 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message om... > Tesoro wrote: > > > > The brain runs on GLUCOSE not KETONES! > > Oh that hysteria again. Covered a month ago. You can make the claim > all you like, but claiming it does not make it true. The brain runs > fine on ketones and does so in millions of people without any ill > effects. Right now millions are in dietary ketosis without ill > effects. But dream on all you like. Still into FreeMasonry and Wicca Doug? Hail Asgard? What the **** is up with all that hocus pocus shit? You are hilarious... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Wayne wrote:
> > Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others Okay. I have this bridge that you might be interested in. You take payments. > but Fun how 'I won't "rant"' is followed by 'but'. > In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill. The claim that you followed it precisely is interesting. What day did you move on to phase 2? If it wasn't day 14 say goodbye to following the directions. What's your CCLL if you tried Atkins? If you can't answer say goodbye to following the directions. Did you get your cholesterol checked before starting and then wait 6 months before the next test? If not say goodbye to following the directions. I've read folks who complained of bad effects, but when questions not a one actually followed the directions. Anything from not drinking water on. On the other hand I've read of folks who did follow the directions and didn't lose, so it's clear low carbing doesn't work for everyone. Not working is extremely different from getting sick. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Tesoro wrote:
> "Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message > om... > >>Tesoro wrote: >> >>>The brain runs on GLUCOSE not KETONES! >> >>Oh that hysteria again. Covered a month ago. You can make the claim >>all you like, but claiming it does not make it true. The brain runs >>fine on ketones and does so in millions of people without any ill >>effects. Right now millions are in dietary ketosis without ill >>effects. But dream on all you like. > > Still into FreeMasonry and Wicca Doug? Hail Asgard? What the **** is up with > all that hocus pocus shit? You are hilarious... Oh, look. Tesoro doing that same old thing. Scorn but not a bit of countering information. Show us a source of credible information that agrees with your position, Tessie. Maybe some good scientific web site that explains metabolism. It's wildly hilarious that "Tesoro" means "treasure" in Italian. It's like calling a little, skinny guy "Bubba." Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Wayne wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote: > > > Did you > > get your cholesterol checked before starting and then wait 6 months > > before the next test? > > I did have a > physical before beginning the program and my cholesterol was checked and > within normal range. It was checked again after 3 months and it had > escalated but wasn't critical. At the end of 6 months it was over 400. Okay. 80% see improvement in 6 months and that's why the directions say to wait 6 months. Too bad you're in the other 20%. No plan works for everyone. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Craig Welch > wrote in
: > On Wed, 12 May 2004 03:40:51 GMT, Wayne > wrote: > >>Actually, it was just a couple of days ago that I was buying my usual >>brand of bottled water when I noticed another brand (can't recall the >>name offhand) that now had a label that read "Carb Free". This wasn't a >>new brand, but the label obviously was. > > The irony in context ... > > Might I ask why you were buying bottled water, at prices that no > doubt challenge that of gasoline? > Our local water is undrinkable. I don't buy boutique waters. -- Wayne in Phoenix Big on natural foods?? 82.38% of people die of "natural" causes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Dog3 <dognospam@adjfkdla;not> wrote in
4: > Wayne > : > >> >> Our local water is undrinkable. I don't buy boutique waters. > > So you just replenish the bodily fluids with beer, right  > > Michael > Except at work! ;-) -- Wayne in Phoenix Big on natural foods?? 82.38% of people die of "natural" causes. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
I can hear the NG thugs rumbling now....
> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:11:42 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > > wrote: > > >Last go round was the diet to end high cholesterol which meant eating what > >is now so bad for you and dropping all the things that you can now devour. > > > >I saw this posted somewhere and liked the idea. > > > >My idea of a perfect NO CARB diet: > > > >No Cheney > >No Ashcroft > >No Rumsfeld > >No Bush > > > >And definitely omit the Rice. > > > > > Things to think about before staying on the Atkins diet for very long > From http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/atkinsgeninfo.htm > > > 1. The Atkins plan encourages people to restrict the foods which have > been proven to (significantly) cut the risks of cancer (like veggies > and fruits) but has no restriction on the foods which have been proven > in over 3500 studies to risk cancer risks. > > > 2. Cholesterol is how your body absorbs fat. The reason we have too > much of it, is either more saturated fat than our bodies can use or > TRANSFAT which combines with cholesterol but then the body cannot use > it so it stays in the bloodstream and clogs up the blood. The Atkins > plan does NOT limit trans fatty acids nor does it limit saturated fat > (although they suggest it might be good to somewhat limit fatty > foods). > > 3. Your brain requires over 200 g of carbohydrates to function > normally. The atkins plan only allows you 30-60 g of carbohydrates. > (Dr Phil) > > > 4. Every cardiologist I've ever talked to has SEVERAL Patients on the > Atkins diet whose cholesterol is so high that they've HAD to prescribe > the statin drugs (cholesterol lowering drugs) for these patients. > > > 5. A group of physicians have put out a warning against the Atkins > diet to other physicians explaining that if they encourage their > patients to embark on the Atkins Plan, they might be in danger of > lawsuit. Everyone should read the medical repercussions of the Atkins > Plan before embarking on this diet. > > > http://atkinsdietalert.org/ > > > > 6. The heart assn, the ADA and the CSPI have all written EXTENSIVELY > of the health hazards of the Atkins diet. > > > (article on heart assn website) > > http://216.185.112.5/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11103 > > > 7. The CSPI (and many others) wrote that the main reason people lose > weight on the Atkins Plan is because they tend to consume less > calories. The CSPI also wrote that the reason more people don't get > ill from the Atkins Plan is because most people cannot stay on this > plan for long periods of time. > > http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf > > > 8. The Atkins high protein/high fat plan was shown to decrease blood > flow to the heart by as much as 40 percent in an independent study > (not financed by the Atkins Corp). Of course this study was NOT > carried by the popular media. [1] > > > 9. High Protein diets are hard on the kidneys - also some studies have > shown that the Atkins diet may raise the risk of kidney stones. > Finally the kidneys must remove the ketone bodies from the blood - > this again overworks them and can cause kidney damage. > > > 10. A survey run by the Chicago Sun Times of 100 dieticians and > nutritionists rated the Atkins diet as the least effective way to lose > weight. NONE of those polled had ever seen a long term success on the > Atkins plan. The lowest rating possible was 5. Weight Watchers > received a 20. The Atkins Plan received a 7.5. > > > http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/fat/day2.html > > > 11. Higher protein requires more calcium or it poses a risk of > osteoporosis to the bones. Most people on high protein diets do not > consume products providing goodly amounts of calcium because these > products are also "high in carbs". > > > 12. Robert Atkins had a serious heart condition - which he claimed > had, (of course) nothing to do with his diet. > > > 13. The Atkins diet is big business. The Atkins corporation continues > to grow with its own line of foods and recently has partnered with the > restaurant chain, "TGIF" to offer foods which are Atkins-friendly. The > sell on the Atkins Plan is definitely a hard sell in the popular media > which tells the story so differently from what the medical data > states. > > The bottom line is the Atkins Plan offers us the ability to eat > unlimited amounts of an American favorite, high fat foods, gives us an > excuse to restrict foods most of us don't especially enjoy i.e. > veggies and fruit and with all of this, STILL lose weight. What > American wouldn't find that very enticing (and perhaps ignor the > medical warnings about it). It, in fact, seems almost too good to be > true. And maybe it is... too good to be true. > > > > references: > > [1] Fleming RM. The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood > flow. Angiology 2000;51(10):817-826. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
He is a ng thug, or did that simple fact go racing right past you without notice? jim Tesoro wrote: > I can hear the NG thugs rumbling now.... > > > > wrote in message > ... > >>On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:11:42 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > wrote: >> >> >>>Last go round was the diet to end high cholesterol which meant eating > > what > >>>is now so bad for you and dropping all the things that you can now > > devour. > >>>I saw this posted somewhere and liked the idea. >>> >>>My idea of a perfect NO CARB diet: >>> >>>No Cheney >>>No Ashcroft >>>No Rumsfeld >>>No Bush >>> >>>And definitely omit the Rice. >>> >> >> >>Things to think about before staying on the Atkins diet for very long >>From http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/atkinsgeninfo.htm >> >> >>1. The Atkins plan encourages people to restrict the foods which have > snip of newsgroup thug ramblings. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
I believe he's a "troll". Friendly response though Jim, about what I'd
expect here. "JimLane" > wrote in message ... > > He is a ng thug, or did that simple fact go racing right past you > without notice? > > jim > > > Tesoro wrote: > > I can hear the NG thugs rumbling now.... > > > > > > > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:11:42 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > > wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Last go round was the diet to end high cholesterol which meant eating > > > > what > > > >>>is now so bad for you and dropping all the things that you can now > > > > devour. > > > >>>I saw this posted somewhere and liked the idea. > >>> > >>>My idea of a perfect NO CARB diet: > >>> > >>>No Cheney > >>>No Ashcroft > >>>No Rumsfeld > >>>No Bush > >>> > >>>And definitely omit the Rice. > >>> > >> > >> > >>Things to think about before staying on the Atkins diet for very long > >>From http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/atkinsgeninfo.htm > >> > >> > >>1. The Atkins plan encourages people to restrict the foods which have > > > > snip of newsgroup thug ramblings. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
JimLane > wrote in message >...
