ALL DIABETICS are at an increased risk of kidney disease. If one is to get only 80 calories from carbs then they are getting the rest from a combination of protein and fat. That would suggest a HIGH PROTEIN diet, one with kidney disease should not be on a high protein diet. :: "Ozgirl" <news_onlyxx@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: gman99 wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: HIGH PROTEIN diet, one with kidney disease should not be on a high :: protein diet. Once again, it is not a given that LC is a high protein diet -- that it contains any more protein than a dieter might have been getting before going LC. You seem to forget that calories are usually restricted....has it occured to you where that restriction might be coming from? You need to just live with the fact that you were talking completely out of your a.s....the OP obviously has a health-care team and her/is doctor certainly doesn't need backseat advice from some internet wacko. > :: "Ozgirl" <news_onlyxx@hotmail.com> wrote: > ::: gman99 wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > going LC. You seem to forget that calories are usually restricted....has > it occured to you where that restriction might be coming from? Agreed, but for many, there is an increase in protein as they eat larger portions of chicken, fish, red meat...or at least a risk of increasing protein consumption. > You need to just live with the fact that you were talking completely out > of your a.s....the OP obviously has a health-care team and her/is doctor > certainly doesn't need backseat advice from some internet wacko. Well then...why did they ask the question ??? >> Once again, it is not a given that LC is a high protein diet -- that >> it contains any more protein than a dieter might have been getting >> before going LC. You seem to forget that calories are usually >> restricted....has it occured to you where that restriction might be >> coming from? > > Agreed, but for many, there is an increase in protein as they eat > larger portions of chicken, fish, red meat...or at least a risk of > increasing protein consumption. And you got that information where? Or is it another asumption? >> > The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on >> going low carb, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >combination of protein and fat. That would suggest a HIGH PROTEIN diet, one >with kidney disease should not be on a high protein diet. I am a T2 diabetic. I had pre-existing kidney disease (from 2 severe cases of pre-eclampsia in 2 years, not from diabetes) before I began low-carbing almost 6 years ago. My kidney function has IMPROVED markedly, to the point where I am now testing at mid-point normal. This improvement occurred in the first 6 months of my low-carb diet change and has remained constant according to my 6 monthly blood tests (the most recent of which was just over a month ago). My A1C is consistently below 7, usually below 6.5. Most low-carbers don't eat a lot more protein than anyone else, They DO eat a lot more fat than most, but not protein. BTW - 20g of carbs is only the limit in ONE low-carb program (Atkins) AND it only applies for the first 2 weeks. It's unlikely that anyone with undamaged kidneys is going to suffer serious damage in that 2 weeks even if they are diabetic. After that 2 weeks, the idea is to progressively add carbs until you find out how many it takes to stop you losing weight, drop back to slightly under that figure and go from there. However, I don't follow Atkins (although I did when I started) as there are low-carb programmes out there more suitable for diabetics. The one *I* use and recommend is Dr Bernstein's diabetes solution http://www.diabetes-normalsugars.com/ although others swear by other programmes. I certainly agree with the suggestion to get kidneys checked regularly for all diabetics. As I said, I have mine done every 6 months (since I'm getting an A1C and cholesterol done anyway, what's one more vial of blood?) and it is good to know what's going on internally. I've also regularly recommended that anyone who is concerned about kidney function in low-carbers who are not diabetic should ask for testing at least once a year just to see for themselves that they are not doing any harm. Aramanth >>> > The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on >>> going low carb, [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > >Aramanth Nice to see a reasoned, unemotional and valid comment enter the fray. This old argument seems to re-appear on a regular basis, with lots of unsupported statements from every side. Thanks for the good comment. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. -- Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. Aramanth Dawe <manth@ozemail.com.au> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: >>> > The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on >>> going low carb, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to my 6 monthly blood tests (the most recent of which was just over a > month ago). My A1C is consistently below 7, usually below 6.5. Kidney damage occurs because of high BG's, not because of high protein load. Taxing damaged kidneys with lots of protein (I'm not discussing how many proteins an Atkins diet contains, it's just the principle) could further damage them. It's is more likely that your kidney function imrpoved because of better BG regulation due to low carbing. It _is_ a pointer that advantages of an Atkins-like diet could outweigh the disadvantages. SignatureCeeBee _Got no wockin' furries_ >> > The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on >> going low carb, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because ALL DIABETICS are at an increased risk of kidney disease. If > one is to get only 80 calories from carbs then they are getting the > rest from a combination of protein and fat. That would suggest a HIGH > PROTEIN diet, one with kidney disease should not be on a high protein > diet. You think so? What is left after actual carbs are counted is the non carb component of a food or the fibre. Like in low starch/carb vegetables for example. Or are you assuming that people only eat protein, fat and that when they eat actual carbs, then that entire food item is carb? I eat a lot of food, I eat quite low carb, I eat moderate (good fats) and the daily minimum recommended amount of protein. I eat enough of the low carb foods to not require adding extra protein and I am by no means on my own in that respect. Your belief that low carb=high protein is something in your head, basically you know sh.t. You are too busy parrotting things you have heard in passing or read by googling. And as I said, are you in contact with a nephrologist? The few people I know in real life who have kidney disease, one a transplant recipient didn't have to go on low protein diets. 20 years ago that was the norm. >> I've stayed out of this until now, but let me add my viewpoint. >> Whether or not you intended it to do so, I'm afraid that when I read [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >The way I presented it ? A DIABETIC was commenting on going low carb, 20g a >day. I simply suggested.."GET YOUR KIDNEYS CHECKED". And because you posted that in response to a comment about going on low carb (20g/day), people quite naturally assumed that you felt that the need to have the kidneys checked was the fact that he was going on low carb, not the fact that he had diabetes. Especially since many people in the past have attacked LC diets as causing kidney problems, when in fact it doesn't. So yes, it's the way you presented it. You may not have intended to give the impression that you were attacking LC diets, but that's how it came across to most of the people who read it. If all you really intended was to say that all diabetics needed to check their kidneys, you chose a poor way to express it. >I'm not the one being >defensive. It appears to me that most of you LOW CARB fanatics are the ones >being defensive and reading something into a statement that isn't there. I >was responding to a post in ALT.SUPPORT.DIABETES so I really don't give a >sh.t if some of you low carb kooks thought I was saying something else !! Begging your pardon, but you do not support your argument at all by calling people "fanatics" or "kooks". All that does is make you appear ignorant and intolerant. The original post was in both newsgroups, most newsreaders by default reply to all the newsgroups the original was posted to. That's fine. I don't care if you were posting from the diabetic or the LC newsgroup. (Did you even look to see from which group =I= was responding? I rather think you didn't.) A LC way of eating has been extremely effective for many diabetics in controlling their blood sugars. The OP had significantly lowered his A1C. It is not the ONLY way to achieve control of blood sugar, but it has been very effective for a lot of people. If you cannot accept this, then perhaps you should see if those terms you were using on others would fit =you= better. > And because you posted that in response to a comment about going on > low carb (20g/day), people quite naturally assumed that you felt that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it. If all you really intended was to say that all diabetics needed > to check their kidneys, you chose a poor way to express it. I was only speaking to ONE diabetic...no need to say all. It's quite clear to me that this is a very defensive group and they obviously think carbs are bad for you...probably as polarized as the low-fat group. > Begging your pardon, but you do not support your argument at all by > calling people "fanatics" or "kooks". All that does is make you > appear ignorant and intolerant. I really don;t care how I appear, the truth is the truth. > The original post was in both newsgroups, most newsreaders by default > reply to all the newsgroups the original was posted to. That's fine. