'Put fat children on Atkins diet'



On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 14:33:06 GMT, "Mack"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the
>"low-carb" advocates is their lack of distinction between
>simple carbs, i.e. sugars, and complex carbs, i.e. fruits
>and vegetables.
>

And it seems to me you don't know what you are talking
about. Atkins himself used to say he ate at least as many
veggies as the average vegetarian.

--
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one
percent of the people may take away the rights of the other
forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
 
"Mack"

> Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the
> "low-carb" advocates is their lack of distinction between
> simple carbs, i.e. sugars, and complex carbs, i.e. fruits
> and vegetables.

Low carbers are acutely aware of the differences between
carbs. They use ketostix and blood glucose meters to measure
the impact carbs have on their body. They know that fiber
carbs have no effect on their body, and they do not count
them. On the other hand, when it comes to either simple
sugars or complex carbs, it only takes about 10-15 carbs in
a meal to cause a measurable reaction.

If people on Adkins could eat a couple of pieces of fruit a
day without weight loss dramatically slowing or even
stopping, they would. People don't like depriving
themselves.
 
"Sunshyne"

> I wonder if they do more studies, including the long term
> affects on children doing it.

A large number of elliptic children have been put on extreme
high fat/low carb diets, and they stayed on them for more
than a decade. And no health problems have turned up. On the
other hand, the medical establishment has successfully
encouraged the American people to reduce their consumption
of fat, and the result has been obesity and diabetes rising
to epidemic proportions.

> How could I have myself or children participate with the
> study. It would be interesting too to be involved in a
> study for those with Fibromyalia and low carbing.

Fibromyalia is a warning sign for Syndrome X. And chance
are you can reduce your Fibromyalia as well as enormously
improve your health, by lowing your blood sugar level.
The closer you can bring your morning blood sugar to 80,
the better.

But don't rely on studies to tell you what the best diet is.
What you need to have is a feedback mechanism that would
tell your if your diet is benefiting you. Now the
traditional way people gage a diet is by how much weight
they lose. But a lot of people are thin, and they still have
high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Some diets cause
muscles to waste. And frankly, waiting to lose weight takes
a long time.

For immediate feedback, I use a blood glucose meter. A blood
glucose meter doesn't cost any more than bathroom scales.
And you can test your blood glucose level after every meal,
and find out if the meal was health or not (the less your
blood sugar goes up the better).

What I found out is the low carbers were right. And that a
low carb diet was not enough to fully control my blood
sugar. I have a strange problem called the dawn phenomena,
that causes my blood sugar to start to rise at 5 am. And
through continued experimentation, that getting up at 2 am
and using a product called Relora (a cortisol blocker),
fixes the problem (I feel like a brand new person). And if I
hadn't used a blood glucose meter, my problem would have
remained undiagnosed, and it would eventually cause me to
become a diabetic.

Anyway, you need to be able to monitor what is going on in
your body, and adjust your diet for what works for you.
 
> > I'm on low carb and eat a lot of vegetables and avoid
> > sugars to the
exent
> > I can. I also eat some fruits that are low glycemic and
> > high fiber.
> >
> > I'm also a low carb advocate.
>
> Sounds like you're more of a "low-sugar" or "low-glycemic"
> advocate,
which
> is better, IMO.
>
> >avoid sugars to the extent I can
>
> The cheap little "Shoppers' Guide" put out by Sugar
> Busters is a good
source
> of info about low and high-glycemic goods, including brand
> names. If
you
> avoid just a few very high glycemic fruits and
> vegetables (ripe
bananas,
> pineapples, white potatoes, mangos, corn, beets and a few
> others) and
watch
> your nutrition labels to avoid anything with over 3g of
> sugars listed,
you
> can pretty easily avoid the sugars. You still have to
> watch those
labels
> for artificial sweeteners, though, if, like me, you are
> trying to
avoid the
> "sweet taste", not just the sugars.

Avoiding sugar is not enough. You need to avoid quickly
absorbed starches too.

