Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers
WeightAdviser.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / December 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

The 20 worst foods in America

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Louise - 01 Dec 2007 17:06 GMT
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods

The 20 worst foods in America

The U.S. food industry has declared war on your waistline. Here's how to
disarm its weapons of mass inflation


Eat at your own risk
By: Matt Goulding, Men's Health magazine
Sure, a turkey burger sounds healthy. But is it, really? Not if you order
the Bella from Ruby Tuesday, which packs a whopping 1,145 calories. (And
yes, that's before a side of fries.)

To further enlighten you on the prevalence of preposterous portions, we
spent months analyzing menus, nutrition labels, and ingredient lists to
identify the food industry's worst offenders. Our primary criterion? Sheer
caloric impact. After all, it's the top cause of weight gain and the health
problems that accompany it. (As you read, keep in mind that 2,500 calories
a day is a reasonable intake for the average guy.) We also factored in
other key nutritional data, such as excessive carbohydrates and fat, added
sugars, trans fats, and sodium. The result is our first annual list of the
worst foods in America.

Eat at your own risk.


20: Worst fast-food chicken meal
Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips from McDonald's (5 pieces) with
creamy ranch sauce

830 calories

55 grams (g) fat (4.5 g trans fat)

48 g carbohydrates
The only thing "premium" about these strips is the caloric price you pay.
Add a large fries and regular soda and this seemingly innocuous chicken
meal tops out at 1,710 calories.

Change Your Chicken: 20 McNuggets have the same impact. Instead, choose
Mickey D's six-piece offering with BBQ sauce and save yourself 530
calories.


19: Worst drink
Jamba Juice Chocolate Moo'd Power Smoothie (30 fl oz)

900 calories 10 g fat

183 g carbs (166 g sugar)
Jamba Juice calls it a smoothie; we call it a milk shake. In fact, this
beverage contains as much sugar as 2 pints of Ben & Jerry's butter pecan
ice cream.

Turn Down the Power: Seventy-five percent of this chain's "power smoothies"
contain in excess of 100 grams of sugar. Stick to Jamba's lower-calorie All
Fruit Smoothies, which are the only menu items that contain no added sugar.
And always opt for the 16-ounce "small."

18: Worst supermarket meal
Pepperidge Farm Roasted Chicken Pot Pie (whole pie)

1,020 calories 64 g fat

86 g carbs
The label may say this pie serves two, but who ever divided a small pot pie
in half? The sad truth is, once you crack the crust, there will be no
stopping -- which makes this 300 calories worse than anything else you'll
find in the freezer case.

Pick a Better Pie: Swanson's chicken pot pie has just 400 calories.


17: Worst 'healthy' burger
Ruby Tuesday Bella Turkey Burger

1,145 calories 71 g fat

56 g carbs
We chose this burger for more than its calorie payload: Its name implies
that it's healthy.

The Truly Healthy Choice: Skip burgers entirely (few at Ruby Tuesday come
in under 1,000 calories). Instead, order a 9-ounce sirloin with a side of
steamed vegetables, and keep things under 1,000 calories.


16: Worst Mexican entree
Chipotle Mexican Grill Chicken Burrito

1,179 calories 47 g fat

125 g carbs

2,656 milligrams (mg) sodium
Despite a reputation for using healthy, fresh ingredients, Chipotle's menu
is limited to king-size burritos, overstuffed tacos, and gigantic salads --
all of which lead to a humongous waistline.

Make Over the Menu: There are two ways to Men's Healthify a burrito at
Chipotle: (1) 86 the rice and tortilla and request your meat, vegetables,
and beans served in a bowl or (2) bring a friend and saw the burrito in
half.

15: Worst kids' meal
Macaroni Grill Double Macaroni 'n' Cheese

1,210 calories 62 g fat

3,450 mg sodium
It's like feeding your kid 1 1/2 boxes of Kraft mac 'n' cheese.

Your Best Option: The 390-calorie Grilled Chicken and Broccoli.


14: Worst sandwich
Quiznos Classic Italian (large)

1,528 calories 92 g fat

4,604 mg sodium 110 g carbs
A large homemade sandwich would more likely provide about 500 calories.

Cut the Calories: Isn't it obvious? Order a small -- or save half for
later.

13: Worst salad
On the Border Grande Taco Salad with Taco Beef

1,450 calories 102 g fat

78 g carbs 2,410 mg sodium
This isn't an anomaly: Five different On the Border salads on the menu
contain more than 1,100 calories each.

The Salad for You: The Sizzling Chicken Fajita Salad supplies an acceptable
760 calories. But remember to choose a noncaloric beverage, such as water
or unsweetened iced tea.

12: Worst burger
Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger

1,520 calories

111 g fat
Carl's Jr. brags that it's home to this enormous sandwich, but the
restaurant chain also provides convenient nutrition info on its Web site --
so ignorance is no excuse for eating it.

A Simple Solution: The Low Carb Six Dollar Burger has just 490 calories.

11: Worst steak
Lonestar 20 oz T-bone

1,540 calories

124 g fat
Add a baked potato and Lonestar's Signature Lettuce Wedge, and this is a
2,700-calorie blowout.

Choose with Your Head: The golden rule of steak restaurants is this: Limit
yourself to a 9-ouncer or smaller. After all, that's more than half a pound
of meat. You won't walk away hungry.

10: Worst breakfast
Bob Evans Caramel Banana Pecan Cream Stacked and Stuffed Hotcakes

1,540 calories

77 g fat (9 g trans fat)

198 g carbs (109 g sugar)
Five Egg McMuffins yield the same caloric cost as this stack of
sugar-stuffed flapjacks, which is truly a heavy breakfast, weighing in at a
hefty pound and a half.

Order This Instead: A Bob Evans Western Omelet starts your day with a
reasonable 654 calories and 44 grams of muscle-building protein.

9: Worst dessert
Chili's Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie with Vanilla Ice Cream

1,600 calories

78 g fat

215 g carbs
Would you eat a Big Mac for dessert? How about three? That's the calorie
equivalent of this decadent dish. Clearly, Chili's customers get their
money's worth.

Don't Overdo It: If you want dessert at Chili's, order one single-serving
Sweet Shot; you'll cap your after-dinner intake at 310 calories.

8: Worst Chinese entree
P.F. Chang's Pork Lo Mein

1,820 calories

127 g fat

95 g carbs
The fat content in this dish alone provides more than 1,100 calories. And
you'd have to eat almost five servings of pasta to match the number of
carbohydrates it contains. Now, do you really need five servings of pasta?

Pick Another Noodle: P.F. Chang's Singapore Street Noodles will satisfy
your craving with only 570 calories. Or try the Moo Goo Gai Pan or the
Ginger Chicken & Broccoli, which have 660 calories each.

7: Worst chicken entree
Chili's Honey Chipotle Crispers with Chipotle Sauce

2,040 calories

99 g fat

240 g carbs
"Crispers" refers to an extra-thick layer of bread crumbs that soaks up oil
and adds unnecessary calories and carbs to these glorified chicken strips.

Switch Your Selection: Order the Chicken Fajita Pita: At 450 calories and
43 grams of protein, it's one of the healthiest entrées you'll find in a
chain restaurant.

6: Worst fish entree
On the Border Dos XX Fish Tacos with Rice and Beans

2,100 calories

130 g fat

169 g carbs 4,750 mg sodium
Perhaps the most misleadingly named dish in America: A dozen crunchy tacos
from Taco Bell will saddle you with fewer calories.

Lighten the Load: Ask for grilled fish, choose the corn tortillas instead
of flour (they're lower in calories and higher in fiber), and swap out the
carbohydrate-loaded rice for grilled vegetables.


5: Worst pizza
Uno Chicago Grill Chicago Classic Deep Dish Pizza

2,310 calories

162 g fat

123 g carbs

4,470 mg sodium
Downing this "personal" pizza is equivalent to eating 18 slices of Domino's
Crunchy Thin Crust cheese pizza.

Swap Your Slices: Switch to the Sausage Flatbread Pie and avert deep-dish
disaster by nearly 1,500 calories.

4: Worst pasta
Macaroni Grill Spaghetti and Meatballs with Meat Sauce

2,430 calories

128 g fat

207 g carbs

5,290 mg sodium
This meal satisfies your calorie requirements for an entire day.

Downsize the Devastation: Ask for a lunch portion of this dinner dish (or
any pasta on the menu, for that matter), and request regular tomato sauce
instead of meat sauce. You'll cut the calories in half.

3: Worst nachos
On the Border Stacked Border Nachos

2,740 calories

166 g fat

191 g carbs

5,280 mg sodium


2: Worst starter
Chili's Awesome Blossom

2,710 calories

203 g fat

194 g carbs

6,360 mg sodium


1: The worst food in America
Outback Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing

2,900 calories

182 g fat

240 g carbs
Even if you split these "starters" with three friends, you'll have downed a
dinner's worth of calories before your entrée arrives.

Super Substitutions Front-load your meal with a protein-based dish that's
not deep-fried. A high-protein starter helps diminish hunger without
putting you into calorie overload. And remember: Appetizers are meant to be
shared.

At On the Border: Chicken Soft Tacos (250 calories each). This entrée is as
close as you'll come to a healthy starter.

At Chili's: Garlic & Lime Grilled Shrimp. Look for this item in the
"sides."

At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie.
Cubit - 01 Dec 2007 21:09 GMT
Your post made me hungry.

Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.
brigid nelson - 01 Dec 2007 23:48 GMT
> Your post made me hungry.
>
> Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.

I'm surprised they bothered to mention the carb counts at all.  After
all carbs are good for you.
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 02 Dec 2007 02:26 GMT
> > Your post made me hungry.
>
> > Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.
>
> I'm surprised they bothered to mention the carb counts at all.  After
> all carbs are good for you.

Right, carbs are good for you except that a lot of people are on a low-
carb diet so presumably it wouldn't be good for them. I don't happen
to buy into that idea, but many obviously do. The point is really that
there really is no bad food or good food per se, unless you start from
some nutritional goal. In general, fat is bad for diets. Why? Simple.
It packs 9 cal. per gram vs. 4 cal per gram for protein and carbs.
Still, you have any people who believe they need to seek certain fats,
so to them omega 3 fat may not be good. I don't know of anyone who
seriously believes cholesterol is good for you although many say its
implication in heart disease is not so solid. High sodium is also not
so good for many people, but if a person happens to sweat a lot and
have low BP, sodium really isn't a problem for them. The point is that
you almost have to start with a preconceived opinion to make sense of
diet choices. Of course in the end, nobody can say for certainty the
proper mix of nutrition for an individual based on science, not with
complete confidence at any rate.

Luckily, there are lots of food choices that generally seem to work
well and keep weight down. I'm vegetarian and eat no cholesterol at
all and under 10% fat, about 50 gm. of protein a day and all the rest
is carbs. I eat a lot of whole grains and scads of vegetables within a
2,000 cal per day diet. I am also very healthy far as I know and my
thin. To me, almost nothing listed in the article was healthy and I
never eat any of it. dkw
Cubit - 02 Dec 2007 02:55 GMT
>> > Your post made me hungry.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> thin. To me, almost nothing listed in the article was healthy and I
> never eat any of it. dkw

[Hand raised]

I believe cholesterol is good for you.

-strong cell walls and such...
dkw12002@yahoo.com - 02 Dec 2007 05:02 GMT
> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Provided you have no heart problems or genetic disposition to heart
problems or no weight problem, you could make a good case for eating
lots of cholesterol. I agree most people love to eat high-cholesterol
foods like ice cream and meat. In the good old days, people made the
best pies using lard which has cholesterol. They certainly tasted
good. I think our preference for high-fat foods is a survival
instinct. Unfortunately, longevity and health past the child bearing
years are not a concern of mother nature. She just wants you to
survive long enough to have babies. After that if you drop dead with a
heart attack, it's OK with her. This phenomenon helps explain why most
diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. don't manifest
themselves early in life as a rule. Otherwise, the disease itself
would tend to disappear as those with it died or at least those who
didn't get it could live and reproduce passing on their immunity. To
me, cholesterol is like fast driving. I like to do it, but the odds
are against you statistically having a good outcome in the long run.
dkw
Cubit - 02 Dec 2007 19:05 GMT
>> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
> are against you statistically having a good outcome in the long run.
> dkw

I agree about the evolutionary problem of living past 30.

My understanding is that CVD is an inflammatory mystery disease of the
vascular walls.  The body responds by using a basic construction material
(cholesterol) to plack over the problem with disastrous long term results.
Since the body can make its own cholesterol, and medical science has failed
to identify the true cause of CVD, I question the strategy of restricting
dietary cholesterol.