> wrote: > > You can call me a troll or whatever else you want. The website still > > exists right he > > http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/atkinsgeninfo.htm > > > > It includes lots of links and references. > > > > The Atkins Corporation is a multimillion dollar scam business who is > > profitting from people whose lives are being ruined at the financial > > gain of this malicious company. Also, Subway and TGIF restaurants are > > part of the Atkins Corp. > > > > So, while you whiners complain about someone sending you some "get > > rich quick" spam in your email, you are allowing this corporation to > > continue scamming massive amounts of people, and even allowing them to > > infiltrate every aspect of our lives. Tell me one place where you > > have NOT seen an ad for "atkins" or "carb" lately, other than the > > corner hardware store. > > > > The Atkins Corp. is one of the crookedest companies in the world, and > > it's about time people learn about them. > > > > Go ahead, be brave, go to that website and learn something for once ! > > They'll be plenty of time to shoot your mouth off later, (after you > > know what you are talking about). > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 May 2004 18:09:07 -0400, "Tesoro" > > > wrote: > > > > > >>I believe he's a "troll". Friendly response though Jim, about what I'd > >>expect here. > >> > >>"JimLane" > wrote in message > ... > >> > >>>He is a ng thug, or did that simple fact go racing right past you > >>>without notice? > >>> > >>>jim > >>> > >>> > >>>Tesoro wrote: > >>> > >>>>I can hear the NG thugs rumbling now.... > >>>> > >>>> > > wrote in message > m... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>On Tue, 11 May 2004 16:11:42 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski" > > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>Last go round was the diet to end high cholesterol which meant eating > >>>> > >>>>what > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>is now so bad for you and dropping all the things that you can now > >>>> > >>>>devour. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>I saw this posted somewhere and liked the idea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>My idea of a perfect NO CARB diet: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No Cheney > >>>>>>No Ashcroft > >>>>>>No Rumsfeld > >>>>>>No Bush > >>>>>> > >>>>>>And definitely omit the Rice. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Things to think about before staying on the Atkins diet for very long > > >>>>>From http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/atkinsgeninfo.htm > > >>>>> > >>>>>1. The Atkins plan encourages people to restrict the foods which have > >>>> > >>>snip of newsgroup thug ramblings. > >> > > > > > Yep, but being as you have bought off on this webpage, did you take a > critical look at it? I'm betting not. Here is some of the mentalmidgetry > that went right past you: > > 4. Every cardiologist - Note: not a number given or any proof it was > more than one talked to. > > 5. Where is proof of this warning sent out to physicians? Say so don;t > make it so. > > 10. One hundred of how many? In Chicago or across the US? Was the survey > conducted randomly? What were the metrics used to select for selection? > Lotsa unanswered questions that COULD mean the respondents belonged to > one camp. Page cannot be found by clicking on your link. > > 11. Where is the proof of this claim? Not in evidence. I don't think of > milk, cheese, etc., in terms of carbs, haven't looked, but that is where > I get my calcium. > > 12. Innuendo means you are trying to load the deck and are not > interested in being either fair nor ethical. If you have to resort to > this, you are losing your argument. > > 13. So what? I know a lot of people on the Atkins diet and not one is > buying their product. This is pure and simple economic jealousy on the > part of people who are not capable of making it in the marketplace. > Equivalent to Gates bashers. > > Half the argument presented is wasted bandwidth. And the other half is crap too: > 1. The Atkins plan encourages people to restrict the foods which have > been proven to (significantly) cut the risks of cancer (like veggies > and fruits) but has no restriction on the foods which have been proven > in over 3500 studies to risk cancer risks. False. Atkins allows fruit in moderation, and only forbids certain starchy vegetables like potatoes and rice. Consumption of non-starchy vegetables like spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, etc. is not only encourage, but mandatory - you are supposed to eat at least two cups of such vegetables a day. > > > 2. Cholesterol is how your body absorbs fat. The reason we