Anyway, if you avoid everything with GI > 25 (not that
unreasonable), you will end with low-carb diet. There simply
is not enough carbs in low-glycemic foods to get you over
100g carbs/day, "official" threshold for LC diet (if you do
not intent to eat 10 pounds of vegetables of course :)

BTW, I have no problem with "sweet taste" - I think that my
LC choko-yougurt each evening helps me prevent my candy-
cravings. YMMV.

Mirek
 
"Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]> wrote

> Avoiding sugar is not enough. You need to avoid quickly
> absorbed starches too.

That is why I mentioned "white potatoes" as an example of a
high-glycemic food you need to avoid.

> BTW, I have no problem with "sweet taste" - I think that
> my LC choko-yougurt each evening helps me prevent my candy-
> cravings. YMMV.

You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my
experience that making the transition from sweets to
artificial sweets to no sweets eventually kills or greatly
lessens the sweet cravings. If you could wean yourself off
the artificial sweeteners and get used to the taste of food
without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want the
candy. In theory, at least. That might not work for you; I
don't know.

mack austin

>
> Mirek
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mack wrote:
> You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my
> experience that making the transition from sweets to
> artificial sweets to no sweets eventually kills or greatly
> lessens the sweet cravings. If you could wean yourself off
> the artificial sweeteners and get used to the taste of
> food without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not
> want the candy. In theory, at least. That might not work
> for you; I don't know.

Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing
sweetened. My theory is that good food does not need
sweetening.

i
 
> You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my
> experience
that
> making the transition from sweets to artificial sweets to
> no sweets eventually kills or greatly lessens the sweet
> cravings. If you could
wean
> yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to the
> taste of
food
> without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want
> the candy. In theory, at least. That might not work for
> you; I don't know.

Well, actually I admit this approach is even better. But I
am just a human :)

Mirek
 
On 19 Mar 2004 03:34:54 GMT, Ignoramus21235
<[email protected]> posted:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Mack wrote:
>> You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my
>> experience that making the transition from sweets to
>> artificial sweets to no sweets eventually kills or
>> greatly lessens the sweet cravings. If you could wean
>> yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to
>> the taste of food without the sweet taste, eventually,
>> you would not want the candy. In theory, at least. That
>> might not work for you; I don't know.
>
>Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing
>sweetened. My theory is that good food does not need
>sweetening.

Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine
foods in moderation.
 
Mack wrote:
>
> Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the
> "low-carb" advocates is their lack of distinction between
> simple carbs, i.e. sugars, and complex carbs, i.e. fruits
> and vegetables.

Unless you deal with nasty inconvenient hard work topics
like truth, paying attention to the endless discussion of
experienced low carbers teaching naive new low carbers, and
shock of shocks actually reading the entire contents of a
few of the well known low carb plan books, anyways. What
rock did you crawl out from under that you missed simple
basics like every single well known low carb plan without
exception puts much focus on glycemic index? Heck, there's
even Sugarbusters that focuses on complex vs simple carbs
almost to the exclusion of restricting total carb intake.

Thomas Edison said: "Most people miss opportunity because it
is dressed in coveralls and looks like work." Mack, actually
reading the books you attempt to discuss looks like work,
but you really need to try it. You know. Pick up book, open
to page one, read the table of contents. That sort of stuff
that you clearly haven't done yet. There isn't a single book
out there that lacks focus on glycemic index so it doesn't
even matter *which* popular one you pick. Get with the
program. Do your homework. If you want to object to low
carbing, learn enough that you can actually do so on a basis
of the facts.
 
No, it definitely does not "put the kybosh" on fruit. I only
avoid the particularly high-glycemic fruits, like
watermelon, ripe bananas, pineapples, raisins. It does put
it on honey. Two very different things. Honey is an
extremely high-glycemic food, like sugar. Sugared and artifically-
sweetened food tastes -- at least to me -- dramatically
sweeter than any fruit I eat.

mack austin

"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 19 Mar 2004 03:34:54 GMT, Ignoramus21235
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >Mack wrote:
> >> You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my
> >> experience that making the transition from sweets to
> >> artificial sweets to no sweets eventually kills or
> >> greatly lessens the sweet cravings. If you could
wean
> >> yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to
> >> the taste of
food
> >> without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want
> >> the candy. In theory, at least. That might not work for
> >> you; I don't know.
> >
> >Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing
> >sweetened. My theory is that good food does not need
> >sweetening.
>
> Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine
> foods in moderation.
 