Often in trials for drugs, such as the statins, while they can produce a
small reduction in heart attacks, the overall mortality rate from all causes
remains unchanged.  You squeeze the balloon in one area and it pops out in
another.
Rod Speed - 02 Dec 2007 21:26 GMT
>>> <dkw12...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
> rate from all causes remains unchanged.  You squeeze the balloon in
> one area and it pops out in another.

Not often at all in fact.
Don Klipstein - 03 Dec 2007 00:48 GMT
>> Provided you have no heart problems or genetic disposition to heart
>> problems or no weight problem, you could make a good case for eating
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>to identify the true cause of CVD, I question the strategy of restricting
>dietary cholesterol.

 The inflammation that promotes arterial plaque is often caused by
arterial plaque.  We have somewhat a chicken-egg situation, but largely
arterial plaque is the starting point.

 One factor that makes the data more confusing is that about 20% of the
population is genetically prone to high blood cholesterol from eating
dietary cholesterol, while in the other 80% blood cholesterol (total and
bad-vs-good) is affected more by body fat content, exercise and diet
factors other than cholesterol intake and less by dietary cholesterol
intake.

 Furthermore, arterial plaque is not just cholesterol.  It is mainly
VLDL-cholesterol, similar to LDL-cholesterol which causes it.  This is
"Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol", and a major ingredient is
triglycerides, which are basically fat content in the blood.  Triglyceride
levels increase largely with calorie consumption and with being
overweight.

>Often in trials for drugs, such as the statins, while they can produce a
>small reduction in heart attacks, the overall mortality rate from all causes
>remains unchanged.  You squeeze the balloon in one area and it pops out in
>another.

 The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.  I
know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7
beers a week.  I would also check into how statins affect the liver's
tolerance to other drugs such as acetaminophen ("Tylenol"), which can also
stress the liver.
 Also, I suspect we will be seeing a higher reduction of heart attacks
from use of statins once they have been around more than a decade.  And
overweight people who go on statins but remain overweight will continue to
have high triglycerides.  And people with their blood cholesterol being
disproportionately LDL probbly stay that way unless they exercise more
and/or make their diets healthier in terms of fat intake levels (and
cholesterol intake levels for the dietary-cholesterol-intolerant) and what
kinds of fat they eat.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 00:55 GMT
> The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.  I
> know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7
> beers a week.  
>  - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Now that's what I call a hardship.

Marsha/Ohio
krw - 03 Dec 2007 02:49 GMT
> > The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.  I
> > know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7
> > beers a week.  
> >  - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
> Now that's what I call a hardship.

Doesn't sound so bad to me.  I'm limited to zero.  I'd like a beer
once in a while...

Signature

 Keith

Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 02:53 GMT
>>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.  I
>>>know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Doesn't sound so bad to me.  I'm limited to zero.  I'd like a beer
> once in a while...

Facetious, hon, facetious.

Marsha/Ohio
krw - 04 Dec 2007 01:56 GMT
> >>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.  I
> >>>know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Facetious, hon, facetious.

Understood, sweetie, understood.

Signature

 Keith

mallstop4u@gmail.com - 08 Dec 2007 05:41 GMT
Baskin-Robbins - Chocolate Chip (reg scoop) 60mg

http://www.americanvistas.com/health.html

http://www.keep-cholesterol-control.com/index.html

> In article <fivk5l$j3...@news.datemas.de>, m...@xeb.net says...> > The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.  I
> > > know someone on a statin and he has to limit alcohol consumption to 7
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> --
>   Keith
krw - 08 Dec 2007 14:26 GMT
In article <f937cac4-dede-4f80-882d-c10383311288
@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mallstop4u@gmail.com says...
> Baskin-Robbins - Chocolate Chip (reg scoop) 60mg
>
> http://www.americanvistas.com/health.html

Anyone who publishes an article starting with "one of the most
commonest" can't be trusted for any information.

> http://www.keep-cholesterol-control.com/index.html

No issues with cholesterol, though I don't much like top-posters.

Signature

 Keith

Ophelia - 08 Dec 2007 16:58 GMT
> In article <f937cac4-dede-4f80-882d-c10383311288
> @i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mallstop4u@gmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> No issues with cholesterol, though I don't much like top-posters.

I can see you have your priorities sorted
krw - 08 Dec 2007 20:48 GMT
> > In article <f937cac4-dede-4f80-882d-c10383311288
> > @i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, mallstop4u@gmail.com says...
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> I can see you have your priorities sorted

Yep.  No issues with one, and a lot with the other.

Signature

 Keith

Jon v Leipzig - 05 Dec 2007 13:11 GMT
>> My understanding is that CVD is an inflammatory mystery disease of the
>> vascular walls.  The body responds by using a basic construction material
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> arterial plaque.  We have somewhat a chicken-egg situation, but largely
> arterial plaque is the starting point.

Disagree.  From all my reading, I'd say plaque formation is a response
to damage or stress on the artery wall.   The damage causes the
inflammatory state.Imo, the previous comment is correct.  Cholesterol
comes to the rescue, patches the damage,then gets blamed for clogging
the arteries.

trivia:
 About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received
one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to
initiate plaque formation in the arteries.  (LPa)
Imo, that doesn't convince me that it's a culprit.  Taking Proline for
many months can lower your  LPa, but if the "repair crew" decides more
is needed, the liver responds by making more.

Pauling also discovered this LPa  only exists in the two critters which
can't mfgr their own vitamin C....humans and guinea pigs.

>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.

Others might disagree.
Some develop severe muscle pain which continues even after stopping the
drug.

The former NASA Flight Surgeon, (Graveline?) wrote the book:
"Lipitor; Thief of Memory"

By delpeting coenzyme Q-10, some will die of congestive heart failure.
(almost 20 years ago, that sleazy Merck co. received a patent  for a
statin with CoQ10, but never put it on the market. guess they just
wanted to prevent another company form gettting it. )

They will raise your LPa level within a few months.
Last time I checked, a warning was required in Canada, but not in the US
market.
Ask your favorite Dr Goodpill.....what is my statin doing to cause a
rise in LPa??

>>Also, I suspect we will be seeing a higher reduction of heart attacks
>>from use of statins once they have been around more than a decade.

Disagree.  If statins were going to reduce heart attacks, it wudda
happened by now.
The first statin was approved in 1987. (Lovastatin,  Merck & Co.)

heart attack trivia:
The main researcher here thinks 85% of heart attacks are caused by the
rupture of newly formed (Vulnerable) plaque.

<snipt from  newspaper article>
 Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic then adds;
"The rupture of a plaque will be the cause of death of about half of all
of us in the United States. Understanding why they rupture is probably
the most important question today in cardiology and even the most
important question in the country."
(See Vulnerable Plaque, The Latest in Heart Disease? by Haney)

I disagree.  Imo, tis more important to discover something to prevent
the rupture of these tiny plaques.
Just recalling, a few years back, our radio doc (real MD) once advised a
caller to take some extra vitamin C, preferably 2-3x per day,
to strengthen the caps, keep them from bursting.  Think if I were
concerned enuf, I might try to confirm this from another source.
Don Klipstein - 08 Dec 2007 07:52 GMT
>>> My understanding is that CVD is an inflammatory mystery disease of the
>>> vascular walls.  The body responds by using a basic construction material
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>comes to the rescue, patches the damage,then gets blamed for clogging
>the arteries.

 I maintain insistence that in American humans, most artery wall stress
is caused by plaque deposits.  And that all too many Americans have such
lifestyles as to have arterial plaque form anywhere from "at a drop of any
hat" to enough from lifestyle factors so that first
less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a spot for plaque to be
depositied, there it goes!

>trivia:
>  About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Pauling also discovered this LPa  only exists in the two critters which
>can't mfgr their own vitamin C....humans and guinea pigs.

 If vitamin C is the solution, then it should work when taken to the
extent that achieves blood concentration of vitamin C that exists in all
the other critters.  Can anyone neutral in this area provide figures for
daily vitamin C intake by humans necessary to achieve typical blood
concentrations of vitamin C in critters other than humans and guinea pigs?

>>>The main problem with statins is that they are hard on the liver.
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>happened by now.
>The first statin was approved in 1987. (Lovastatin,  Merck & Co.)

 But when did statin use get to so much as 1/4 its current use?  I
suspect a hell of a lot later than 1987!

>heart attack trivia:
>The main researcher here thinks 85% of heart attacks are caused by the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>to strengthen the caps, keep them from bursting.  Think if I were
>concerned enuf, I might try to confirm this from another source.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 08 Dec 2007 13:08 GMT
>   I maintain insistence that in American humans, most artery wall stress
> is caused by plaque deposits.  And that all too many Americans have such
> lifestyles as to have arterial plaque form anywhere from "at a drop of any
> hat" to enough from lifestyle factors so that first
> less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a spot for plaque to be
> depositied, there it goes!

You've got a chicken-and-egg question going there.

At the current state of knowledge, it appears that artheresclerosis is
primarily caused by inflammation.  But since that was not the primary
understanding a couple decades ago, I'm not sure where we're going with
this in the long run.  Based on what we know now, without inflammation,
plaques don't seem to form.

As for the lipid question, it is beginning to appear much more complex:
 first it was cholesterol that was bad.  Then we discovered LDL was bad
and HDL good.  Now we know there's good subsets of LDL and bad subsets
of HDL.

There's also some evidence that the lipoprotein bit is what actually
causes the damage and that the cholesterol it carries along is not very
significant; I personally think that's what is likely to turn up in the
long run, but we can't really say for sure yet.  Though we do know that
LP(a) is the real terrible baddy of lipoproteins.

Serum proteins being glycosylated turns out to be *very* bad; the
reaction is irreversible and you just have sticky proteins floating
about.  The A1c is much more highly correlated with heart attack than
cholesterol ever was, even in nondiabetics.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 00:18 GMT
>>   I maintain insistence that in American humans, most artery wall stress
>> is caused by plaque deposits.  And that all too many Americans have such
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>long run, but we can't really say for sure yet.  Though we do know that
>LP(a) is the real terrible baddy of lipoproteins.

 Blood cholesterol does seem to be quite an indicator at least of
conditions favorable to heart disease.

>Serum proteins being glycosylated turns out to be *very* bad; the
>reaction is irreversible and you just have sticky proteins floating
>about.  The A1c is much more highly correlated with heart attack than
>cholesterol ever was, even in nondiabetics.

 Glycosylated proteins that do bad sound like something that turns up
more in diabetics.  I plug into Google:  glycosylated atherosclerosis
diabetes

 and it appears to me that this is the case.

 Most diabetes occurs in people who are overweight.

 I remember from back in the early 1980's that Japan had very little
heart disease.  The average Japanese diet up until then had a lot less
caloric content than modern Western diets.  Japan became concerned in the
mid 1980's that the Japanese diet was starting to become more "Western"
with more meat and fat and that this would cause more heart disease.
Doug Freyburger - 08 Dec 2007 19:42 GMT
> >  About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received
> >one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> >Pauling also discovered this LPa  only exists in the two critters which
> >can't mfgr their own vitamin C....humans and guinea pigs.

Also salmon apparently.  And not just humans but other primates as
well.  Most other primates are still majority fruit eaters but humans
have spent 5 million years evolving into the top predator on the
planet
and some species of monkeys spent 5-10 million years evolving into
grass eaters.  I bet those grass eater monkeys tend to die of heart
attacks.

>   If vitamin C is the solution, then it should work when taken to the
> extent that achieves blood concentration of vitamin C that exists in all
> the other critters.  Can anyone neutral in this area provide figures for
> daily vitamin C intake by humans necessary to achieve typical blood
> concentrations of vitamin C in critters other than humans and guinea pigs?

The place to look for that would be a veterinarian textbook.  My
brother
is a veterinarian and I've discussed the issue with him.

A 150 pound goat will synthesize 14 grams of vitamin-C in its liver
daily.  A 150 pound human will synthesize 0 grams of vitamin-C in
its liver daily.  Dogs and cats make similar amoounts per body
weight.

So if the human inability to synthesize vitamin-C is a recent mutation
on an evolutionary time scale, the daily dosage should be about 1 gram
per 10 pounds of body weight, and that would need to be adjusted for
how much is actually absorbed not destroyed in digestion.  So call it
30 grams per day for a 150 pound person, 40 per day for a 200 pound
person.  That level will trigger diarhea in almost everyone.  Clearly,
the
loss of vitamin-C synthesis is somewhat old in evolution and that's
consistant with other fruit-eating primates not needing it.  The best
dosage is going to be well below 40 grams per day for a 200 pounder.

