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 / August 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Sad realities of the post-month No-Carb/No-sugar diet

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
J-S - 31 Jul 2004 21:56 GMT
Had been going on the no-sugar & no-carb diet for the past 6 weeks (I'm a
28yo man)

Menu:
fish, meat, chicken, eggs, vegetables (except carrots & potatoes),
tea/coffee, sour cream, white cheeses, red bull.

Results:
* utter loss of energy
* faint liver pain in the last 4 days, usually in the afternoon and late
afternoon and after some meals (haven't established the dependency)
* 20 lbs is gone, I became visibly thin, but fat belt still present around
the waist & in the belly front

So here go the questions:

a) How do you ladies and gents sitting on a low- or no- carb diet balance
your energy levels. What do you eat to be able to finction? Because I barely
can - don't want to exersize, have a drop in brain activity, have no desire
to do anything after work or go anywhere

b) What might be that vague aching in the liver?

c) Is it time to add sugar/carbs to the menu, and if so - then in what
quantity and how to avoid the regeneration of the fat belt layers that have
been lost in the past month. So far the weight was only going down, which I
understand is due to lack of building material for fat, so it doesn't get
recycled, just gets lost.

Any opinions will be appreciated.
Ignoramus11294 - 31 Jul 2004 22:56 GMT
> Had been going on the no-sugar & no-carb diet for the past 6 weeks (I'm a
> 28yo man)
>
> Menu:
> fish, meat, chicken, eggs, vegetables (except carrots & potatoes),
> tea/coffee, sour cream, white cheeses, red bull.

Does not sound like a NO carb menu.

> Results:
> * utter loss of energy
> * faint liver pain in the last 4 days, usually in the afternoon and late
> afternoon and after some meals (haven't established the dependency)
> * 20 lbs is gone, I became visibly thin, but fat belt still present around
> the waist & in the belly front

Sounds crazy, and you need to eat more carbs and vegetables.

> So here go the questions:
>
> a) How do you ladies and gents sitting on a low- or no- carb diet balance
> your energy levels. What do you eat to be able to finction? Because I barely
> can - don't want to exersize, have a drop in brain activity, have no desire
> to do anything after work or go anywhere

I eat enough carbs to function, myself. These days, I get most of them
from raw vegetables.

> b) What might be that vague aching in the liver?

All kinds of things, you need to talk to a doctor, this is not the
kind of question that can be properly answered here.

> c) Is it time to add sugar/carbs to the menu, and if so - then in what
> quantity and how to avoid the regeneration of the fat belt layers that have
> been lost in the past month. So far the weight was only going down, which I
> understand is due to lack of building material for fat, so it doesn't get
> recycled, just gets lost.

Try eating a bit more vegetables and fruits,. and increase the
quantity until you feel better and do not yet gain. Also exercise.

i
Patricia Heil - 01 Aug 2004 00:06 GMT
I would get to my doctor as fast as I can because that pain "around your
liver" could be gall bladder disease from the fat in this diet.

> Had been going on the no-sugar & no-carb diet for the past 6 weeks (I'm a
> 28yo man)
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Any opinions will be appreciated.
Ignoramus11294 - 01 Aug 2004 00:46 GMT
> I would get to my doctor as fast as I can because that pain "around your
> liver" could be gall bladder disease from the fat in this diet.

Here's a quote that indicates the opposite:

http://www.annecollins.com/diet-news/gallstones-low-cal-diet.htm

``Following a diet too low in fat or going for long periods without
eating (skipping breakfast, for example), a common practice among
dieters, may also decrease gallbladder contractions. If the
gallbladder does not contract often enough to empty out the bile,
gallstones may form.''

Here's the list of causes of gallstones, none involves eating fat:

http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/gallstones/index.htm

What causes gallstones?
Cholesterol Stones

Scientists believe cholesterol stones form when bile contains too much
cholesterol, too much bilirubin, or not enough bile salts, or when the
gallbladder does not empty as it should for some other reason.
Pigment Stones

The cause of pigment stones is uncertain. They tend to develop in
people who have cirrhosis, biliary tract infections, and hereditary
blood disorders such as sickle cell anemia in which too much bilirubin
is formed.
Other Factors

It is believed that the mere presence of gallstones may cause more
gallstones to develop. However, other factors that contribute to
gallstones have been identified, especially for cholesterol stones.

   * Obesity. Obesity is a major risk factor for gallstones,
especially in women. A large clinical study showed that being even
moderately overweight increases one's risk for developing
gallstones. The most likely reason is that obesity tends to reduce the
amount of bile salts in bile, resulting in more cholesterol. Obesity
also decreases gallbladder emptying.

   * Estrogen. Excess estrogen from pregnancy, hormone replacement
therapy, or birth control pills appears to increase cholesterol levels
in bile and decrease gallbladder movement, both of which can lead to
gallstones.

   * Ethnicity. Native Americans have a genetic predisposition to
secrete high levels of cholesterol in bile. In fact, they have the
highest rate of gallstones in the United States. A majority of Native
American men have gallstones by age 60. Among the Pima Indians of
Arizona, 70 percent of women have gallstones by age 30. Mexican
American men and women of all ages also have high rates of gallstones.

   * Gender. Women between 20 and 60 years of age are twice as likely
to develop gallstones as men.

   * Age. People over age 60 are more likely to develop gallstones
than younger people.

   * Cholesterol-lowering drugs. Drugs that lower cholesterol levels
in blood actually increase the amount of cholesterol secreted in
bile. This in turn can increase the risk of gallstones.

   * Diabetes. People with diabetes generally have high levels of
fatty acids called triglycerides. These fatty acids increase the risk
of gallstones.

   * Rapid weight loss. As the body metabolizes fat during rapid
weight loss, it causes the liver to secrete extra cholesterol into
bile, which can cause gallstones.

