I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
grams net carbohydrates"

What does that mean?

--
Rich

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD
> wrote:

> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> grams net carbohydrates"
>
> What does that mean?

It's a type 1 diabetes thing. They did the math so you don't need to.

--

sf

Sqwertz wrote:
> It's a term they invented


You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

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


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

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

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

Sqwertz wrote:
> ...minus THE carbohydrates from fiber...
>
> -sw
You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

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


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

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

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 5:25:10 PM UTC-6, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD
> > wrote:
>
> > I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> > grams net carbohydrates"
> >
> > What does that mean?
>
> It's a type 1 diabetes thing. They did the math so you don't need to.
>
For some stupid reason, cellulose is included in the total carbohydrates
number, even though humans can't derive calories from it. "Net carbohydrates"
means total - fiber (and polyols). Thing is, polyols vary in their glycemic
impact. Only erythritol is almost completely inert.
>
> sf

--Bryan

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD
> > wrote:
>
>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
> It's a type 1 diabetes thing. They did the math so you don't need to.
>
> --
>
> sf

No, it's not a type 1 diabetes thing. It means that fiber etc. has been
subtracted from the total.

Cheri

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 23:23:39 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> >> grams net carbohydrates"
> >>
> >> What does that mean?
> >
> > It's a type 1 diabetes thing. They did the math so you don't need to.
> >
>
> No, it's not a type 1 diabetes thing. It means that fiber etc. has been
> subtracted from the total.
>
Yes. I heard calculating carbs is what diabetics do when they are
managing their health and diet properly.

--

sf

"RichD" > wrote in message
...
>I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> grams net carbohydrates"
>
> What does that mean?

Minus the fiber.

On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 1:25:15 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> grams net carbohydrates"
>
> What does that mean?
>
> --
> Rich

Net carbs mean the total digestible, usable carbs the body will process.
The undigestible carbs, like fiber, have been taken out of the carb count.

Net carbs are a way for people who must limit or choose to limit their carb consumption to calculate their daily intake of digestible carbohydrates.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:53:53 AM UTC-6, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 1:25:15 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> > I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> > grams net carbohydrates"
> >
> > What does that mean?
> >
> > --
> > Rich
>
> Net carbs mean the total digestible, usable carbs the body will process.
> The undigestible carbs, like fiber, have been taken out of the carb count.
>
> Net carbs are a way for people who must limit or choose to limit their carb consumption to calculate their daily intake of digestible carbohydrates.

Not according to Bryan, who apparently want's to make evertyone think he knows a lot about chemistry, health and nutrition science, etc. by tossing out a few cool sounding words even though he has NO college degres or health/nutrition related licenses!!

John Kuthe...

On 1/8/2016 4:39 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> It's a term they invented
You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

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


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

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

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

On 1/8/2016 5:25 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:39:20 -0600, Sqwertz wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>>
>>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> .. carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates from fiber (in grams).
>
> Correction:
>

You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

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


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

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

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

Sqwertz wrote:
>> fiber (in grams).
> Correction:
**** off and die, woman-stalker.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sqwertz wrote:
> It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
> other low-carb diets.
>
> -sw
**** off and die, woman-stalker.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>
>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
> It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
> from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
> other low-carb diets.
>

It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-6, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
> >
> >> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> >> grams net carbohydrates"
> >>
> >> What does that mean?
> >
> > It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
> > from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
> > other low-carb diets.
> >
>
> It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
> carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

And it's a very good back-of-the-envelope way to estimate the amount of carbohydrates you consume, which for a diabetic can be very good to know!

Never trust advertisers/corporations to look out for you best health though, they never do! All they care about is MONEY! And they want YOUR'S!!

John Kuthe...

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>>
>>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
>> from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
>> other low-carb diets.
>>
>
> It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
> carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.

Yes it is.

Cheri

"John Kuthe" > wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-6, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>> >> grams net carbohydrates"
>> >>
>> >> What does that mean?
>> >
>> > It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
>> > from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
>> > other low-carb diets.
>> >
>>
>> It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
>> carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> And it's a very good back-of-the-envelope way to estimate the amount of
> carbohydrates you consume, which for a diabetic can be very good to know!

