Ambrotose

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Ben, Jan 25, 2004.

  1. Ben

    Ben Guest

    Hi everyone

    What would like to know what this news group think about the use of ambrotose. It suppose to help
    your body's immune system. My twin brother uses this product and he says it is highly recommend for
    people who are on heart medication. For heart medication is hard on your immune system. I am on
    amiodarone and coumadin and atacand,norvasc. Is it advisable to use this product, or would I just
    waste my money

    Thanks

    Ben
     
    Tags:


  2. Matti Narkia

    Matti Narkia Guest

    Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:29:00 -0500 in article <[email protected]>
    "Ben" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Hi everyone
    >
    >What would like to know what this news group think about the use of ambrotose. It suppose to help
    >your body's immune system. My twin brother uses this product and he says it is highly recommend for
    >people who are on heart medication. For heart medication is hard on your immune system. I am on
    >amiodarone and coumadin and atacand,norvasc. Is it advisable to use this product, or would I just
    >waste my money
    >
    It's probably waste of money. There are no peer-reviewed research articles about ambrotose.

    --
    Matti Narkia
     
  3. On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:26:42 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >It's probably waste of money. There are no peer-reviewed research articles about ambrotose.

    There's no peer reviewed research on the 2PDiet yet we see people successfully lose/maintain weight
    on it daily.

    You live in an artificial world of over reliance on research; tell me, if yo stick your hand in
    fire, will you need research to prove to you that you got burned?

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
     
  4. Matti Narkia

    Matti Narkia Guest

    Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:19:01 -0500 in article
    <[email protected]> Mu_n Over Eugenia
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:26:42 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>It's probably waste of money. There are no peer-reviewed research articles about ambrotose.
    >
    >There's no peer reviewed research on the 2PDiet

    That's a good enough reason to avoid 2PDiet, IMHO. Why should people be guinea pigs for a totally
    untested procedure?

    >yet we see people successfully lose/maintain weight on it daily.
    >
    We? :).

    >You live in an artificial world of over reliance on research; tell me, if yo stick your hand in
    >fire, will you need research to prove to you that you got burned?
    >
    You seem to live in a dangerous fantasy world of quackery, and even prefer it to scientifically
    tested medical procedures. What does that tell about you?

    To answer your idiotic question: you need science to diagnose the severity of the burn and to
    prescribe proper treatment. Your quack treatments would probably be of no help and could make the
    situation worse.

    --
    Matti Narkia
     
  5. On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:01:22 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >>There's no peer reviewed research on the 2PDiet
    >
    >That's a good enough reason to avoid 2PDiet, IMHO. Why should people be guinea pigs for a totally
    >untested procedure?

    Where were you when Atkins and Ornish and all the other commercial diets came out and were not under
    any research and were "totally untested"?

    Your obsession with the written word and your blindness to reality make your hatred for the 2PDiet
    all the more ridiculous.

    >>yet we see people successfully lose/maintain weight on it daily.
    >>
    >We? :).

    We.

    >>You live in an artificial world of over reliance on research; tell me, if yo stick your hand in
    >>fire, will you need research to prove to you that you got burned?
    >>
    >You seem to live in a dangerous fantasy world of quackery, and even prefer it to scientifically
    >tested medical procedures. What does that tell about you?

    It says that I don't need a research citation to tell me when to take a dump.

    >To answer your idiotic question: you need science to diagnose the severity of the burn and to
    >prescribe proper treatment. Your quack treatments would probably be of no help and could make the
    >situation worse.

    My question, which you have misphrased to make some kind of inane point, was "do you need a citation
    to tell you that the fire you just put your hand in just burnt you'?

    Well, do you, Matti?

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
     
  6. Matti Narkia

    Matti Narkia Guest

    Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:09:53 -0500 in article
    <[email protected]> Mu_n Over Eugenia
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:01:22 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>>There's no peer reviewed research on the 2PDiet
    >>
    >>That's a good enough reason to avoid 2PDiet, IMHO. Why should people be guinea pigs for a totally
    >>untested procedure?
    >
    >Where were you when Atkins and Ornish and all the other commercial diets came out and were not
    >under any research and were "totally untested"?
    >
    FYI: Dr Atkins first published his diet plan in 1972. At that time there were already several
    studies about low-carbohydrate diets. Below references to some of these studies:

    Hulley SB, Wilson WS, Burrows MI, Nichaman MZ. Lipid and lipoprotein responses of
    hypertriglyceridaemic outpatients to a low-carbohydrate modification of the A.H.A. fat-controlled
    diet. Lancet. 1972 Sep 16; 2(7777): 551-5.