I know that below a certain amount of vitamin-C there's danger of
scurvy.  That level is very low.  I also know that above a certain
level the person gets diarhea.  The range is huge between those
dosage levels.  The ideal level is going to be somewhere in the
range between the tiny dose that prevents scury and the mega
dose that triggers diarhea, but where in that range?

The thing is if you get ill the amount of vitamin-C that it takes to
trigger diarhea goes up.  That suggests that during illness the
amount of vitamin-C absorbed and/or used by the body goes up.
I think the best amount is to find out how much triggers diarhea,
then taper back down a bit.  It won't give you the blood level of a
goat, but evolutionary evidence suggests we don't need that much
any more.
nospam@sbcglobal.invalid.net - 08 Dec 2007 22:48 GMT
> A 150 pound goat will synthesize 14 grams of vitamin-C in its liver
> daily.  A 150 pound human will synthesize 0 grams of vitamin-C in
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> goat, but evolutionary evidence suggests we don't need that much
> any more.

Studies in the last several years have found cell damage when C
intake is higher than 65mg (yes, that's MILLIGRAMS) a day,
taken long-term.  As with virtually all vitamin advocates, Pauling
made horribly myopic conclusions based on horribly insufficient
data.
Jim - 09 Dec 2007 23:55 GMT
>> A 150 pound goat will synthesize 14 grams of vitamin-C in its liver
>> daily.  A 150 pound human will synthesize 0 grams of vitamin-C in
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> made horribly myopic conclusions based on horribly insufficient
> data.

Please post links to such studies.

So far, searches don't correlate with the claims.
Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 00:32 GMT
>> >  About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received
>> >one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
>goat, but evolutionary evidence suggests we don't need that much
>any more.

 How about the same daily mg/kg as other primates whose diets are mainly
fruit?  How about the amount that achieves the blood concentration of
vitamin C found in other primates, which is probably something less, since
I have an impression that humans have lower daily calorie requirement per
kg of body weight than most other primates?

 So far, to keep in line with other primates, I would take as a first
order of approximation the amount of vitamin C consumed if one eats 2,000
calories per day in fruit.  That sounds to me like a gram or two a day.

 Or do monkeys run into health problems that goats avoid due to higher
blood levels of vitamin C?  Anyone here know what the blood level of
vitamin C is in rats - noted to have a similar dietary requirement as
humans with a major difference being self-sufficiency for vitamin C?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jon v Leipzig - 12 Dec 2007 12:35 GMT
>>>>  About 20-30 years ago, that vitamin C guru, Linus Pauling, received
>>>> one of his Nobel prizes for discovering the only lipoprotein know to
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
>
>  - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

The high numbers are in response to stress. Lows would probably be
normal or maintenence dose.

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/mega_1_1.html

   Vitamin C produced per day by different animal species
    (equivalent for 70 Kg Man)

Goat     2,280 - 13,300 mg
Rat       2,737 - 13,902 mg
Rabbit     1,547 - 15,820 mg
Cow     1,099 - 1,281 mg
Mouse     2,352 - 19,250 mg
Sheep     1,736 mg
Cat      336 - 2,800 mg

http://www.paulingtherapy.com/page2.html

Most animals produce their own vitamin C in amounts varying between
3,000 mg - 12,000 mg per day adjusted for body weight.

Most animals convert ordinary sugar (sucrose) to vitamin C in their
kidneys or their liver. The newly created vitamin enters directly into
the animal?s blood stream. Animals also get some vitamin C from their food.
Jon v Leipzig - 12 Dec 2007 12:41 GMT
> In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip

>> Disagree.  From all my reading, I'd say plaque formation is a response
>> to damage or stress on the artery wall.   The damage causes the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a spot for plaque to be
> depositied, there it goes!

Imo, if serum chol- were the culprit, why isn't plaque buildup found
evenly thruout the system???   Never heard of anyone needing a thigh or
bicep bypass....

---------------------------------------------------

http://www.paulingtherapy.com/page2.html

Plaque is a Healing Response

[8] Plaque forms over injured blood vessels. If one suffers plaque
deposits, it is likely he/she owes his life to this material that
narrows arteries. Without plaque, the weakened blood vessels would
rupture or leak causing internal bleeding and death. A slower version of
scurvy, the disease long-dreaded by ancient sailors. (James Lind
discovered (year 1753) that eating fruit prevents this disease. Acute
scurvy can be prevented by a mere 10 mg vitamin C per day. )

The correct terminology for cardiovascular (heart) disease then is
"chronic" scurvy or "sub clinical" scurvy.

[9] The human body's healing response to chronic scurvy is what medicine
calls coronary heart disease (CHD), AKA cardiovascular disease (CVD),
"heart disease", "atherosclerosis", "arteriosclerosis", "hardening",
"plaque", "narrowing", etc. This process by itself rarely kills people,
but plaque lined arteries make heart attack more likely from a blood
clot or blockage. (Plaque lined arteries cannot easily dilate in
response to a clot.) Currently, it is unknown what amount of vitamin C
prevents the atherosclerotic plaques of chronic scurvy, but Linus
Pauling often recommended 3000 mg.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.paulingtherapy.com/book.html

ATHEROSCLEROTIC PLAQUE

A Nobel prize in Medicine was awarded for the finding that lesions in
the walls of blood vessels are the primary cause of atherosclerotic
plaques. Clusters of "fat" molecules acting as repair agents form
nature's "plaster casts" against the weakness of blood vessel walls.
These sticky molecules are lipoprotein(a). If these deposits continue to
develop in the arteries of the heart they lead to heart attack. If they
continue to develop in the arteries of the brain they lead to stroke.

Hundreds of investigators found that only a specific type of cholesterol
molecule, lipoprotein-(a), or Lp(a) for short, is the primary material
that binds to a lesion in the walls of an artery forming plaques. Lp(a)
is an ordinary LDL cholesterol molecule with a sticky apo-protein(a) (or
apo(a)) attached to the surface. Animals that make their own vitamin C
generally do not have the variant Lp(a) cholesterol molecules.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A corollary is that ordinary LDL (so-called "bad") cholesterol is not
the primary cause of plaque build-up, any more than calcium.

Massive research now supports the insight of Linus Pauling, who well
ahead of his time in 1994 pointed out, "If you have more than 20mg/dl of
Lp(a) in your blood it begins depositing plaques causing atherosclerosis."
Rod Speed - 12 Dec 2007 18:40 GMT
>> In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>> factors so that first less-lifestyle-unrelated factor determines a
>> spot for plaque to be depositied, there it goes!

> Imo, if serum chol- were the culprit, why isn't plaque buildup found
> evenly thruout the system???   Never heard of anyone needing a thigh
> or bicep bypass....

Then you need to get out more. Stents and bypasses are indeed widely used in those situations.

> ---------------------------------------------------
>
[quoted text clipped - 54 lines]
> of Lp(a) in your blood it begins depositing plaques causing
> atherosclerosis."
Don Klipstein - 17 Dec 2007 00:31 GMT
>> In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>evenly thruout the system???   Never heard of anyone needing a thigh or
>bicep bypass....

 It is a bit of a common problem in the brain.  And surgery gets a lot
trickier there.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jon v Leipzig - 17 Dec 2007 16:11 GMT
>>> In article <4756A372.8010004@myday.com>, Jon v Leip
>>>> Disagree.  From all my reading, I'd say plaque formation is a response
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
>  - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

LDL Cholesterol:
"Bad" Cholesterol, or Bad Science?

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
www.aapsonline.org/jpands/jpands1003.htm
Don Klipstein - 17 Dec 2007 18:53 GMT
>>> Imo, if serum chol- were the culprit, why isn't plaque buildup found
>>> evenly thruout the system???   Never heard of anyone needing a thigh or
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
>www.aapsonline.org/jpands/jpands1003.htm

 I did take a look.  It is one of 3 studies in the "Medical Controversies"
section.

 I am very used to seeing studies disagreeing with each other.  Sometimes
I find bad methodology, or conclusions not supported well by the study's
presented data, or lack of consideration to data that obviously should be
included, such as in some studies on global warming by McKitrick et al.

 I also have an impression that there is considerable noise in studies.

 I would like to see others, as well as where they get debated.

 Meanwhile, this study did reaffirm something I heard some fair amount
before:  That polyunsaturated fatty acids (except for omega-3 ones) were
not good the way cis-monounsaturated ones are.  Cis-mono ones, such as
oleic, which olive oil is rich in, were supposed to raise HDL.  Most
polyunsaturated ones, for example the linoleic that soybean oil is rich
in, were supposed to be roughly neutral in effect.  The study you point
out claims an ill effect of linoleic.

 Meanwhile, this study does not refute much in terms that having the
factors that favor high LDL and low HDL favor arterial plaques and vice
versa, merely claims that something else usually favored by such factors
is what does the damage and claims a few exceptions to the correlation.  
(Such as a group with good lipoprotein profile and diet that has low
intake of veggies, which are "well known" to be good, having a higher rate
of arterial plaque.)

--------------------------

 Another one of the 3 studies in the controversy section is on
homosexuality.  It claims that few people are homosexual or heterosexual,
but that most are bisexual.  It states that who people have sex with is a
choice.

 Well, there is a much older one that many like to bury, and it is by
Kinsey.  That one also says that most people have both homosexual and
heterosexual tendencies, but goes on to show what I would call a
"spectrum" of sexual orientation from strictly homosexual through various
degrees of bisexuality to strictly heterosexual.  The "Kinsey scale" is
applied separately to a measure of orientation and to actual activity.
Apparently, most people are bisexual but have their orientations lean one
way or the other enough to spend most of their lives having sex with
people of only one gender even where both are available.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 03 Dec 2007 00:25 GMT
>> I believe cholesterol is good for you.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc. don't manifest
>themselves early in life as a rule.

 Most diabetes is Type II, which mainly hits people who are overweight.
I have even heard of a specific trigger mechanism involving fat or fat
cells.  Type I often hits in childhood and was back then called "juvenile
diabetes" and is generally genetic in origin.  Of course, a genetic bad
disease that typically strikes in childhood will tend to be not too common
as explained here.  But my point is that most diabetes that is occurring
now would not occur if people did not get overweight.

>Otherwise, the disease itself
>would tend to disappear as those with it died or at least those who
>didn't get it could live and reproduce passing on their immunity. To
>me, cholesterol is like fast driving. I like to do it, but the odds
>are against you statistically having a good outcome in the long run.

 Back in the good old days, people also were a lot more active.  Along
with there being less fast food, especially supersize servings of french
fries with 570-600 calories and usually a good dose of trans fats.

(http://www.bk.com/Nutrition/PDFs/brochure.pdf - "King Size" fries

http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.nutrition.index1.html - large fries)

 And the standard individual size bottle of soda was smaller than 20
ounces then.  And advertized restaurant chains did not advertize or carry
burgers with a pound of beef plus bacon.  And fruit juices had lower sugar
content back then than they do now.  And we did not have Burger King the
way they do now, with a "flagship" burger having 160 calories just from
mayo - which has more calories per ounce than sugar!

 Also, back to activity, back in older times we did not have cable TV,
satellite TV, video games, music videos or Internet.  In fact, there were
times when there was no TV, and people were a lot less overweight then!  
And a higher percentage of the population walked to the nearest store than
drove to the nearest store.  Along with jobs on average requiring more
physical activity in older times than they do now.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 02 Dec 2007 23:54 GMT
In I8p4j.28423$lD6.26389@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net, Cubit said in part:

>> Luckily, there are lots of food choices that generally seem to work
>> well and keep weight down. I'm vegetarian and eat no cholesterol at
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>-strong cell walls and such...

 The human liver is plenty capable of making the stuff.  And eating
saturated fats and trans fats has a trend of stimulating most human livers
into making more of the "bad" LDL cholesterol.  So is being overweight.

 In fact, in about 80% of the population, dietary cholesterol intake does
not affect blood cholesterol level (total and LDL vs. HDL) as much as fat
intake (including kinds of fats), body fat content, and exercise.  The
other 20% has a genetic low ability to break down dietary cholesterol and
needs to greatly restrict cholesterol intake.

 If your total and LDL blood cholesterol levels are high despite doing
everything right, then you are a candidate for statins.  However, I see
few people with diets good for lowering total and "bad" cholesterol or
getting good exercise, let alone both.

