O
D
Doug Freyburger
Guest
Mack wrote:
> Doug Freyburger 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 ... paying attention to the endless
> > discussion of experienced low carbers teaching naive new
> > low carbers
>
> I meant the individuals who constantly post here and on
> other boards who do not seem to make very much if any
> distinction
In other words all of the newbies who get constant pressure
from folks to read the books and follow the directions.
Advocates is a poor word for newbies.
> 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.
I don't suggest folks read books I haven't myself. My
current lack - I've skimmed SBD but not gone through it in
detail. My meter-wide low carb section needs to have parts
of it donated again to make room.
> Doug Freyburger 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 ... paying attention to the endless
> > discussion of experienced low carbers teaching naive new
> > low carbers
>
> I meant the individuals who constantly post here and on
> other boards who do not seem to make very much if any
> distinction
In other words all of the newbies who get constant pressure
from folks to read the books and follow the directions.
Advocates is a poor word for newbies.
> 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.
I don't suggest folks read books I haven't myself. My
current lack - I've skimmed SBD but not gone through it in
detail. My meter-wide low carb section needs to have parts
of it donated again to make room.
P
Pizza Girl
Guest
I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
"Dawn Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
"Dawn Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
F
Fob
Guest
Do you drink tap water?
In news:[email protected],
Pizza Girl <[email protected]> stated
| I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
|
In news:[email protected],
Pizza Girl <[email protected]> stated
| I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
|
P
Pizza Girl
Guest
Yes I do but detest the taste of chlorimine there too. I
filter it for taste and try to let it sit out for a bit too.
Unfortunately the chloramine does not evaporate as easily as
the earlier forms of chlorination.
"FOB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do you drink tap water?
>
> In
> news:[email protected],
> Pizza Girl <[email protected]> stated
> | I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
> |
filter it for taste and try to let it sit out for a bit too.
Unfortunately the chloramine does not evaporate as easily as
the earlier forms of chlorination.
"FOB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Do you drink tap water?
>
> In
> news:[email protected],
> Pizza Girl <[email protected]> stated
> | I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
> |
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:22:03 -0800, Dawn Taylor
<[email protected]> posted:
>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.
And the same with fruit juices. You have said nothing
new here. Honey also contains micronutrients which
sucrose doesn't.
> 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.
Your point? Fruits? High fructose honeys and fruit juices
are sweeter than sucrose, gram for gram.
>And yes, honey has some minerals that sugar does not.
That's my point. Other micronutrients as well? Like
fruit juices.
>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.
And you are silly enough to want these RDAs from one food?
How much sugar from say oranges would you need to do this
silly trick you allude to?
>The amount of nutrients in a tablespoon of honey are so
>scant as to be inconsequential.
Same with fruits. What is your point?
<[email protected]> posted:
>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.
And the same with fruit juices. You have said nothing
new here. Honey also contains micronutrients which
sucrose doesn't.
> 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.
Your point? Fruits? High fructose honeys and fruit juices
are sweeter than sucrose, gram for gram.
>And yes, honey has some minerals that sugar does not.
That's my point. Other micronutrients as well? Like
fruit juices.
>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.
And you are silly enough to want these RDAs from one food?
How much sugar from say oranges would you need to do this
silly trick you allude to?
>The amount of nutrients in a tablespoon of honey are so
>scant as to be inconsequential.
Same with fruits. What is your point?
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:24:18 GMT, "Pizza Girl" <[email protected]>
posted:
>I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
Whyever not? How much of it is there?
posted:
>I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
Whyever not? How much of it is there?
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
<[email protected]> posted:
>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.
If you refer to:
http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm You
will find that honey is low GI and low GL.
>> 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.
OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you did
when you said "and get used to the taste of food without the
sweet taste,"
And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat nothing
sweetened"
>"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.
>> >
>
<[email protected]> posted:
>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.
If you refer to:
http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm You
will find that honey is low GI and low GL.
>> 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.
OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you did
when you said "and get used to the taste of food without the
sweet taste,"
And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat nothing
sweetened"
>"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.
>> >
>
I
Ignoramus3239
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Moosh wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
>>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.
>
> If you refer to:
> http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm
> You will find that honey is low GI and low GL.
>
>>> 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.