    Jackson RA, Advani U, Perry G, Rogers J, Peters N, Pilkington TR. Dietary diabetes: the influence of
    a low-carbohydrate diet on peripheral glucose utilization. Isr J Med Sci. 1972 Jun; 8(6): 916.

    Yudkin J. The low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of obesity. Postgrad Med. 1972 May;
    51(5): 151-4.

    Kasper H, Plock E. [Body weight in high-fat low-carbohydrate diet] Med Klin. 1971 Mar 19; 66(12):
    440-5. German.

    Kew MC. Treatment of obesity in the Bantu: value of a low-carbohydrate diet with and without an
    appetite suppressant. S Afr Med J. 1970 Sep 5; 44(35): 1006-7.

    Stock AL, Yudkin J. Nutrient intake of subjects on low carbohydrate diet used in treatment of
    obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1970 Jul; 23(7): 948-52.

    Ponikowska I. [Comparative studies on the effect of high carbohydrate diet and low carbohydrate diet
    in diabetes] Pol Tyg Lek. 1969 Oct 3; 24(44): 1697-700. Polish.

    Nicholson AL, Yudkin J. The nutritional value of low-carbohydrate diet used in the treatment of
    obesity. Proc Nutr Soc. 1969 Mar; 28(1): 13A.
    >
    >>>yet we see people successfully lose/maintain weight on it daily.
    >>>
    >>We? :).
    >
    >We.
    >
    LOL. As you probably don't know what others "see", you obviously are talking about yourself using
    plural form. :). So, just for the sake of curiosity, could you tell us exactly what _you_ see, how
    often and whom _you_ "see", how do _you_ verify what _you _"see", and why should we believe anything
    _you_ say?
    >
    >>>You live in an artificial world of over reliance on research; tell me, if yo stick your hand in
    >>>fire, will you need research to prove to you that you got burned?
    >>>
    >>You seem to live in a dangerous fantasy world of quackery, and even prefer it to scientifically
    >>tested medical procedures. What does that tell about you?
    >
    >It says that I don't need a research citation to tell me when to take a dump.
    >
    No. It says that you don't have a clue about science, especially about medial and
    nutritional science.

    >>To answer your idiotic question: you need science to diagnose the severity of the burn and to
    >>prescribe proper treatment. Your quack treatments would probably be of no help and could make the
    >>situation worse.
    >
    >My question, which you have misphrased to make some kind of inane point, was "do you need a
    >citation to tell you that the fire you just put your hand in just burnt you'?
    >
    You are not making sense here. You don't need science to notice obvious visual signs of a condition
    (or do you need science to see if someone is fat?), but you need science to exactly diagnose the
    condition and to determine the best treatment. 2PD diet is not a visual sign of a condition, it is
    _quack_ _treatment_ for a condition (obesity).