 Another factor for clogging of arteries with arterial plaque is
triglycerides, which is basically fat in the blood.  This is boosted
mainly by being overweight and/or having higher calorie intake.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
MrsA - 03 Dec 2007 00:26 GMT
Yep.  That is why so many of us are on meds and special diets.
Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 00:33 GMT
> Yep.  That is why so many of us are on meds and special diets.

To whom are you responding?.

Marsha/Ohio
Jackie Patti - 03 Dec 2007 17:22 GMT
>   The human liver is plenty capable of making the stuff.  And eating
> saturated fats and trans fats has a trend of stimulating most human livers
> into making more of the "bad" LDL cholesterol.  So is being overweight.

Trans fats definitly have a bad effect, but I've not seen that it is so
simple wrt to saturated fats.

Chain length seems important, though I have no idea why this should be so.

And some saturated fats contain a lot more CLA and GLA and do not seem
to have the neagtive effects of other saturated fats.  Pasture-raised
animals have very different fats in their meat, milk and eggs than
typical products.

Also, the omega3:omega6 ratio is important; one of the problems with
people switching to vegetable oils is overall we've raised our omega6
level way too high.  Polyunsaturated fats are not neutral.

As far as I can tell from the research, the only truly neutral fats are
olive oil, avocado oil and rice bran oil.

Good fats include fish oil, flax, nuts, coconut oil and the meat, egg
and dairy from pasture-raised animals.

>   In fact, in about 80% of the population, dietary cholesterol intake does
> not affect blood cholesterol level (total and LDL vs. HDL) as much as fat
> intake (including kinds of fats), body fat content, and exercise.  The
> other 20% has a genetic low ability to break down dietary cholesterol and
> needs to greatly restrict cholesterol intake.

I'd be interested in seeing this research; I've been researching this
topic the past few months and haven't seen this data yet. Do you have a
reference?

>   If your total and LDL blood cholesterol levels are high despite doing
> everything right, then you are a candidate for statins.  However, I see
> few people with diets good for lowering total and "bad" cholesterol or
> getting good exercise, let alone both.

True.

However, all LDL isn't bad.  If my LDL were high (it happens to be 59 on
the last test I saw, so not high at all), first thing I'd want is a full
lipoprotein panel in order to determine what type of LDL I had... if
it's mostly the light, fluffy stuff, that's good.

I agree with you that if LDL needs lowering, diet and exercise are
preferable to drugs.

If drugs are needed, there's better drugs than statins.  If I had high
LDL, I'd probably start with SloNiacin (which I take for other reasons
discussed below).  If I didn't get enough improvement from that, Zetia
and Werchol are better than statins as they work in the gut, do not
interfere with the liver and therefore do not disrupt endogenous steroid
production with the myriad of muscle and cognitive side effects statin
produce.

If my LDL were elevated in spite of everything I did wrt to diet,
exercise, maximizing niacin and either Zetia or Werchol, and I just
flatout needed a statin, I'd take the smallest effective dose and add
CoenzymeQ10 to my supplement regimen to reduce statin side effects.

>   Another factor for clogging of arteries with arterial plaque is
> triglycerides, which is basically fat in the blood.  This is boosted
> mainly by being overweight and/or having higher calorie intake.

Calories do not correlate to triglycerides directly; it depends on what
the calories are.  You could eat 8000 calories of whey protein every day
and there'd be nearly no effect on your triglycerides.

Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides.  As a five-ring
sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is
removed from the blood by the liver and converted to triglycerides and
released back to the blood, where it travels to adipose tissue to be
stored.  If you're lucky, none of it clogs up the coronary arteries on
the way.

Glucose isn't quite so bad, in that your body has direct metabolic use
for glucose and will use it if needed.  But if you eat more carb than
you need, it goes through the same basic pathway, liver converting it to
triglycerides and storage in adipose.

Most foods we think of as "sugars" are fructose, glucose, galactose or a
di-mer of them.  Most foods we think of as "starches" are glucose
polymers.  So cutting sugar and starch intake is the fastest way to
bring triglycerides down.

Equally important, but not discussed in your post, is HDL.   This is the
worst part of my personal lipid panel and hasn't improved with diet and
exercise, so I'm taking SloNiacin for it.  I've just titrated up to 1000
mg (began at 500 mg) and am aiming for 2000 eventually as my daily dose.
 As far as I've been able to tell, niacin is the only
cholesterol-lowering medication that actually *raises* HDL, therefore
improving the entire lipid panel.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 00:10 GMT
In <47543b58$0$2741$470ef3ce@news.pa.net>, Jackie Patti wrote in part:

>>   Another factor for clogging of arteries with arterial plaque is
>> triglycerides, which is basically fat in the blood.  This is boosted
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>the calories are.  You could eat 8000 calories of whey protein every day
>and there'd be nearly no effect on your triglycerides.

 Eat 4.4 pounds dry weight of protein daily and I doubt you would live
long - that will put some serious stress on the liver and kidneys!

>Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides.  As a five-ring
>sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is
>removed from the blood by the liver and converted to triglycerides and
>released back to the blood, where it travels to adipose tissue to be
>stored.

 Then why is HCFS-55 (55% fructose) supposed to be so much worse than
sucrose which is a disaccharide with one of the two saccharides being
fructose?

 Why do I also hear bad things about the 6-ring variant of fructose,
which the 5-ring form is said to change into if fructose is used in baked
goods and hot coffee?

 Why do at least some of the anti-carbers like sorbitol and mannitol,
which must be metabolized by the liver?  I see "low carb" candy made with
these!  Why should anti-carbers like those and hate fructose?

>  If you're lucky, none of it clogs up the coronary arteries on
>the way.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>you need, it goes through the same basic pathway, liver converting it to
>triglycerides and storage in adipose.

 Excessive calories in any form have the same fate.

>Most foods we think of as "sugars" are fructose, glucose, galactose or a
>di-mer of them.  Most foods we think of as "starches" are glucose
>polymers.  So cutting sugar and starch intake is the fastest way to
>bring triglycerides down.

 The American Heart Association does not emphasize carbs as especially
bad calories for blood triglyceride levels to this extent.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 04 Dec 2007 02:58 GMT
>> Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides.  As a five-ring
>> sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> sucrose which is a disaccharide with one of the two saccharides being
> fructose?

HFCS is worse for triglyceride levels because it contains more fructose
than sucrose.  55% is more than 50%.

Also, HFCS produces carbonyls in solution; there's evidence this is one
of the causes of diabetes aside from the fructose.

>   Why do I also hear bad things about the 6-ring variant of fructose,
> which the 5-ring form is said to change into if fructose is used in baked
> goods and hot coffee?

I'm not sure what the "6-ring variant of fructose" is.  I need something
more specific to address your question.

>   Why do at least some of the anti-carbers like sorbitol and mannitol,
> which must be metabolized by the liver?  I see "low carb" candy made with
> these!  Why should anti-carbers like those and hate fructose?

That entirely depends.  Many do *not* like them because they have
laxative effects.  Many who test their blood glucose regularly find some
 or all sugar alcohols raise bg as much as sugar, so they're not a very
useful replacement.  Some do like them.  YMMV.

I'm not sure what the relevance is though.  I was discussing
carbohydrate metabolism.  Fructose not being a healthy sugar does not
imply sugar alcohols are healthy either; the two issues are entirely
unrelated.

I'm not sure you understood my explanation of fructose metabolism; you
seem to think that liver metabolising fructose is somehow significant.
The liver being involved isn't the significant bit.  The significant bit
is liver metabolism of fructose raises serum triglycerides and therefore
raises the risk of heart disease and that triglycerides are removed from
the blood by adipose and stored as fat.

It's particulary distressing because fructose was long recommended to
diabetics as a very low-GI sugar.  And this is true, it doesn't raise
blood glucose much at all, but in exchange for not raising bg, it gives
you atherosclerosis and makes you fat - not exactly a good tradeoff if
one is trying to optimize their health.

>   Excessive calories in any form have the same fate.

You don't need "excess" fructose to produce serum triglycerides and
adipose; any fructose will do.  The body can only convert it to glucose
at very small quantities and has no other use for it except to sock it
away for storage.  This happens whether it's "excess" fructose or not,
if the endocrine system is working properly, the fat will be burned
while you're asleep or when caloric intake is insufficient. However,
nearly all fructose becomes triglycerides - that's simply basic human
biochemistry.

Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways
of foods are *not* the same.  Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as
protein metabolism is not the same as fat metabolism.  The chemical
equations are different, the hormones that drive the equations are
different, the end products are different.

>   The American Heart Association does not emphasize carbs as especially
> bad calories for blood triglyceride levels to this extent.

The AHA allows their heart-healthy logo to be used on Cocoa Puffs and
well... I just can't discuss nutrition with anyone who thinks Cocoa
Puffs is health food.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 03:28 GMT
>>> Fructose is the worst food for raising triglycerides.  As a five-ring
>>> sugar, it is hard for the body to convert to glucose, so most of it is
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
>nearly all fructose becomes triglycerides - that's simply basic human
>biochemistry.

 Then why are fruits supposed to be good (though hated by a few
anti-carbers)?

>Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways
>of foods are *not* the same.  Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as
>protein metabolism is not the same as fat metabolism.  The chemical
>equations are different, the hormones that drive the equations are
>different, the end products are different.

 The ultimate end products are either body fat or CO2+water (and some
ammonia, uric acid or urea when proteins are metabolized - I forget which
of these the amino group usually goes into when protein is metabolized).  
Unless one is in the process of gaining actual body weight other than fat
and water that is.

 Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change
that into glucose for that matter.

>>   The American Heart Association does not emphasize carbs as especially
>> bad calories for blood triglyceride levels to this extent.
>
>The AHA allows their heart-healthy logo to be used on Cocoa Puffs and
>well... I just can't discuss nutrition with anyone who thinks Cocoa
>Puffs is health food.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 04 Dec 2007 04:38 GMT
>   Then why are fruits supposed to be good (though hated by a few
> anti-carbers)?

I'm not sure what an "anti-carber" is.

I eat low-carb and eat fruit daily, usually at two meals, though
sometimes only at one.  I eat blueberries, blackberries, raspberries,
strawberries, kiwi, watermelon, honeydew, cantalope, lemons, limes,
pomegranates, apples, peaches, tangerines, oranges.

I don't eat them for the fructose, but for the vitamins, minerals, fiber
and phytochemicals.  And I eat them because I enjoy berries stirred into
my yogurt, I find melon on the side of some cottage cheese to be a
pleasant breakfast, I like stevia-sweetened lemonade and limeade as a
beverage, and I find a kiwi or half a pomegranate as dessert after
dinner pleasurable.

>> Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways
>> of foods are *not* the same.  Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Unless one is in the process of gaining actual body weight other than fat
> and water that is.

I'm beginning to suspect you are purposely being silly.

I fed my daughter when she was a baby and am pretty certain I have
empirical evidence that more end products than you suggest were
produced.  She's significantly taller at age 24 than when I gave birth
and I'm pretty darned certain she doesn't consist primarily of C02, urea
and fat.  I guess the muscles and internal organs just appeared out of
nowhere, eh?  What a waste feeding her all those years!

I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat,
cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my
biochemistry courses.

>   Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change
> that into glucose for that matter.

It's not the same.  In fat, only the glycerol portion can be converted
to glucose, and it takes two triglycerides to produce a single glucose
molecule.  Given the average molecular weight of fats (variable since
fatty acids can be different lengths and contain different numebrs of
hydrogen molecules), around 10% of fat on average can be converted to
glucose.  The rest of fat (the three fatty acids making up a
"triglyceride" ) is metabolised in entirely different biochemical cycles
than glucose; you don't feed fatty acids into the Kreb's cycle .

Protein is entirely different still.  You hit the nail on the head with
nitrogen; you cannot convert fat or carb to protein as they do not
contain nitrogen.  Protein also contains sulfur.  Protein weight varies
since the various amino acids vary, but on average only 50% can be
converted to glucose.  How much is actually converted depends on a
variety of factors, largely under control of the endocrine system.

If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located
here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html

All the pathway diagrams are located on this page:
http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/BiochSupp/PathwayDiagrams/PathIndex.html -
you find me the one where carbohydrates can be catabolised to urea; I'll
be very interested to hear about it.  Thanks.

You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the
liver to triglycerides all you like, but you can't change basic
biochemical fact anymore than you can suspend the laws of thermodynamics.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Don Klipstein - 08 Dec 2007 07:41 GMT
>>   Then why are fruits supposed to be good (though hated by a few
>> anti-carbers)?
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>beverage, and I find a kiwi or half a pomegranate as dessert after
>dinner pleasurable.

