Tesoro wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Tesoro wrote:
>>
>>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Then with all that higher education please explain to me
>>>>> how you can say ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as
>>>>> everyone elses, needs glucose to function properly. Without
>>>>> it, the brain doesn't function properly (maybe thats why
>>>>> all the low-carbers believe the crap they're being fed).
>>>>> When your body encounters this situation it starts breaking
>>>>> down muscle and organ tissue to provide the necessary
>>>>> glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue Peter! Still safe?
>>>>
>>>> You're simply wrong about this. It's fat that's "broken down"
>>>> to ketones which the brain can use just fine. It's not the
>>>> same metabolic mechanism and glucose use, but it works just
>>>> as well.

Her, bite this:
"Ketosis-Lipolysis is not Ketoacidosis"
"Even when discussing starvation most critics of lowcarb miss the
mentally adept boat. "The body adapts to starvation and reduces the
need for protein-dependent gluconeogenesis by boosting its production
of ketones, a fuel ALTERNATIVE to glucose for MOST CELLS. Circulating
ketones reach maximum levels after about ten days of fasting and now
substitute for much of the glucose requirement of the central nervous
system. This drastically reduces the need for catabolism of muscle
protein."

"With reduced protein catabolism, urinary nitrogen excretion also
declines. And there is a shift from the excretion of urea to a
predominance of ammonia loss. This shift toward ammonia versus urea
parallels the increased production and excretion of keto acids, and
serves to MAINTAIN ACID/BASE BALANCE."

"The overall point is that muscle is a valuable reserve of carbons
that can be used for glucose production when needed. However the body
prevents excessive losses of muscle protein over long periods of
fasting by adapting the central nervous system to utilization of
ketone bodies for fuel."
Maria C. Linder is on the faculty at California State University
Fullerton, California in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
All quotes are from her textbook; "Nutritional Biochemistry and
Metabolism: with clinical applications", Maria C. Linder. pages
87-109. Chapter Eight: Nutrition and Metabolism of Protein.
<http://www.lowcarb.org/ketosis.html>

>>> Thats not true Bob, it does not work just as well. The brain
>>> does not function properly when using ketones as fuel.

I note no support for your assertion. You're wrong, and here's a bit
of documentation for it: <http://www.ketosis-ketoacidosis-difference.com/>
"Simply put, ketosis is evolution's answer to the thrifty gene. We may
have evolved to efficiently store fat for times of famine, says Veech,
but we also evolved ketosis to efficiently live off that fat when
necessary. Rather than being poison, which is how the press often
refers to ketones, they make the body run more efficiently and provide
a backup fuel source for the brain. Veech calls ketones ''magic'' and
has shown that both the heart and brain run 25 percent more
efficiently on ketones than on blood sugar."

>>> The body also
>>> cannot fully breakdown fat (triglycerides) into useable fuel,
>>> it needs glucose and oxygen to do that.

I note no support for your assertion. See above. He
"Triglycerides are a storage form of energy. They are stored in
adipose tissue and muscle, and gradually released and metabolized
between meals according to the energy needs of the body."
<http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003493.htm>

>>> At this point there is no glucose available to perform that
>>> function, so this is where the body attacks the muscle and
>>> organ tissues to obtain the glucose it needs from there.

I note no support for your assertion. It's wrong. The glucose comes
from ingested protein.

>>>>> Now that we've entered ketosis our bodies start to react by
>>>>> trying to expell the ketones being produced via urination.

The body expels *excess* ketones through urination. There's no
additional urine being made, it just goes out with whatever is being
produced anyway.

>>>>> Most people in this state are very seriously dehydrated
>>>>> since the body uses water from your tissues to help get the
>>>>> ketones out. Most of the weight loss low carbers
>>>>> experience are from this loss of water.
>>>>
>>>> This is just plain silly. People who are dehydrated become
>>>> thirsty. They drink liquids.
>>>
>>> Most people walking around everyday are in a state of
>>> dehydration Bob. If you are thirsty then you are dehydrated
>>> already.

I note no support for your assertion.

>> Right, and I bet you think we should all drink 8 glasses of water
>> a day, too. Might be very interesting if you spent a few minutes
>> finding where that came from and what scientific support it has
>> Goodbye, Tesoro. You read too many woowoo, new age pamphlets. Try
>> some science for a change.
>
> Again, you dazzle us all with the depth of your knowledge Bob.
> Enlighten us, please.

See, Tessy, you haven't offered *anything* to support *anything*
you've said. Not one citation. Not one outside reference. Not one
thing beyond your *opinion*

Thirst is a normal response to imbalance in blood constituents. I
guess by this silly definition, by the time you're hungry, you're in a
state of starvation.