Yes, and any diabetic in good control knows how to count carbs very well,
even without the net carbs listed.

Cheri

Sqwertz wrote:
> The term was unknown
**** off and DIE.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sqwertz wrote:
> I meant
**** off and DIE.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:58:20 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>>>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean?
>>>
>>> It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
>>> from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
>>> other low-carb diets.
>>>
>>
>> It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
>> carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
>
> It was a term that was made up by food and supplement companies in
> response to the low-carb diet craze and reclassification of sugar
> alcohols. The term was unknown to the diabetic community porior to
> that.

Every diabetic needs to know carb content and specifically it's glycemic
potential. If you are right, then Aitkin's was a saint for coming up with
it. BTW, there are now many peer reviewed studies showing Atkins was right
all along. Low fat diets not only do not work, they can actually cause
harm. Low carb diets have the best results especially on serum cholesterol
levels.

Flame on!



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 9:53:53 AM UTC-6, ImStillMags wrote:
> > On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 1:25:15 PM UTC-8, RichD wrote:
> > > I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> > > grams net carbohydrates"
> > >
> > > What does that mean?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> >
> > Net carbs mean the total digestible, usable carbs the body will process.
> > The undigestible carbs, like fiber, have been taken out of the carb count.
> >
> > Net carbs are a way for people who must limit or choose to limit their carb consumption to calculate their daily intake of digestible carbohydrates.
>
> Not according to Bryan, who apparently want's to make evertyone think he knows a lot about chemistry, health and nutrition science, etc. by tossing out a few cool sounding words even though he has NO college degres or health/nutrition related licenses!!
>
All those "degres" [sic], and John Kuthe still has issues with apostrophes.
>
> John Kuthe...

--Bryan

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-6, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
> > >
> > >> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> > >> grams net carbohydrates"
> > >>
> > >> What does that mean?
> > >
> > > It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
> > > from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
> > > other low-carb diets.
> > >
> >
> > It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
> > carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> And it's a very good back-of-the-envelope way to estimate the amount of carbohydrates you consume, which for a diabetic can be very good to know!
>
> Never trust advertisers/corporations to look out for you best health though, they never do! All they care about is MONEY! And they want YOUR'S!!
>
There's that apostrophe again.
>
> John Kuthe...

--Bryan

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 2:04:01 PM UTC-6, MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-6, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > > "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> > > >> grams net carbohydrates"
> > > >>
> > > >> What does that mean?
> > > >
> > > > It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
> > > > from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
> > > > other low-carb diets.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
> > > carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > And it's a very good back-of-the-envelope way to estimate the amount of carbohydrates you consume, which for a diabetic can be very good to know!
> >
> > Never trust advertisers/corporations to look out for you best health though, they never do! All they care about is MONEY! And they want YOUR'S!!
> >
> There's that apostrophe again.
> >
> > John Kuthe...
>
> --Bryan

Typo flames are the lamest of the Internet flames, Bryan. Too easy!

Go see a psychatrist for his or her opinion/therapy of/for your Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

John Kuthe...

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...

> Every diabetic needs to know carb content and specifically it's glycemic
> potential. If you are right, then Aitkin's was a saint for coming up with
> it. BTW, there are now many peer reviewed studies showing Atkins was
> right all along. Low fat diets not only do not work, they can actually
> cause harm. Low carb diets have the best results especially on serum
> cholesterol levels.
>
> Flame on!

You're absolutely right.

Cheri

John Kuthe wrote:
>
> ImStillMags wrote:
> > Net carbs are a way for people who must limit or choose to limit their carb consumption to calculate their daily intake of digestible carbohydrates.
>
> Not according to Bryan, who apparently want's to make evertyone think he knows a lot about chemistry, health and nutrition science, etc. by tossing out a few cool sounding words even though he has NO college degres or health/nutrition related licenses!!

There's an old saying, John -
"Buy him books, send him to school, and he's still dumb as a clam."

Bryan might not have any degrees or licences but he's obviously
researched certain things and become an expert on them. Don't discount
"home studies" or life experiences. That piece of paper will get you a
better job but it doesn't necessarily make you smarter in a certain
field.