"Mirek Fidler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my
> > experience
> that
> > making the transition from sweets to artificial sweets
> > to no sweets eventually kills or greatly lessens the
> > sweet cravings. If you could
> wean
> > yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to
> > the taste of
> food
> > without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want
> > the candy. In theory, at least. That might not work for
> > you; I don't know.
>
> Well, actually I admit this approach is even better. But I
> am just a human :)

I understand where you are coming from, but we are creatures
of habit and habits can be changed with the application of
will and a workable strategy. Personally, I don't want to
just openly surrender to any known bad habit. The sweet
habit is one that you could probably change by weaning
yourself off it, over time.

mack austin
 
No breakfast, a cambridge bar and a tab for lunch, milk
and a tv dinner for dinner. She gained weight and this was
the diet my mother in law put her on to lose weight. It
didn't work.

brian
290/227/210 july 8, 2003

"JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab.
>
> Yeah, right.
 
I knew a lady who gained weight on two cabbage leaves and
a cracker.

;-)

--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too
little. :)

Becky P.

"brian lanning" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No breakfast, a cambridge bar and a tab for lunch, milk
> and a tv dinner for dinner. She gained weight and this was
> the diet my mother in law put her on to lose weight. It
> didn't work.
>
> brian
> 290/227/210 july 8, 2003
>
>
> "JC Der Koenig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab.
> >
> > Yeah, right.
 
"Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mack wrote:
> >
> > Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the
> > "low-carb" advocates is their lack of distinction
> > between simple carbs, i.e.
sugars,
> > and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.
>
> Unless you deal with nasty inconvenient hard work topics
> like truth, paying attention to the endless discussion of
> experienced low carbers teaching naive new low carbers,
> and shock of shocks actually reading the entire contents
> of a few of the well known low carb plan books, anyways.
> What rock did you crawl out from under that you missed
> simple basics like every single well known low carb plan
> without exception puts much focus on glycemic index? Heck,
> there's even Sugarbusters that focuses on complex vs
> simple carbs almost to the exclusion of restricting total
> carb intake.
>
> Thomas Edison said: "Most people miss opportunity because
> it is dressed in coveralls and looks like work." Mack,
> actually reading the books you attempt to discuss looks
> like work, but you really need to try it. You know. Pick
> up book, open to page one, read the table of contents.
> That sort of stuff that you clearly haven't done yet.
> There isn't a single book out there that lacks focus on
> glycemic index so it doesn't even matter *which* popular
> one you pick. Get with the program. Do your homework. If
> you want to object to low carbing, learn enough that you
> can actually do so on a basis of the facts.

Wow! How does it make you feel more manly to be personally
insulting when you are in your little protected room, just
typing on your computer? I doubt you would talk to me like
that in person. People with character don't do that.
Unfortunately, the web is highly-populated with cowardly
jerks. Why choose to be one of them?

For whatever it's worth, I have, in fact, read all the
"Sugar Busters" material, as well as Walford's "Beyond the
120 Year Diet" and quite a few other popular and not-so-
popular books on this subject. I suspect that I am
significantly better-read than you, just based on the
observation that you do not sound here like the type who
would be much of a reader. More of a drive-by insult artist.

My current approach to diet began with an article on
glycemic index that was posted on the wall of my gym, years
ago, and is very similar to what you find in "Sugar
Busters", not including CRON. I am familiar, as well, with
Atkins, having used that diet to lose weight for about a
year in 1972-73, probably before you were born.

