Dana Carpender wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
>
> > "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> >
> >>If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
> >>definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.
> >
> >
> > The body can make protein. By your logic. Protein is "inessential".
> >
> >
>
> Not my logic. Basic nutrition. The body cannot make all the proteins
> it needs without protein from foods. Protein is therefore essential.

Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.

Please listen this time: Protein is not the same thing as amino acids.
Amino acids are the building blocks from which proteins are made. The
body can make roughly half of the amino acids to make proteins by
itself. The others it needs to obtain from food sources. Here's the
really important part:
THOSE AMINO ACIDS DON'T HAVE TO COME FROM COMPLETE PROTEINS. THEY CAN
COME FROM GRAINS, OR LEGUMES, ALONGSIDE THE CARBS IN THOSE FOODS.
For example, take lentils. A skip over to the USDA database shows that
lentils contain every single one of the amino acids in some amount.
Combine those lentils with rice and you have "complete proteins"
because between the two foods you have sufficient amino acids to
support protein synthesis.
It's every bit as possible for a human to live well without appreciable
"dietary protein" as it is for them to live without appreciable
"dietary carbohydrates". In each case the body will pick a different
metabolic strategy. That's why saying that carbs are "inessential" and
protein is essential is wrong. Neither one is necessarily essential,
there just has to be something.

Carmen

> OTOH, the body can make the the glucose it needs. Carbs are therefore
> inessential.
>
> Of course, we have one example of a population who lived virtually carb
> free for much of the year, the Inuit. Want to tell them that carbs were
> essential?
>
> Dana

"Carmen" > wrote...
> Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
>
> Please listen this time:

Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.

Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It appears
it's obviously falling on deaf ears.

I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.

Google Beta User wrote:
> << > Whats your age/sex and what are your exercise goals? Some people
> DONT'
>
>>want to lose weight.
>
>
> I'm 47, female, and I'm working on getting back into shape after a
> winter spent being miserably hypothyroid. >>
>
> Yeah, so your needs and my needs are TOTALLY different. People like me
> SHOULDN'T be doing low carb.

Did I say you should?
>
> Problem with diet systems is they're promoted without taking age, sex &
> lifestyle into consideration.
>

Never done it. Indeed, everything I've ever written on the subject,
I've made the point that needs vary. I was asked just today "How many
grams of carb should I eat?" by a newbie low carber. I told her I
didn't know; she'd have to pay attention to her body to find out.

Dana

Shuurai wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Shuurai wrote:
>>
>>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lord Hatred wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You seem to think this is an "Either/Or" argument.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am arguing with the various statements that Atkins (and, I assume, low
>>>>carbohydrate nutrition in general) is a "scam", and that people are
>>>>"idiots" to think it works.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not a scam - just an overreaction.
>>
>>Trust me, it was a big, big shock to discover that my body runs far
>>better on red meat than it ever did on brown rice. A strong reaction to
>>that sort of revelation, multiplied by millions, was inevitable.
>
>
> An overreaction by millions is still an overreaction.
>
> You tell people there is a way for them to do as little as possible
> (ie. eat this instead of that) and lose weight - especially in America
> - and millions of 'em are gonna do it.

And millions of them have lost weight. Improved their health, too.

Add the idea that they get to
> blame someone (in this case, the entire food industry)

What you eat is your choice.

for the
> condition they're in already; and that they get to do something
> (anything, seriously anything) that goes against commonly held ideals
> (I get to eat what!?) then you have a fad people can really throw
> themselves at.
>
> What I find interesting is that people will ignore groups like the AMA,
> ADA, the National Academy of Sciences, and so forth in favor of a
> non-peer-reviewed, unscientific and largely anecdotal study;

You're aware that there are a lot of studies of low carb diets in
peer-reviewed journals? You're aware, too, that there are studies
showing that recommendations of a low fat diet based on complex carbs
turned out to be valueless?

all
> because it says what they'd like to hear. \


I ate a low fat diet high in whole grains and legumes for *years*. I
was not eating junk. I hadn't bought a loaf of white bread in over 15
years. I didn't drink soda. I exercised vigorously. I was *GAINING*
weight, I was hungry all the time, my energy swings were nasty, and I
had borderline high blood pressure. I *did* what the authorities told
me to do. It didn't work for me. Low carb did, and does.

That's not "what I'd like to hear." It's what happened to me.

