Must have been written by an RD. They are so full of stupid advice. Like just eat less calories per day. That advice has condemned millions to yo yo dieting and death from gaining back more weight than they took off.
"Steve Randy Shilts Bayt" <stopsenatebill722@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ab089dab.0407041333.5e171543@posting.google.com...
> STEVE BAYT
> (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> deaths makes AIDS look like a warm-up act to ARDS-Atkins Related Death
> Syndrome.
Where is your study? hmmmmmmm
> Heart disease is virtually entirely by eating too much fat
> and cholesterol. Other causes comprise a very small percent. So people
> can do the math as to how many deaths have been attributed to Atkins
> and related diets. As they can do the math for how the death toll will
> increase due to Atkins' increased advertising.
You make a simplistic statement to describe what in fact is a many faceted face of heart disease.
> The science is unquestioned. Atkins in 35 years has been
> condemned and virtually every health and nutrition entity has warned
> the media about accepting advertising even implying a Low Carb or
> Atkins life style is not a death sentence.
The science is not unquestioned except by you. This diatribe against Atkins seems to be a religion with you.
> In April 2004 the federal bureau in charge of Beer and Wine
> licenses made it illegal for beer, wines or any alcoholic beverage to
> even imply that being low carb is healthy. The FDA is presently trying
> to make mandatory on all Low Carb products, some sort of disclaimer
> about Atkins' fatal consequences and the necessity of consuming at
> least 100 mgs of complex carbohydrates a day.
How fatal is i?. I have been on Atkins for 5 years, no breaks. No fruit or sugar and certainly no starch. I am much stricter than the average Atkins dieter. It is because I need to be in order to maintain a healthy weight. Again that is no starch or sugar in 5 years. I must be dead. Dah. I am in fact healthier by a long shot than when I started with Atkins.
> It's rathere symbolic that marketers have recently made up a
> term "Carbphoia" as was done with "AIDSphobia". For AIDS And Atkins
> pretty much do the same thing both biologically. And Atkins is
> presenting the same false immpression that was done with homophobia.
Oh God, Homophobia and carbophobia. The same thing in your mind. You would make a great religious zealot. Maybe your are one. Zealotry has always been unhealthy. Lighten up a little.
> Atkins and Low Carb has more fatal consequences than
> cigarette smoking, according to thousands of health entities not
> financially connected to Atkins. The marketing for Atkins is the same
> type as with smoking. For nearly a half-century cigarette smoking
> portrayed as being cool-Joe Camel and The Marlboro Man started in the
> early 1950's.
Show me the study. These wild statements you make as if they were fact are truly pathetic. A clear sign of wild eyed zealotry.
> In 1965, a year after the surgeon general's first report on
> smoking, the first law was passed to have all cigarette ads and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Yet, millions of people continue to smoke and die.
Dah, It is very very addicting.
> Press Releases and requests to media outlets from
> thousands of health entities to not run Atkins or Low Carb Ads have
> produced, well,,, a media that will run anything. Just like TV, radio,
> magazines and radio stations glorified smoking, they are now
> glorifying the low carb lifestyle (or more appropriately called low
> carb death style).
I wonder what you think of the high carb death style. It has produced a national epdidemic of type II diabetes. Type II maims and kills.
> The only thing that can be done in the short term is to
> hope that once Atkins sufferers get back to a healthy lifestyle before
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> and too few carbs to sustain heart functions, die before even arriving
> at the hospital.
Show me the study. Just more of the same unsubstantiated drivel. Do you have a brain. Have you ever heard of double blind studies. Do you know that any reputable scientist listens to studies not apocryphal drivel.
> Someone who starts on the Atkins Death Sentence today has
> about 2-4 years before being near a heart attack. Hopefully, those 65%
> who make it to coronary care units will be told by doctors to stop
> with Atkins.
Been on it over 5 years, according you you I am dead. My wife has been on it 6 years. She also must be dead. She is actually very much alive downstairs right now.
> Unfortunately, lawsuits are unlikely to prevail against
> Atkins due to a legal concept called "Assumption of Risk" which has
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> EVERY HEALTH AUTHORITY CONDOMNS ATKINS. CONTINUED LOW CARB HIGH FAT
> AND PROTEIN DIET WILL RESULT IN MANY POTENTIAL FATAL CONSEQUENCES."
Who are your health authorities??? You? Again, SHOW ME THE STUDIES!!