>
> OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you did
> when you said "and get used to the taste of food without
> the sweet taste,"
>
> And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat
> nothing sweetened"
I do eat naturally sweet things, such as apples, but not all
and in moderation. One apple per day is about all sweetness
that I get.
i
>
>>"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.
>>> >
>>>
>
wrote:> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
>>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.
>
> If you refer to:
> http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm
> You will find that honey is low GI and low GL.
>
>>> 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.
>
> OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you did
> when you said "and get used to the taste of food without
> the sweet taste,"
>
> And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat
> nothing sweetened"
I do eat naturally sweet things, such as apples, but not all
and in moderation. One apple per day is about all sweetness
that I get.
i
>
>>"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.
>>> >
>>>
>
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On 20 Mar 2004 04:42:23 GMT, Ignoramus3239
<[email protected]> posted:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Moosh wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> If you refer to:
>> http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm
>> You will find that honey is low GI and low GL.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you
>> did when you said "and get used to the taste of food
>> without the sweet taste,"
>>
>> And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat
>> nothing sweetened"
>
>I do eat naturally sweet things, such as apples, but not
>all and in moderation. One apple per day is about all
>sweetness that I get.
OK, but I thought the thrust of the messages was to avoid
ALL sweetness in order to accustom yourself to not craving
sweetness. Apparently it's about no such thing.
<[email protected]> posted:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Moosh
wrote:>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>> If you refer to:
>> http://diabetes.about.com/library/mendosagi/ngilists.htm
>> You will find that honey is low GI and low GL.
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you
>> did when you said "and get used to the taste of food
>> without the sweet taste,"
>>
>> And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat
>> nothing sweetened"
>
>I do eat naturally sweet things, such as apples, but not
>all and in moderation. One apple per day is about all
>sweetness that I get.
OK, but I thought the thrust of the messages was to avoid
ALL sweetness in order to accustom yourself to not craving
sweetness. Apparently it's about no such thing.
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:11:28 GMT, [email protected] (Jayjay) posted:
>On 15 Mar 2004 15:59:39 GMT, Ignoramus21819
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people
>>where both of them have no clue as to what they are
>>talking about.
>>
>>One says that kids should be put on Atkins, which works
>>becaus eit is "high protein". (********, as atkins is a
>>high fat diet)
>
>******** to you too, atkins is not high fat either. In the
>true sense of the way the program works, it should not be
>either high fat or high protein. One should not consume
>excess of either.
>
>The true reality of atkins is that the calorie depletion
>used to make the weight loss effect is by means of cutting
>out the carbohydrate calories. But not by increasing fat or
>protein. All else remains the same.
So it's just another calorie controlled diet? No wonder it
mostly fails. What's wrong with a balanced, varied,
wholefood diet? Cutting calories is much easier if you cut
fat. Much more "bang for the buck".
>On 15 Mar 2004 15:59:39 GMT, Ignoramus21819
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people
>>where both of them have no clue as to what they are
>>talking about.
>>
>>One says that kids should be put on Atkins, which works
>>becaus eit is "high protein". (********, as atkins is a
>>high fat diet)
>
>******** to you too, atkins is not high fat either. In the
>true sense of the way the program works, it should not be
>either high fat or high protein. One should not consume
>excess of either.
>
>The true reality of atkins is that the calorie depletion
>used to make the weight loss effect is by means of cutting
>out the carbohydrate calories. But not by increasing fat or
>protein. All else remains the same.
So it's just another calorie controlled diet? No wonder it
mostly fails. What's wrong with a balanced, varied,
wholefood diet? Cutting calories is much easier if you cut
fat. Much more "bang for the buck".
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:52:03 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
<[email protected]> posted:
>It's not a high fat diet either, in an absolute sense.
Then where are the calories coming from?
<[email protected]> posted:
>It's not a high fat diet either, in an absolute sense.
Then where are the calories coming from?
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:49:18 GMT, "Mike V" <[email protected]>
posted:
>
>"Ignoramus21819" <[email protected]>
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people
>> where both of
>>
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>,
>> Diarmid
>Logan wrote:
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3509792.stm
>> >
>> > 'Put fat children on Atkins diet'
>> >
>
>Recent research has made it very clear. We are almost all
>living on a STATIN deficient diet. Your kids should "eat
>their 'LIPITIES' " if they want to grow up healthy, and be
>sports heroes.