I earned an Associates degree in Business Administration. I did all
the credits (with a 3.5 GPA) but I never bothered to put in for the
graduation. For that you were required to attend the ceremony in order
to get your degree. Waste of my time plus, a 2-year degree was fairly
worthless, IMO. The first 2 years of college, you mostly take the same
old subjects as in High School. I always called it high school, grades
13 and 14.

Whether or not you get your actual degree, those credits still apply
towards a Bachelors degree. A bachelors is when it really starts
counting in the world of business.

That said, even college graduates can be dumb in the real world. You
learn so much in a semester then you study for and take a final test
to pass the class. Once that's over, many people forget some of those
things as time goes on.

I would challenge any college graduate or even those that only took a
few classes years ago... I'll bet you wouldn't be able to pass most of
those final exams right now. College classes give you the basic
training and a knowledge of the subject but you'll forget most of it
unless your job has you still using that knowledge.

IMO, a college education, besides the basic knowledge, mostly shows
employers that you were willing and capable of learning more than the
required high school level.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 2:32:01 PM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 2:04:01 PM UTC-6, MisterDiddyWahDiddy wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:58:26 AM UTC-6, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > > > "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> > > > >> grams net carbohydrates"
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What does that mean?
> > > > >
> > > > > It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
> > > > > from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
> > > > > other low-carb diets.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of the
> > > > carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> > >
> > > And it's a very good back-of-the-envelope way to estimate the amount of carbohydrates you consume, which for a diabetic can be very good to know!
> > >
> > > Never trust advertisers/corporations to look out for you best health though, they never do! All they care about is MONEY! And they want YOUR'S!!
> > >
> > There's that apostrophe again.
> > >
> > > John Kuthe...
> >
> > --Bryan
>
> Typo flames are the lamest of the Internet flames, Bryan. Too easy!
>
The CHOICE to use, or not use an apostrophe isn't a "typo." It's about
literacy.
>
> Go see a psychatrist for his or her opinion/therapy of/for your Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
>
Go see a prostitute for you no pussy disorder.
>
> John Kuthe...

--Bryan

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 4:03:20 PM UTC-6, Cheri wrote:
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Every diabetic needs to know carb content and specifically it's glycemic
> > potential. If you are right, then Aitkin's was a saint for coming up with
> > it. BTW, there are now many peer reviewed studies showing Atkins was
> > right all along. Low fat diets not only do not work, they can actually
> > cause harm. Low carb diets have the best results especially on serum
> > cholesterol levels.
> >
> > Flame on!
>
> You're absolutely right.
>
Atkins *popularized*, but did not come up with, low carbing.
>
> Cheri

--Bryan

On 1/10/2016 1:11 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> It's a flawed metric but if you want to claim it
You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

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


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

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

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

On 1/9/2016 11:41 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> I meant*Atkins* and the food/supplement companies.
You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

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


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

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

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

On 1/9/2016 11:39 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> It was a term that was made
You criminally STALK and ABUSE women, you sick little dwarfy man!

Here's what you did when you went all over the Usenet impersonating the
well-liked regular named "sf" and posting all her personal data on the
net against her will, including her:

* home address
* age
* cell phone number
* husband's name

etc.

YOU did that, you evil *******!

And then you had the hubris to actually GLOAT about in public saying:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:18:00 -0600
MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4



She should call the cops. I've already publicly admitted it is me so
a conviction should be a piece of cake and then forging would stop.
So what's stopping her? I think she suffers from Bovism - she just
loves the attention and drama and screw the rest of the group.

-sw

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


And before that you literally stalked poor Omelet, a local Auustin
favorite, right off the Usenet!

In your worst moment ever you actually begged her to KILL you:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

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

Then after having your nose rubbed in your filthy criminal stalking you
came back with, not an apology, nor the slightest remorse, just this:


"The facebook group is much more pleasant."


But we all know that's only because you cower over there in mortal fear
of being booted by the FB admins.

You're _so done_ here virus, I mean really ****ing done.

I'm making you a project like no other, expect a lot more of your evil
abuse and hatred to be aired for all to see here.