   * Fasting. Fasting decreases gallbladder movement, causing the
bile to become overconcentrated with cholesterol, which can lead to
gallstones.
marengo - 01 Aug 2004 09:07 GMT
| ``Following a diet too low in fat or going for long periods without
| eating (skipping breakfast, for example), a common practice among
| dieters, may also decrease gallbladder contractions. If the
| gallbladder does not contract often enough to empty out the bile,
| gallstones may form.''

Here we go again with the breakfast myth.  This is your personal opinion,
certainly not fact.  In fact, it's less than opinion, it's pure fiction that
not eating breakfast is somehow unhealthy.  There are absolutely no facts to
back this.  The concept that skipping breakfast can cause gallstones is
absolutely ridiculous, and is a gross misrepresentation and twisting of the
facts.  *Extended* fasting can be one of the minor possible contributing
factors for gallstones.  This means going days or weeks with little or no
food.  Eating two healthy meals a day with a few snacks in between is
certainly sufficient to maintain gall bladder health.  In fact, the much
more significant contributing causes of gallstones are obesity, high
cholesterol and diabetes.  And ll three of these factors can be exacerbated
by eating more, and by eating more frequently.

I am 52 years old and have never eaten breakfast.  I don't eat until
lunchtime or later if that's when I start to get hungry.  I assure you my
gall bladder is just fine.  I have never had any health problems whatsoever
from eating my first meal of the day at noon instead of 8 or 9 a.m.

Signature

Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

marengo - 01 Aug 2004 09:15 GMT
| Here we go again with the breakfast myth.  This is your personal
| opinion, certainly not fact.  <snip>

Sorry, Iggy,  after re-reading my post I realized I misspoke -- I meant to
say that it is the personal opinion of the author of the aricle, not *your*
personal opinion!
Signature

Peter
270/215/180
Before/Current Pix:
http://users.thelink.net/marengo/weightlosspix/weightlosspix.html

Ignoramus24751 - 01 Aug 2004 14:36 GMT
>| Here we go again with the breakfast myth.  This is your personal
>| opinion, certainly not fact.  <snip>
>
> Sorry, Iggy,  after re-reading my post I realized I misspoke -- I meant to
> say that it is the personal opinion of the author of the aricle, not *your*
> personal opinion!

No problem!

i
Ignoramus24751 - 01 Aug 2004 14:35 GMT
>| ``Following a diet too low in fat or going for long periods without
>| eating (skipping breakfast, for example), a common practice among
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Here we go again with the breakfast myth.  This is your personal opinion,
> certainly not fact.

It is not my opinion, it is a quote from a website.

I have nothing against skipping breakfast, if it works for the
person. I do not skip breakfast for a simple reason that I am usually
hungry in the morning, but I sometimes skip lunch if I am not hungry.

> In fact, it's less than opinion, it's pure fiction that not eating
> breakfast is somehow unhealthy.  There are absolutely no facts to
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> diabetes.  And ll three of these factors can be exacerbated by
> eating more, and by eating more frequently.

Fair enough.

i
J-S - 02 Aug 2004 10:57 GMT
On the subject of gall bladder not contracting:

Won't it be associated with the definite external symptoms?
Like decolouration of one's urine or stool?

I'm also reading that there are some herbal & mineral means in such cases to
force the contractions and gall disposal.
Like St.-John's wort or some mineral waters.

> > I would get to my doctor as fast as I can because that pain "around your
> > liver" could be gall bladder disease from the fat in this diet.
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> bile to become overconcentrated with cholesterol, which can lead to
> gallstones.
JC Der Koenig - 02 Aug 2004 12:04 GMT
Does this newsgroup attract more than a fair share of hypochondriacs, or
what?

Signature

You take stupid to a new level.  -- MFW

> On the subject of gall bladder not contracting:
>
[quoted text clipped - 80 lines]
> > bile to become overconcentrated with cholesterol, which can lead to
> > gallstones.
Gymmy Bob - 02 Aug 2004 14:52 GMT
Don't let the door hit ya' on the way out.

> Does this newsgroup attract more than a fair share of hypochondriacs, or
> what?
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
> > > bile to become overconcentrated with cholesterol, which can lead to
> > > gallstones.
JC Der Koenig - 02 Aug 2004 15:09 GMT
Lead the way.

Signature

Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that.  -- MFW

> Don't let the door hit ya' on the way out.
>
[quoted text clipped - 91 lines]
> > > > bile to become overconcentrated with cholesterol, which can lead to
> > > > gallstones.
Ignoramus2586 - 02 Aug 2004 13:55 GMT
> On the subject of gall bladder not contracting:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> force the contractions and gall disposal.
> Like St.-John's wort or some mineral waters.

I have no idea about those questions. I would think that half an hour
spent googling and reading about it would educate you sufficiently
about gallstones. Please note that a pain in a general area can be a
symptom of many things, so, doctors are better equipped to diagnoze it
as they can order tests and scans and X-rays for you. Nothing better
than a good x-ray or a blood test.

i

>> > I would get to my doctor as fast as I can because that pain "around your
>> > liver" could be gall bladder disease from the fat in this diet.
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
>> bile to become overconcentrated with cholesterol, which can lead to
>> gallstones.
FOB - 01 Aug 2004 01:04 GMT
How in the world do you know that it is your liver that is hurting you?
There are a number of organs in your upper abdomen, so it seems to me any
one of them could be the site of the pain, not even considering the referred
pain effect where it is felt in a place other than the place of origin.

Also, you may be coming down with some virus, these things happen regardless
of what you have been eating and are not necessarily diet related.

In news:UHTOc.4243$cK.2295@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net,
J-S <nospam@nospam.com> stated
| Had been going on the no-sugar & no-carb diet for the past 6 weeks
| (I'm a 28yo man)
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
|
| Any opinions will be appreciated.
miette - 01 Aug 2004 02:30 GMT
> Any opinions will be appreciated.

Did you get a full check-up before starting?

~miette
J-S - 01 Aug 2004 21:32 GMT
> > Any opinions will be appreciated.
>
> Did you get a full check-up before starting?
>
> ~miette

Not a full one, but I had my blood, liver, thyroid, hiv, metabolism checked.
The leucocites were low, aminotransferasa in the liver was high, but it went
down 50% after the first week of the diet.
The doctor said it could be because I was drinking daily.
I haven't been drinking for the past 6 weeks though.