By "low-carb advocates", I was not referring to responsible
books, which do, in fact, mostly deal to some extent with
the glycemic index. I was certainly not referring to the the
"Sugar Busters" book, with which I largely agree. Obviously,
my comment should have been more clear, at least for you. I
meant the individuals who constantly post here and on other
boards who do not seem to make very much if any distinction
between sugars, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, etc. A carb
is a carb to them. But, obviously, your point was not to
find out what I meant or to have a real discussion.

mack austin
 
Wow! Does it make you feel more manly to be so personally
insulting when you are in your little protected room, just
typing on your computer? I doubt you would talk like that
in person.

For whatever it's worth, I have, in fact, read all the
"Sugar Busters" material, as well as Walford's "Beyond
the 120 Year Diet" and quite a few other popular and
not-so-popular books on this subject. You don't really
come off as much of a reader, yourself. More of a drive-
by insult artist.

My current approach to diet began with an article on
glycemic index that was posted on the wall of my gym, years
ago, and is very similar to what you find in "Sugar
Busters", not including the CRON. I am familiar, as well,
with Atkins, having used that diet to lose weight for about
a year in 1972-73. Before you were born?

By "low-carb advocates", I was not referring to responsible
books, which do, in fact, mostly deal to some extent with
the glycemic index. I was certainly not referring to the the
"Sugar Busters" book, with which I largely agree.

Obviously, my comment should have been more clear, at least
for you. I meant the individuals who constantly post here
and on other boards who do not seem to make very much if any
distinction between sugars, vegetables, whole grains, seeds,
etc. A carb is a carb to them. But, obviously, your point
was not to find out what I meant or to have a real
discussion.

mack austin

"Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mack wrote:
> >
> > Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the
> > "low-carb" advocates is their lack of distinction
> > between simple carbs, i.e.
sugars,
> > and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.
>
> Unless you deal with nasty inconvenient hard work topics
> like truth, paying attention to the endless discussion of
> experienced low carbers teaching naive new low carbers,
> and shock of shocks actually reading the entire contents
> of a few of the well known low carb plan books, anyways.
> What rock did you crawl out from under that you missed
> simple basics like every single well known low carb plan
> without exception puts much focus on glycemic index? Heck,
> there's even Sugarbusters that focuses on complex vs
> simple carbs almost to the exclusion of restricting total
> carb intake.
>
> Thomas Edison said: "Most people miss opportunity because
> it is dressed in coveralls and looks like work." Mack,
> actually reading the books you attempt to discuss looks
> like work, but you really need to try it. You know. Pick
> up book, open to page one, read the table of contents.
> That sort of stuff that you clearly haven't done yet.
> There isn't a single book out there that lacks focus on
> glycemic index so it doesn't even matter *which* popular
> one you pick. Get with the program. Do your homework. If
> you want to object to low carbing, learn enough that you
> can actually do so on a basis of the facts.
 
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:05:01 +0800, "Moosh:)" <[email protected]>
announced in front of God and everybody:

>Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine
>foods in moderation.

Fruit, yes. Honey, however, offers such little nutritive
benefit that it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-
spoonful, from white sugar.

Dawn
 
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:23:17 GMT, "Mack"
<[email protected]> posted:

>No, it definitely does not "put the kybosh" on fruit. I
>only avoid the particularly high-glycemic fruits, like
>watermelon, ripe bananas, pineapples, raisins. It does put
>it on honey. Two very different things. Honey is an
>extremely high-glycemic food, like sugar.

Nope, neither are high. Fructose is quite low AAMOF.

>Sugared and artifically-sweetened food tastes -- at least
>to me -- dramatically sweeter than any fruit I eat.

You really must overdo the sweetener. I find a drop or two
of saccharine in a cup of tea to be fine. Just sweet.

But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Apples and pears are quite low GI but extremely sweet.
It's all that fructose or fruit sugar. Very sweet, but
very low GI.

>
>mack austin
>
>"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 19 Mar 2004 03:34:54 GMT, Ignoramus21235
>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>, Mack
>> >wrote:
>> >> You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my
>> >> experience that making the transition from sweets to
>> >> artificial sweets to no sweets eventually kills or
>> >> greatly lessens the sweet cravings. If you could
>wean
>> >> yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to
>> >> the taste of
>food
>> >> without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not
>> >> want the candy. In theory, at least. That might not
>> >> work for you; I don't know.
>> >
>> >Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing
>> >sweetened. My theory is that good food does not need
>> >sweetening.
>>
>> Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine
>> foods in moderation.
 