Dana

For many, a fad diet like Atkins becomes a cult. Sure, they lose
weight, because they are starving their bodies of glucose - the body's
main energy source. The same thing can be achieved by an uncontrolled
diabetic.

Carmen wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dana Carpender" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>If the body can make it, it is considered inessential. That's the
>>>>definition. Carbohydrate is inessential.
>>>
>>>
>>>The body can make protein. By your logic. Protein is "inessential".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not my logic. Basic nutrition. The body cannot make all the proteins
>>it needs without protein from foods. Protein is therefore essential.
>
>
> Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
>
> Please listen this time: Protein is not the same thing as amino acids.
> Amino acids are the building blocks from which proteins are made. The
> body can make roughly half of the amino acids to make proteins by
> itself. The others it needs to obtain from food sources. Here's the
> really important part:
> THOSE AMINO ACIDS DON'T HAVE TO COME FROM COMPLETE PROTEINS. THEY CAN
> COME FROM GRAINS, OR LEGUMES, ALONGSIDE THE CARBS IN THOSE FOODS.

I know that. And you're right -- eight amino acids are essential.

> For example, take lentils. A skip over to the USDA database shows that
> lentils contain every single one of the amino acids in some amount.
> Combine those lentils with rice and you have "complete proteins"
> because between the two foods you have sufficient amino acids to
> support protein synthesis.

Protein complementarity is not a new concept to me.

> It's every bit as possible for a human to live well without appreciable
> "dietary protein" as it is for them to live without appreciable
> "dietary carbohydrates". In each case the body will pick a different
> metabolic strategy. That's why saying that carbs are "inessential" and
> protein is essential is wrong. Neither one is necessarily essential,
> there just has to be something.

Given sufficient protein and fat, you can live without carbohydrate
(although it's tough to get down to zero grams of carb. Shellfish have
a little. Eggs have a smidge. Etc.) It doesn't matter how much
carbohydrate you have -- and I'm speaking here of pure carbohydrate, I'm
perfectly aware that many carb-heavy foods also contain proteins -- you
can't live without consuming the essential aminos.

Carbohydrate is useful for fuel, and nothing more. The body has
alternative fuel sources, most particularly fats. There is no
alternative to the essential amino acids, nor to essential fatty acids,
for that matter. I'm not saying no one should ever eat carbs. I'm not
saying that no carbohydrate food contains anything essential -- I
mentioned vitamin C, and obviously you can derive other nutrients from
unrefined carb foods. But the carbohydrate itself is defined as
inessential. That's all I'm saying.


Dana

Krusty wrote:

> "Carmen" > wrote...
>
>>Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
>>
>>Please listen this time:
>
>
> Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
>
> Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It appears
> it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
>
> I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
>
>

Her. And I eat a widely varied diet.

Dana

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>My position all along has simply been that grains (and concentrated carb
>>foods in general) are not essential in the diet, and are prejudicial to
>>health in many.
>
>
> And everyone in this thread has shown you why you're wrong.
>

No one has shown me why I'm wrong. Please give me one cite
demonstrating that grains are essential in the diet.

In the meanwhile, chew on this, from the Food and Nutrition Board:

"The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently
is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.
However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal
health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations that
ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount
of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases
for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and
Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was
no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an
essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland
natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928)."

Now, what was that about carbohydrate being essential?

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

> For many, a fad diet like Atkins becomes a cult. Sure, they lose
> weight, because they are starving their bodies of glucose - the body's
> main energy source. The same thing can be achieved by an uncontrolled
> diabetic.

My wife maintains a low carb diet based on Atkins. She is looking pretty
darned good.

Krusty wrote:
> "Carmen" > wrote...
> > Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
> >
> > Please listen this time:
>
> Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
>
> Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It appears
> it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
>
> I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.

Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
thus far.
Not all long time low carbers are like that. Like most groups they
just tend to be among the more vocal. There are any number of long
timers like myself out there too. I promise. ;-)

Carmen

Isn't any diet where weight is lost a starving of sorts?
Jimmy

"mdginzo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> For many, a fad diet like Atkins becomes a cult. Sure, they lose
> weight, because they are starving their bodies of glucose - the body's
> main energy source. The same thing can be achieved by an uncontrolled
> diabetic.
>

Carmen wrote:

> Krusty wrote:
>
>>"Carmen" > wrote...
>>
>>>Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
>>>
>>>Please listen this time:
>>
>>Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
>>
>>Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It appears
>>it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
>>
>>I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
>
>
> Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
> quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
> trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
> as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
> thus far.