People in the group may be right - it could be something close to the liver,
not the actual liver.
Liver itself never game me any problems before, none of symptoms were ever
present pointing to that organ.
Yesterday night drank wine & beer to test it out - no aching. This morning
woke up, ate cottage cheese - hurts again.
Very strange.

Multi-vitamins is also an interesting idea - a lot of people refer to it.
It just sounds a bit odd to swallow a bunch of chemicals listed on the
label.
Diane Ball - 01 Aug 2004 21:38 GMT
> > > Any opinions will be appreciated.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> woke up, ate cottage cheese - hurts again.
> Very strange.

Cottage cheese is a dairy product - have you been checked for lactose
intolerance?
Diane

> Multi-vitamins is also an interesting idea - a lot of people refer to it.
> It just sounds a bit odd to swallow a bunch of chemicals listed on the
> label.
J-S - 01 Aug 2004 22:05 GMT
> Cottage cheese is a dairy product - have you been checked for lactose
> intolerance?
> Diane

Ate dairy my entire life in large quantities - white/yellow cheeses, sour
cream, milk, derivatives like yogurt, kefir et al.
Never had any issues.

The previous time I needed to lose weight I actually lost it via eating
cottage cheese as a base food.
Coleah - 01 Aug 2004 22:27 GMT
: > Cottage cheese is a dairy product - have you been checked for lactose
: > intolerance?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
: The previous time I needed to lose weight I actually lost it via eating
: cottage cheese as a base food.

Might be your gall bladder is rebelling now.
Try eating something really fatty and see how you feel.  Might be worth having your
gall bladder checked out if you feel a lot of discomfort in the area of your liver
afterward.
J-S - 02 Aug 2004 03:00 GMT
If that's the bladder indeed, which nutritional means could I use to bring
it back to normal?
Will red wine be a good solution (which is an acidic fat-breaker).

> : > Cottage cheese is a dairy product - have you been checked for lactose
> : > intolerance?
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> gall bladder checked out if you feel a lot of discomfort in the area of your liver
> afterward.
Coleah - 02 Aug 2004 03:28 GMT
A lot fat diet will help.

Alcohol use can go both ways
http://alcoholresearch.lsuhsc.edu/effects/gall.asp

Excessive alcohol can cause Pancreatitis.

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

: If that's the bladder indeed, which nutritional means could I use to bring
: it back to normal?
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
: your liver
: > afterward.
Chris Braun - 02 Aug 2004 03:59 GMT
>A lot fat diet will help.
>
>Alcohol use can go both ways
>http://alcoholresearch.lsuhsc.edu/effects/gall.asp
>
>Excessive alcohol can cause Pancreatitis.

I believe that pancreatitis can be caused by an extensive history of
alcohol abuse.  I don't think the OP's suggestion that he might want
to add some red wine to his diet likely meant he planned to become an
alcholic.  

Chris
Gymmy Bob - 02 Aug 2004 01:50 GMT
I have observed the dairy products you list are all massively processed
products. They all just happen to be enzyme broken down calcium molecules.
This would definitely be much better than massive consumption of poisonous
milk.

"Never had any issues". It can be amazing to see people saying this nonsense
to stop consuming a product for a few weeks and then switch to saying "Geee,
I had no idea I had that many problems!"

I was born with many ailments (not from just milk) and I will be the first
to attest, You don't know what normal is until you feel better by quiting
these things you have learned to ignore you whole life.

> > Cottage cheese is a dairy product - have you been checked for lactose
> > intolerance?
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The previous time I needed to lose weight I actually lost it via eating
> cottage cheese as a base food.
David Wright - 02 Aug 2004 04:55 GMT
>I have observed the dairy products you list are all massively processed
>products. They all just happen to be enzyme broken down calcium molecules.

"Calcium molecules."  I think we've just demonstrated how much Gymmy
Boob knows about chemistry.

>This would definitely be much better than massive consumption of poisonous
>milk.

I never consume poisonous milk.  I just consume the regular kind.

Milk is not for everyone.  Even some children can't consume it without
adverse effects.  But for those of us who do fine on it, kindly stop
making idiotic statements.

 -- 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)
J-S - 02 Aug 2004 10:11 GMT
> >I have observed the dairy products you list are all massively processed
> >products. They all just happen to be enzyme broken down calcium molecules.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> adverse effects.  But for those of us who do fine on it, kindly stop
> making idiotic statements.

So what do you think about the pasteurization & homogenization processes?
A lot of people referred to it, that the white liquid in the plastic can is
no longer milk.
Gymmy Bob - 02 Aug 2004 14:57 GMT
Shoot yourself. My family lives mostly witout it. We had to learn the hard
way mostly.

Some of my family (dairy farmers) live with some of their chest cavity's
removed but never had any ill effects from the Bovine Mucous they lived on
either.

The year one was given to live has become 15 years now. Funny, it is without
dairy and the farm is off dairy now and so is he.

> > >I have observed the dairy products you list are all massively processed
> > >products. They all just happen to be enzyme broken down calcium
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> A lot of people referred to it, that the white liquid in the plastic can is
> no longer milk.
David Wright - 03 Aug 2004 04:16 GMT
>Shoot yourself. My family lives mostly witout it. We had to learn the hard
>way mostly.

I can't imagine Gymmy Boob learning any other way.

 -- 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)

>> > >I have observed the dairy products you list are all massively processed
>> > >products. They all just happen to be enzyme broken down calcium
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>is
>> no longer milk.
Annabel Smyth - 06 Aug 2004 17:57 GMT
>Shoot yourself. My family lives mostly witout it. We had to learn the hard
>way mostly.

I am given to understand that the gene that enables one to digest milk
and dairy products beyond infancy is actually a mutation, and very
uncommon in any but a few human groups - animals don't have it, which is
why you should never give your cat milk to drink, and, I believe, some
human races (mongoloid?) don't have it, either, which is why they can't
digest milk or dairy products.