Eat up your lipities kiddy winkies!
posted:
>
>"Ignoramus21819" <[email protected]>
>wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people
>> where both of
>>
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>,
>> Diarmid
>Logan wrote:
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3509792.stm
>> >
>> > 'Put fat children on Atkins diet'
>> >
>
>Recent research has made it very clear. We are almost all
>living on a STATIN deficient diet. Your kids should "eat
>their 'LIPITIES' " if they want to grow up healthy, and be
>sports heroes.
Eat up your lipities kiddy winkies!
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On 15 Mar 2004 15:59:39 GMT, Ignoramus21819
<[email protected]> posted:
>This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people
>where both of them have no clue as to what they are
>talking about.
>
>One says that kids should be put on Atkins, which works
>becaus eit is "high protein". (********, as atkins is a
>high fat diet)
>
>Another objects by saying essentially nothing
>meaningful at all.
Sounds like this forum
<[email protected]> posted:
>This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people
>where both of them have no clue as to what they are
>talking about.
>
>One says that kids should be put on Atkins, which works
>becaus eit is "high protein". (********, as atkins is a
>high fat diet)
>
>Another objects by saying essentially nothing
>meaningful at all.
Sounds like this forum
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On 15 Mar 2004 11:19:52 -0800, [email protected] (tcomeau) posted:
>[email protected] (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3509792.stm
>>
>> 'Put fat children on Atkins diet'
>>
>> Fat children should be put on Atkins-style diets to lose
>> weight and prevent illness, a cancer specialist has said.
>>
>> Professor Julian Peto, of the Institute of Cancer
>> Research, said high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets could
>> suppress appetites and keep children slim.
>>
>> Obesity "is now overtaking smoking as the number one
>> killer and I am very concerned that we need to tackle it
>> early," he told BBC Radio 5
>> Live.
>>
>> He said dietary advice for children was not working and
>> needed a "rethink".
>>
>> He added that children should be weighed regularly in
>> school.
>>
>> The problem of obesity is soaring among children in
>> the UK.
>>
>> In 1998, 9% of two to four-year-olds were considered
>> obese - almost double the figure in 1989.
>>
>> The World Health Organisation says being overweight
>> causes diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer.
>>
>> Professor Peto said the Atkins diet, which involves
>> eating lots of meat and other high protein foods, while
>> restricting carbohydrates, worked because proteins
>> suppressed the appetite and people did not eat as much.
>>
>> "I am sure the Atkins wasn't developed on this basis but
>> that is why it works," he said.
>>
>> "The levels of salt and fat are anything but healthy but
>> the basis of the diet - which is low carbohydrate and
>> high protein - is ideal for losing weight."
>>
>> Opponents of Atkins-style diets claim that, over the long
>> term, they can cause kidney damage, thin bones and
>> constipation, raise cholesterol levels and increase the
>> risk of diabetes and an early heart attack.
>>
>> But some British doctors are already putting obese
>> children on Atkins-style diets.
>>
>> Dr Dee Dawson, medical director at Rhodes Farm Clinic, a
>> residential home for treatment of children with eating
>> disorders, says the diet is good for children.
>>
>> "The children who come here are not just overweight, they
>> are ill, and in danger of dying. Some of them can't
>> breathe and some of them can't lie down.
>>
>> "I do think the basis of Atkins - low carbohydrate and
>> high protein - is a good diet for children and the
>> priority is for these children to get weight off."
>>
>> But nutritionist Dr Toni Steer, of the Medical Research
>> Council, warned that there is not enough research into
>> the long-term health effects of being on the diet.
>>
>> "We realise obesity is a major problem which we need to
>> tackle as a matter of urgency but I would be very
>> concerned about advising children to follow diets like
>> Atkins."
>
>Great example of good doctors learning the true basis of
>weight management in spite of the nonsense propounded by
>industry shills.
So what are these guys' industry affiliations? Bit
selective, Terry? Did you read carefully what was said?
>Dr Toni Steer is a colleague of the flour queen Dr.
>Susan jebb:
>
>http://www.fabflour.co.uk/News_weightloss.asp
>
>"The Flour Advisory Bureau (FAB) and the Grain Information
>Service (GIS) today launch a new review showing that
>overweight people who adopt a range of proven health
>strategies can lose weight and cut the risk of developing
>diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Tackling the Weight of
>the Nation, a peer-reviewed report produced by Dr Susan
>Jebb and Dr Toni Steer of MRC Human Nutrition Research in
>Cambridge, highlights that without urgent and effective
>action, 3 out of 10 adults in the UK will be obese by the
>end of the decade."