> The first warning for cigarettes was fairly lame: "Smoking
> may be hazardous to your health." Hopefully, with Atkins the FDA
> won't play around with such lame disclaimers and get straight to the
> sort of disclaimer mandated in 1978.
There are clear long term studies to substantiate the risk of smoking. There are none that indicate a risk for Atkins.
> Similar to how America learned about terrorism by 911,
> Americans (if this Atkins brainwashing continues) will have to ask
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Yet, library shelves are filled with potential health threats,
> collecting cobwebs, as was Atkins a year ago.
911 and Atkins, the hysteria is rising.
> The media has a choice; each newspaper, TV station
> etc. can get millions of dollars in ad revenue or act responsibly.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> have become coronary ticking time bombs can defuse themselves and get
> back to a healthy lifestyle."
Sure
> Of course it wasn't until 1990 until the first PSA
> for using condoms was run on a non-cable network (Fox) which at the
> time was a very struggling network. By the time Fox ran the first
> Condom PSA, 200,000 Americans had already died.
Aids and Atkins again. More hysteria. God, get over yourself.
>
> There was a newspaper chain (with tobacco financial
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> deceptive ads and if the advertiser is "found guilty" the advertiser
> is forced to place corrective advertising.
Your obsessive comparison of aids, smoking, and homophobia, with Atkins is very indicative of your lack research, scientific understanding, or any common sense. I can only surmise you are a vegan with an agenda that has nothing to do with our health. Vegans seem to become religious zealots about their life style. Their holier than thou attitude about not eating meat is truly pathetic.
> Based on the pathetic irresponsibility of the media
> promoting the Atkins Death Sentence, which could lead to millions of
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> cholesterol, high nutrient dense diet without burdening their loved
> ones with hospitalization and funerals.
Again, My wife and I must already be dead. Your logic is completely illogical. Maybe you also belong to PETA, another holier than thou assemblage of zealots looking for a cause.
> If anything comes of this Atkins epidemic is that
> maybe the first amendment might finally be amended. For its hard to
> tell which is worse. That Americans can be brainwashed by advertising.
> Or that the media ignores lives for money.
The sugar lobby in congress is far more powerful that Atkins. The Atkins foundation funds no lobbyists in congress, the sugar industry funds many.
> Atkins isn't a fad, its potential epidemic. You can get
> HIV or other STD;s with one time of unprotected sex. Fortunately, one
> can't get ARDS with just one month or even a year of Atkins So, there
> is hope...
There is hope you will adjust to a life without hysteria and zealotry.
> Love Means Never Having To Say, You're Sorry..
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It's unkown when my next Atkins bashing article will be done. Maybe
> not until July 11th.
I can't wait for your further drivel
Tony Lew - 06 Jul 2004 17:33 GMT
> Must have been written by an RD. They are so full of stupid advice. Like
> just eat less calories per day. That advice has condemned millions to yo
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> You make a simplistic statement to describe what in fact is a many
> faceted face of heart disease.
I guess he didn't stumble onto the fact that much heart disease is
caused by cigarette smoking in his 48+ hours of "reseasch".
What a moron.
Elvis Parsley - 10 Jul 2004 02:32 GMT
Must have been written by an RD. They are so full of stupid advice. Like
just eat less calories per day. That advice has condemned millions to yo yo
dieting and death from gaining back more weight than they took off.
Well in the end it is a matter of deficit, so what does it matter what the
bastardization is?
flashback - 10 Jul 2004 06:13 GMT
I don't undestand the meaning of this comment??
> Must have been written by an RD. They are so full of stupid advice. Like
> just eat less calories per day. That advice has condemned millions to yo yo
> dieting and death from gaining back more weight than they took off.
>
> Well in the end it is a matter of deficit, so what does it matter what the
> bastardization is?
Elvis Parsley - 10 Jul 2004 19:19 GMT
> I don't undestand the meaning of this comment??
> >
> > Well in the end it is a matter of deficit, so what does it matter what the
> > bastardization is?
Okay, what's the difference from what standpoint the person gains back the
weight? Whether it's eating to much coming off (or staying on for that
matter) a low-fat or low-carb diet, the result is the same.
flashback - 11 Jul 2004 00:38 GMT
There is a huge difference. No one will stay on a restricted calorie diet.
You cannot lose weight be limiting fat intake and still eating until you are
full. Low fat diets only work to lose weight when you also restrict portions
i.e. caloric intake. So, restricted caloric intake produces a yo yo weight
situation with each upward movement an increase over the beginning weight.