However, for those of us that can digest them, they are a valuable
addition to the diet.
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

Gymmy Bob - 06 Aug 2004 22:09 GMT
Yup, valuble to the surgeons. My first born had his tonsils and adenoids out
and my second and third were headed for the operating room also. My thrree
children probably consumed 5-6000 dollars worth of antibiotics and sulpha
drugs before I smartened up. Dairy is definitely good for the medical trade.

Milk is poison and the educated people all know it.

> >Shoot yourself. My family lives mostly witout it. We had to learn the hard
> >way mostly.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> However, for those of us that can digest them, they are a valuable
> addition to the diet.
Ignoramus22665 - 06 Aug 2004 22:11 GMT
> Yup, valuble to the surgeons. My first born had his tonsils and adenoids out
> and my second and third were headed for the operating room also. My thrree
> children probably consumed 5-6000 dollars worth of antibiotics and sulpha
> drugs before I smartened up. Dairy is definitely good for the medical trade.
>
> Milk is poison and the educated people all know it.

Can you give me some hard evidence for it? I promise to be open
minded.

i
Gymmy Bob - 07 Aug 2004 02:30 GMT
If you wanted hard evidence you would only have to open your eyes and look
for it.

I cannot and probably will not convince anybody that hasn't figured it out
yet. "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" was not the most successful
advertising campaign of the 20th century. "Milk does a body good" was.

> > Yup, valuble to the surgeons. My first born had his tonsils and adenoids out
> > and my second and third were headed for the operating room also. My thrree
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> i
David Wright - 07 Aug 2004 04:45 GMT
>Yup, valuble to the surgeons. My first born had his tonsils and adenoids out
>and my second and third were headed for the operating room also. My thrree
>children probably consumed 5-6000 dollars worth of antibiotics and sulpha
>drugs before I smartened up. Dairy is definitely good for the medical trade.
>
>Milk is poison and the educated people all know it.

This is sheer speculation on Gymmy Boob's part, as he is not educated,
or even educable.  

As it happens, I have a young nephew who can't tolerate cow's milk --
his mother discovered this fairly early on and now he's on a dairy-
free diet and doing just fine.

I, on the other hand, drink plenty of milk and it hasn't poisoned me
yet.  

 -- 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)
Annabel Smyth - 07 Aug 2004 10:30 GMT
>Yup, valuble to the surgeons. My first born had his tonsils and adenoids out
>and my second and third were headed for the operating room also. My thrree
>children probably consumed 5-6000 dollars worth of antibiotics and sulpha
>drugs before I smartened up. Dairy is definitely good for the medical trade.
>
>Milk is poison and the educated people all know it.

Er - what you meant to write, I think, is that milk is poison *to your
family*, who obviously don't possess the gene to be able to digest it.
And that is fair enough.

Please understand that what is true for you doesn't necessarily work for
other people, though.  I, and my family, do have the gene that enables
us to digest milk, and although I drink very little liquid milk, this is
for reasons of taste, not digestion.  We do, however, enjoy cheese and
yogurt, and the menfolk also eat butter - the women tend to eschew it
because of the calorie content.

Some people I know cannot digest wheat or gluten, but that doesn't mean
that nobody else can.  I can't digest prawns or oily fish, but that
doesn't mean nobody else can.  You can't digest milk - but that doesn't
mean nobody else can.
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

Gymmy Bob - 07 Aug 2004 17:27 GMT
OK .

90% of the human race cannot digest milk. The other 10% does not know it.

Butter is not considered a dairy product.

How is your dandruff/skin  problem doing?

Did I guess the exzema, psoriasis wrong?

OK, How are your arthritic problems lately?

> >Yup, valuble to the surgeons. My first born had his tonsils and adenoids out
> >and my second and third were headed for the operating room also. My thrree
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> doesn't mean nobody else can.  You can't digest milk - but that doesn't
> mean nobody else can.
Ignoramus28438 - 07 Aug 2004 17:55 GMT
> OK .
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> OK, How are your arthritic problems lately?

Do you have any evidence (like articles in medical journals) that
would substantiate the link of those diseases to milk.

i

>> >Yup, valuble to the surgeons. My first born had his tonsils and adenoids
> out
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>> doesn't mean nobody else can.  You can't digest milk - but that doesn't
>> mean nobody else can.
Gymmy Bob - 07 Aug 2004 22:05 GMT
Do you have any evidence that milk doesn't cause all disease?

Double blind testing? Other methods of scientific testing?

I don't need any eveidence. I can think and I have experience.

> > OK .
> >
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> >> doesn't mean nobody else can.  You can't digest milk - but that doesn't
> >> mean nobody else can.
Ignoramus28438 - 07 Aug 2004 22:46 GMT
> Do you have any evidence that milk doesn't cause all disease?
>
> Double blind testing? Other methods of scientific testing?
>
> I don't need any eveidence. I can think and I have experience.

Well, I need evidence. You can live as you wish.

i

>> > OK .
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>> >> doesn't mean nobody else can.  You can't digest milk - but that doesn't
>> >> mean nobody else can.
Gymmy Bob - 08 Aug 2004 15:56 GMT
You will live as you wish also. If you need testing and evidence for
everything before trying an absolutely free self test then you will have the
diseases that most other closed minded people suffer with.

Best of luck.

> > Do you have any evidence that milk doesn't cause all disease?
> >
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> >> >> doesn't mean nobody else can.  You can't digest milk - but that doesn't
> >> >> mean nobody else can.
Ignoramus18740 - 08 Aug 2004 19:26 GMT
> You will live as you wish also. If you need testing and evidence for
> everything before trying an absolutely free self test then you will have the
> diseases that most other closed minded people suffer with.

what is that absolutely free test?

i

> Best of luck.
>
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
> doesn't
>> >> >> mean nobody else can.
jamie - 09 Aug 2004 00:23 GMT
>> You will live as you wish also. If you need testing and evidence for
>> everything before trying an absolutely free self test then you will have the
>> diseases that most other closed minded people suffer with.
>
> what is that absolutely free test?