And we both know there's a google archive full of your hatred of women
just waiting to be hung out on the virtual clothesline to dry.

Enjoy then, you rotten, worthless misogynistic *******!

Sqwertz wrote:
> That wasn't the point.
You're a beastly woman-abuser who stalks Julie.


**** off and DIE.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:24:14 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:58:20 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>>>>>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that mean?
>>>>>
>>>>> It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
>>>>> from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
>>>>> other low-carb diets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of
>>>> the
>>>> carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
>>>
>>> It was a term that was made up by food and supplement companies in
>>> response to the low-carb diet craze and reclassification of sugar
>>> alcohols. The term was unknown to the diabetic community porior to
>>> that.
>>
>> Every diabetic needs to know carb content and specifically it's glycemic
>> potential. If you are right, then Aitkin's was a saint for coming up
>> with
>> it.
>
> The Atkins craze termed "net carbs". I don't give a shit about how
> your diabetics used the bogus term after that. That wasn't the point.
> It's a flawed metric but if you want to claim it for the diabetics be
> my guest.

The "craze" is now becoming sound science, douchebag. Those tequila
hangovers suck, eh?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:24:14 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:58:20 -0800, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:25:11 -0800 (PST), RichD wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>>>>>>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does that mean?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It means the total carbohydrates (in grams) minus that carbohydrates
>>>>>> from fiber (in grams). It's a term they invented for the Atkins and
>>>>>> other low-carb diets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a "term" used by diabetics to determine the glucose potential of
>>>>> the
>>>>> carbs that are digestible. It is in fact a very important number.
>>>>
>>>> It was a term that was made up by food and supplement companies in
>>>> response to the low-carb diet craze and reclassification of sugar
>>>> alcohols. The term was unknown to the diabetic community porior to
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Every diabetic needs to know carb content and specifically it's glycemic
>>> potential. If you are right, then Aitkin's was a saint for coming up
>>> with
>>> it.
>>
>> The Atkins craze termed "net carbs". I don't give a shit about how
>> your diabetics used the bogus term after that. That wasn't the point.
>> It's a flawed metric but if you want to claim it for the diabetics be
>> my guest.
>
> The "craze" is now becoming sound science, douchebag. Those tequila
> hangovers suck, eh?
>

It'd be a joy to see that fat dwarf speed-bumped, wouldn't it?

On January 9, Julie Bove wrote:
>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>> grams net carbohydrates"
>> What does that mean?
>
> Minus the fiber.

So each gram of fiber cancels one gram of carb?
Is that like, scientific? What's the chemistry?

If so, then consuming high fiber carbs, like oat bran,
or oatmeal, would produce lower glycemic effect? As
there are breads available, bearing the label "low
glycemic index".

--
Rich

"RichD" > wrote in message
...
> On January 9, Julie Bove wrote:
>>> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
>>> grams net carbohydrates"
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> Minus the fiber.
>
> So each gram of fiber cancels one gram of carb?
> Is that like, scientific? What's the chemistry?
>
> If so, then consuming high fiber carbs, like oat bran,
> or oatmeal, would produce lower glycemic effect? As
> there are breads available, bearing the label "low
> glycemic index".
>

I pay no mind to the glycemic index as it doesn't work for me. You don't
need to know net carbs unless you use insulin or are on a special diet that
requires it. I'm not a scientist so can't answer the rest.

RichD wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > Minus the fiber.
>
> So each gram of fiber cancels one gram of carb?
> Is that like, scientific? What's the chemistry?

Be careful of the phrasing. It's easy to think someone claimed
that a gram of fiber cancels a gram of sugar or starch. No, a
gram of fiber just doesn't get listed as a sugar or starch.

> If so, then consuming high fiber carbs, like oat bran,
> or oatmeal, would produce lower glycemic effect? As
> there are breads available, bearing the label "low
> glycemic index".

The glycemic load is one effect - Fiber slows digestion of
everything. But when you're counting grams that's not
relevant to the count. It just makes the grams slower.

The science is there are at least two classes of fiber -

Insoluble fiber is in the class of cellulose like wood.
As humans are not related to termites we can not extract
any calories at all from insoluble fiber. In one end and
out the other end.