>
>.....
>
>"Alex Waugh, Director General of the Grain Information
>Service said, "This independent report pulls together the
>very extensive research in relation to low-fat, high
>carbohydrate diets and shows conclusively that an
>effective, realistic and achievable strategy for long-term
>weight management with clear health benefits does exist."
>
>Of course Dr Toni Steer suggests that we restrict fat and
>increase carbs to lose weight.
Along with a hypocaloric diet, of course. Much better for
you.
>But she admits that refined carbs are no good:
As does every credible nutritionist.
>http://www.diet-i.com/low-carb-diets-nutrition.htm
>
>quote ************* Unrefined Carbs Best
>
>She recommends choosing foods that are as unrefined as
>possible, such as whole oats, pasta, whole grain bread, and
>long grain rice, rather than sweetened cereal or pastry.
>Foods such as yoghurt should ideally be sweetened naturally
>with fruit rather than sugar.
>
>And carbohydrates do not just provide energy. According to
>Dr Jebb's colleague, nutritionist Dr Toni Steer, they also
>contain vital nutrients.
>
>"They have essential B vitamins like thiamine and folates.
>A lot of these vitamins have a role in energy metabolism in
>the body. ************ endquote
>
>Refined carbs do not contain these vitamins. They are
>removed in the refining process.
Not always, but then you couldn't lie straight in bed. Above
it clearly states: "She recommends choosing foods that are
as unrefined as possible..."
>Here she shows her true colors:
>
>http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/_donotindex/pj_20030823_news3.pdf
>
>Without any long term evidence to back up her claims ahe
>says that low-carb is dangerous. So much for scientific
>integrity.
No such thing. I suggest you read it again.
>But we all know what they are up to:
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-835015,00.html
>
>Just another industry shill earning her keep by selling out
>on her professional integrity.
Which is what you say about anyone showing your nonsense
for what it
is. When you find someone who agrees with you, it is
generally because you have misread them.
>[email protected] (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3509792.stm
>>
>> 'Put fat children on Atkins diet'
>>
>> Fat children should be put on Atkins-style diets to lose
>> weight and prevent illness, a cancer specialist has said.
>>
>> Professor Julian Peto, of the Institute of Cancer
>> Research, said high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets could
>> suppress appetites and keep children slim.
>>
>> Obesity "is now overtaking smoking as the number one
>> killer and I am very concerned that we need to tackle it
>> early," he told BBC Radio 5
>> Live.
>>
>> He said dietary advice for children was not working and
>> needed a "rethink".
>>
>> He added that children should be weighed regularly in
>> school.
>>
>> The problem of obesity is soaring among children in
>> the UK.
>>
>> In 1998, 9% of two to four-year-olds were considered
>> obese - almost double the figure in 1989.
>>
>> The World Health Organisation says being overweight
>> causes diabetes, heart disease and some forms of cancer.
>>
>> Professor Peto said the Atkins diet, which involves
>> eating lots of meat and other high protein foods, while
>> restricting carbohydrates, worked because proteins
>> suppressed the appetite and people did not eat as much.
>>
>> "I am sure the Atkins wasn't developed on this basis but
>> that is why it works," he said.
>>
>> "The levels of salt and fat are anything but healthy but
>> the basis of the diet - which is low carbohydrate and
>> high protein - is ideal for losing weight."
>>
>> Opponents of Atkins-style diets claim that, over the long
>> term, they can cause kidney damage, thin bones and
>> constipation, raise cholesterol levels and increase the
>> risk of diabetes and an early heart attack.
>>
>> But some British doctors are already putting obese
>> children on Atkins-style diets.
>>
>> Dr Dee Dawson, medical director at Rhodes Farm Clinic, a
>> residential home for treatment of children with eating
>> disorders, says the diet is good for children.
>>
>> "The children who come here are not just overweight, they
>> are ill, and in danger of dying. Some of them can't
>> breathe and some of them can't lie down.
>>
>> "I do think the basis of Atkins - low carbohydrate and
>> high protein - is a good diet for children and the
>> priority is for these children to get weight off."
>>
>> But nutritionist Dr Toni Steer, of the Medical Research
>> Council, warned that there is not enough research into
>> the long-term health effects of being on the diet.