    --
    Matti Narkia
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:03:19 -0500, Matti Narkia wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:09:53 -0500 in article <[email protected]> Mu_n Over
    > Eugenia <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:01:22 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> There's no peer reviewed research on the 2PDiet
    >>>
    >>> That's a good enough reason to avoid 2PDiet, IMHO. Why should people be guinea pigs for a
    >>> totally untested procedure?
    >>
    >> Where were you when Atkins and Ornish and all the other commercial diets came out and were not
    >> under any research and were "totally untested"?
    >>
    > FYI: Dr Atkins first published his diet plan in 1972. At that time there were already several
    > studies about low-carbohydrate diets. Below references to some of these studies:
    >
    > Hulley SB, Wilson WS, Burrows MI, Nichaman MZ. Lipid and lipoprotein responses of
    > hypertriglyceridaemic outpatients to a low-carbohydrate modification of the A.H.A. fat-controlled
    > diet. Lancet. 1972 Sep 16; 2(7777): 551-5.
    >
    > Jackson RA, Advani U, Perry G, Rogers J, Peters N, Pilkington TR. Dietary diabetes: the influence
    > of a low-carbohydrate diet on peripheral glucose utilization. Isr J Med Sci. 1972 Jun; 8(6): 916.
    >
    > Yudkin J. The low-carbohydrate diet in the treatment of obesity. Postgrad Med. 1972 May;
    > 51(5): 151-4.
    >
    > Kasper H, Plock E. [Body weight in high-fat low-carbohydrate diet] Med Klin. 1971 Mar 19; 66(12):
    > 440-5. German.
    >
    > Kew MC. Treatment of obesity in the Bantu: value of a low-carbohydrate diet with and without an
    > appetite suppressant. S Afr Med J. 1970 Sep 5; 44(35): 1006-7.
    >
    > Stock AL, Yudkin J. Nutrient intake of subjects on low carbohydrate diet used in treatment of
    > obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1970 Jul; 23(7): 948-52.
    >
    > Ponikowska I. [Comparative studies on the effect of high carbohydrate diet and low carbohydrate
    > diet in diabetes] Pol Tyg Lek. 1969 Oct 3; 24(44): 1697-700. Polish.
    >
    > Nicholson AL, Yudkin J. The nutritional value of low-carbohydrate diet used in the treatment of
    > obesity. Proc Nutr Soc. 1969 Mar; 28(1): 13A.
    >>
    >>>> yet we see people successfully lose/maintain weight on it daily.
    >>>>
    >>> We? :).
    >>
    >> We.
    >>
    > LOL. As you probably don't know what others "see", you obviously are talking about yourself using
    > plural form. :). So, just for the sake of curiosity, could you tell us exactly what _you_ see,
    > how often and whom _you_ "see", how do _you_ verify what _you _"see", and why should we believe
    > anything _you_ say?
    >>
    >>>> You live in an artificial world of over reliance on research; tell me, if yo stick your hand in
    >>>> fire, will you need research to prove to you that you got burned?
    >>>>
    >>> You seem to live in a dangerous fantasy world of quackery, and even prefer it to scientifically
    >>> tested medical procedures. What does that tell about you?
    >>
    >> It says that I don't need a research citation to tell me when to take a dump.
    >>
    > No. It says that you don't have a clue about science, especially about medial and nutritional
    > science.
    >
    >>> To answer your idiotic question: you need science to diagnose the severity of the burn and to
    >>> prescribe proper treatment. Your quack treatments would probably be of no help and could make
    >>> the situation worse.
    >>
    >> My question, which you have misphrased to make some kind of inane point, was "do you need a
    >> citation to tell you that the fire you just put your hand in just burnt you'?
    >>
    > You are not making sense here. You don't need science to notice obvious visual signs of a
    > condition (or do you need science to see if someone is fat?), but you need science to exactly
    > diagnose the condition and to determine the best treatment. 2PD diet is not a visual sign of a
    > condition, it is _quack_ _treatment_ for a condition (obesity).
    >
    >
    > --
    > Matti Narkia

    Matti, I think *you* are developing the Gift of Truth Discernment :)

    Nice work... as usual. Factual and Specific.

    Take three Humble Pills and call me in the morning,
    --
    Steve, Humilitas Doctorus, Fellow of the American Academy of Humility

    Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003
     
  8. On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:03:19 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >>>That's a good enough reason to avoid 2PDiet, IMHO. Why should people be guinea pigs for a totally
    >>>untested procedure?
    >>
    >>Where were you when Atkins and Ornish and all the other commercial diets came out and were not
    >>under any research and were "totally untested"?

    On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:03:19 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:

    >FYI: Dr Atkins first published his diet plan in 1972. At that time there were already several
    >studies about low-carbohydrate diets. Below references to some of these studies:

    None of which specifically lists Atkins.

    >Hulley SB, Wilson WS, Burrows MI, Nichaman MZ.

    <snipped>

    >>>>yet we see people successfully lose/maintain weight on it daily.
    >>>>
    >>>We? :).
    >>
    >>We.
    >>
    >LOL. As you probably don't know what others "see", you obviously are talking about yourself using
    >plural form. :).

    Chung, Hall and I for starters makes "We".

    >So, just for the sake of curiosity, could you tell us exactly what _you_ see,

    Weight loss, maintenance, very low recidivism rates...

    >how often and whom _you_ "see",

    Daily.

    >how do _you_ verify what _you _"see",

    Scales.

    >and why should we believe anything _you_ say?

    Because I don't use references in light of truthful observation.

    >>It says that I don't need a research citation to tell me when to take a dump.
    >>
    >No. It says that you don't have a clue about science, especially about medial and
    >nutritional science.

    lol

    ok

    Is that the medial collateral ligamental science you are speaking?

    >>My question, which you have misphrased to make some kind of inane point, was "do you need a
    >>citation to tell you that the fire you just put your hand in just burnt you'?
    >>
    >You are not making sense here. You don't need science to notice obvious visual signs of a condition
    >(or do you need science to see if someone is fat?), but you need science to exactly diagnose the
    >condition and to determine the best treatment.

    If your obese, get on the 2PDiet. So much for science. As far as medical diagnosis and treatment,
    neither you nor I are so trained so your point is mu_te.