Soluble fiber is not digested by enzymes that appear in the
human genome but they are digested by enzymes made by our
intestinal bacteria. As a result when we digest soluble
fiber we absorb roughly half of its calories and our
intestinal bacteria absorb roughly half of the calories.
The exact fractions are very difficult to accurately measure
and they differ meal to meal.

Here's the fun part with soluble fiber - The calories that
get absorbed are "small chain fatty acids" so they aren't
carbs. Whether to count each fiber gram as 2 calories of
fat is a question I have never seen addressed in any low fat
discussion and low carbers don't care about fat intake.

The problem with the two types of fiber is US labels are not
required to tell the difference. You're free to completely
deduct insoluble fiber from all of your counts but to do that
you need to memorize the tables or look up every food ingredient.
When I read the nutrition labels on imported foods it does not
appear that other countries are required to report fiber by
type either. It is not practical to treat the two types of
fiber differently.

The standard approach now for low carb dieters is to deduct the
fiber content from their daily count and ignore any calories
contributed by the fiber. Some low carbers count calories but
most of the plans just teach to let the appetite lowering
feature of low carb eating make portion control easy.

There's an added benefit to deducting fiber for low carb
dieters - Eating extra veggies early in your diet. Many low
carb diets tell folks to start out at some carb count then
later increase your daily quota. Many new low carbers
incorrectly think that if low is good, lower must be better
because they have not studied the hormones T3, leptin and
cortisol and because they want to be extreme. The amount
of veggies eaten to get to a net count is larger than the
amount of veggies eaten to get to a total count. More
veggies are better and the newbies need an automated
strategy to ensure they eat more. Doing a net count
delivers that function.

RichD wrote:
>
> I see granola energy bars, bearing the notice: "only 2
> grams net carbohydrates"
>
> What does that mean?

There was a large thread discussing fiber, so here I will
address other caloric chemicals.

One of the meanings is the company has a financial
incentive to report the lowest possible count that does
not get them hauled before the Federal Trade Commission
for false advertising. it is important to read the list
of ingredients and see if any of them are "hidden carbs"
that should be counted but are not. Also check for what
lawyers call "weasel words" on the label that explain
away invalid deductions. If the label says that some
ingredient was deducted because it does not cause blood
sugar spikes, that's a coded phrase that tells you the
label deducted slow carbs because they are slow, not
because they are not carbs that deliver glucose to our
bodies.

One ingredient that used to be common in bars was glycerine.
In the body glycerine gets converted at near 100% efficiency
to glycerol. Glycerol is a part of fat metabolism that
delivers glucose to the blood stream. Glycerol is converted
at near 100% efficiency to glucose. The trick is the
process that converts glycerine to glucose is slow, so the
grams don't get counted. If you need an honest count that
includes slow carbs you can't deduct glycerine for the same
reason you can't count broccoli at zero.

Another ingredient is the class of sugar alcohols. Different
people absorb the various sugar alcohols at different
inefficiencies. Worse, you might not absorb one type but you
do absorb another type. Figuring out how well you absorb
sugar alcohols as carbs is not easy.

There is simple way to figure out if you failed to absorb
sugar alcohols in a food. If that food gives you loose
stools, that means you did not digest the sugar alcohol. If
that food does not effect your digestion, you definitely
absorbed most of its calories. Figuring out if sugar alcohols
are absorbed as carbs is not easy.

So look carefully at the label remembering that the company's
motivation is to get you to purchase the product not to be
honest on its label. Are there disclaimers aka weasel words?
If the fiber grams are listed does the calorie arithmetic
work out that nothing else was deducted? Do sugar alcohol
give you the runs?

I deduct fiber from my daily count. I long ago stopped
believing the rest of the claims on the labels.

Certain low carb products never did contain the types of
chemicals that need disclaimers. Almost every low carb
shake I've ever seen had ingredients that did not call to
me to increase the carb count from the label. I've never
seen an Atkins branded shake have an issue and other brands
seem to catch on that it's not difficult to formulate a
product with an honestly low carb count.

Low carb bars have varied widely over the years and across
the brands whether their net carb claims are honest. It
takes knowing what to look for.