 In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have
been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", sometimes
citing title and author, to extent (in one case) of arguing that an apple
is fattening while a quantity of sausage with same calorie count is not.

>>> Any introductory biochemistry textbook will show the metabolic pathways
>>> of foods are *not* the same.  Carbohydrate metabolism is not the same as
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>and fat.  I guess the muscles and internal organs just appeared out of
>nowhere, eh?  What a waste feeding her all those years!

 OK, I may have to add that my comments had to do with kind of calorie
intake breakdown by those who had free choice in their diets - which
should be adults.  Most people don't die of natural causes at a ripe old
age with more muscle mass than they had at age 18.

>I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat,
>cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my
>biochemistry courses.

 That's because only protein can contribute to urea.  Plenty of the
anti-carbers sure like protein!

>>   Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change
>> that into glucose for that matter.
>
>It's not the same.  In fat, only the glycerol portion can be converted
>to glucose, and it takes two triglycerides to produce a single glucose
>molecule.

 Then what the hell comes from the fatty acids?  Why the hell should the
human body store spare caloric energy in a form with most of the stored
caloric content in fatty acids?

> Given the average molecular weight of fats (variable since
>fatty acids can be different lengths and contain different numebrs of
>hydrogen molecules), around 10% of fat on average can be converted to
>glucose.  The rest of fat (the three fatty acids making up a
>"triglyceride" ) is metabolised in entirely different biochemical cycles
>than glucose; you don't feed fatty acids into the Kreb's cycle .

 OK, you tell me what it does become!  The body does make use of it!

>Protein is entirely different still.  You hit the nail on the head with
>nitrogen; you cannot convert fat or carb to protein as they do not
>contain nitrogen.  Protein also contains sulfur.  Protein weight varies
>since the various amino acids vary, but on average only 50% can be
>converted to glucose.  How much is actually converted depends on a
>variety of factors, largely under control of the endocrine system.

 On average for protein, human metabolism gets 4 calories per gram from
protein.  I suspect the actual heat of combustion of "average protein" is
more like 5 or 5.5 calories per gram.

>If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located
>here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>you find me the one where carbohydrates can be catabolised to urea; I'll
>be very interested to hear about it.  Thanks.

 I did not yet look and I only claimed that proteins go to urea.

>You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the
>liver to triglycerides all you like,

 What I claim is that all forms of caloric food do or can become
triglycerides.

 Switch from carb intake from fructose to carb intake from glucose, and
then your insulin upticks to get more glucose converted to triglycerides.
Switch claorie intake from carb to other forms, and other metabolic
pathways manage similar triglyceride output in most people not having a
shortage of anything that is good.

> but you can't change basic
>biochemical fact anymore than you can suspend the laws of thermodynamics.

 Such as the above?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 08 Dec 2007 12:56 GMT
>   In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have
> been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", sometimes
> citing title and author, to extent (in one case) of arguing that an apple
> is fattening while a quantity of sausage with same calorie count is not.

OK.

I'm diabetic, so frankly more concerned with managing bg than weight
loss.  To me personally, fat loss is a side effect of low-carb, not the
purpose.

An apple most definitly will raise my bg more than sausage.  Apples
contain twice as much sucrose and glucose and it does fiber.

However, since a third of the carbohydrate is fructose, it will likely
have more effect on my serum triglycerides.

That "cost" buys me a lot of nutrients though.

Sausage will raise my bg slightly also.  I find in my body that protein
is not insiginficant to my bg readings.  Small amounts of fat also can
convert to glucose, but practically speaking the difference is not
measurable.

Practically speaking, as someone who uses insulin, I find I 10g net
carbs require an equivalent amount of bolus insulin as 30g protein.
This is of course dependent on many factors, including my specific
biochemistry and my diet, there's too many variables to state it as a
"rule" or anything, except for me.

>   OK, I may have to add that my comments had to do with kind of calorie
> intake breakdown by those who had free choice in their diets - which
> should be adults.  Most people don't die of natural causes at a ripe old
> age with more muscle mass than they had at age 18.

You're oversimplifying though.

For instance, if you follow the pathways through, the end products of
ethanol are water and carbon monoxide (pretty much the same as for
carbohydrates).

But much ethanol is lost prior to completing the pathways, the
intermediate acetic acid is lost in urine.  So all the ethanol calories
are not actually available to the body.

When you go through the biochemical pathways, you see a lot of this sort
of thing.

Calories are measured in a bomb calorimeter, in which the food is
reduced entirely to ash and water.  It's a very precise way of measuring
the potential energy in food.  But bodies are not nearly as efficient at
extracting energy from food as a calorimeter is; biochemistry just
doesn't work like that.

>> I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat,
>> cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my
>> biochemistry courses.
>
>   That's because only protein can contribute to urea.  Plenty of the
> anti-carbers sure like protein!

I don't know.  I don't think I've ever met an anti-carber.  But I've
only been hanging around on low carb fora for about a decade, so...

>>>   Any form of calories can become triglycerides, and the body can change
>>> that into glucose for that matter.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> human body store spare caloric energy in a form with most of the stored
> caloric content in fatty acids?

Free fatty acids can enter blood and muscle fiber by diffusion.

Fatty acids are used as building blocks for cell membranes, just as
amino acids are the building blocks of muscle.

They are also used to produce cellular energy by being activated and
transported into the mitochondria and burnt via the beta-oxidation
cycle, which produces acetyl co-A to be fed into the Kreb's cycle.

They are also converted to ketones by the liver, some of which are burnt
for energy and some of which are lost in urine and breath - we do not
also extract energy from fat efficiently.

Some may be converted back to triglycerides by they lvier for transport
to adipose.

Specifically what occurs to an excess of fatty acids in the body depends
on the insulin, glucagon, epinephrine and norepinephrine levels at the
time.  It also depends on the concentrations of various cellular
enzymes; during sleep, you are more in "fat burning" mode than when up
and about.  There's a lot of possibilities.

>> Given the average molecular weight of fats (variable since
>> fatty acids can be different lengths and contain different numebrs of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>   OK, you tell me what it does become!  The body does make use of it!

It uses some.  Some it throws away partially used though.

>   On average for protein, human metabolism gets 4 calories per gram from
> protein.  I suspect the actual heat of combustion of "average protein" is
> more like 5 or 5.5 calories per gram.

Bomb calorimeter measurements have little to do with it though.  You
excrete most excess nitrogen as urea, which is not a fully oxidized
version of nitrogen as results from combustion.   You don't extract all
the calories from it.

>> If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located
>> here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>   I did not yet look and I only claimed that proteins go to urea.

The nitrogen bit often does, yes.  It's also used in building proteins
in your body, not just muscles, but enzymes and such, as well as nucleic
acids.

>> You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the
>> liver to triglycerides all you like,
>
>   What I claim is that all forms of caloric food do or can become
> triglycerides.

With high blood glucose and corresponding high insulin resistance, very
little glucose makes it into somatic cells to be used for energy.  In
that case, the liver clears it from the blood and stores it as
triglycerides.

But that's not the only choice.  Glucose can be used to produce ATP via
the Kreb's cycle and burned as cellular energy.

For most biochemicals, it depends on what is going on with the entire
body at the time, hormones, enzyme levels, etc.

Fructose has the same empirical formula as glucose, but it's got a weird
shape relative to glucose, so it is very hard to convert it.  So nearly
all fructose becomes triglycerides regardless of what is going on with
those levels just because that's pretty much all the body can do
efficiently with an influx of fructose.

>   Switch from carb intake from fructose to carb intake from glucose, and
> then your insulin upticks to get more glucose converted to triglycerides.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>   Such as the above?

Certainly all carbs are readily converted to triglycerides, if the
biochemical environment is right for that.

Fructose does it regardless of the biochemcial environment though, cause
our bodies aren't set up to do much with fructose except store it for
the coming winter.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Don Klipstein - 10 Dec 2007 23:44 GMT
>>   In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have
>> been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", sometimes
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>intermediate acetic acid is lost in urine.  So all the ethanol calories
>are not actually available to the body.

 The way I hear it, not much acetic acid goes that way - the liver
metabolized a majority of it, and the muscles also metaboplize it.

>When you go through the biochemical pathways, you see a lot of this sort
>of thing.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>extracting energy from food as a calorimeter is; biochemistry just
>doesn't work like that.

 That's why protein gets counted as 4 calories per gram rather than the
roughly 5.4 actual heat of combustion.

>>> I also want to see how you produce urea from either carbohydrate or fat,
>>> cause converting carbon to nitrogen just wasn't covered in any of my
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>Fatty acids are used as building blocks for cell membranes, just as
>amino acids are the building blocks of muscle.

>They are also used to produce cellular energy by being activated and
>transported into the mitochondria and burnt via the beta-oxidation
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>for energy and some of which are lost in urine and breath - we do not
>also extract energy from fat efficiently.

 Then why does urine normally not have ketones even though people
normally have nonzero fat intake?

 Also, any inefficiency in energy extraction while oxidizing anything
means heat.  This reduces the requirement of the body to burn calories to
maintain body temperature.

>Some may be converted back to triglycerides by they lvier for transport
>to adipose.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>It uses some.  Some it throws away partially used though.

 How?  Usual ketone level in urine is zero.

>>   On average for protein, human metabolism gets 4 calories per gram from
>> protein.  I suspect the actual heat of combustion of "average protein" is
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>version of nitrogen as results from combustion.   You don't extract all
>the calories from it.

 That's why bomb calorimeters say 5.4 while protein is only counted as 4
calories per gram.

>>> If you can't afford a textbook, an online biochemistry course is located
>>> here: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/C431.F07/C431Notes/index.html
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>in your body, not just muscles, but enzymes and such, as well as nucleic
>acids.

 As long as the body's content of muscles, enzymes, etc. is staying the
same, the amount of protein being metabolized is the same as the amount of
protein being taken in.

>>> You can dislike that nearly all dietary fructose is converted by the
>>> liver to triglycerides all you like,
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>those levels just because that's pretty much all the body can do
>efficiently with an influx of fructose.

>>   Switch from carb intake from fructose to carb intake from glucose, and
>> then your insulin upticks to get more glucose converted to triglycerides.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Certainly all carbs are readily converted to triglycerides, if the
>biochemical environment is right for that.

 Same for all calorie forms in general.

>Fructose does it regardless of the biochemcial environment though, cause
>our bodies aren't set up to do much with fructose except store it for
>the coming winter.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Aaron Baugher - 10 Dec 2007 16:44 GMT
> In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have
> been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books",
> sometimes citing title and author, to extent (in one case) of arguing
> that an apple is fattening while a quantity of sausage with same
> calorie count is not.

This is true, in general.  Yes, since both foods give the body the same
amount of energy to do something with, they're *potentially* equally
fattening.  But the higher amount of carbohydrate in the apple will
cause a great production of insulin and other factors that increase the
chance of the body storing that energy as fat.

Of course, we rarely eat foods in a vacuum, so a lot depends on what I
eat the apple or sausage with.  If I have the sausage with pancakes, and
the apple as part of a low-carb salad with lettuce, nuts, and mayo; then
more of the sausage may be stored as fat than the apple.  But it's not
because the sausage is "fattening"; it's because the pancakes are.
Being calorie-dense doesn't automatically make something fattening; I
have to eat enough of it to have extra energy to store (which is less
likely to happen on low-carb in the first place), and I have to trigger
the chemical reactions to cause it to be stored.

Signature

Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Don Klipstein - 10 Dec 2007 23:56 GMT
>> In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have
>> been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books",
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>cause a great production of insulin and other factors that increase the
>chance of the body storing that energy as fat.

 Insulin is produced to regulate blood glucose concentration.  If your
blood glucose level was already adequate, insulin upticks to store just
the extra calories as fat.  Eat a sausage instead of an apple, and the
sausage's calories don't need any insulin to make you fat.

>Of course, we rarely eat foods in a vacuum, so a lot depends on what I
>eat the apple or sausage with.  If I have the sausage with pancakes, and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>have to eat enough of it to have extra energy to store (which is less
>likely to happen on low-carb in the first place),

 Which is less likely to happen if you consume less food energy and more
likley to happen if you consume more food energy.  Insulin is produced to
regulate blood sugar.  Carbs that are part of excessive calorie intake
trigger insulin release to get them converted to fat.  Excessive calories
in other forms have other routes to become fat - you don't see much of
those coming out in breath or urine - they go somewhere!