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:50:07 -0800, Dawn Taylor
<[email protected]> posted:

>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:05:01 +0800, "Moosh:)"
><[email protected]> announced in front of God and everybody:
>
>>Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine
>>foods in moderation.
>
>Fruit, yes. Honey, however, offers such little nutritive
>benefit that it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-
>spoonful, from white sugar.

Apparently not, as you can see by looking up the nutrition
tables. It should be used sparingly like all energy dense
foods, but a little of what you like.....
 
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:36:39 +0800, "Moosh:)" <[email protected]>
announced in front of God and everybody:

>On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:50:07 -0800, Dawn Taylor
><[email protected]> posted:

>> Honey, however, offers such little nutritive benefit that
>> it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-spoonful, from
>> white sugar.
>
>Apparently not, as you can see by looking up the nutrition
>tables. It should be used sparingly like all energy dense
>foods, but a little of what you like.....

Honey contains two simple sugars, glucose and fructose.
Table sugar has the same two sugars, bound together to form
a double sugar called sucrose. In your body, they end up in
exactly the same way. Once sucrose reaches your intestine,
it's broken back down into glucose and fructose. So your
body metabolizes honey and sugar in exactly the same way.

A tablespoon of white sugar has 64 calories and a
tablespoon of honey contains water, so that it has only 46.
But you add sweeteners by taste, so you end up eating the
same number of calories to obtain the same sweetness using
either sugar or honey.

And yes, honey has some minerals that sugar does not. But
let's be real -- to get, say, your RDA of iron, you'd have
to eat 10 cups of honey a day -- 40 cups for your RDA of
calcium. The amount of nutrients in a tablespoon of honey
are so scant as to be inconsequential.

Dawn
 
Honey: In Walford's "Beyond" book, glycemic index chart
table 9.3, he lists honey in the "80-90%" (2nd highest)
area. (Glucose = 100%.) Same category as cornflakes,
baked (white) potato, watermelon and white bread. I would
avoid honey as an extremely high-glycemic food. But to
each his own.

> But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Obviously, "sweet" is a subjective term. I do not avoid most
fruit, if that's what you mean.

mack austin

"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:23:17 GMT, "Mack"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >No, it definitely does not "put the kybosh" on fruit. I
> >only avoid the particularly high-glycemic fruits, like
> >watermelon, ripe bananas, pineapples, raisins. It does
> >put it on honey. Two very different
things.
> >Honey is an extremely high-glycemic food, like sugar.
>
> Nope, neither are high. Fructose is quite low AAMOF.
>
> >Sugared and artifically-sweetened food tastes -- at least
> >to me -- dramatically
sweeter
> >than any fruit I eat.
>
> You really must overdo the sweetener. I find a drop or two
> of saccharine in a cup of tea to be fine. Just sweet.
>
> But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.
>
> Apples and pears are quite low GI but extremely sweet.
> It's all that fructose or fruit sugar. Very sweet, but
> very low GI.
>
> >
> >mack austin
> >
> >"Moosh:)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On 19 Mar 2004 03:34:54 GMT, Ignoramus21235
> >> <[email protected]> posted:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >Mack wrote:
> >> >> You have to do what you have to do. But it has been
> >> >> my experience
that
> >> >> making the transition from sweets to artificial
> >> >> sweets to no sweets eventually kills or greatly
> >> >> lessens the sweet cravings. If you
could
> >wean
> >> >> yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used
> >> >> to the taste of
> >food
> >> >> without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not
> >> >> want the candy.
In
> >> >> theory, at least. That might not work for you; I
> >> >> don't know.
> >> >
> >> >Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing
> >> >sweetened. My theory is that good food does not need
> >> >sweetening.
> >>
> >> Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine
> >> foods in moderation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back