    >2PD diet is not a visual sign of a condition, it is _quack_ _treatment_ for a condition (obesity).

    Why do you hate the 2PDiet so and why do you obsess about its success?

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
     
  9. Matti Narkia

    Matti Narkia Guest

    Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:28:26 -0500 in article
    <[email protected]> Mu_n Over Eugenia
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 19:03:19 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>FYI: Dr Atkins first published his diet plan in 1972. At that time there were already several
    >>studies about low-carbohydrate diets. Below references to some of these studies:
    >
    >None of which specifically lists Atkins.
    >
    I don't believe this. Where is your brain? How could these studies, which _predate_ Atkins'
    publication of his diet, mention anything about Atkins? You implied in your earlier post that
    Atkins' diet was not based on science. My references prove otherwise. There were a number of low-
    carbodydrate studies on which Atkins could base his diet.
    >
    >>>>>yet we see people successfully lose/maintain weight on it daily.
    >>>>>
    >>>>We? :).
    >>>
    >>>We.
    >>>
    >>LOL. As you probably don't know what others "see", you obviously are talking about yourself using
    >>plural form. :).
    >
    >Chung, Hall and I for starters makes "We".
    >
    Ah, but how do you know what Chung and Hall "see", and how do you verify what they "see", daily?

    >>So, just for the sake of curiosity, could you tell us exactly what _you_ see,
    >
    >Weight loss, maintenance, very low recidivism rates...
    >
    >>how often and whom _you_ "see",
    >
    >Daily.
    >
    >>how do _you_ verify what _you _"see",
    >
    >Scales.
    >
    So do you weigh these people? If you do in what capacity you do that? What exactly is your role in
    their weight loss program? And why should we believe anything you say? Hey, you cannot even prove
    who you are for god's sake!;-).

    >>and why should we believe anything _you_ say?
    >
    >Because I don't use references in light of truthful observation.
    >
    In other words you have no proof whatsoever for anything you have said.
    >
    >>>It says that I don't need a research citation to tell me when to take a dump.
    >>>
    >>No. It says that you don't have a clue about science, especially about medial and nutritional
    >>science.
    >
    >lol
    >
    IMHO, it's rather sad, but it's nice to see that you remain in good spirit.
    >
    >>>My question, which you have misphrased to make some kind of inane point, was "do you need a
    >>>citation to tell you that the fire you just put your hand in just burnt you'?
    >>>
    >>You are not making sense here. You don't need science to notice obvious visual signs of a
    >>condition (or do you need science to see if someone is fat?), but you need science to exactly
    >>diagnose the condition and to determine the best treatment.
    >
    >If your obese, get on the 2PDiet.
    >
    I wouldn't. There are better alternatives.
    >
    >So much for science.
    >
    Exactly. So much for science. There isn't any of it in 2PD diet.

    --
    Matti Narkia
     
  10. On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:16:07 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >>None of which specifically lists Atkins.

    >How could these studies, which _predate_ Atkins' publication of his diet, mention anything
    >about Atkins?

    They don't. You listed the ones that you claimed did. Grow up.

    >You implied in your earlier post that Atkins' diet was not based on science.

    I implied nothing of the sort.

    >My references prove otherwise. There were a number of low-carbodydrate studies on which Atkins
    >could base his diet.

    Exactly and I will not repeat myself again. I asked for the science that showed ATKINS DIET to be
    effective. You keep claiming that the 2PDiet has no science behind it. I agree. Neither did ATKINS
    specific DIET which is not just "a low carb diet", have any science behind it specifically regarding
    the ATKINS DIET.

    >Ah, but how do you know what Chung and Hall "see", and how do you verify what they "see", daily?

    Grow up. We live in the same town.

    >>Scales.

    >So do you weigh these people?

    Yes.

    >If you do in what capacity you do that?

    Strength trainer.

    >What exactly is your role in their weight loss program?

    To put them on the 2PDiet if their obesity is an issue to their health or sports success.

    >And why should we believe anything you say? Hey, you cannot even prove who you are for god's
    >sake!;-).

    Because I don't use references in light of truthful, documented observations.

    >In other words you have no proof whatsoever for anything you have said.

    None that I care to give you.

    I have asked you several times what your qualifications, education, expertise are and you have yet
    to answer me. My posts are all over Google so have at them.

    So, what is your real name, qualifications (outside of being a Medline Search Freak), etc.

    If you have no answers again, this conversation is over.

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
     
  11. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:14:01 -0500, Mu_n Over Eugenia wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    <snip>

    > You keep claiming that the 2PDiet has no science behind it. I agree.