> and I have to trigger
>the chemical reactions to cause it to be stored.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 00:30 GMT
In <47543b58$0$2741$470ef3ce@news.pa.net>, Jackie Patti wrote in part:

>>   In fact, in about 80% of the population, dietary cholesterol intake does
>> not affect blood cholesterol level (total and LDL vs. HDL) as much as fat
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>topic the past few months and haven't seen this data yet. Do you have a
>reference?

 I saw that in a newspaper article several years ago.

 Now, Google is telling me that the problem is with 15% of the population
and is a faulty cholesterol regulation mechanism.  The other 85% of the
population has their bodies producing less cholesterol if more is eaten
and vice versa, while fat intake (both quantity and what kinds of fat are
eaten) affect blood cholesterol more than dietary cholesterol intake does.

 In the 15% of the population with faulty cholesterol regulation, it is
important to restrict intake of dietary cholesterol.

 An earlier link that I got from Google after a few minutes working on
this is:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n242/ai_19945113

 If I spent more time reading Google returns from

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22dietary+cholesterol%22+15+
%22percent+of+the+population%22

I think I would find among the first 100-200 of the 2,050 hits that
explain this well and give good citations if I put more time into reading
these hits to find and identify the really good ones.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
MU - 02 Dec 2007 06:35 GMT
> Your post made me hungry.

Then you still have a serious problem.
Cubit - 02 Dec 2007 15:01 GMT
>> Your post made me hungry.
>
> Then you still have a serious problem.

Low calorie days have windows of vulnerability.

I've been at maintenance for 2 years now.

I felt my post was humorous, and it happens it was true too.  I went and had
a protein shake.
MU - 03 Dec 2007 01:57 GMT
>>> Your post made me hungry.
>>
>> Then you still have a serious problem.
>
> Low calorie days have windows of vulnerability.

If you're vulnerable to simply *reading* about food, then you still have a
serious problem.

> I've been at maintenance for 2 years now.

So?

> I felt my post was humorous, and it happens it was true too.  I went and had
> a protein shake.

Then you still have a serious problem.
Marsha - 03 Dec 2007 02:23 GMT
>>>>Your post made me hungry.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Then you still have a serious problem.

I disagree, Mu.  I haven't smoked for 22 years, yet sometimes when my SO
lights a cigarette, it still smells "good".  I do not have a serious
problem, because I have no intention of acting those feelings.

Marsha/Ohio
MU - 03 Dec 2007 03:50 GMT
>> If you're vulnerable to simply *reading* about food, then you still have a
>> serious problem.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Marsha/Ohio

When you read your post about smoking, did it make you want to smoke?
Charmander - 03 Dec 2007 17:35 GMT
Signature

What's popular isn't always right.  What's right isn't always popular.

> Your post made me hungry.
>
> Curious they didn't look for trans fats and high fructose corn syrup.
for real!
I don't feel so guilty about eating my ramen w/miso, tofu, & nori while
reading this.  I'm kind of glad I don't have access to many of these places.
The restaurants around here are bad enough as it is.  Seems if we go out any
more, we only hit the habachi grills.
Jon v Leipzig - 02 Dec 2007 10:59 GMT
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>
> The 20 worst foods in America
>  
> The U.S. food industry has declared war on your waistline.

Why....does the food industry also manufacture pants ??

> Eat at your own risk

If you eat one of these meals per week, what's the risk???

> By: Matt Goulding, Men's Health magazine
> Sure, a turkey burger sounds healthy. But is it, really? Not if you order
[quoted text clipped - 310 lines]
>  
>  
Jim - 02 Dec 2007 11:29 GMT
>> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> If you eat one of these meals per week, what's the risk???

3.14159
Lisbeth Andersson - 02 Dec 2007 20:49 GMT
>>> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20Wor
>>> stFoods
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> 3.14159

Your talk about PIE has made me hungry. :-(

Lisbeth.

----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.

*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.

Signature

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

dkw12002@yahoo.com - 02 Dec 2007 18:31 GMT
> >http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>
[quoted text clipped - 314 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nobody could really tell you the risk. I have occasionally heard that
you are more likely to have a stroke or heart attack after such a high-
fat, high cal meal, but that could just be coincidental. There are far
too many factors to determine the risk including what, if anything you
did to offset it, like exercising a little more, eating less another
day, taking an aspirin, your particular genetics, present age,
condition, etc, etc. Even then nobody can tell you for certain that
being a little fat or eating a little too much cholesterol would be
statistically significant even for the population at large, so it
boils down to a judgement call and opinions. dkw
Lady Veteran - 02 Dec 2007 18:26 GMT
>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods

If a hamburger has all that fat in it at a fast foot place-how do
homemade burgers stack up?

one beef patty, tomatoes, 1/2 teaspoon mayo, dash of mustard. one
slice Velveeta cheese and two regular sized buns?

LV

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Don Klipstein - 03 Dec 2007 01:12 GMT
>>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>>
>If a hamburger has all that fat in it at a fast foot place-how do
>homemade burgers stack up?
>
>one beef patty,

 A 6 ounce precooked weight beef patty has 330 calories.  A 1/4 pound one
has 220 calories.

>tomatoes,

 Not much, a bit of sugars.

>1/2 teaspoon mayo,

 That's little mayo as far as burgers with mayo go.  I only see people
use at least half a tablespoon or none at all.  But a mere half
teaspoon of mayo has 20 calories.

 A Whopper has 160 of its 670 calories from mayo.  10 of those are from
carbs and 150 of those are from fat, but BK omits the mayo in their
bunless "Low Carb Whopper".

> dash of mustard.

 Just a few calories.

> one slice Velveeta cheese

 80 calories

>and two regular sized buns?

 A burger bun has 150-170 calories, based on looking up nutritional info
on a couple of McD's burgers.  Most are white bread, which has somewhere
around 55-60 calories per ounce if I remember well from back when I read a
couple of bread packages.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Lady Veteran - 04 Dec 2007 01:05 GMT
>>>http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

so it seems that the condiments are the villain here? Yes, meat has a
high calorie content but those are primarily protein calories. Home
made most of the time uses a better cut of meat or ground chuck.

LV

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 01:41 GMT
<Calorie analysis of a homemade burger with specific ingredients>

>so it seems that the condiments are the villain here? Yes, meat has a
>high calorie content but those are primarily protein calories. Home
>made most of the time uses a better cut of meat or ground chuck.

 I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein
calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt
to lose body fat generally failing.  The 4 calories per gram "official
figure" for protein is already discounted for the human body not oxidizing
it completely.

 The condiments are significant villains if they are calorie-dense ones,
and I see mayo standing out in this area.  Plenty of mayo has almost twice
the calorie density of sugar!  Ketchup and mustard have much lower calorie
density than the usual calorie-dense mayo, though usually plenty of salt.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 04 Dec 2007 03:17 GMT
>   I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein
> calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt
> to lose body fat generally failing.  The 4 calories per gram "official
> figure" for protein is already discounted for the human body not oxidizing
> it completely.

I'm curious where you see this.

I've been a diabetic almost 2 decades now and have been low-carbing for
about a decade, during which time I've participated in many different
low-carb fora, both online and offline.

I've really never seen people eating more protein when they low-carb for
any length of time.  Sometimes when they start, they go overboard for a
while, but it never lasts.

I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself.
   I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do
not eat more protein.

My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets.

The Yudkin study is discussed by Dr. Mike Eades here:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/2007/09/11/is-a-calorie-always-a-calorie/

"Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk
daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter,
margarine, cream and leafy vegetables as they wished. The amount of
carbohydrate in other food was listed in 'units' with each unit
consisting of 5 g carbohydrate; the subjects were told to limit these
foods to not more than 10 units (or 50 g) carbohydrate daily."

They found instructing folks this way resulted in them eating less carb
(216g reduced to 67g per day), about the same amount of protein (84g vs.
83g) and less fat (124g to only 105g per day).

Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy
foods for more servings of vegetables.  I've frankly never understood
why eating mashed cauliflower instead of mashed potatoes was considered
*controversial* - less carb, same amount of protein, less fat and more
veggies... what exactly is so *bad* about this?

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Don Klipstein - 08 Dec 2007 07:24 GMT
>>   I see people eating more protein and less carb (or less non-protein
>> calories in general while eating same high total calories) in an attempt
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>    I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do
>not eat more protein.

 I hear plenty of low carb advocates advocating increased protein
consumption.

>My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets.

 My experience is that low-carbing coworkers increase consumption of fat
and protein.

 If you decrease carb intake without increasing intake of fat or protein,
then you are decreasing your calorie intake.

>"Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk
>daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter,
>margarine, cream and leafy vegetables as they wished. The amount of
>carbohydrate in other food was listed in 'units' with each unit
>consisting of 5 g carbohydrate; the subjects were told to limit these
>foods to not more than 10 units (or 50 g) carbohydrate daily."

>They found instructing folks this way resulted in them eating less carb
>(216g reduced to 67g per day), about the same amount of protein (84g vs.
>83g) and less fat (124g to only 105g per day).

 My experience is that people limiting carbs so severely and eating as
much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and
more protein than before.

 One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to
105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545.
 My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their
intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much
to reduce their calorie intake due to following some belief that carb
calories are fattening and other calories are not.  They tend to not lose
much weight as a result, then get skeptical of all diets and get more
fatalistic about getting in a good shape via diet.  Also, while being less
physically active than most Americans were before 1965-1970 or so.

>Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy
>foods for more servings of vegetables.

 That will give weight loss, and most Americans eat to little of veggies
and too much of starchy foods (as well as excessive fat and protein).

>  I've frankly never understood why eating mashed cauliflower instead of
> mashed potatoes was considered *controversial* - less carb,

 4 grams or so per ounce of each vegetable product

> same amount of protein,

 1 gram or fraction of a gram per ounce of vegetable product

> less fat

 Potatoes and cauliflower both have negligible fat content.  1/4 pound
of each have maybe a gram of fat.

> and more veggies... what exactly is so *bad* about this?

 The controversy comes in part from using examples of reduction of
calories to claim that carbs as opposed to calories in general being
fattening.

 Potatoes have no more fat than cauliflower, and potatoes have 20
calories per ounce.  If one is getting fat from potatoes, it's probably
from high calorie density fatty toppings or eating some serious bulkage of
potatoes (or both).  But I don't mind cauliflower - I think most Americans
don't eat enough veggies.
 Personally, I eat plenty of veggies - though mainly ones green, red,
orange or yellow in color rather than cauliflower.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 08 Dec 2007 12:17 GMT
>> I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself.
>>    I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do
>> not eat more protein.
>   I hear plenty of low carb advocates advocating increased protein
> consumption.

And you measured what they eat, right?

>> My fat consumption has decreased also, as is typical on low-carb diets.
>
>   My experience is that low-carbing coworkers increase consumption of fat
> and protein.

And you measured what they eat, right?

So your experience trumps an actual study in which these things were
measured, eh?

>> "Essentially, the subjects were asked to take between 10 and 20 oz milk
>> daily (about 300-600 ml), and as much meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter,
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and
> more protein than before.

By percentage, that is absolutely true; my diet is approximately 60-70%
of the calories from fat.  If my body processed food by percentage, it
would matter.

But by amount, it's less fat than I ate on a high-carb diet with lots of
whole grains like quinoa and brown rice when I was trying to limit fat
as much as possible.

>   One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to
> 105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545.

Yup.  My calories average 1400-1600 per day and have for years now, so
the study didn't surprise me when I found it.  People eating ad libitum
on low-carb spontaneously reduce calories; it's been shown again and
again.

My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots
of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories.  Consumption
of a couple pounds per day of veggies does cut the calories quite a bit
since they contain largely noncaloric water.

>   My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their
> intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> fatalistic about getting in a good shape via diet.  Also, while being less
> physically active than most Americans were before 1965-1970 or so.

Your personal experience is watching people eat, not measuring what
they're eating, and not doing it yourself.  I don't think that trumps
either actual research or the personal experience of folks who've done it.

Throwing out the bun on a hamburger does not increase the calories in
the burger any.  It just decreases your hunger since it limits insulin
spikes.

I've maintained a 50 lb loss for several years, so... your experience
not doing the diet is not very compelling to me in the face of my own
experience.

More importantly, I've maintained bg levels and thus reduced my chances
of suffering diabetic complications.  Cause hey, I *could* eat lots of
carbs and wind up needing bits amputated, but that'd be a crappy way to
lose weight.  YMMV.

>> Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy
>> foods for more servings of vegetables.
>
>   That will give weight loss, and most Americans eat to little of veggies
> and too much of starchy foods (as well as excessive fat and protein).