have too > much of it, is either more saturated fat than our bodies can use or > TRANSFAT which combines with cholesterol but then the body cannot use > it so it stays in the bloodstream and clogs up the blood. The Atkins > plan does NOT limit trans fatty acids nor does it limit saturated fat > (although they suggest it might be good to somewhat limit fatty > foods). Absolutely false. Atkins flat out forbids trans-fats. > 5. A group of physicians have put out a warning against the Atkins > diet to other physicians explaining that if they encourage their > patients to embark on the Atkins Plan, they might be in danger of > lawsuit. Everyone should read the medical repercussions of the Atkins > Plan before embarking on this diet. > > > http://atkinsdietalert.org/ This is put out by the "Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine" which, despite its deliberately misleading name, is not a medical group but actually a vegan group affiliated with PETA (they even share offices). > > 7. The CSPI (and many others) wrote that the main reason people lose > weight on the Atkins Plan is because they tend to consume less > calories. And this is a BAD thing???? > Now, about knowing what > you are shooting off your mouth about - all you did was plagerize > someone else's webpage. BTW, who is Sue Widemark? Did you ever examine > who it was that was putting this information up on the web? I'll lay you > odds you have not. She's some Granny who has put up a personal webpage > supporting her philosophy, but presents no credentials of her own. > > Her research is sloppy at best. well intended, perhaps, but a bit sloppy. > > > jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:30:32 GMT, "Jack Schidt®"
> wrote: >It fits the american 'get rich quick' mentality. We've finally realized >that there's no pill to enact weight loss, so this is the next best thing. >Shoulda ate something else besides all that sugar for the last 30 something >years, asshole! That brown cola, wonder bread and bologna does not a >healthy lunch make. Bwhahahahahaha! > >Jack RantoRamen > but there is a pill for an instant hard-on that lasts five or six months, isn't there? your pal, blake |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
On Tue, 11 May 2004 19:07:05 GMT, "kilikini"
> wrote: > wrote in message .. . >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:01:00 GMT, "Master Chef Richard Campbell" >> > wrote: >> >> >"Jeff Bienstadt" > wrote in message > >(snip) > >> Maybe I should tell my boss to advertise our construction company as >> "low carb". Maybe we'd get more work and be able to charge higher >> prices..... Oh heck, I may as well put a sign that says "low carb" on >> my sink faucets too.... Maybe even in the cat litter box too, just in >> case someone brings over a dog that eats poop. >> >> > >My dog has been known to go into the tootsie roll factory (what we call the >litter box) on several occasions. I'll buy a sign from you and teach the >dog how to read. Instant sales market! > >kili resus, i had known that rats could happily survive on dog poop, and now you says dogs go for cat treats? pretty soon, humans will be superfluous. your pal, blake |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
On Wed, 12 May 2004 12:53:33 -0400, "Virginia Tadrzynski"
> wrote: > >"kilikini" > wrote in message .. . >> My dog has been known to go into the tootsie roll factory (what we call >the >> litter box) on several occasions. I'll buy a sign from you and teach the >> dog how to read. Instant sales market! >> >> kili >> -- >> > >My mother used to say some people would eat cat turds rolled in cracker dust >if they were marketed correctly......she's probably up in the great beyond >right now going 'see, I told you'...... > >A new marketing ploy, recycled and no carbs!!!! A double saled pitch. > >-Ginny > deep-fried, they can't miss. your pal, blake |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
> Can you repeat your dribble a few dozen more times Speaking of illiteracy, I believe you mean "drivel". |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
JimLane wrote:
> Did your mother have any children that lived? You are certainly brain > dead, so have someone copy this note of condolence to her. You ever hear of SNIPPING, you idiot? nancy |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Nancy Young wrote:
> JimLane wrote: > > >>Did your mother have any children that lived? You are certainly brain >>dead, so have someone copy this note of condolence to her. > > > You ever hear of SNIPPING, you idiot? > > nancy Yep, but it gives certain named females that same named thing to do when all they can get are reruns in the trailer park. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