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > should see if those terms you were using on others would fit =you= > better. It is MORE likely that the weight loss affected insulin resistance in a positive manner so the weight loss would be the key factor here. LC is but one way to lose weight....I personally find that a combination of eating well, creating a caloric deficit along with exercise to be the best method. ::: And because you posted that in response to a comment about going on ::: low carb (20g/day), people quite naturally assumed that you felt [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] :: think carbs are bad for you...probably as polarized as the low-fat :: group. No, only excessive carb consumption....hang around...you'll learn more. ::: Begging your pardon, but you do not support your argument at all by ::: calling people "fanatics" or "kooks". All that does is make you ::: appear ignorant and intolerant. :: :: I really don;t care how I appear, the truth is the truth. The truth is the truth? The truth is relative. ::: The original post was in both newsgroups, most newsreaders by ::: default reply to all the newsgroups the original was posted to. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: combination of eating well, creating a caloric deficit along with :: exercise to be the best method. Both will work, but LCing provides better BG control almost immediately, without weight loss. >The truth is the truth? The truth is relative. Did you truthfully become a sports official? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. :: On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 13:31:50 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: :: ::: The truth is the truth? The truth is relative. :: :: Did you truthfully become a sports official? Hi Mu! Where have ya been? Nope, not yet. Still thinking about it though. > being defensive and reading something into a statement that isn't there. I > was responding to a post in ALT.SUPPORT.DIABETES so I really don't give a > sh.t if some of you low carb kooks thought I was saying something else !! I'm a newly diagnosed type II, and the diabetes dietician/nurse and my doctor have both stressed the importance of keeping my carbs low. So I'd be a kook to follow their advice? :-) Debbie (I also read your post as linking LC and kidney damage. Why not suggest testing for retina damage, heart trouble, and other things diabetics are heir to) ::: being defensive and reading something into a statement that isn't ::: there. I was responding to a post in ALT.SUPPORT.DIABETES so I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: suggest testing for retina damage, heart trouble, and other things :: diabetics are heir to) Try as he might, gman cannot escape the pack. > (I also read your post as linking LC and kidney damage. Why not > suggest testing for retina damage, heart trouble, and other things > diabetics are heir to) Oh wait, that would connecting complications to high blood sugar levels. Which in turn would make one have to think about the ways we have to lower bg's to prevent diabetic complications. Which would bring us to low carbing... Nah Deb, we can't think along those lines ;) > > being defensive and reading something into a statement that isn't > > there. I was responding to a post in ALT.SUPPORT.DIABETES so I really [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > testing for retina damage, heart trouble, and other things diabetics are > heir to) Because starting a low carb diet and potentiallt increasing protein intake really has no impact on retina damage or heart trouble. FACT: Diabetics are at a higher risk of kidney disease than the general population. FACT: Most diabetics are NOT diagnosed until some form of complication or advanced symptons have occurred. FACT: Most diabetics do NOT have good control of the BG. FACT: Many people decreasing their carbs increase protein and fat. FACT: Protein is processed mainly by the KIDNEYS. FACT: High protein diets are NOT good for damaged kidneys.... || Debbie || (I also read your post as linking LC and kidney damage. Why not suggest || testing for retina damage, heart trouble, and other things diabetics are || heir to) | | Because starting a low carb diet and potentiallt increasing protein intake Once again, this is a fairy tale. You obviously know absolutely nothing about controlled-carb eating; you keep spewing the same tired, ignorant mantra. "Low-carb is not the same as high-protein" -- repeat that 100 times. You seem to have this very ignorant, stubborn idea in your head that when someone changes to a low-carb way of eating, they substitute protein for the carbs they were eating. This is where your thinking breaks down. For the zillionth time, most of us do not eat more protein than before we were on a low-carb way of eating; we eat fewer carbs. Since equivalent weights of carbs and protein have about the same calories (4 per gram), the low-carb diet would not work if we were increasing our protein as we cut down on our carbs! Duh! | FACT: Diabetics | are at a higher risk of kidney disease than the general population. Yes, because of excess sugars in the bloodstream spiked by eating sugars and starches -- because they blindly follow the incorrect, outdated ADA low-fat diet instead of controlling their carbohydrates. | FACT: | Most diabetics are NOT diagnosed until some form of complication or | advanced symptons have occurred. Who says? You? I was diagnosed during a routine physical exam when m BG was tested along with my blood lipids. I have three family members who are diabetic, none of them had any symptoms before they were diagnosed. | FACT: Most diabetics do NOT have good | control of the BG That's very true, because they continue to listen to the idiotic traditional nutritionists who tell them it's ok to keep eating sugar and starches (carbohydrates), but to cut back on eating fat. Only those on a lifelong controlled-carbohydrate way of eating, such as myself, manage to control diabetes and keep insulin from spiking and blood sugars steady and in normal range without medications, as I am doing. My T2 diabetic sister follows the ADA low-fat diet which allows her to eat lots of sugar and starch "exchanges." She continues to gain weight, her blood pressure is out of control and she has developed neuropathy in her feet as well as cardiac arrythmia. She takes piles of medications including 4 blood pressure meds and two for her diabetes (Glucophage and something else.). In the meanwhile, I, whom am also T2, control my carbohydrates, eat moderate protein and let the fats take care of themselves. I continue to lose weight, my blood glucose is normal (completely under control with my controlled-carbohydrate diet), I'm off of one of my blood pressure meds (it was 122/70 at the Doctor's last month), my LDL cholesterol has dropped, HDL has gone up, and triglycerides have dropped dramatically. My kidney and liver functions were tested on my lst blood test in December; both normal. You draw the conclusions. | FACT: Many people decreasing their carbs increase | protein and fat. Please read DANDR. How long are you going to keep saying this without knowing what you are talking about? If they do this, it is in direct contradiction to what the low-carb diet gurus state in their books; they re the exception rather than the rule. | FACT: Protein is processed mainly by the KIDNEYS. FACT: | High protein diets are NOT good for damaged kidneys.... I'm beginning to think that you have a learning disability. You don't listen; you just keep blabbering the same tired, ignorant drivel over and over when you don't know what you are talking about! *Sigh* Once again: Atkins, and similar controlled-carbohydrate eating plans are *not* high-protein. Most of us eat less protein than before we began the way of eating. We eat less overall. I eat 20 - 25 % of my total calories from protein, rarely