I agree that hardly anyone eats enough veggies; most Americans don't
even hit the lame-a.s USDA recommendations.

>   The controversy comes in part from using examples of reduction of
> calories to claim that carbs as opposed to calories in general being
> fattening.

Discussing calories *only* ignores the biochemical cycles involved and
the hormonal effects of diet.

About 14 years or so ago, I did a low-fat diet for a year.  I was hungry
*all* the time, don't know how I lasted a year, it was just sheer
willpower.  I became progressively weaker until I could barely get to
work and spent nearly all the rest of the time in bed by the end of the
year.  And at the end of the year, I'd gained weight.

Then I bought a bg meter and learned to eat low-carb.  I have never been
hungry on low-carb - over a decade with hardly any "willpower" needed to
do it.  Without much fast-acting carb in my diet, my bg doesn't rise and
I don't feel that painful type of hunger that wakes you from a dead sleep.

Both weight loss and maintenance works *practically* on low-carb in a
way it doesn't on just lowering isocalorically.

And as we've seen, when scientists actually *measure* what people eat on
low-carb, protein intake does not rise and fat intake decreases.

>   Potatoes have no more fat than cauliflower, and potatoes have 20
> calories per ounce.  If one is getting fat from potatoes, it's probably
> from high calorie density fatty toppings or eating some serious bulkage of
> potatoes (or both).  But I don't mind cauliflower - I think most Americans
> don't eat enough veggies.

I don't know how *you* make mashed potatoes, but I've never really made
them without at least milk and butter myself, but they're much better
with sour cream and chives.  I do the same with mashed cauliflower.

They're similar veggies generally, in being very bland, boring foods
with little taste appeal until doctored up somehow.  They fit in the
diet the same way, which is why I used them as examples as mashed
cauliflower easily replaces mashed potatoes.

The significant difference is that potatoes contain a lot of starch (21g
carb in 100g potato) whereas cauliflower doesn't (4g per 100g
cauliflower); about one tenth of the potato carbs are fiber whereas half
of cauliflower's are.

Based on bg measurements I've made with Sweetarts (nearly pure glucose),
the potato would raise my bg about 60 mg/dL and the cauliflower about 6
mg/dL.

The spike from potato contributes to insulin resistance and thus the
glucose is less likely to enter cells to be used for energy and more
likely to be converted to triglycerides and stored in adipose.  Thus the
potato is more likely to result in fatigue, rebound hunger and fat gain.
 All this from half a medium sixed potato.

And yes, the cauliflower only has about a quarter of the calories of the
potato.

This isn't even getting into the micronutrient differences.  Cauliflower
has significant amounts of vitamins C, K, B6 and folate in 100 gram
serving; potatoes have a quarter of the vitamin C and a bit more B6 and
if you eat the skin, a good dose of potassium and otherwise, nearly no
nutrition.

It's a good example to discuss largely because neither has much
phytochemical content and can therefore be easily looked up in the USDA
database (which doesn't contain phytochemicals yet, though there is a
flavanoid databse separate from the main nutrition database).

>   Personally, I eat plenty of veggies - though mainly ones green, red,
> orange or yellow in color rather than cauliflower.

I eat around 2 lbs of vegetables daily, and like you, focus mostly on
the darkest, deepest colors to maximize micronutrient content and
especially phytochemicals.  I eat even more in the summer when the fresh
stuff is more available; tastes much better to me.

Still mashed cauliflower replaces mashed potatoes in a practical sense
that a stirfry of mixed bell peppers doesn't, which is why I used it as
an example.  Plus it's a common substitution that many low-carb folks
make.

Other practical examples in *my* diet include replacing noodles with
stirfried shredded cabbage and pasta with stirfried shredded zucchini.
This is pretty specific to me though; everyone does low-carb differently.

Practically speaking, vegetables crowd out nearly all simple sugars
(with the exception of low-sugar fruits) and starches in my diet.

I don't see any possible downside to this.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

em - 08 Dec 2007 17:21 GMT
> I agree that hardly anyone eats enough veggies; most Americans don't even
> hit the lame-a.s USDA recommendations.

I eat a *lot* more fruits and veggies on low-carb than I ever did before, by
percentage, weight, or any way you could count it. I *never* made it a
habit, on a low-cal diet or on no diet, to eat veggies every day. Following
a low-carb diet, as I understand it, and as low-carb dieting works for me,
there is no choice. Either you eat a lot of fruits and veggies in order to
get your carbs, or the diet fails. YMMV. -- Mike
Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 01:10 GMT
>>> I know I don't eat more protein than before I began low-carbing myself.
>>>    I know what I bought at the grocery before and what I buy now - I do
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>So your experience trumps an actual study in which these things were
>measured, eh?

 How about those books the anti-carbers are telling me to read
being said to explain why one should eat more protein and can eat more
fat, as opposed to not letting consumption of those increase?  One of them
being titled "Protein Power"?

>>   My experience is that people limiting carbs so severely and eating as
>> much of the above low-carb stuff as they want tend to eat more fat and
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>whole grains like quinoa and brown rice when I was trying to limit fat
>as much as possible.

 My experience is that coworkers and family members who tried low-carb
ate more meat and more nuts because that was supposed to be OK.

>>   One who changes from 216g to 67g carbs, 84g to 83g protein and 124g to
>> 105g fat per day changes daily calorie intake from 2316 to 1545.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>on low-carb spontaneously reduce calories; it's been shown again and
>again.

 Except when my coworkers and relatives tried it.  They ate more meat,
more nuts, more salad oil, more butter.  In a few cases they kept count
of calories, due to trying low-calorie before, in expectation of
confirmation that calories are not as bad if they are not from carbs - and
consumed anywhere from 2100-3,000 calories per day (usually 2100-2600).  
They were surprised to see their weight maintained or increasing slightly.
Some reported weight loss limited to the first 2 weeks of low-carb.

>My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots
>of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories.  Consumption
>of a couple pounds per day of veggies does cut the calories quite a bit
>since they contain largely noncaloric water.

 And fiber!

 This is well and good to do, and unrelated to which kinds of calories to
reduce intake of by susbstituting calorie-dense foods with ones that we
should be eating.

>>   My personal experience is that coworkers who go low-carb increase their
>> intake of protein and often increase their intake of fat and don't do much
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>the burger any.  It just decreases your hunger since it limits insulin
>spikes.

 Why are carbs supposed to make you hungrier by causing an insulin spike,
and fructose supposed to leave you hungrier by not doing so?

 I think the sellers of bunless burgers want people to buy them because
they are less filling so people would buy more burgers or more of other
food.

>I've maintained a 50 lb loss for several years, so... your experience
>not doing the diet is not very compelling to me in the face of my own
>experience.

 My experience is that those who lost weight and sustained their weight
loss did so by reducing calories and they did not need to reduce carbs
more than other calories to do so.  The one I know who had greatest
success in weight loss (to improve heart health after a heart attack)
actually increased the percentage of his caloriesbeing in the form of
carbs.

>More importantly, I've maintained bg levels and thus reduced my chances
>of suffering diabetic complications.  Cause hey, I *could* eat lots of
>carbs and wind up needing bits amputated, but that'd be a crappy way to
>lose weight.  YMMV.

 That friend of mine who reduced calorie count after his heart attack is
doing very well.  His cardiologist told him to keep on doing whatever he
started doing because his outcome turned out to be the best thought
possible by his cardiologist.  Including the daily bowl of "Froot Loops"
that replaces chinese takeout and steak.  He eats more chicken cutlets but
less meat overall.

 If he was diabetic, he would probably have to quit the "Froot Loops".
Since he is now nice and lean, chances are much less that he will become
diabetic.

>>> Pretty much the most significant change in my diet is exchanging starchy
>>> foods for more servings of vegetables.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>work and spent nearly all the rest of the time in bed by the end of the
>year.  And at the end of the year, I'd gained weight.

 That friend of mine dieting to not get another heart attack reduced his
calorie intake more by fat than by anything else and his energy level did
not drop at all.

 I also have my energy level varying directly with intake of carbs.  This
may be an effect of getting adequate exercise or keeping body fat content
low enough to reduce my risk of becoming pre-diabetic.

>Then I bought a bg meter and learned to eat low-carb.  I have never been
>hungry on low-carb - over a decade with hardly any "willpower" needed to
>do it.  Without much fast-acting carb in my diet, my bg doesn't rise and
>I don't feel that painful type of hunger that wakes you from a dead sleep.

 If I reduce my calorie intake in any form, I sleep more soundly (and
more).

>Both weight loss and maintenance works *practically* on low-carb in a
>way it doesn't on just lowering isocalorically.
>
>And as we've seen, when scientists actually *measure* what people eat on
>low-carb, protein intake does not rise and fat intake decreases.

 They should have measured my coworkers and relatives who believed those
books saying to eat more protein and that it's OK to eat more fat!

<EDIT FOR SPACE by snipping potato vs. culiflower including some results
that I suspect to be specific to diabetics and pre-diabetics>

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Jackie Patti - 11 Dec 2007 05:05 GMT
>   How about those books the anti-carbers are telling me to read
> being said to explain why one should eat more protein and can eat more
> fat, as opposed to not letting consumption of those increase?  One of them
> being titled "Protein Power"?

An excellent book.

According to the calcualtions in that book for me, a cup of cottage
cheese, a cup of yogurt and a can of tuna more than covers my protein
needs for the day.

That is an excessive amount of protein?

Or you just decided that the book *must* have recommendations for
excessive protein intake without reading it based on it being
recommended by the "anti-carbers"?

>   My experience is that coworkers and family members who tried low-carb
> ate more meat and more nuts because that was supposed to be OK.

Your experience is no experience.  You have not done low-carb yourself.
  You have also not measured what anyone ate.  So you don't really know
what you're talking about.

I've been doing this for a decade.  I *know* that I buy double and
triple the fresh produce I did before.  I also know I don't buy more
meat, cheese or eggs.  I *do* buy more nuts and seeds as I've made a
conscious decision to eat more of them.

>> My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots
>> of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories.  Consumption
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> reduce intake of by susbstituting calorie-dense foods with ones that we
> should be eating.

It absolutely has to do with it.  If I fix a plate for dinner, and put a
4oz tilapia fillet on it, whether I have room for a few tablespoons of
okra or a half pound varies depending on whether there's a baked potato
on my plate.

There's essential amino acids and essential fatty acids that must be had
in a balanced diet.  There's also a wide variety of micronutrients
needed.  Choosing carb sources that maximize the micronutrients per carb
greatly improves the diet - this means getting most of your carbs from
nonstarchy veggies and low-sugar fruits.

There's simply better and worse choices and a large variety of
deeply-colored veggies adds much that is not added by pasta or rice.

>> Throwing out the bun on a hamburger does not increase the calories in
>> the burger any.  It just decreases your hunger since it limits insulin
>> spikes.
>
>   Why are carbs supposed to make you hungrier by causing an insulin spike,
> and fructose supposed to leave you hungrier by not doing so?

Fructose is a carb; but it is not glucose.  It cannot be converted to
glucose and barely raises your bg.  It is a "weird" carb, which is what
we began by discussing.

Carbs are not "supposed" to cause an insulin spike; either they do or
you are taking insulin injections.

>   I think the sellers of bunless burgers want people to buy them because
> they are less filling so people would buy more burgers or more of other
> food.

That's not been my experience at all.  Carbs make me hungry.

> My experience is that those who lost weight and sustained their weight
> loss did so by reducing calories and they did not need to reduce carbs
> more than other calories to do so.  The one I know who had greatest
> success in weight loss (to improve heart health after a heart attack)
> actually increased the percentage of his caloriesbeing in the form of
> carbs.

Your experience contradicts mine.

When I reduced calories via a low-fat diet, I spent a year very, very
hungry.  That required *enormous* discipline to stick to as I was
ravenous the entire time, waking at night with painful hunger pangs.  At
the end of that year, I was very weak and could barely get out of bed.
And I'd gained weight.  :(

Low-carb requires little willpower on my part as it doesn't leave me
hungry.

Obviously, mileage varies.  My SIL lost 100 lbs on Weight Watchers.
Although she eats more carbs than I do, I've noticed the particular
*way* she implements WW is similar to what I do in that the majority of
her food is fruits and vegetables.

Signature

http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Don Klipstein - 11 Dec 2007 08:05 GMT
>>   How about those books the anti-carbers are telling me to read
>> being said to explain why one should eat more protein and can eat more
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>excessive protein intake without reading it based on it being
>recommended by the "anti-carbers"?