>>
>> "We realise obesity is a major problem which we need to
>> tackle as a matter of urgency but I would be very
>> concerned about advising children to follow diets like
>> Atkins."
>
>Great example of good doctors learning the true basis of
>weight management in spite of the nonsense propounded by
>industry shills.
So what are these guys' industry affiliations? Bit
selective, Terry? Did you read carefully what was said?
>Dr Toni Steer is a colleague of the flour queen Dr.
>Susan jebb:
>
>http://www.fabflour.co.uk/News_weightloss.asp
>
>"The Flour Advisory Bureau (FAB) and the Grain Information
>Service (GIS) today launch a new review showing that
>overweight people who adopt a range of proven health
>strategies can lose weight and cut the risk of developing
>diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Tackling the Weight of
>the Nation, a peer-reviewed report produced by Dr Susan
>Jebb and Dr Toni Steer of MRC Human Nutrition Research in
>Cambridge, highlights that without urgent and effective
>action, 3 out of 10 adults in the UK will be obese by the
>end of the decade."
>
>.....
>
>"Alex Waugh, Director General of the Grain Information
>Service said, "This independent report pulls together the
>very extensive research in relation to low-fat, high
>carbohydrate diets and shows conclusively that an
>effective, realistic and achievable strategy for long-term
>weight management with clear health benefits does exist."
>
>Of course Dr Toni Steer suggests that we restrict fat and
>increase carbs to lose weight.
Along with a hypocaloric diet, of course. Much better for
you.
>But she admits that refined carbs are no good:
As does every credible nutritionist.
>http://www.diet-i.com/low-carb-diets-nutrition.htm
>
>quote ************* Unrefined Carbs Best
>
>She recommends choosing foods that are as unrefined as
>possible, such as whole oats, pasta, whole grain bread, and
>long grain rice, rather than sweetened cereal or pastry.
>Foods such as yoghurt should ideally be sweetened naturally
>with fruit rather than sugar.
>
>And carbohydrates do not just provide energy. According to
>Dr Jebb's colleague, nutritionist Dr Toni Steer, they also
>contain vital nutrients.
>
>"They have essential B vitamins like thiamine and folates.
>A lot of these vitamins have a role in energy metabolism in
>the body. ************ endquote
>
>Refined carbs do not contain these vitamins. They are
>removed in the refining process.
Not always, but then you couldn't lie straight in bed. Above
it clearly states: "She recommends choosing foods that are
as unrefined as possible..."
>Here she shows her true colors:
>
>http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/_donotindex/pj_20030823_news3.pdf
>
>Without any long term evidence to back up her claims ahe
>says that low-carb is dangerous. So much for scientific
>integrity.
No such thing. I suggest you read it again.
>But we all know what they are up to:
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-835015,00.html
>
>Just another industry shill earning her keep by selling out
>on her professional integrity.
Which is what you say about anyone showing your nonsense
for what it
is. When you find someone who agrees with you, it is
generally because you have misread them.
M
Moosh:)
Guest
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:54:05 GMT, "Mack"
<[email protected]> posted:
>
>"Ignoramus21819"
><[email protected]> wrote
>
>> I am not at all sure what is the benefit of fake soy milk
>> as opposed to cow milk.
>
>I don't want to drift off into a cow's milk argument here.
>I suggest you put "What's wrong with cow's milk?" into
>Google. You will get all the arguments on both sides and,
>believe me, there are plenty of them.
>
>I drank huge amounts of cow's milk when I was kid and, sure
>enough, I was a fat kid. But as my children were growing
>up, we seldom had it in the house because I had stopped
>drinking it long before and one of my sons could not drink
>even a swallow of the stuff because it caused his sinuses,
>throat and chest to start pumping out large quantities of
>mucus. (Not unusual, I understand.) I have just long taken
>the position that cow's milk has evolved specifically to
>make more cows. Seems to me that milk is baby food, and
>baby humans need to drink human milk and adult humans, no
>milk at all. But others may and do differ.
That mucous/milk thing was debunked years ago I thought.
Look, milk of animals is a fine food. Steak is really for
cows to walk about with. Eggs are for feeding new chickens.
This "not natural" argument doesn't hold water. If walnuts
upset you, don't eat them, but it is surely ridiculous to
advocate they are a bad food.