This is a fact that RDs refuse to accept or even discuss.
The result is not the same for low carb versus low fat.. Restricting caloric
intake (being hungry) can only be maintained for a limited amount of time.
The amount of time depends on each individual. But the longest I have ever
seen was two years. I watched a co-worker go on ultra slim fast for 5
months. His was the worst example of rebound weight gain I had ever seen. He
went 110 pounds over where he started.
It is relatively easy for a person to stay on Atkins for life. My wife has
been on it for 6 years. I have been doing it for 5 years. We have never
"gone off" this diet.
As I am sure you must know, eating the Atkins way is pretty easy. My wife is
very creative with her cooking and we eat very well. Why would I ever want
to quit this diet?
> > I don't undestand the meaning of this comment??
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> weight? Whether it's eating to much coming off (or staying on for that
> matter) a low-fat or low-carb diet, the result is the same.
The Voice of Reason - 25 Jul 2004 14:01 GMT
> There is a huge difference. No one will stay on a restricted calorie diet.
Erm, why not, and how do you come to this conclusion? I've been on
what would technically be a 'restricted calorie diet' and I'm staying
on it. Perhaps what you meant is that YOU don't have the discipline
for it.
> You cannot lose weight be limiting fat intake and still eating until you are
> full. Low fat diets only work to lose weight when you also restrict portions
> i.e. caloric intake. So, restricted caloric intake produces a yo yo weight
> situation with each upward movement an increase over the beginning weight.
I really don't see how the first and second sentences are related to
the third. I think this is what's called a non-sequiter, i.e. the
conclusion in the third sentence is unrelated to what you said in the
first two. Also, your first sentence is wrong as it does not take into
account all of the factors.
> This is a fact that RDs refuse to accept or even discuss.
I'm new here, please explain the abbreviation 'RD'.
> The result is not the same for low carb versus low fat.. Restricting caloric
> intake (being hungry) can only be maintained for a limited amount of time.
Incorrect. A restriction in calorie intake only produces hungery
temporarily until the body adjusts. Then the new intake becomes normal
and the old intake becomes an excess. Therefore the reduction can be
maintained indefinitely without hunger.
> The amount of time depends on each individual. But the longest I have ever
> seen was two years. I watched a co-worker go on ultra slim fast for 5
> months. His was the worst example of rebound weight gain I had ever seen. He
> went 110 pounds over where he started.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. His choice to eat
excessively was unrelated to his original diet. Also, slim fast is a
poor way to lose weight as it does not teach sensible eating habits
that do not involve the shakes, so maintaining the new weight often
means carrying on drinking the shakes. If the dieter tires of the
shakes, he has not learnt any other eating pattern to maintain his
weight and so he might go back to his old excessive eating habits.
> It is relatively easy for a person to stay on Atkins for life.
It is relatively easy for a person to stay on a diet for life which
involves more balanced proportions of macro-nutrients.
> My wife has
> been on it for 6 years. I have been doing it for 5 years.
I don't think that counts as 'for life', although for every diet you
can find people who have used it successfully for life, and people who
have failed to follow it for very long.
> As I am sure you must know, eating the Atkins way is pretty easy.
Many diets are easy to follow, although I would say that a diet low in
carbohydrates and saturated-fat is often quite expensive to follow.
> My wife is
> very creative with her cooking and we eat very well. Why would I ever want
> to quit this diet?
When you need to replenish glycogen stores perhaps?
> For now that millions of Americans have
> been brainwashed by the Atkins Low Carb Death Sentence,
I always wonder: What do people think the Atkins diet is, exactly?
I'm not on Atkins, but I actually have read the book, and get the gist of
the diet.
It's unfortunate that all kinds of low-carb junk food is in the foreground
of people's minds, due to an overabundance of advertising, and also that
people believe Atkins to be "that all meat diet" in which people kiss
fruits and vegetables goodbye forever (LOL).
Either that or it's that "bacon and eggs and steak" diet.
LOL

Signature
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.
Cynthia Perry - 06 Jul 2004 05:55 GMT
>> For now that millions of Americans have
>> been brainwashed by the Atkins Low Carb Death Sentence,
>
>I always wonder: What do people think the Atkins diet is, exactly?
Sadly, I expect a lot of people believe the junk they've seen
regarding Atkins on TV. You know, the programs that show people eating
mounds of beef, bacon and eggs.
No one seems to show the truth of the Atkins diet, or the fact that
many use leaner cuts of meat, chicken, fish and then use olive, canola
and nut oils.