>>>> At the very beginning of low carbing, people lose water
>>>> weight, but that stabilizes very quickly (a matter of days)
>>>> and the rest of the weight loss is primarily fat with some
>>>> small loss of muscle tissue if the person isn't doing enough
>>>> exercise.
>>>
>>> Did you actually spend money to find all this out Bob?

Did you actually believe that this has meaning beyond your crippled
desire to fight? You made a lot of statements that have no support and
yet you want total acceptance, even when they're demonstrably wrong.
Even when a few minutes of research would show you the best available
facts. You haven't done your homework. You've accepted the words of
people not knowledgeable about human metabolism.

>> No, ****wit, it's free for the taking from lots of people who
>> know what they're talking about. Unlike you.
>
> Ahhh, name calling, nice touch. Now we can all really see your true
> intelligence Bob. Again, nothing real to offer in rebuttal, but
> I'm surprised. You're mental limitations are quite glaring Bob.

Rebuttal to what? This: "Did you actually spend money to find all
this out Bob?"

What's to rebut? The "question" isn't making an assertion that can be
rebutted. There's no germane content to it and it offers no
information to consider. How brilliant of you to think otherwise. Your
rather stupid "question" got the reply it merited.

If you don't agree with what I said, offer something besides shithead
rhetorical nonsense and belligerent opinion. A citation of some sort
would be good. And the first of its kind.

>>>>> You can't starve your body of its most essential form of
>>>>> fuel and not expect adverse effects.
>>>>
>>>> It's obvious that you don't really understand the metabolic
>>>> functions you're trying to sound so keen about. It's
>>>> abundantly clear that you don't understand anything much
>>>> about what propels the body and what alternatives there are.
>>>
>>> What? Are serious? Show us all how "keen" you are then Bob.
>>> Please show me where I don't understand "metabolic functions"
>>> and you do. Please show me where I have failed to show an
>>> understanding of what fuels the human body and also where I've
>>> failed to intelligently point out the adverse effects of
>>> alternatives. Lets hear your intelligent take on it Bob.

Glucose is the most often used fuel. But that doesn't mean we have to
ingest glucose as glucose. Not all carbs are glucose or contain
glucose. Our bodies can make it from other macronutrients than carbs.
And we can also run rather effectively on ketones. Starting from your
premise that ketones aren't useful fuels, that's where you go wrong.
The "orthodox" dietitian party line is that ketosis is bad. But it's a
natural condition that people slip into and out of rather easily. The
Inuit are a fine example of an entire culture that do when they adhere
to their traditional diets. If you look at other cultures that survive
on mostly animal products, you'll see it there, too. The Masai are a
good example, as well. But virtually everybody is ketotic nearly every
day.

You seem to be confusing ketosis with ketoacidosis. Still from:
<http://www.ketosis-ketoacidosis-difference.com/>
"The most sensitive tests of ketosis ("NMR" and "blood ketone level")
show that everyone is in some degree of ketosis every day,
particularly after not eating overnight and after exercising. Ketosis
is the body's survival system. It is not an abnormality nor does it
present any medical danger, except to a Type I insulin-dependent
diabetic. The body functions naturally and effectively while in a
state of dietary ketosis."

>>>>> Starvation effects us all the same. The difference is how
>>>>> much stored glycogen and lean muscle tissue does the person
>>>>> have to lose before dehydration or death occurs. Reputable
>>>>> doctors, nutritionists, dieticians, endocrinologists, etc.
>>>>> (ie. reputable = nothing to sell) do not and never will
>>>>> recommend putting your body through this type of trauma.
>>
>> All this absolute foolishness speaks rather badly for you. You
>> seem to think you have the complete and exclusive grasp on
>> dietary and nutritional truth. Nope.
>>
>>>> You're trying to use technical terms without understanding
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> By all means Bob, expand upon that.
>>
>> Here. Let's keep it simple; just one because I don't want to tax
>> your attention span. Trauma.
>
> Uhuh, is that expanding.

For the limits you've displayed here, unfortunately, it is.

> Sorry Bob, I thought you might actually have somethiing intelligent
> to say about it. I guess not...

The point is that you don't know what "trauma" means. And you're of
the mistaken notion that the body will use lean muscle tissue before
stored fat. Why do you think the body stores fat?

>>>>> Good nutrition and weight loss will come from a balanced
>>>>> diet including all forms of food - carbs, protein, fat,
>>>>> and good amounts of exercise.

No one disputes that. Just what it means in the actuality. Balanced
means different things to different, sincere, knowledgeable people. As
written, it's so broad and so vague as to be a useless description.
How much of what is the final series of issues to deal with and here,
they're not dealt with at all.