Probably giving up dairy, and noticing no difference if you don't
have undiagnosed dairy allergies or lactose intolerance.

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

Ignoramus18740 - 09 Aug 2004 01:22 GMT
>>> You will live as you wish also. If you need testing and evidence for
>>> everything before trying an absolutely free self test then you will have the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Probably giving up dairy, and noticing no difference if you don't
> have undiagnosed dairy allergies or lactose intolerance.

Well, I wanted him to say it...

I have no dairy allergy and can eat incredible quantities of milk
products. When I do not eat them, I do not notice any difference.

My sister though, is very milk intolerant.

i
Annabel Smyth - 08 Aug 2004 09:54 GMT
>OK .
>
>90% of the human race cannot digest milk. The other 10% does not know it.

Yes, and?

>Butter is not considered a dairy product.

Hullo?  What do you *think* butter is made from, then?  Hint: cow's
milk.

>How is your dandruff/skin  problem doing?

What dandruff/skin problem?

> Did I guess the exzema, psoriasis wrong?

What eczema, psoriasis?

>OK, How are your arthritic problems lately?

What arthritic problems?
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

Gymmy Bob - 08 Aug 2004 15:58 GMT
What are ya..... 12?  I am glad you have the abiity to handle all these
toxins. You are exceptional!

> >OK .
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> What arthritic problems?
JC Der Koenig - 08 Aug 2004 16:36 GMT
Many weight lifters drink milk, even those that are older than 12.

Signature

You take stupid to a new level.  -- MFW

> What are ya..... 12?  I am glad you have the abiity to handle all these
> toxins. You are exceptional!
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> >
> > What arthritic problems?
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
> > Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
> > snaps!
jamie - 09 Aug 2004 00:01 GMT
> What are ya..... 12?  I am glad you have the abiity to handle all these
> toxins. You are exceptional!

When you've learned the difference between dairy protein allergies,
lactase insufficiency and toxins, maybe you'll start to have some
vague idea of what you're talking about.

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

Annabel Smyth - 09 Aug 2004 12:22 GMT
>What are ya..... 12?  I am glad you have the abiity to handle all these
>toxins. You are exceptional!

*What* toxins?  Some people, repeat, SOME people, are severely to mildly
intolerant of milk and milk products.

But then, anybody who thinks butter is not a milk product obviously
doesn't know anything about milk and milk products.....
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

Gymmy Bob - 09 Aug 2004 22:51 GMT
Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.

Study harder.

> >What are ya..... 12?  I am glad you have the abiity to handle all these
> >toxins. You are exceptional!
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> But then, anybody who thinks butter is not a milk product obviously
> doesn't know anything about milk and milk products.....
FOB - 09 Aug 2004 23:11 GMT
By whom?

In news:YOGdnfRiE7PzbIrcRVn-vg@golden.net,
Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> stated
| Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.
|
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
|| http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August
|| 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps!
Gymmy Bob - 10 Aug 2004 02:40 GMT
Everybody except you. Geeesh.... do some research or take some courses.

> By whom?
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> || http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August
> || 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps!
FOB - 10 Aug 2004 02:50 GMT
Well, all the links here seem to include butter in the category of diary
products:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=is+butter+a+
dairy+product%3F


Butter is milk fat, if I milk a goat and make butter from the milk how could
that be beef fat?  The fattest thing around here seems to be your head.

In news:6YmdnR6ggL5BuoXcRVn-oA@golden.net,
Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> stated
| Everybody except you. Geeesh.... do some research or take some
| courses.
Gymmy Bob - 10 Aug 2004 03:22 GMT
Eggs are dairy too according to that garbage.

> Well, all the links here seem to include butter in the category of diary
> products:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=is+butter+a+
dairy+product%3F


> Butter is milk fat, if I milk a goat and make butter from the milk how could
> that be beef fat?  The fattest thing around here seems to be your head.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> | Everybody except you. Geeesh.... do some research or take some
> | courses.
David Wright - 10 Aug 2004 03:47 GMT
>By whom?

By Gymmy Boob, of course.

 -- 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)

>In news:YOGdnfRiE7PzbIrcRVn-vg@golden.net,
>Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> stated
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>|| http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August
>|| 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps!
Jennifer S. - 10 Aug 2004 02:57 GMT
"> Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.

What the heck? Have never ever heard that!  It is a dairy product. A very
natural dairy product not even close to beef lard. It is much more healthy
than the margarine's that are chemically one molecule away from plastic.

Jennifer S.
206/164/135
Annabel Smyth - 10 Aug 2004 12:44 GMT
>Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.

Er - do you actually know how to make butter?  Go to your local
supermarket and buy a tub of double cream, put this into a
food-processor, and carry on whisking, even after it has thickened.
Then you get butter.  So it is no more beef fat than cream is!
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

Gymmy Bob - 10 Aug 2004 23:33 GMT
It doesn't really matter what butter is made from. It is not nutritionally
considered a dairy product.

> >Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.
> >
> Er - do you actually know how to make butter?  Go to your local
> supermarket and buy a tub of double cream, put this into a
> food-processor, and carry on whisking, even after it has thickened.
> Then you get butter.  So it is no more beef fat than cream is!
Annabel Smyth - 11 Aug 2004 11:55 GMT
>It doesn't really matter what butter is made from. It is not nutritionally
>considered a dairy product.

I don't believe you.  Sources, please - and please don't top-post.
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

Gymmy Bob - 11 Aug 2004 22:51 GMT
Blow your old fashioned bottom posting superstition out your ear.

> >It doesn't really matter what butter is made from. It is not nutritionally
> >considered a dairy product.
> >
> I don't believe you.  Sources, please - and please don't top-post.
jamie - 10 Aug 2004 22:44 GMT
> Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.
>
> Study harder.

The USDA database shows a large difference in fat composition
between butter and beef tallow.
Study harder.

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

Gymmy Bob - 10 Aug 2004 23:35 GMT
Sounds totally related to your previous ignorance.

> > Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> between butter and beef tallow.
> Study harder.
jamie - 11 Aug 2004 02:19 GMT
> Sounds totally related to your previous ignorance.

What, about milk being a "poison"?  Obviously, you have nothing to back
up your assertion that butter is "beef fat" and not a dairy product.
You've merely convinced yourself that it's not dairy because it
has little or no "poisonous" milk proteins to set off your
allergies or "poisonous" lactose to set off lactose intolerance.


>> > Butter is considered beef fat not a dairy product nutritionally.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> between butter and beef tallow.
>> Study harder.

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

chase magnum - 11 Aug 2004 08:51 GMT
Butter is made from cream. ever made butter? Cream is Milk.Therfor,
Milk is Butter. Feel stupid yet?

- in the olden days... like my grandmas days. they used to put cream
into a barrel. the berrals top had a hole in the middle. this hole was
than enterd with a churning stick. they would beat the cream into
butter.
go and read this page link. -and feel more stupid.
http://www.lunehaven.com/butter.html

and once you are done reading ... you will realize just how great
margerine is for a vegitarian, like myself.

peace.
Doug Freyburger - 11 Aug 2004 21:22 GMT
> Butter is made from cream. ever made butter?

I sure have.

> Cream is Milk.Therfor, Milk is Butter. Feel stupid yet?
>
> - in the olden days... like my grandmas days. they used to put cream
> into a barrel. the berrals top had a hole in the middle. this hole was
> than enterd with a churning stick. they would beat the cream into
> butter.

Now it's often made in a blender by people intending to
make whipped cream.  It doesn't take all that much extra
whipping to end up with butter instead of whipped cream.
Plenty of folks have made butter by mistake intending
to make whipped cream.
David Wright - 03 Aug 2004 03:37 GMT
>> >I have observed the dairy products you list are all massively processed
>> >products. They all just happen to be enzyme broken down calcium
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>A lot of people referred to it, that the white liquid in the plastic can is
>no longer milk.

Yes, well, people say a lot of stupid things.  Pasteurization isn't
necessary -- if you like playing Russian Roulette every time you take
a drink of milk.  Homogenization isn't harmful, despite the panicky
reaction it elicits in "Dr" Cee.  So I've got no problem with either
one.  I'll admit that I do drink 1% milk, though.  I decided I could
do just fine without the extra fat.

 -- 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)
Lictor - 05 Aug 2004 23:46 GMT
> Yes, well, people say a lot of stupid things.  Pasteurization isn't
> necessary -- if you like playing Russian Roulette every time you take
> a drink of milk.  Homogenization isn't harmful, despite the panicky
> reaction it elicits in "Dr" Cee.  So I've got no problem with either
> one.  I'll admit that I do drink 1% milk, though.  I decided I could
> do just fine without the extra fat.

There are alternatives to pasteurization though. I don't know about the USA,
but here (France) micro-filtrated milk is beginning to find a niche market.
It lasts twice as long as pasteurized and like it has to be kept in the
fridge. It also tastes much better, but that's pretty subjective.
Another option is just to make cheese. Raw milk cheese is a stable milieu,
because the cheese is colonized by specific germs, and these germs will
fight against attempts from other germs to colonize it. Pregnant women and
immuno-deficient people are not advised to eat raw milk cheese as a
safeguard (though some do), but otherwise we have a negligeable amount of
health problems with them (and most cases being mild) and the taste is way
better.
The reason they are illegal to import in the USA are mainly economic, not
sanitary. But it's true that most raw milk cheese are high quality ones with
very tight regulations set to protect the brand name. For instance,
pasteurized milk is allowed to contain a large amount of germs before the
process, this is obviously not the case with raw milk. The regulations
concerning raw milk monitor the whole process, from milking the cow to the
transport and delays. Of course, maybe another factor is that since most
people have been eating these from decades, they have the proper immune
system to deal with whatever uninvited germ is in there... There are
theories that antibiotics abuse and constant sterilization of everything is
leading to a weakening of the immune system...
David Wright - 06 Aug 2004 04:50 GMT
>> Yes, well, people say a lot of stupid things.  Pasteurization isn't
>> necessary -- if you like playing Russian Roulette every time you take
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>theories that antibiotics abuse and constant sterilization of everything is
>leading to a weakening of the immune system...

No, that's not the theory.  It's not that the immune system is being
"weakened."  It's that it's not being "primed" properly, and thus is
more likely to go awry and cause autoimmune disorders.

Only a theory, but one with some support.

 -- 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)
jamie - 04 Aug 2004 01:32 GMT
> So what do you think about the pasteurization & homogenization processes?
> A lot of people referred to it, that the white liquid in the plastic can is
> no longer milk.

Before pasteurization, people regularly became ill from pathogens
in milk, including tubercolosis, listeria, salmonella, E coli, and
rabies, among others.  And people still do become ill from raw milk.
Since the appearance of antibiotic-resistant salmonella strains,
some have gotten quite seriously ill from raw milk.  In a salmonella
outbreak from raw milk in CA in 1983, of 123 cases reported, 80%
were hospitalized and 26% died.  DIED from drinking raw milk.
(http://www.foodsafetynetwork.ca/food/rawmilk.htm)

Pasteurization doesn't sterilize the milk; it's heated to roughly
140-160F (71.7C for 16 seconds or 62.8C for 30 minutes) to kill
most of the pathogens, then rapidly cooled, and refrigeration keeps
the remainder in check.  It does also kill harmless bacteria like
lactobacilli that "sour" milk, so pasteurized milk doesn't sour, it
merely eventually spoils.  The temperature required for pasteurization
also destroys the alkaline phosphatase enzyme, needed for absorbing
calcium, but your liver makes that enzyme, too.

Homogenization is merely forcing the the milk through tiny tubes
under high pressure (like a mist) to break up the fat globules so
that they stay dispersed.

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

Gymmy Bob - 04 Aug 2004 02:14 GMT
That explains what they do to destroy any goodness left in it I guess.