You almost never see anyone on the *TV* Atkins diet eating vegetables
or salad.
>I'm not on Atkins, but I actually have read the book, and get the gist of
>the diet.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Either that or it's that "bacon and eggs and steak" diet.
That's what it's been publicized as though, a LOT!
Kind of a "eat all the saturated fats you can hold" diet.
It's no wonder some folks (having NOT read the book), think it could
be dangerous to one's health.
Sad that people won't bother to enlighten themselves and actually read
what it is about. I'm not on Atkins either, but I have read the book.
Cynthia
> STEVE BAYT
> (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
I can't figure out if this guy is just a troll pretending to
be really stupid, or if he really is this stupid.
> So, this article's research and analysis took much longer than
> the objective of 48 hours. For now that millions of Americans have
[quoted text clipped - 154 lines]
> It's unkown when my next Atkins bashing article will be done. Maybe
> not until July 11th.
Jim Bard - 06 Jul 2004 07:50 GMT
> > STEVE BAYT
> > (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
>
> I can't figure out if this guy is just a troll pretending to
> be really stupid, or if he really is this stupid.
I bet he'd be surprised to find out that what he's full of is somewhat lower
in carbs.
jane - 06 Jul 2004 18:27 GMT
> > > STEVE BAYT
> > > (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I bet he'd be surprised to find out that what he's full of is somewhat lower
> in carbs.
What chaps me is that he's using the name of one of my favorite
non-fiction writers, who's not alive to protest.
David Wright - 07 Jul 2004 04:24 GMT
>> STEVE BAYT
>> (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
>
>I can't figure out if this guy is just a troll pretending to
>be really stupid, or if he really is this stupid.
I think he's really this stupid, based on some other things he's
written, but he's got some other hobbyhorses, in particular a Senate
Bill that he really hates. At first I thought he was some sort of
paid shill who was conducting a for-profit campaign against Senate
Bill SB722, but I'm starting to think he's just a nut.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
Doug Freyburger - 07 Jul 2004 21:24 GMT
> > STEVE BAYT
> > (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
>
> I can't figure out if this guy is just a troll pretending to
> be really stupid, or if he really is this stupid.
He appears to be a troll, probably with a vegan political agenda:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=ab089dab.0406271332.3
67db4d8%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%
26q%3Dauthor:stopsenatebill722%2540yahoo.com%2B
Some religious fanatics can't stand the throught others having
fun so they harangue. Same deal with some vegan political
fanatics who can't can't stand the thought of others eating
meat so they lie.
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-July 7, 2004 - 07 Jul 2004 22:36 GMT
> > > STEVE BAYT
> > > (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> He appears to be a troll, probably with a vegan political agenda:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=ab089dab.0406271332.3
67db4d8%40posting.google.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%
26q%3Dauthor:stopsenatebill722%2540yahoo.com%2B
> Some religious fanatics can't stand the throught others having
> fun so they harangue. Same deal with some vegan political
> fanatics who can't can't stand the thought of others eating
> meat so they lie.
I thought he was a turnip.
Doug Freyburger - 08 Jul 2004 14:53 GMT
> > > > STEVE BAYT
> > > > (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I thought he was a turnip.
At least when posting on UseNet it is possible to get blood out
of a turnip. Text-only blood, but such is the nature of the
medium. You gotta do it by posting on a low carb newsgroup.
Why is rec.arts.tv in the list? Did this vegan troll guy do an
infomercial or something? This I want to see. A new juicer
that hassles you if you put it close to a steak.
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-July 7, 2004 - 08 Jul 2004 15:03 GMT
> > > > > STEVE BAYT
> > > > > (Parma/Brook Park, Ohio)
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> infomercial or something? This I want to see. A new juicer
> that hassles you if you put it close to a steak.
Stevie and i have had our run-ins. He especially did not appreciate my
comments about SB 722 which set the record straight, and showed that he was
full of...well..he needs a good cleanse....
Jerseygirl_30 - 25 Jul 2004 07:36 GMT
Regardless of religion or politics, or any other controversial
matter... a fanatic of any type, is usually one who see things the way
that they believe and cannot comprehend seeing them any other way.
Well, that has been my experience, anyway. I always caution myself
when saying I'm 'fanatic' about anything. *L*
JG
> Some religious fanatics can't stand the throught others having
> fun so they harangue. Same deal with some vegan political
> fanatics who can't can't stand the thought of others eating
> meat so they lie.