more than 70 or so grams of protein per day -- and always less than 10% (usually <5%) of calories are from sugars and starches (carbohydrates). The rest are from fats, which are very satisfying and prevent overeating. What do YOU eat? Please post sample menus. You're full of negative things to say about others' eating plans; yours must be light years advanced. Maybe we can learn from the master? SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo :: FACT: Many people :: decreasing their carbs increase protein and fat. prove it....the %s may increase, but the totals do not have to .... > :: FACT: Many people > :: decreasing their carbs increase protein and fat. > > prove it....the %s may increase, but the totals do not have to .... They don't HAVE to...but they do. In many cases I've seen, people stop with the pop, chips, breads, pasta etc and eat far more of things like chicken, eggs, red meat....etc....etc than they ever did before. In article <20040307083802.938$L4@newsreader.com>, nospam@bogusemail.com wrote > > :: FACT: Many people > > :: decreasing their carbs increase protein and fat. > > > > prove it....the %s may increase, but the totals do not have to .... > They don't HAVE to...but they do. In many cases I've seen, people stop with > the pop, chips, breads, pasta etc and eat far more of things like chicken, > eggs, red meat....etc....etc than they ever did before. That they do, because they have still not recognised the writing on the wall clearly trying to educate them that, their way of life is not conducive to longevity. Unable to grasp the issue as a whole, they prefer to focus on single or low complication issues and deal with them one at a time instead of as a whole. Failing to realise that there is no single autonomous issue and that every one is effected by the other, they will chase endlessly the goal they seek. Unfortunate it is since there is little they can do about it, only delay the ultimate price decided upon by forces beyond their control. Perhaps this is a device in 'natural selection', the fit survive and the weak diminish. :: In article <20040307083802.938$L4@newsreader.com>, :: nospam@bogusemail.com wrote [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] :: this is a :: device in 'natural selection', the fit survive and the weak diminish. Another pontificator springing forth BS from a weak imagination. too bad the internet gives voice to all you know-it-alls. In article <104mgrhtf2e9lc4@corp.supernews.com>, rogerzoul2@hotmail.com wrote > :: In article <20040307083802.938$L4@newsreader.com>, > :: nospam@bogusemail.com wrote > ::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: > :::: gman99 wrote: > :::::: FACT: Many people > :::::: decreasing their carbs increase protein and fat. > :::: prove it....the %s may increase, but the totals do not have to .... > ::: They don't HAVE to...but they do. In many cases I've seen, people > ::: stop with the pop, chips, breads, pasta etc and eat far more of > ::: things like chicken, eggs, red meat....etc....etc than they ever > ::: did before. > :: That they do, because they have still not recognised the writing on > :: the wall clearly trying to educate them that, their way of life is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > :: this is a > :: device in 'natural selection', the fit survive and the weak diminish. > Another pontificator springing forth BS from a weak imagination. too bad the > internet gives voice to all you know-it-alls. Was that a bit beyond you? I suspect it was. The label you apply seems to issue too smoothly. If you are unable to comprehend, it is often better not to engage. > Was that a bit beyond you? I suspect it was. The label you apply seems > to issue too smoothly. If you are unable to comprehend, it is often > better not to engage. So you know a lot of low carbers personally and see how much protein they eat? Interesting ... > Another pontificator springing forth BS from a weak imagination. too > bad the internet gives voice to all you know-it-alls. Wonder just how many low carbers those two come up gainst in real life to make that judgement. Apart from myself the only low carber I know is my doctor who is now less than half the huge man he was - I have no idea how much protein he eats but he did tell me it was my weight loss from low carbing that put him on the low carb track - he is not diabetic, but he was amazed at my control. So the only other low carber in real life that I know is me and I know how much protein I eat and it is between 60 and 75 gr max per day. :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: gman99 wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: things like chicken, eggs, red meat....etc....etc than they ever did :: before. Again, you are a datum of one....and has it occured to you that people who no longer eat pop. chips, breads, pasta and the like start to eat spinach, tomatos, broccoli, caulifower, green beans, squash, various lettuces, etc? Just because you hang with morons doesn't mean you know what people eat... And once, again, you're completely overlooking things like nut butters, butter, various oils, fish, etc. > Again, you are a datum of one....and has it occured to you that > people who no longer eat pop. chips, breads, pasta and the like start > to eat spinach, tomatos, broccoli, caulifower, green beans, squash, > various lettuces, etc? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And once, again, you're completely overlooking things like nut > butters, butter, various oils, fish, etc. Nooooooooo!! Us low carbers eat nothing but huge slabs of steak, greasy bacon and unlimited eggs with out 3 lettuce leaves a day, didn't ya know?? :) Don't freak em out with logic here. Gman and Dreamstar are happy believing what they imagine is the real deal. > > Again, you are a datum of one....and has it occured to you > that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > logic here. Gman and Dreamstar are happy believing what > they imagine is the real deal. no i think the problem they have is so many oppinions being stated as fact so many people playing doctor with peoples lives.. there is reason why licenses are needed to treat patients if you know so much why dont you get yours. ::: Roger Zoul wrote: :::: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :: no i think the problem they have is so many oppinions being stated :: as fact so many people playing doctor with peoples lives.. Starting with gman...I'm sure the OP doctor already thought to check kidney function.... :: there is reason why licenses are needed to treat patients :: if you know so much why dont you get yours. > Starting with gman...I'm sure the OP doctor already thought to check > kidney function.... According to many in here MD's are all quacks...can you be certain their MD thought to check kidneys ?? gman99 burbled across the ether: >> Starting with gman...I'm sure the OP doctor already thought to check >> kidney function.... > > According to many in here MD's are all quacks...can you be certain > their MD thought to check kidneys ?? Cite. Many have said that doctors are not informed where nutrition is concerned. And they are right. One semester at medical school does not an informed MD make. Keeping up with the research is part and parcel of being a doctor. Endos are more likely to have read the revelant research than general practitioners, but that doesn't mean that they actually read anything but the summary, which is often in direct conflict with the actual data reported. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Why am I frowning? It takes 42 muscles to frown and only 17 to smile and I need the exercise! > gman99 burbled across the ether: >>> Starting with gman...I'm sure the OP doctor already thought to check [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > actually read anything but the summary, which is often in direct > conflict with the actual data reported. But that doesn't mean that the doctors have read the actual data, either. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply ::: Starting with gman...I'm sure the OP doctor already thought to check ::: kidney function.... :: :: According to many in here MD's are all quacks...can you be certain :: their MD thought to check kidneys ?? Nope...again you're wrong...their not quacks, they just are poorly educated on nutrition and some other matters. Also, check kidney function is standard practice for diabetic patients. Get a clue... > ::: Starting with gman...I'm sure the OP doctor already thought to check > ::: kidney function.... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on nutrition and some other matters. Also, check kidney function is > standard practice for diabetic patients. Get a clue... if you have learned so much about nutrition why don't you get a license and help more people? >if you have learned so much about nutrition why don't >you get a license and help more people? That's what Richard K. Bernstein did. Howard@FreshCoffee.biz http://freshcoffee.opportunity.com http://freshjava.opportunity.com > >if you have learned so much about nutrition why don't > >you get a license and help more people? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://freshcoffee.opportunity.com > http://freshjava.opportunity.com > >if you have learned so much about nutrition why don't > >you get a license and help more people? > > That's what Richard K. Bernstein did. well im certainly glad he don't post here :) but perhaps people working for him do. I often said - I have no idea who is right or wrong I am just against all the listen to us and not your doctor stuff that goes on around here. and yes I do feel strongly that there are some in here who are looking to sell books. >>> Hi, >>> <GMan's nattering snipped> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > i What about this: "From the Indiana University and the journal Diabetes Care, 2002: These researchers from the school of medicine studied the effects of eating animal protein versus eating plant proteins on diabetic subjects who had too much of the protein albumin in their urine (an indicator of reduced kidney function). The researchers found there were no significant differences between the two diets on kidney function. They also noted that total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, blood pressure, or the level of amino acids in the blood remained unchanged on the animal protein diet. In both diets, total cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure fell. They concluded that there is no clear advantage in recommending only plant proteins to people who have diabetes and reduced kidney function." "From the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark and the International Journal of Obesity, 1999: The researchers conducted this study to assess the renal affects of high vs low protein diets. They found moderate adaptive alterations in renal size but found no indications of adverse affects on kidney function." "From Harvard University Medical School and The American Society of Nephrology, 2003: This study was conducted at the Brigham & Women's Hospital in Boston. It studied the affects of diet on the formation of kidney stones among 96,000 women for 8 years in the Nurses Health Study. They found that high sugar intakes significantly increased the risk of developing kidney stones among women. They also noted that the intake of animal proteins did not raise kidney stone risk. They were surprised to find that dietary calcium (not supplements) intake lowered the risk of stones." See: http://www.lowcarbresearch.org/lcr/results.asp?catid=207 I stand by my comments. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply >>>> Hi, >>>> <GMan's nattering snipped> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > there is no clear advantage in recommending only plant proteins to people > who have diabetes and reduced kidney function." I am not sure what is the relevance of this study. They compared animal and plant proteins. I or gman99 never made any claims about respective value of plant vs. animal protein. > "From the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark and the > International Journal of Obesity, 1999: The researchers conducted this > study to assess the renal affects of high vs low protein diets. They found > moderate adaptive alterations in renal size but found no indications of > adverse affects on kidney function." And that one is a good article, which responds to one point made by gman99, but not to what I stated. i > "From Harvard University Medical School and The American Society of > Nephrology, 2003: This study was conducted at the Brigham & Women's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I stand by my comments. :: In article <opr4eiquparjctj4@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>, Bob in CT :: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] :::: loss does improve insulin sensitivity and slows development of :::: diabetes, according to a well known diabetes intervention study. http://www.3fatchicks.com/diet-toolbox/articles/exercise-delays-diabetes.html :::: Low carbing can have various benefits, which I do not deny. I am :::: saying this to prevent someone not logically incluned from implying [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] :: animal and plant proteins. I or gman99 never made any claims about :: respective value of plant vs. animal protein. How many comments have you made recently about overeating meat? I see none from you about overeating protein or plant matter. >:: In article <opr4eiquparjctj4@news.snet.sbcglobal.net>, Bob in CT >:: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > How many comments have you made recently about overeating meat? I see none > from you about overeating protein or plant matter. How would you overeat plant protein, without overeating carbs? i :: On 5 Mar 2004 17:42:40 GMT, Ignoramus15020 :: <ignoramus15020@NOSPAM.15020.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] ::: loss does improve insulin sensitivity and slows development of ::: diabetes, according to a well known diabetes intervention study. http://www.3fatchicks.com/diet-toolbox/articles/exercise-delays-diabetes.html ::: Low carbing can have various benefits, which I do not deny. I am ::: saying this to prevent someone not logically incluned from implying [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] ::: thinking very hard about the issues presented, or bothering to ::: actually read articles and studies. I don't think you think hard about anything Ig. ::: i :: What about this: Ig won't read or pay attention. He plays the numbers game. You count the number of article that say this, then count the number that say that. The one with the greater number must be right. Nothing else matters. Sigh.... :: "From the Indiana University and the journal Diabetes Care, 2002: :: These researchers from the school of medicine studied the effects of [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] :: Bob in CT :: Remove ".x" to reply > > Hi, > > <GMan's nattering snipped> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > risk of kidney disease...therefore, one on a low carb diet better make sure > their kidney function is good and stays good. I don't normally agree with you gman, but this time I do! Kidney function tests are vital for diabetics, regardless of what type of diet they are on. SignatureType 2 http://users.bestweb.net/~jbove/ >> > Hi, >> > <GMan's nattering snipped> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > tests are vital for diabetics, regardless of what type of diet they are > on. But then why is low carb worse than the recommended low fat? It's one thing to say, "Diabetics need to have tests to ensure proper kidney function" but it's another to say, "Diabetics need to have tests to ensuer proper kidney function when they are on low carb." My problem is that this makes it sound as if low carb is bad for kidney function, when it turns out that low carb is good for kidney function. Granted, diabetics should have lots of tests (including blood sugar and the one to which this thread is dedicated), but just because you're on low carb and not low fat doesn't mean that you have to freak out about getting your blood tested. In fact, I'll bet you that a diabetic following the recommended low fat diet should have more tests than a diabetic following a low carb diet. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply Bob in CT <ctviggen.x@rcn.com> wrote in alt.support.diabetes: > But then why is low carb worse than the recommended low fat? It's one > thing to say, "Diabetics need to have tests to ensure proper kidney > function" but it's another to say, "Diabetics need to have tests to > ensuer proper kidney function when they are on low carb." My problem > is that this makes it sound as if low carb is bad for kidney function, Following the discussion, it's about _damaged_ kidneys, not about _healthy_ kidneys. SignatureCeeBee _Got no wockin' furries_ Low carbing typically means that > they make up the calories with a combination of FAT and PROTEIN. > Diabetics are at HIGHER risk of kidney disease...therefore, one on a > low carb diet better make sure their kidney function is good and > stays good. So what part of being a diabetic do YOU think causes kidney disease? You got that right Roger. Most of the biggest detractors know very little about it, and gman is pissed because Dr. Atkins, Bernstein, etc., make money off their books and/or products. Oh horrors. :-) -- Cheri Type 2, no meds for now. >gman99 wrote: Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your >:: kidneys checked regularly !! >Roger Zoul wrote: Obviously, you know little if anything about LCing. > Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your > kidneys checked regularly !! You buy into so much nonsense at times. Want a bridge? gman9 