 I have already had that book recommended to me to support claims of
goodness of actually increasing daily protein intake by grams, not just
percentage of calories.  Along with claims that protein calories are less
fattening to an extent beyond the discount to 4 calories per gram from the
5.4 calories per gram that a bomb calorimeter typically indicates.
 I prefer to not contribute any of my money to such a cause that makes my
BS detector start ringing, in large part due to my overall life experience
in this area, including claims that apples are fattening while sausage
with same calories are less so.

>>   My experience is that coworkers and family members who tried low-carb
>> ate more meat and more nuts because that was supposed to be OK.
>
>Your experience is no experience.  You have not done low-carb yourself.

 I have done low-carb non-low-calorie, low-fat non-low-calorie, and low
calorie.  Low calorie slows me riding my bike.  That gets worse when the
calorie reduction is more from carb reduction than from fat reduction.  I
find carbs hurting me less by being bicycle fuel.

>   You have also not measured what anyone ate.  So you don't really know
>what you're talking about.

 Do I need a gram scale and a bomb calorimeter on hand to verify that
coworkers and relatives are teling the truth when they say they tried
eating more meat, eggs and dairy and less bread and cereal out of belief
that carb calories are worse than other calories?

>I've been doing this for a decade.  I *know* that I buy double and
>triple the fresh produce I did before.  I also know I don't buy more
>meat, cheese or eggs.

 My experience is that those trying low-carb do buy more meat, cheese and
eggs.  And increased produce consumption is a good way to go whether
targeting for reduction carb calories, fat calories, both, or calories in
general!

>  I *do* buy more nuts and seeds as I've made a
>conscious decision to eat more of them.

 Aren't whole grains seeds?

>>> My primary food intake is from nonstarchy vegetables, which contain lots
>>> of water, fiber and micronutrients, but very few calories.  Consumption
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>okra or a half pound varies depending on whether there's a baked potato
>on my plate.

 Or a 5-6 ounce sausage or a a steak or a pork chop for that matter!

>There's essential amino acids and essential fatty acids that must be had
>in a balanced diet.

 Heck, vegetarians with over 2/3 of their caloric intake from carbs
manage to do that truly adequately!

> There's also a wide variety of micronutrients
>needed.  Choosing carb sources that maximize the micronutrients per carb
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>Carbs are not "supposed" to cause an insulin spike; either they do or
>you are taking insulin injections.

 Fructose does not, and other carbs only do when eaten in a binge that
causes bounces in insulin reaction or by people that are already
pre-diabetic or diabetic (conditions caused more by having excessive body
fat than by calorie type percentage breakdown).

>>   I think the sellers of bunless burgers want people to buy them because
>> they are less filling so people would buy more burgers or more of other
>> food.
>
>That's not been my experience at all.  Carbs make me hungry.

 My experience is that going low-calorie makes me hungry and slows me
down no matter what form my remaining calorie intake is.  I find caloric
content in general to sate me, and carbs to do so more quickly and
effectively.

 My experience is that the foods that increase my hunger are hot spicy
foods.

>> My experience is that those who lost weight and sustained their weight
>> loss did so by reducing calories and they did not need to reduce carbs
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Your experience contradicts mine.

 Finally, a point where we agree!

>When I reduced calories via a low-fat diet, I spent a year very, very
>hungry.  That required *enormous* discipline to stick to as I was
>ravenous the entire time, waking at night with painful hunger pangs.  At
>the end of that year, I was very weak and could barely get out of bed.
>And I'd gained weight.  :(

 And my friend trying to not get another heart attack reduced calorie
intake on all fronts, more against fat than against other calorie forms,
lost a lot of body fat and actually slightly gained perception of energy.  
He even reported the "Froot Loops" almost-daily consumption to his
cardiologist, who told him to keep up the good work to sustain the
best-possible outcome that he achieved!

>Low-carb requires little willpower on my part as it doesn't leave me
>hungry.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>*way* she implements WW is similar to what I do in that the majority of
>her food is fruits and vegetables.

 I consider this confirmation of goodness of eating veggies and fruits.
(I do hear anti-carbers in past and current experience claiming that
apples are fattening while same calories from sausages are not.)
 I find it likely that increasing veggie consumption helps one decrease
calorie consumption.  I even think that most fruits have lower calorie
density than the calorie-dense food or "food" that all too many Americans
eat all too much of nowadays while being more sedentary than most
Americans were before about 1970 or 1960 or so.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Don Klipstein - 02 Dec 2007 23:36 GMT
In <20071201170605.189CC4E4B1@outpost.zedz.net>, Louise wrote in part:

>12: Worst burger
>Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>A Simple Solution: The Low Carb Six Dollar Burger has just 490 calories.

 The Low Carb one has 74 grams less fat for a reduction of 666 calories
from fat, and 54 grams less carb for a reduction of 216 calories from
carb.  It also has 34 grams less protein for a reduction of 144 calories
from protein.  About 21% of the calorie reduction is from carb reduction.

 Now, why do they give some sort of implication that it is less fattening
primarily because it is low carb?

 Even compared to the "Original Six Dollar Burger", most of the calorie
reduction is from reduction of caloric content other than carbs.

 Also, this low carb burger sure does not look like a burger to me.  It
has no bun.  The picture looks to me like it is in a bag-like paper
wrapper.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) (posting from reading misc.consumers)
brigid nelson - 03 Dec 2007 04:40 GMT
> In <20071201170605.189CC4E4B1@outpost.zedz.net>, Louise wrote in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> has no bun.  The picture looks to me like it is in a bag-like paper
> wrapper.

The paper wrapper makes it easier to hold the "lettuce sandwich". I've
eaten many Six Dollar Low-Carb Burgers, they're pretty messy with all
the condiments on the patty wrapped up in lettuce.  Are you sure about
the calorie count though?  I seem to recall figuring it out to be more
like 1,000 cals per serving.

Many low-carbers reject the calorie-in, calorie-out hypothesis in any
case. We're not that worried about the number of calories we eat, but
the percentage of carbs to fats and proteins.  The implication is that
carbs trigger the release of insulin which facilitates the storage of
sugars and starches as fats.  Of course this flies in the face of the
current accepted wisdom profferred by nutritionists and other
health-care professionals.

If you're really interested in this subject, may I suggest that you read
_Good Calories, Bad Calories_ by Gary Taubes? He's a writer for the
journal Science who has analyzed the actual published diet research and
draws his conclusions based upon what those studies actually show, which
in many cases is not the same as what the authors of those studies claim.

brigid

brigid
The Master - 03 Dec 2007 18:53 GMT
> 20: Worst fast-food chicken meal
> Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips from McDonald's (5 pieces) with
> creamy ranch sauce

And here I thought they were healthy...

> 18: Worst supermarket meal
> Pepperidge Farm Roasted Chicken Pot Pie (whole pie)

Looks like Chicken is bad for me...  Good thing there is beef...

> 17: Worst 'healthy' burger
> Ruby Tuesday Bella Turkey Burger

See?  BEEF!

> 16: Worst Mexican entree
> Chipotle Mexican Grill Chicken Burrito

Chipotle only puts on it what you want...  Want a healthy burrito?  Don't
put all the unhealthy stuff on it.  Personally, I want the beans, rice,
sour cream, cheese, beef, etc etc etc...  I'm just saying don't b!tch
about it when it's in your power to limit it...

> Macaroni Grill Double Macaroni 'n' Cheese
> Your Best Option: The 390-calorie Grilled Chicken and Broccoli.

Like getting your kid to eat that will work...

> 14: Worst sandwich
> Quiznos Classic Italian (large)

And they have the balls to say Subway is bad for you...

> 13: Worst salad
> On the Border Grande Taco Salad with Taco Beef

That's not really a "salad" though, is it?

> 12: Worst burger
> Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger

So, the double western baccon cheeseburger is just fine then...
MMmmmmm...

> 7: Worst chicken entree
> Chili's Honey Chipotle Crispers with Chipotle Sauce

See?  More chicken!  Chicken is evil!
Don Klipstein - 04 Dec 2007 01:11 GMT
>> 20: Worst fast-food chicken meal
>> Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips from McDonald's (5 pieces) with
>> creamy ranch sauce
>
>And here I thought they were healthy...

 I don't know whether or not these are breaded and fried - which gives a
1-1/2 whammy of extra calories, the breading and more still the frying
oil in the breading.

 That ranch sauce is probably rich in vegetable oil, which like fats in
general have 9 calories per gram.

>> 18: Worst supermarket meal
>> Pepperidge Farm Roasted Chicken Pot Pie (whole pie)
>
>Looks like Chicken is bad for me...  Good thing there is beef...

 Chicken and same-leanness beef are similar in calorie content and fat
content.  One problem with pot pies is the pie crust.  Most pie crusts and
many other pastries have significant amounts of either lard or partially
hydrogenated vegetable shortening (which typically has plenty of trans
fat).

>> 17: Worst 'healthy' burger Ruby Tuesday Bella Turkey Burger
>
>See?  BEEF!

 I would think the "worst burger" gets to have beef and no poultry.

>> 12: Worst burger
>> Carl's Jr. Double Six Dollar Burger

 It has beef rather than poultry!

http://www.carlsjr.com/content_svn/downloads/ingredients.pdf

 page 5

 Whoa - extra especially bad for a bad burger - the patty has partially
hydrogenated vegetable oil!  Maybe not much worse since it has less of
this than it has salt, though this burger does have more than a day's
recommended allowance of sodium!  The roughly 2.7 grams of sodium in
the burger as a whole means about 6.5 grams of salt, and not all of this
is added salt in the patty, and the oil added to the patty is less still
in quantity, but it caught my attention!

>So, the double western baccon cheeseburger is just fine then...

 970 calories - sounds to me to be a smaller burger than the "Double Six
Dollar Burger", and by calorie count in comparison to the calorie champion
sounds to me like a move out of the fire and into the frying pan.

 The beef patty here this time is nothing but beef.

>> 7: Worst chicken entree
>> Chili's Honey Chipotle Crispers with Chipotle Sauce
>
>See?  More chicken!  Chicken is evil!

 Sounds to me like something that is breaded and fried in oil and also
having a fat-rich sauce.

 Hmmm...  I wonder if I could sustain a bonfire by feeding it modern
American high-calorie-density fast food once it gets rolling?  I suspect
that could be done!  I have seen campfires sustained with green logs and
damp logs, so I think the same could be done with bacon cheeseburgers,
chicken nuggets/tenders, maybe even french fries!

 I know that most nuts burn easily, not surprising since most have more
calories per gram than sugar has.  Sugar also burns if added to a campfire
or a bonfire, and flour burns and especially thick concentrations of grain
dust in air can if ignited flash up quickly enough to blow up grain
elevators.  And I know that cars have been made that can run on vegetable
oil and that vegetable oil can be used in oil lamps and that candles can
be made of more-solid fats.  But I think it would make some impact to show
a bonfire being fueled with french fries, bacon cheeseburgers or chicken
nuggets!

 This would mainly be good as a demonstration, since cost per unit heat
of combustion is less for materials that have experienced more use or
consideration for use as fuels than for burgers, fries, and chicken
nuggets.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
amdo954@gmail.com - 03 Dec 2007 18:58 GMT
There is an interesting podcast on NPR about carbohydrates.  It
discusses new evidence about the particle size being a major.

Armando
http://www.mynsp.com/herbsoflife
Steve - 04 Dec 2007 16:24 GMT
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>
[quoted text clipped - 323 lines]
>
> At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie.

Great tips!
George - 08 Dec 2007 05:14 GMT
How can a food be bad?  Does food make people fat?  or do people make
themselves fat?  What does WW teach, anyway?

> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>
[quoted text clipped - 323 lines]
>
> At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie.
em - 08 Dec 2007 05:32 GMT
> How can a food be bad?  Does food make people fat?  or do people make
> themselves fat?  What does WW teach, anyway?

Food makes people fat, of course. Bad foods sold by greedy people. That's my
theory.
Mr Markham - 21 Dec 2007 18:56 GMT
> http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21838237?GT1=10728&pg=21#TDY_20WorstFoods
>
[quoted text clipped - 308 lines]
>
> At Outback: Seared Ahi or Shrimp on the Barbie.

God help me, this sounds fantastic:

1: The worst food in America
Outback Steakhouse Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing

2,900 calories

182 g fat

240 g carbs
Even if you split these "starters" with three friends, you'll have
downed a
dinner's worth of calories before your entrée arrives.
 
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.