Thanx

> > So what do you think about the pasteurization & homogenization processes?
> > A lot of people referred to it, that the white liquid in the plastic can is
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> under high pressure (like a mist) to break up the fat globules so
> that they stay dispersed.
Carol Frilegh - 04 Aug 2004 13:21 GMT
> That explains what they do to destroy any goodness left in it I guess.

You guess wrong!

First of all adults really don't need cow's milk. However when it is
properly incubated with a starter for 24 hours millions of friendly gut
bacteria proliferate  which oppose bad intestinal micro flora. Also
these bacteria have fed on the milk lactose removing almost all of it.
The yogurt should then be chilled eight hours or if dripped through a
paper coffee filter, the yogurt attains a consitency like cream cheese
and can be used in dips and spreads and sweetened with honey or
saccharine.

from:

www.breakingthevisiouscycle.info

Goat's milk yogurt is even more useful as the protein in it hat
aggravates some immune system differs from cow dairy

Signature

Diva
******
There is no substitute for the right food

Gymmy Bob - 04 Aug 2004 22:10 GMT
Well when you come to the realization that you could, or may not be, but
then could possibly realize it too.

> > That explains what they do to destroy any goodness left in it I guess.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Goat's milk yogurt is even more useful as the protein in it hat
> aggravates some immune system differs from cow dairy
Annabel Smyth - 06 Aug 2004 18:00 GMT
>  And people still do become ill from raw milk.

Indeed; 40 years ago I contracted brucellosis, as did my sister, who was
an infant at the time and nearly died.

>Pasteurization doesn't sterilize the milk; it's heated to roughly
>140-160F (71.7C for 16 seconds or 62.8C for 30 minutes) to kill
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>also destroys the alkaline phosphatase enzyme, needed for absorbing
>calcium, but your liver makes that enzyme, too.

It does less harm to the taste than the UHT sterilised milk, but it does
affect it.

>Homogenization is merely forcing the the milk through tiny tubes
>under high pressure (like a mist) to break up the fat globules so
>that they stay dispersed.

Such a pity; "The top of the milk" on one's cereal was such a treat to a
small child, and one they can no longer have.
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

Daniel Hoffmeister - 02 Aug 2004 13:12 GMT
In alt.support.diet.low-carb Gymmy Bob <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
> I have observed the dairy products you list are all massively processed
> products. They all just happen to be enzyme broken down calcium molecules.

Wow, where to start...  If you know of an enzyme that can break down a
calcium molecule, you are on your way to the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Let's just say you need to do a bit of reading up on the processes that
produce cheeses, yogurt, sour cream and other milk-based products.

Many lactose-intolerant people can manage yogurt because the enzyme needed
to digest lactose, missing in many adults, is produced as part of the
fermentation process by Lactobacillus acidophilus and others.

The reason real cheeses are lower-carb than the milk they are made from is
that lactose has largely been converted to lactic acid.

One cheese rule of thumb - any cheese product that has the word 'food' in
it, isn't.

Dan
325/211/180
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes
support@srdirect.co.uk - 01 Aug 2004 14:20 GMT
All of these fad type diets do not work in my opinion.  There may be a few
people who benefit from them, but this is generally short term, and they end
up putting all the weight back on.  The only way to lose weight and keep it
off is to make changes to both your eating habits and your lifestyle.  Your
body needs a balanced intake of all the food types we eat to maintain a
healthy balance.  Depriving it of one or more of these foods can onlt serve
to create an imbalance.  So for example you may lose the weight but have no
energy.  I have done a bit of research on this and in my opinion the
statements "everything in moderation" and "you are what you eat" are worth
remembering when choosing a diet plan.

Regards
S. Robertson
www.srdirect.co.uk
Doug Freyburger - 03 Aug 2004 21:49 GMT
> Had been going on the no-sugar & no-carb diet for the past 6 weeks (I'm a
> 28yo man)

Per your description you have NOT been on a no-carb plan.  Please
do not call it more extreme than it it.

> Menu:
> fish, meat, chicken, eggs, vegetables (except carrots & potatoes),
> tea/coffee, sour cream, white cheeses, red bull.

Eggs (0.6), vegitables (various), tea/coffee (0.4), sour cream
(1.0), white cheeses (1.0) and red bull (see label and round back
up using the rounded-down-formula) all have non-zero carb counts.

> Results:
> * utter loss of energy

You were sort-of on Atkins Induction for 6 weeks.  You have just
discovered yet another reason why it is designed to last 2.

> * faint liver pain in the last 4 days, usually in the afternoon and late
> afternoon and after some meals (haven't established the dependency)

This is more likely to be something other than liver.  At-kids
are told to drink pure pure water and that makes it go away.
Not sure what it is but it's temporary for At-kids.

> * 20 lbs is gone, I became visibly thin, but fat belt still present around
> the waist & in the belly front

The visibly thin part reflects the high portion of water loss in
the initial loss.  The fat belt still present reflects the fact
that the time scale for losign fat is month to month.  Looks like
you've done okay for what you tried.

> So here go the questions:
>
> a) How do you ladies and gents sitting on a low- or no- carb diet balance
> your energy levels.

By reading the Atkins book and moving on to the next phase on
day 15 like it says if you feel this way.

> What do you eat to be able to finction? Because I barely
> can - don't want to exersize, have a drop in brain activity, have no desire
> to do anything after work or go anywhere

The feeling usually only lasts less than 14 days, but for some
it lasts longer.  The solution is to move on to phase two.

> b) What might be that vague aching in the liver?

Probably not liver but not sure what it is.  It goes away with
an extra 1-2 liters of pure water daily.

> c) Is it time to add sugar/carbs to the menu

No.  The time to do that was day 15 not this far in.

> and if so - then in what
> quantity and how to avoid the regeneration of the fat belt layers that have
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Any opinions will be appreciated.