JimLane wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote: > > You ever hear of SNIPPING, you idiot? > > > > nancy > > Yep, but it gives certain named females that same named thing to do when > all they can get are reruns in the trailer park. I would need a translator if I wanted to know what you were trying to say. nancy |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Nancy Young wrote:
> JimLane wrote: > >>Nancy Young wrote: > > >>>You ever hear of SNIPPING, you idiot? >>> >>>nancy >> >>Yep, but it gives certain named females that same named thing to do when >>all they can get are reruns in the trailer park. > > > I would need a translator if I wanted to know what you were trying to > say. > > nancy B*tch. Too bad it needs to be spelled out for you. Were you socially promoted out of high school? jim jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
"JimLane" > wrote in message
... > wrote: > > On Fri, 28 May 2004 22:14:26 -0400, Nancy Young > > > wrote: > > > > > >>JimLane wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Did your mother have any children that lived? You are certainly brain > >>>dead, so have someone copy this note of condolence to her. > >> > >>You ever hear of SNIPPING, you idiot? > >> > >>nancy > > > > > > Ha Ha Ha... > > Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks JimLane is an idiot. > > Every word he post makes this more apparent. > > Why dont he do us all a favor and find another hobby besides > > computers. One I'd recommend would be skydiving without a parachute. > > I hear it's much more exciting that way !!! > > At least this way, if he dont die from stupidity, or from eating the > > Atkins diet, the skydiving should do the trick. > > > > > > Why don't you take the advice I gave you earlier and go french kiss a > Mack truck on the freeway. > > Still holding your breath? Hope so, you'll die quick enough and trim the > gene pool. > > > jim > > OK you two pinheads, the "who's the biggest moron and asshole" contest is over and the 2 of you are in a tie for first place. We're all convinced, the trophy is yours. That's "JimLane" and "spamfree" just in case you are too dimwitted to figure that out. Why don't you drag your knuckles off this group and trade your 5th grade level insults somewhere else? -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
Peter Aitken wrote:
> > OK you two pinheads, the "who's the biggest moron and asshole" contest is > over and the 2 of you are in a tie for first place. We're all convinced, the > trophy is yours. That's "JimLane" and "spamfree" just in case you are too > dimwitted to figure that out. Why don't you drag your knuckles off this > group and trade your 5th grade level insults somewhere else? > > Let's see your netpolice badge. jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:38:00 -0700, JimLane >
wrote: >Peter Aitken wrote: > >> >> OK you two pinheads, the "who's the biggest moron and asshole" contest is >> over and the 2 of you are in a tie for first place. We're all convinced, the >> trophy is yours. That's "JimLane" and "spamfree" just in case you are too >> dimwitted to figure that out. Why don't you drag your knuckles off this >> group and trade your 5th grade level insults somewhere else? >> >> > > >Let's see your netpolice badge. > > >jim you don't need a badge to recognize an asshole. your pal, blake |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
blake murphy wrote:
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:38:00 -0700, JimLane > > wrote: > > >>Peter Aitken wrote: >> >> >>>OK you two pinheads, the "who's the biggest moron and asshole" contest is >>>over and the 2 of you are in a tie for first place. We're all convinced, the >>>trophy is yours. That's "JimLane" and "spamfree" just in case you are too >>>dimwitted to figure that out. Why don't you drag your knuckles off this >>>group and trade your 5th grade level insults somewhere else? >>> >>> >> >> >>Let's see your netpolice badge. >> >> >>jim > > > you don't need a badge to recognize an asshole. > > your pal, > blake I guess you recognize yourself for that every time you look into your mirror, eh? jim |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"
In article . net>,
"H. Kunitz" > wrote: > > Can you repeat your dribble a few dozen more times > > Speaking of illiteracy, I believe you mean "drivel". Come on, a set up line like that and you don't make up punchline? -- Leader of the Slithy Toves |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Words | General Cooking | |||
| Low carb, practically no carb real fried chicken. | General Cooking | |||
| sweet words | General Cooking | |||
| Words | General Cooking | |||
|
I AM SO F^&#*)! TIRED OF THE WORDS "LOW CARB"< |
General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