<[email protected]> posted:
>
>"Ignoramus21819"
><[email protected]> wrote
>
>> I am not at all sure what is the benefit of fake soy milk
>> as opposed to cow milk.
>
>I don't want to drift off into a cow's milk argument here.
>I suggest you put "What's wrong with cow's milk?" into
>Google. You will get all the arguments on both sides and,
>believe me, there are plenty of them.
>
>I drank huge amounts of cow's milk when I was kid and, sure
>enough, I was a fat kid. But as my children were growing
>up, we seldom had it in the house because I had stopped
>drinking it long before and one of my sons could not drink
>even a swallow of the stuff because it caused his sinuses,
>throat and chest to start pumping out large quantities of
>mucus. (Not unusual, I understand.) I have just long taken
>the position that cow's milk has evolved specifically to
>make more cows. Seems to me that milk is baby food, and
>baby humans need to drink human milk and adult humans, no
>milk at all. But others may and do differ.
That mucous/milk thing was debunked years ago I thought.
Look, milk of animals is a fine food. Steak is really for
cows to walk about with. Eggs are for feeding new chickens.
This "not natural" argument doesn't hold water. If walnuts
upset you, don't eat them, but it is surely ridiculous to
advocate they are a bad food.
I
Ignoramus16900
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Moosh wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2004 04:42:23 GMT, Ignoramus3239
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Moosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
>>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> If you refer to: http://diabetes.about.com/library/mend-
>>> osagi/ngilists.htm You will find that honey is low GI
>>> and low GL.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you
>>> did when you said "and get used to the taste of food
>>> without the sweet taste,"
>>>
>>> And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat
>>> nothing sweetened"
>>
>>I do eat naturally sweet things, such as apples, but not
>>all and in moderation. One apple per day is about all
>>sweetness that I get.
>
> OK, but I thought the thrust of the messages was to avoid
> ALL sweetness in order to accustom yourself to not craving
> sweetness. Apparently it's about no such thing.
Personally, I avoid sweeteners. I do not try to avoid all
sweetness completely. I no longer crave sweetness though,
and eat apples because I think that they are good for me.
i
wrote:> On 20 Mar 2004 04:42:23 GMT, Ignoramus3239
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Moosh
wrote:>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
>>> <[email protected]> posted:
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> If you refer to: http://diabetes.about.com/library/mend-
>>> osagi/ngilists.htm You will find that honey is low GI
>>> and low GL.
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you
>>> did when you said "and get used to the taste of food
>>> without the sweet taste,"
>>>
>>> And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat
>>> nothing sweetened"
>>
>>I do eat naturally sweet things, such as apples, but not
>>all and in moderation. One apple per day is about all
>>sweetness that I get.
>
> OK, but I thought the thrust of the messages was to avoid
> ALL sweetness in order to accustom yourself to not craving
> sweetness. Apparently it's about no such thing.
Personally, I avoid sweeteners. I do not try to avoid all
sweetness completely. I no longer crave sweetness though,
and eat apples because I think that they are good for me.
i
J
Jc Der Koenig
Guest
From between your ears?
--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too
little.
Becky P.
"Moosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:52:03 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >It's not a high fat diet either, in an absolute sense.
>
> Then where are the calories coming from?
--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too
little.
Becky P.
"Moosh
" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:52:03 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >It's not a high fat diet either, in an absolute sense.
>
> Then where are the calories coming from?
P
Pizza Girl
Guest
Enough to destroy the adrenal glands of a group of test cats
and turn them
"Moosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:24:18 GMT, "Pizza Girl"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
>
> Whyever not? How much of it is there?
and turn them
"Moosh
" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 22:24:18 GMT, "Pizza Girl"
> <[email protected]> posted:
>
> >I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
>
> Whyever not? How much of it is there?
M
Mirek Fidler
Guest
> > 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.
Well, the question is, is it worth it? I do not think that
several mgs of aspartame daily cause me any problems, and I
am actually afraid that I would start to crave candy without
it. Now, with my "chocolate" each day, my sweet taste is
completely satisfied and in a way that has only a little
impact on my health/weight.
Mirek
> > 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.
Well, the question is, is it worth it? I do not think that
several mgs of aspartame daily cause me any problems, and I
am actually afraid that I would start to crave candy without
it. Now, with my "chocolate" each day, my sweet taste is
completely satisfied and in a way that has only a little
impact on my health/weight.
Mirek