wrote: > If it works for you...but don't attribute it to low carb... Whatever. Reducing carb intake doesn't reduce level of carbs in the blood long term. Right. You should see my bridge. It's for lease. I take finance payments. Low down payment. > Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain Unless you actually try it anyways. Then it turns out to be trivial. > make sure you have your kidneys checked regularly !! The one single easiest flag of cluelessness. Name even one name. The AMA couldn't in 30 years of trying so I'll bet the first month's rent on my bridge that you can't come up with even one name of anyone who followed the directions and saw kidney damage. > gman9 wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > rent on my bridge that you can't come up with even one name of > anyone who followed the directions and saw kidney damage. This has got to be the dumbest NG on the net (ASDLC that is) :: dfreybur@yahoo.com (Doug Freyburger) wrote: ::: gman9 wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: :: This has got to be the dumbest NG on the net (ASDLC that is) Yumm...meat protein.... Did you ever figure out what a deadlift is? SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > > gman9 wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > This has got to be the dumbest NG on the net (ASDLC that is) > Did you ever figure out what a deadlift is? > > -- Ever figure out how to use a brain cell ? Are you trying for IOY now? SignatureMost of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little. :) Becky P. > > Did you ever figure out what a deadlift is? > > > > -- > Ever figure out how to use a brain cell ? > > > make sure you have your kidneys checked regularly !! > > > The one single easiest flag of cluelessness. Name even one name. > > The AMA couldn't in 30 years of trying ... > > This has got to be the dumbest NG on the net (ASDLC that is) Point taken. You used the one statement most reliable to show cluelessness about Atkins. You were asked to name names to show your cluelessness as fact. Your response wasn't just to call me stupid you called an entire newsgroup stupid. So, name names. Tap, tap, tap. Oh right, the AMA couldn't in 30 years of trying. Neither can you. TROLL || Type: 2 || Began Low Carb: 12/01/2003 (3 months) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] | Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your | kidneys checked regularly !! SignatureX-No-archive: yes Peter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo 15:49:45 Fri, 5 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes >> Type: 2 >> Began Low Carb: 12/01/2003 (3 months) [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >You cannot necessariy attribute that drop in A1c to any one cause, rather a >combination of events likely lead to the drop. I'm a bit late to this thread, but anyway... While what you are saying is of course correct, since weight-loss is also a factor as you pointed out above, and so could exercise be, I am confused about where your comment is coming from. I mean, it looks a bit like you are trying to downplay the impact of the low carb diet. Is that correct? Do you not like the LC idea? >Having said that...Congratulations. Keep up the good work !! > >Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your kidneys >checked regularly !! Are you implying that a LC diet is bad for kidneys? Oops - just looked at the rest of the thread. Hmm... well, gman, you seem to be being dragged, kicking and screaming, towards general support for a LC diet (as one among many that could work, provided a calorie deficit is maintained if weight-loss is desired). You're not there yet, it seems, as your comments *suggest* ambiguous support at best, but you are *apparently* finding it increasingly hard to avoid changing your mind on this issue. What do you say? What are your reservations about low-carbing? I ask because I have been successfully low-carbing for 18 months or so, and would be interested in hearing what reservations you and others might have. I accept that it does need to be done properly; that is, vitamin/mineral supplements are probably a good idea, and, if not much vegetable matter is eaten, then extra fibre is probably essential too. And, exercise is vital - which reminds me, I must be off to the gym now. :-) SignatureMartin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not "bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones: http://www.ringamoby.com "Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin > I'm a bit late to this thread, but anyway... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like you are trying to downplay the impact of the low carb diet. Is that > correct? Do you not like the LC idea? Didn't say that...didn't even imply that. I am, in fact, on a low carb diet...not freakishly low like 20g a day. > >Having said that...Congratulations. Keep up the good work !! > > > >Twenty a day is VERY difficult to maintain, make sure you have your > >kidneys checked regularly !! > > Are you implying that a LC diet is bad for kidneys? It is if you already have kidney disease !! > Oops - just looked at the rest of the thread. Did you read the first freakin' post I made ?? I merely suggested to a newly diagnosed DIABETIC that if they were going low carb to have their kidneys checked. All the kooks in the ASDLC pounced on me like a cat on a mouse because their teenie little brains with their huge blinders saw one statement and they went into some kind of low carb rage... I also mentioned that <20 g a day is a very difficult undertaking. MOST people who try DO NOT succeed...some do but the vast majority DO NOT. 13:56:02 Sat, 6 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes >> I'm a bit late to this thread, but anyway... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Didn't say that...didn't even imply that. I am, in fact, on a low carb >diet...not freakishly low like 20g a day. OK, fair enough. I guess the angle you were coming from looked a little ambiguous to me, that's all. >> >Having said that...Congratulations. Keep up the good work !! >> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >It is if you already have kidney disease !! So I understand, and people thinking of LC diets, diabetics especially, should presumably have their condition monitored before and during the diet (I don't think there is a case for not going on the diet, in general, though - and you didn't say that, I know). >> Oops - just looked at the rest of the thread. > >Did you read the first freakin' post I made ?? Certainly. :-) > I merely suggested to a >newly diagnosed DIABETIC that if they were going low carb to have their >kidneys checked. All the kooks in the ASDLC pounced on me like a cat on a >mouse because their teenie little brains with their huge blinders saw one >statement and they went into some kind of low carb rage... Well, OK. No problemo... >I also mentioned that <20 g a day is a very difficult undertaking. MOST >people who try DO NOT succeed...some do but the vast majority DO NOT. Yes; I would regard the early phases of Atkins to be most suitable for emergency cases, i.e., those who need to lose more than 40lb or so. Myself, needed to lose about 20lb and found that keeping a calorie deficit of maybe 200 a day, plus exercise, to be no strain. In me, it produces a steady loss of about 1lb per month. Fine for me, and because it is a long, slow process, I have had no problems adapting to it and it has become a habit - and therefore pretty much automatic. I still get tempted by some high carb items occasionally (cheesecake!) but usually I barely notice them any more. SignatureMartin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not "bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones: http://www.ringamoby.com "Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin :: 13:56:02 Sat, 6 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes :: gman99 at gman99 <nospam@bogusemail.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] :: for emergency cases, i.e., those who need to lose more than 40lb or :: so. The early phase of Atkins have nothing to do with weight loss. The recommendation to stay under 20g per day is not to induce quick weight loss, and being more than 40 lbs overweight is not a reason for an emergency. Damn. Myself, needed to lose about 20lb and found that keeping a :: calorie :: deficit of maybe 200 a day, plus exercise, to be no strain. In me, it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: still get tempted by some high carb items occasionally (cheesecake!) :: but usually I barely notice them any more. Most people who want to lose 20 lbs would rather do it in less time than 20 months. Geez.... 13:43:42 Sat, 6 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes >::: I also mentioned that <20 g a day is a very difficult undertaking. >::: MOST people who try DO NOT succeed...some do but the vast majority [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The early phase of Atkins have nothing to do with weight loss. OK, I am aware that he is keen to switch the person over to a fat-burning metabolism as quickly as possible (IIRC it takes up to 12 days for someone new to that way of eating who sticks to the very low carb initial phase correctly), but Atkins does also suggest that some clients stay on the initial phases longer than just a couple of weeks if they have a lot of weight to lose or want to lose it rapidly. > The recommendation to stay under 20g per day is not to induce quick >weight loss, and being more than 40 lbs overweight is not a reason for an >emergency. The above is what is really defined as an "emergency" in these terms - i.e., a lot of weight to lose (for medical reasons, I suppose). I count 40lbs as a lot, but I agree it is a relative term. Progressing diabetes counts for me. >Damn. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Most people who want to lose 20 lbs would rather do it in less time than >20 months. Geez.... Heh. Well, Like gman suggested, <20g a day is difficult, and I felt that, for me, the easier the target, the more likely I was to hit it. I stick to 80-120g a day. Also, with a controversial diet system, it struck me that it would be safest not to take it to extremes anyway. It worked. My BGs went into range almost immediately and my weight slid downwards on target too. Many dieters fail, I think, from an obsession with instant results, and even if they achieve the results rapidly they are then more likely than someone who has taken a moderate course to lose their gains due to a failure to create and sustain the good habits that got them there (it takes time to convert a behaviour into a habit and lifestyle change is what is really required, not a one-off short-term dietary fix). Slow and steady wins the race! IMO, YMMV, and all that. SignatureMartin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not "bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones: http://www.ringamoby.com "Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin :: 13:43:42 Sat, 6 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes :: Roger Zoul at Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] :: weeks if they have a lot of weight to lose or want to lose it :: rapidly. True that he makes that suggestion, even though it doesn't work for people who feel they want to eat a LOT of LC foods. They quickly find that they must limit amounts of foods. Carbs are not the only reason people stay fat. ::: The recommendation to stay under 20g per day is not to induce quick ::: weight loss, and being more than 40 lbs overweight is not a reason [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: count 40lbs as a lot, but I agree it is a relative term. Progressing :: diabetes counts for me. Well, progressing toward diabetes is not the same as having it. And losing at a moderate rate is better than losing it quickly, from a long term point of view. What good is losing it if habits don't change to keep it off? ::: Damn. ::: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: that, for me, the easier the target, the more likely I was to hit :: it. I stick to 80-120g a day. I lot of people don't find 20g that hard to do.... Also, with a controversial diet :: system, it :: struck me that it would be safest not to take it to extremes anyway. I see no reason to restrict good veggies more than is needed. :: It worked. My BGs went into range almost immediately and my weight :: slid downwards on target too. Good. It is true that there is more than one way to improve health and lose weight. No doubt. :: Many dieters fail, I think, from an obsession with instant results, :: and even if they achieve the results rapidly they are then more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: short-term dietary fix). Slow and steady wins the race! IMO, YMMV, :: and all that. -- We're in agreement! 15:29:11 Sat, 6 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes >:: 13:43:42 Sat, 6 Mar 2004alt.support.diabetes >:: Roger Zoul at Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> writes: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >who feel they want to eat a LOT of LC foods. They quickly find that they >must limit amounts of foods. Carbs are not the only reason people stay fat. It is funny how so many people don't figure out that they need to consider how much they are eating - cutting carbs just happens to be a relatively easy way of doing it, provided they don't replace *all* the missing calories with other things. >::: The recommendation to stay under 20g per day is not to induce quick >::: weight loss, and being more than 40 lbs overweight is not a reason [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >at a moderate rate is better than losing it quickly, from a long term point >of view. What good is losing it if habits don't change to keep it off? I wonder about the psychology of the yo-yo dieter, really. Surely they must realize that if they stop the diet, the weight will return? So they must have some other agenda... I guess. >::: Damn. >::: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I lot of people don't find 20g that hard to do.... I guess so. Knowing me, I didn't want to risk it though. >Also, with a controversial diet >:: system, it >:: struck me that it would be safest not to take it to extremes anyway. > >I see no reason to restrict good veggies more than is needed. One of my problems is that I hate most vegetables. Still, I now eat far more than I used to before low-carbing. Having removed the starchy foods, I have to fill the plate up with something. Generally, a salad does the trick. >:: It worked. My BGs went into range almost immediately and my weight >:: slid downwards on target too. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >We're in agreement! Cool! :-) SignatureMartin Thompson bin@tucana.demon.co.uk (use "martin" not "bin") London, UK Home Page: http://www.tucana.demon.co.uk Web Shop: http://buy.at/tucana Mobile Phone Ring Tones: http://www.ringamoby.com "Everything I do and say with anyone makes a difference." Gita Bellin > Myself, needed to lose about 20lb and found that keeping a > :: calorie [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Most people who want to lose 20 lbs would rather do it in less time than 20 > months. Geez.... and probably gain it back just as fast. mostly anyone who studied nutrition will tell you - " chances are the faster you lose weight the faster you will put it back on" not to mention that they will also say that when you lose more then 2 - 3 lbs(men) 1 - 2 lbs(woman) pounds per week anything above that amount is muscle loss. lose muscle and your chances to gain the weight back increase. are you not aware of these concerns? are you diabetic? | and probably gain it back just as fast. mostly anyone who studied | nutrition will tell you - " chances are the faster you lose weight | the faster you will put it back on" That's because don't understand that low-carb is a lifelong change in way of eating, not a short-term "diet." No one has to eat potatoes, bread, candy, ice cream and french fries to survive, or has to feel deprived if they don't. There are plenty of healthy, enjoyable low-carb vegetables and fruit that can be eaten that are very satisfying. | not to mention that they will also say that when you lose more | then 2 - 3 lbs(men) 1 - 2 lbs(woman) pounds per week anything above that | amount is | muscle loss. LMAO! I've lost 38 pounds since December 15th. Man, I must have had a lot of muscle in that big 'ol belly that I had that's now gone! "They" are uninformed and mistaken. Although itmay be true on a traditional very low-fat, high-carb diet, which "they" continue to recommend. When you starve the body, it will start to metabolize muscle for fuel. By controlling carbohydrate intake rather than fat, the body receives a steady source of fuel and doesn't need to break down and burn muscle tissue as with a low-fat diet. lose muscle and your chances to gain the weight back | increase. are you not aware of these concerns? A small child in the dark is concerned about the bogeyman. It's simply because his belief systems have not matured enough to understand that the bogeyman doesn't exist. I'm concerned about those who have continued to follow the tired, outdated advice of those who "have studied nutrition" as you put it, and continue to gain weight and risk their health on a diet of mainly sugars and starches. | are you diabetic? I for one am diabetic, and my diabetes is controlled with no meds by controlling my carbohydrates. Not to mention the other health benefits that I've enjoyed, such as greatly decreasing my risk for cardiovascular disease. Blood pressure is much lower (I'm off one of my meds), LDL cholesterol is lower, HDL (good) cholesterol is higher, and triglycerides are dramatically lower. Not to mention the overall health benefits from the weight loss. SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo In article <a82c31d1eb216ed55d3955b3c270733a@news.teranews.com>, marengo@thelink.net wrote > | and probably gain it back just as fast. mostly anyone who studied > | nutrition will tell you - " chances are the faster you lose weight > | the faster you will put it back on" > That's because don't understand that low-carb is a lifelong change in way of > eating, not a short-term "diet." No one has to eat potatoes, bread, candy, > ice cream and french fries to survive, or has to feel deprived if they > don't. There are plenty of healthy, enjoyable low-carb vegetables and fruit > that can be eaten that are very satisfying. Precisely. > | not to mention that they will also say that when you lose more > | then 2 - 3 lbs(men) 1 - 2 lbs(woman) pounds per week anything above that > | amount is > | muscle loss. > LMAO! I've lost 38 pounds since December 15th. Man, I must have had a lot > of muscle in that big 'ol belly that I had that's now gone! I believe the above quote originated on the basis of a 'dieter' model of weight loss using a 'nil input' scenario. 