    Thank you for that one... expect to see it again :)

    It's Hard to be Humble when you can Discern the Truth,
    --
    Steve, Humilitas Doctorus, Fellow of the American Academy of Humility

    Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003
     
  12. Matti Narkia

    Matti Narkia Guest

    Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:14:01 -0500 in article
    <[email protected]> Mu_n Over Eugenia
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:16:07 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>>None of which specifically lists Atkins.
    >
    >>How could these studies, which _predate_ Atkins' publication of his diet, mention anything
    >>about Atkins?
    >
    >They don't. You listed the ones that you claimed did. Grow up.
    >
    Do you have a comprehension problem or are you deliberately lying? As anyone can check I wrote:

    "Dr Atkins first published his diet plan in 1972. At that time there were already several
    studies about low-carbohydrate diets. Below references to some of these studies: "

    Now where is the claim that these referenced studies would mention Atkins' diet or would be about
    Atkin's version of low-carbohydrate diet? That would indeed have been a little difficult unless the
    researchers were clairvoyants, because Atkins hadn't come out his diet when these studies were
    published.
    >
    >>You implied in your earlier post that Atkins' diet was not based on science.
    >
    >I implied nothing of the sort.
    >
    You mentioned, among other things, that Atkins' and some other diets came out they were not under
    any research and were "totally untested"", in other words they in your opinion hardly could have
    been based on science. However, the references I listed suggest that not only had low-carbohydrate
    diets been "under research" for many years before Atkin's published his diet, but there also had
    been some preliminary testing of these diets.
    >
    >>My references prove otherwise. There were a number of low-carbodydrate studies on which Atkins
    >>could base his diet.
    >
    >Exactly and I will not repeat myself again. I asked for the science that showed ATKINS DIET to be
    >effective. You keep claiming that the 2PDiet has no science behind it. I agree. Neither did ATKINS
    >specific DIET which is not just "a low carb diet", have any science behind it specifically
    >regarding the ATKINS DIET.
    >
    Atkins' diet is just a version of low-carbohydrate diet, and there are variations even in the
    application of Atkins' diet. Later there have been studies also specifically about the Atkins'
    version of low-carbohydrate. I see no reason to get fixated onto Atkin's version when we talk about
    low carbohydrate diets. But when designing his version of low-carbohydrate diet, Atkins could
    benefit from the existing research about these diets.
    >
    >>Ah, but how do you know what Chung and Hall "see", and how do you verify what they "see", daily?
    >
    >Grow up. We live in the same town.
    >
    Perhaps you even live in the same house and wear same shoes? ;-)

    >>>Scales.
    >
    >>So do you weigh these people?
    >
    >Yes.
    >
    >>If you do in what capacity you do that?
    >
    >Strength trainer.
    >
    >>What exactly is your role in their weight loss program?
    >
    >To put them on the 2PDiet if their obesity is an issue to their health or sports success.
    >
    And if they happen to lose weight, you attribute weight loss to 2PD and not to excercise? Do you
    realize that, if you want prove anything at all about 2PD, you should have a matching control group
    with the same level of exercise, but with a different diet.

    >>And why should we believe anything you say? Hey, you cannot even prove who you are for god's
    >>sake!;-).
    >
    >Because I don't use references in light of truthful, documented observations.
    >
    >>In other words you have no proof whatsoever for anything you have said.
    >
    >None that I care to give you.
    >
    How nice and convincing.

    >I have asked you several times what your qualifications, education, expertise are and you have yet
    >to answer me. My posts are all over Google so have at them.
    >
    Hey, you anonymous troll, you don't give even your name. For whatever I claim I provide documented
    evidence, usually in the form of peer-reviewed studies, available to everyone. These have nothing to
    do with my qualifications, education, expertise etc... These personal details would add absolutely
    nothing to the quality of evidence and would provide no relevant information for the subjects we
    _should_ discuss in this ng. You are requesting strictly off-topic personal details while cowardly
    hiding _your_ real identity.

    >So, what is your real name, qualifications (outside of being a Medline Search Freak), etc.
    >
    >If you have no answers again, this conversation is over.
    >
    I have no intention to continue reading you messages on regular basis, so I just hope you are man
    enough to stick to your word. :)

    --
    Matti Narkia
     
  13. On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:50:12 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >>So, what is your real name, qualifications (outside of being a Medline Search Freak), etc.
    >>
    >>If you have no answers again, this conversation is over.
    >>
    >I have no intention to continue reading you messages on regular basis, so I just hope you are man
    >enough to stick to your word. :)

    <plonk>

    http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap991014.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
     
Loading...