>>>>> Thats it, burn more calories than you take in and you're
>>>>> losing weight. Ahhh, but that takes work and some degree of
>>>>> commitment, I guess its better to keep looking for that
>>>>> "magic" diet pill or fad.
>>>>
>>>> There's so much good science to utterly cancel what you think
>>>> you know that it's obvious that you've never really done any
>>>> serious study of the topic. It's not as simple as you'd like
>>>> it to be...
>>>>
>>> You have got to a TROLL Bob, there isn't any other explanation
>>> for your existance here.
>>
>> And here you illustrate why we're utterly done talking.
>
> I agree Bob.

Without the remotest grasp of what I meant.

>> Rather than really looking deeply into nutrition and metabolic
>> functions and pathways, you shriek ever more loudly how smart you
>> are and how stupid everyone else is, all the while demonstrating
>> the contradiction. Read Lyle McDonald's writings. See the
>> science and the destruction of most of the "truths" you think you
>> know (along with many others).
>
> Again Bob, show me where I have "shrieked" about my superiority on
> this topic.

Your absoluteness is what is so telling. One size fits all. Snide
condescension. Only a fool who can't see any alternatives and who
doesn't really know the subject could be so sure of absolute
infallibility.

> I have called nobody here stupid, although you and others have,
> many times. I have done no such thing but I beg you to show me
> proof of it. You won't and can't. I have offered what medical
> science knows about nutrition and not what the diet gurus say you
> should be doing.

Nah. You've offered your opinion with not a whit of substantiation
from any source beyond you. You've misused technical terms and not
realized it. You've made it absolute and you've made it apply to
everybody all the time by not recognizing discrepancies.

It's been established that people who restrict their carbohydrates can
eat more than people who eat a different balance of macronutrients and
still lose weight. More calories in yet still lose weight. How could
that be?

People don't all metabolize what they consume the same way. Nor does
everyone get all the caloric content of the foods they consume. In
fact, virtually no one does. Humans aren't bomb calorimeters and don't
fully break down what we consume. Not all carbs render 4 calories per
gram. Alcohol is another macronutrient that, in schema, yields 7
calories per gram. But it has the peculiar characteristic of forcing
itself to the head of the line and being metabolized ahead of anything
else. That would serve to disturb "normal" metabolism.

> Where have you offered anything Bob? You haven't. Please join in
> anytime you feel you have something intelligent to say.

My mother had a wonderful embroidered sampler that said, "I love you
but cut the cards anyway."

Here's what I see. You make a whole bunch of statements with not a
whit of support that I and others disagree with. Peter has a
background in this field that goes for decades. He has greater
authority than you for that alone. But he began to explain where you
had errors and finally gave up for the sheer magnitude of your
misunderstandings. Beyond that, I'm a food and nutrition writer who
reads the technical papers and journals and I regularly talk with
people doing the research.

You post several things that are simply wrong and become belligerent
when questioned or contradicted. So it stacks up like: unsupported
statements that are demonstrably wrong, with nothing but erroneous
opinion, belligerently defended. With ad hominem attacks where the
defense can't do the job.

> Oh yes, on the subject of Lyle McDonald, the author of "Ultimate
> Diet 2.0", 76 pages, $24.95US and various other blockbusters, do
> you think Mr. McDonald is getting rich selling those books he
> writes to people like you.

In fact, he's not. If you spent a minute looking into the books he's
written, you'll see that he offers a vast amount of science, not a
drop of bullshit, and rational things to actually do. If you want to
ask him anything, check in with any of the newsgroups he hangs out in.
Google will tell you about that. He's very accessible and will answer
any questions you might have. He's about as much an anti-diet guru as
anybody you've ever met. But I'll warn you that he doesn't suffer
fools gladly. If you talk this kind of crap to him, he'll nail your
uninformed ass to the wall.

> Nawwww, he just wants to tell everyone that medical science is a
> crock! Hehehe, good-luck Bob...

Heheheh. Shitwit. It's a perfect characterization of what you are to
leap to these conclusions without knowing anything about what he's
actually about. Just like in your baloney about nutrition, you've
leaped to wrong conclusions based on the most trivial of information
bits. He's got more medical science about nutrition at his fingertips
than most medical schools.

> PS. Bob, in your particular case, its better to be thought a fool
> than to speak and remove all doubt. Ciao...

It's always better if you're snide and shitheaded like this if you're
a little bit right. Otherwise, your attitude only serves to offer all
the proof necessary for your superficiality, sarcasm instead of
content and a sadly limited knowledge leading to blunders of
understanding. And an attitude of infallibility that falls like a
house of cards in a gentle breeze.

Read a book that didn't come with crayons.

Pastorio