'Starvation'. > "They" are uninformed and mistaken. Although itmay be true on a > traditional very low-fat, high-carb diet, which "they" continue to > recommend. When you starve the body, it will start to metabolize muscle for > fuel. By controlling carbohydrate intake rather than fat, the body > receives a steady source of fuel and doesn't need to break down and burn > muscle tissue as with a low-fat diet. That simple and basic concept seems to have been overlooked bu those who prefer to delve too deeply into biochemistry. Often, they fail to see the tree for the wood. > lose muscle and your chances to gain the weight back > | increase. are you not aware of these concerns? > A small child in the dark is concerned about the bogeyman. It's simply > because his belief systems have not matured enough to understand that the > bogeyman doesn't exist. I'm concerned about those who have continued to > follow the tired, outdated advice of those who "have studied nutrition" as > you put it, and continue to gain weight and risk their health on a diet of > mainly sugars and starches. > | are you diabetic? > I for one am diabetic, and my diabetes is controlled with no meds by > controlling my carbohydrates. Not to mention the other health benefits that > I've enjoyed, such as greatly decreasing my risk for cardiovascular disease. > Blood pressure is much lower (I'm off one of my meds), LDL cholesterol is > lower, HDL (good) cholesterol is higher, and triglycerides are dramatically > lower. Not to mention the overall health benefits from the weight loss. In which case you are probably unwanted in here since you seem to have discovered the secret of success in your circumstance. Everyone else is either preoccupied with abject and continual failure [as a result of failing to learn from experience] or on some kind of evangelical mission. Only a few seem to have any degree of discipline without which they are doomed. You may very well be an example of what they aspire to but know they will never be able to mimic. You existence taunts them. Be prepared for the onslaught. I wish you continued success. :: In article <a82c31d1eb216ed55d3955b3c270733a@news.teranews.com>, :: marengo@thelink.net wrote [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] :: mission. Only a few seem to have any degree of discipline :: without which they are doomed. You're simply uninformed. There are lots of people in Peter's position, several of whom are in this very thread. I'm one of them. :: You may very well be an example of what they aspire to but :: know they will never be able to mimic. You existence taunts them. :: Be prepared for the onslaught. Stop spewing BS... Dreamstar wrote: :::: and probably gain it back just as fast. mostly anyone who studied :::: nutrition will tell you - " chances are the faster you lose weight :::: the faster you will put it back on" ::: That's because don't understand that low-carb is a lifelong change ::: in way of eating, not a short-term "diet." No one has to eat [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] ::: and fruit ::: that can be eaten that are very satisfying. :: Precisely. :::: not to mention that they will also say that when you lose more :::: then 2 - 3 lbs(men) 1 - 2 lbs(woman) pounds per week anything :::: above that :::: amount is :::: muscle loss. ::: LMAO! I've lost 38 pounds since December 15th. Man, I must have ::: had a lot ::: of muscle in that big 'ol belly that I had that's now gone! :: I believe the above quote originated on the basis of a 'dieter' :: model of weight loss using a 'nil input' scenario. 'Starvation'. ::: "They" are uninformed and mistaken. Although itmay be true on a ::: traditional very low-fat, high-carb diet, which "they" continue to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] ::: burn ::: muscle tissue as with a low-fat diet. :: That simple and basic concept seems to have been overlooked bu those :: who prefer to delve too deeply into biochemistry. Often, they fail to :: see the tree for the wood. ::: lose muscle and your chances to gain the weight back :::: increase. are you not aware of these concerns? ::: A small child in the dark is concerned about the bogeyman. It's ::: simply [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] ::: diet of ::: mainly sugars and starches. :::: are you diabetic? :: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] ::: dramatically lower. Not to mention the overall health benefits ::: from the weight loss. :: In which case you are probably unwanted in here since :: you seem to have discovered the secret of success in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: mission. Only a few seem to have any degree of discipline :: without which they are doomed. You're simply uninformed. There are lots of people in Peter's position, several of whom are in this very thread. I'm one of them. :: You may very well be an example of what they aspire to but :: know they will never be able to mimic. You existence taunts them. :: Be prepared for the onslaught. Stop spewing BS... Again you have shown your inability to read correctly. :::: In article <a82c31d1eb216ed55d3955b3c270733a@news.teranews.com>, :::: marengo@thelink.net wrote [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] :: :: Again you have shown your inability to read correctly. I don't think so.... > That's because don't understand that low-carb is a lifelong change in > way of eating, not a short-term "diet." No one has to eat potatoes, > bread, candy, ice cream and french fries to survive, or has to feel > deprived if they don't. There are plenty of healthy, enjoyable > low-carb vegetables and fruit that can be eaten that are very > satisfying. And have more nutrition in them than a pile of empty calories. If one of your food exchanges is ice cream, exactly what nutritional value would a person get out of that? I say make every bite count when you have to be on a restrictive diet - as in the case of diabetes for one. It's more than just about carbs. It's eating to your meter without losing the nutrients a body needs to maintain good health. There are choices - do you eat a piece of fruit which can send your bg's high, or do you eat a plate of low carb veges with the same nutrients as the fruit and stay the same bg. That's what a lot of people like gman don't comprehend. There are always choices and the higher carb choice of two foods is often higher calorie, higher GI and NOT necessary. ::: Myself, needed to lose about 20lb and found that keeping a ::::: calorie [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] :: :: and probably gain it back just as fast. Well, there is a good range between 1 lb per month and rapid weight loss. mostly anyone who studied :: nutrition will tell you hehe.... - " chances are the faster you lose weight :: the faster you will put it back on" faster than what? :: not to mention that they will also say that when you lose more :: then 2 - 3 lbs(men) 1 - 2 lbs(woman) pounds per week anything above :: that amount is :: muscle loss. Great....then why not lose 1 to 2 lbs per week and avoid muscle loss. 20 weeks is a lot shorter than 20 months. Most people will get bored and quit with that kind of progress. :: lose muscle and your chances to gain the weight back :: increase. are you not aware of these concerns? I'm very aware of those concerned. However, that has little to do with what I said. You're extrapolating on your own. :: are you diabetic? Yes, T2. ::: I'm a bit late to this thread, but anyway... ::: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] :: a newly diagnosed DIABETIC that if they were going low carb to have :: their kidneys checked. Again, what makes you think the OP needs that advice? The OP has a health care team, and the OP had BG and A1c checked. I'd say