If you wish to do Atkins go for the actual plan not one you
made up on your own.  What you made up was fine for the first 2
weeks but you're well past that.  Doctor Atkins New Diet
Revolution.  Read it and follow the directions for OWL.  On
the simplist level of what to do today - Set your daily carb
intake to 25 knowing that most likely you are now near 20.
Annabel Smyth - 06 Aug 2004 18:03 GMT
>Eggs (0.6), vegitables (various), tea/coffee (0.4), sour cream
>(1.0), white cheeses (1.0) and red bull (see label and round back
>up using the rounded-down-formula) all have non-zero carb counts.

I think I'm missing something here.  Tea and coffee contain no calories,
so how can they contain any carbohydrates?
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

Rob - 06 Aug 2004 18:41 GMT
>>Eggs (0.6), vegitables (various), tea/coffee (0.4), sour cream
>>(1.0), white cheeses (1.0) and red bull (see label and round back
>>up using the rounded-down-formula) all have non-zero carb counts.
>
> I think I'm missing something here.  Tea and coffee contain no calories,
> so how can they contain any carbohydrates?

Milk, cream or sugar in the coffee or tea?  If not, it must have been a
dirty mug.
Annabel Smyth - 06 Aug 2004 19:01 GMT
>>>Eggs (0.6), vegitables (various), tea/coffee (0.4), sour cream
>>>(1.0), white cheeses (1.0) and red bull (see label and round back
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Milk, cream or sugar in the coffee or tea?  If not, it must have been a
>dirty mug.

I reckon it must - the OP made no mention of milk or sugar in his
drinks.
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

Bob in CT - 06 Aug 2004 19:22 GMT
>>>> Eggs (0.6), vegitables (various), tea/coffee (0.4), sour cream
>>>> (1.0), white cheeses (1.0) and red bull (see label and round back
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I reckon it must - the OP made no mention of milk or sugar in his
> drinks.

Coffee and tea do have calories. No many, but some).  See:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl

Also, they are typically counted as carbs, although the link above gives
the calories from coffee as being from protein and fat.

Signature

Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Rob - 06 Aug 2004 20:04 GMT
>>>>> Eggs (0.6), vegitables (various), tea/coffee (0.4), sour cream
>>>>> (1.0), white cheeses (1.0) and red bull (see label and round back
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Also, they are typically counted as carbs, although the link above gives
> the calories from coffee as being from protein and fat.

Learned sumfin' there.

A lot of zeros in that chart.  Water, potassium and caffeine pretty much
fills the cup.

Aren't they also considered appetite suppressants?  Green tea may even
give the metabolism a lil’ kick.

I only worry about the weight they add as stains on the teeth, but those
pounds a 6 month cleaning eliminates.
jamie - 06 Aug 2004 20:41 GMT
>>>> I think I'm missing something here.  Tea and coffee contain no calories,
>>>> so how can they contain any carbohydrates?

[intervening comments on cream snipped]

> Coffee and tea do have calories. No many, but some).  See:
> http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/cgi-bin/list_nut_edit.pl
>
> Also, they are typically counted as carbs, although the link above gives
> the calories from coffee as being from protein and fat.

As to Annabel's question on "no" calories, in US regulations, anything
barely less than 5 calories per serving is allowed to be labelled as
zero calories per serving.  So we have sweetener packets, for instance,
labelled zero calories when they really have 4, because of the 0.9g
to 1g of carb padding in them.  You get more realistic labels various
other countries, where they have to label per 100 grams, instead of
some serving size the company makes up.

The previous revision of the USDA database listed some carb in coffee.
Over the past (some months), there has occasionally been discussion
about some item or other that didn't match the entry in the previous
revision, but it's difficult to know which revision has the error.
(Unless it's grossly obvious, like an error I reported to them shortly
after the new one came online, that caused a cup of sugar to calculate
around 50g carb.)

Signature

 jamie  (jamiemck@newsguy.com)

         "There's a seeker born every minute."

Annabel Smyth - 06 Aug 2004 21:25 GMT
>As to Annabel's question on "no" calories, in US regulations, anything
>barely less than 5 calories per serving is allowed to be labelled as
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>other countries, where they have to label per 100 grams, instead of
>some serving size the company makes up.

Well, we have more realistic labelling here, and they don't even bother
to list it on tea, only the list of ingredients: "tea, bergamot
flavouring" in the case of my favourite Earl Grey.  Not even that on the
English Breakfast tea.  Certainly no diet guide here considers either
drink to have any calories if no milk or sugar is added.
Signature

Annabel Smyth                   mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
                               http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

janice - 06 Aug 2004 21:57 GMT
>>As to Annabel's question on "no" calories, in US regulations, anything
>>barely less than 5 calories per serving is allowed to be labelled as
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>other countries, where they have to label per 100 grams, instead of
>>some serving size the company makes up.

Yes, I do like our per 100g (or 100ml in the case of liquids) system
of expressing nutritional values.  It makes it so easy, just having to
calculate your portion size as a percentage of this.

janice
233/179/133
Ignoramus22665 - 06 Aug 2004 22:00 GMT
>>>As to Annabel's question on "no" calories, in US regulations, anything
>>>barely less than 5 calories per serving is allowed to be labelled as
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of expressing nutritional values.  It makes it so easy, just having to
> calculate your portion size as a percentage of this.

It is a much better system, no doubt. Iwish we had it here.

i
tcomeau - 11 Aug 2004 15:05 GMT
What exactly is this "no-sugar & no-carb diet"? I've never heard of
it. Is there a book? Who wrote it? Who is advocating such a diet? Or
is this something you made up on the spot? Did you just assume that
low-carbing involved completely cutting out all carbs? How much of
this non-carb food do you eat in a meal? How often per day do you eat
and in what quantities? How much water tdo you drink per day?

Frankly, I think you are a troll. If you are serious about this
so-called "diet", then you are a complete idiot. You may want to
actually READ about and EDUCATE yourself about what a low-carb diet
really is before you do something stupid like assuming that a low-carb
diet cuts out all carbs and requires you to eat ridiculous amounts of
proteins and fats.

TC

> Had been going on the no-sugar & no-carb diet for the past 6 weeks (I'm a
> 28yo man)
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> Any opinions will be appreciated.
 
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.