the OP is doing just fine with your backseat doctoring, gman. All the kooks in the ASDLC pounced on me like :: a cat on a mouse because their teenie little brains with their huge :: blinders saw one statement and they went into some kind of low carb :: rage... :: :: I also mentioned that <20 g a day is a very difficult undertaking. Honestly, too many people here report doing it for longer than two weeks. :: MOST people who try DO NOT succeed...some do but the vast majority :: DO NOT. Most people who want to do it for as long as they want. Fact is, it is not necessary to keep carbs so low and the usual advice given here is to not do this. It is certainly not what Atkins suggest, and IMO, it doesn't improve weight loss. Now, where is your data backing up your statement above about most people who try to maingain 20g or less per day do not succeed, or that the vast majority of people who try do not? >> I'm a bit late to this thread, but anyway... >> >> While what you are saying is of course correct, since weight-loss is >> also a factor as you pointed out above, and so could exercise be, I >> am confused about where your comment is coming from. I mean, it >> looks a bit like you are trying to downplay the impact of the low >> carb diet. Is that correct? Do you not like the LC idea? > > Didn't say that...didn't even imply that. I am, in fact, on a low carb > diet...not freakishly low like 20g a day. I know of only 2 people in this diabetic group who do <20 gr carb and both get enough flak over their diets, even from low carbers. Once again, don't pick something and play on it. Sure the Atkins induction is <20 gr carb, for two weeks, I don't think I know anyone other than the two previously mentioned posters who do <20gr permanently. I still wonder where you get your facts and figures from, maybe out of your arse like someone else mentioned. I have also seen more people reverse kidney damage on low carb diets than those on higher carb diets. > I also mentioned that <20 g a day is a very difficult undertaking. > MOST people who try DO NOT succeed...some do but the vast majority DO > NOT. Once again, less than <20 gr carb is a rarity from my experience. Although, maybe I need to check on that, we are in two groups here that have plenty of low carbers. Anyone, (other than the two extremists who have cut nutritional needs down to a dangerous level) doing <20 gr carb permanently? > >> I'm a bit late to this thread, but anyway... > >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > needs down to a dangerous level) doing <20 gr carb > permanently? The ORIGINAL POSTER stated <20 g of carbs...just replying to that post... | I also mentioned that <20 g a day is a very difficult undertaking. MOST | people who try DO NOT succeed...some do but the vast majority DO NOT. I've been controlling my carbohydrates for three years, and have been posting in ASDLC for that length of time. In my experience, most do succeed. Some do not, but most do. At least much more so than on low-fat diets, which are not satiating and always leave one hungry. On what studies or experience are you basing your information? ... What's that you say? You made it up? I thought so ..... SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo > | I also mentioned that <20 g a day is a very difficult undertaking. MOST > | people who try DO NOT succeed...some do but the vast majority DO NOT. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > succeed. Some do not, but most do. At least much more so than on low-fat > diets, which are not satiating and always leave one hungry. There's a whole big world out there outside of this NG...MANY...MANY people have started and stopped the Atkin's diet. MOST people who start the Atkin's diet do not complete 6 months....that is a FACT. I'll find the cite for ya...just to keep you from hyperventilating.. > On what studies or experience are you basing your information? > > ... What's that you say? You made it up? I thought so ..... gman burbled across the ether: > There's a whole big world out there outside of this NG...MANY...MANY > people have started and stopped the Atkin's diet. MOST people who > start the Atkin's diet do not complete 6 months....that is a FACT. > I'll find the cite for ya...just to keep you from hyperventilating.. Many many people started the 'no-carb' 'meat and cheese' 'stuff yourself silly' diet reported about in the media. This is not Atkins. Signaturerevek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html lowcarbing since June 2002 5'2" 41 F 165+/too much/size seven petite please Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. -- Satchel Paige >gman burbled across the ether: >> There's a whole big world out there outside of this NG...MANY...MANY [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Many many people started the 'no-carb' 'meat and cheese' 'stuff yourself >silly' diet reported about in the media. This is not Atkins. Many people started low-fat, medium-fat, high-fat diets of all kinds and flavors and didn't follow through. That's a fact. It is not, however, news. > Type: 2 > Began Low Carb: 12/01/2003 (3 months) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I started Low Carb with a goal of 50 carbs or less per day. Now, I try to > do 20 carbs or less per day. can you post up a typical day's diet ? > can you post up a typical day's diet ? OK. This is typical except my calories are usually about 400 higher. If the ice cream had been 3 servings (1 1/2 cups), that would have made the day shown at the link reasonably typical. Link: http://techmart.com/~cubit/Menu1.gif >> can you post up a typical day's diet ? > > OK. This is typical except my calories are usually about 400 higher. > If the ice cream had been 3 servings (1 1/2 cups), that would have > made the day shown at the link reasonably typical. > > Link: http://techmart.com/~cubit/Menu1.gif I don't see ice cream listed there but what I did see was shocking. :: Cubit wrote: :::: can you post up a typical day's diet ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: I don't see ice cream listed there but what I did see was :: shocking. Yeah....it doesn't look so good to me either. And you'd normally eat 3 serving of ice cream along with that other stuff? No veggies, and 3 oz of cream, and cheese? If you're going to keep calories so low, I suggest you ditch the ice cream, and cream, and eat veggies, fish, chicken, beef, etc. > Yeah....it doesn't look so good to me either. And you'd normally eat > 3 serving of ice cream along with that other stuff? No veggies, and > 3 oz of cream, and cheese? If you're going to keep calories so low, > I suggest you ditch the ice cream, and cream, and eat veggies, fish, > chicken, beef, etc. And how is ice cream low carb? And 4 gr fibre?? Hi, > And how is ice cream low carb? And 4 gr fibre?? American food chemists at their best ;-) In the US (and to a lesser extent Canada) the low carb diet has spread and become the fad of the moment for the mainstream public. That has spawned a dizzying array of LC food products, and among them are "ice creams" that contain significant amounts of soluble fiber. Unfortunately, most of these products are just low carb junk foods (candy, ice cream) and those who jumped on the LC bandwagon merely because it is "hot" at the moment seem to overindulge in these products. I predict that when that crowd abandon LC and look for the next big craze most of these products will disappear. Take care, Carmen | Hi, | [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | Take care, | Carmen I find it interesting that the Breyers Carb Smart Vanilla flavor says "ice cream " on the box, but the Breyers Carb Smart Chocolate flavor says "frozen dairy product" on the box. Hmmmmm .... SignaturePeter website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo >>can you post up a typical day's diet ? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Link: http://techmart.com/~cubit/Menu1.gif What's the source of the software showing on the link? TIA > What's the source of the software showing on the link? > > TIA http://www.FitDay.com They have a download for about $20. >> What's the source of the software showing on the link? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > They have a download for about $20. Anyone know what happens when you go to work? Do you have to remember what you eat, or can you enter this data in while at work and then link it at home? SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply Anyone know what happens when you go to work? Do you have to remember what you eat, or can you enter this data in while at work and then link it at home? -------------------------------- Bob, you can access it from anywhere you have internet capabilities. I, personally have been on it (and have entered foods in it) from my local library and an Office Depot here. Just like home sweet home! Best Wishes; Marty |
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.