What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.

I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.

Dana

wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>
> > Actually, skeletal evidence shows that when hunter-gatherers became
> > farmers, they got shorter, with weak bones and bad teeth, probably due
> > to the fact that grain phytates bind up minerals. Doesn't sound like
> > thriving, really.
>
>
> People today are much taller on average than people were just a couple
> hundred years ago. If people are shorter because of grains, then why we
> are taller now, as we eat more grains than ever before?
>
Well, greater availability and sophistication of health care, better
nutrition (a broad understanding of body chemistry and all body
functions that did not exist a couple hundred years ago), and more of
everything because of the advantages of civilization.

> I suspect the people getting shorter in the past was for a different
> reason.
>
> Also, I would point out that we evolution isn't as slow as you think.
> Just considering the short time that we have been homo sapien, we have
> adapted to various conditions. Take a look around you. While the world
> has become a smaller place and people are now migrated and spread out
> everywhere, you can still tell where a person's ancestors came from
> because of some characteristics.
>
How is that supposed to show that evolution is fast? If anything, it
shows that some traits at least are slow to "evolve away". Which is
the opposite of your point, I think.

> People from colder climates tend to have smaller noses with with small
> nostrils to keep out the cold. Skin color - we got all these diffferent
> skin tones from various levels of exposure to the sun. Some people
> needed more natural protection than others.
>
> We may all be mixed up now. But back when people were sequestered in
> various groupings, the people adapted as a group to their particular
> evironment. It didn't take 50,000 years to produce people of various
> skin tones or different styles of noses.
>
Wanna take that back?

> You can also see "evolution" in domestic animals as we intentionally
> (and sometimes accidentally) breed changes in the pets. It doesn't take
> 1,000 years to take one breed and get a new breed. For example, the
> Siamese cat has been around for while, and sometimes there would be a
> mutation of one gene to produce long hair. It didn't take long to
> create a new breed called a Balinese that is exactly the same as a
> siamese except it has long hair. And it breeds true. All you had to do
> was breed the carriers of the mutated gene or those with the mutated
> gene, and you got more of them. I actually have a Balinese that came
> from two siamese. We owned both parents with short hair and were quite
> surprised to have a kitten with long hair. Once a gene mutates like
> this and reproduces, you have a change in the genes and that is
> basically what evolution is.
>
Right, assuming you understand the difference between natural selection
and enforced selection, and the compressed time frame of generations
that brings with it. Which still supports the exact opposite point
than you are arguing.

> Characteristics like size, nose, facial shape, ears, etc can change
> very quickly. I read an article awhile back showing 4 breeds and how
> they have changed in 40 years. The author obviously like the
> "improvements" in the breed. I didn't. They had photos of champion cats
> today and champion cats of the same breeds 40 years ago, and I liked
> the older photos much better. But the point was obvious. The breeds
> have changed a LOT in 40 years.

And that's about 60 enforced generations, or 12,000 human years for
cats, a little less for dogs. Though I'd like to see the photos and
info on the species, since I doubt the specs for breeds have changed
much, when it comes to the whole pet beauty contest gig.

And anyway, if breeders are able to have such dramatic impact on a
breed (not even a species), and a mongrel remains a mongrel no matter
the place or time, doesn't that further erode your argument of rapid
*natural* selection?


Mr C

On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:53:12 -0400, Dana Carpender wrote
(in article >):

>
>
> Carmen wrote:
>
>> Krusty wrote:
>>
>>> "Carmen" > wrote...
>>>
>>>> Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
>>>>
>>>> Please listen this time:
>>>
>>> Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
>>>
>>> Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It
>>> appears
>>> it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
>>>
>>> I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
>>
>>
>> Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
>> quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
>> trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
>> as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
>> thus far.
>
> What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
> grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
> should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
> grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
> asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
> unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>
> I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.
>
> Dana

So, where can I find some of your low carb cook books?

--
Steve

"Krusty" > wrote in message
...
> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> > Cite?
>
> Eaton suggests that early primate diet was roughly 95% "plant foods". (see
> associated citations)
>
> ...plant foods such as fruits, leaves, gums, and stalks probably comprised
> at least 95% of their dietary intake with insects, eggs, and small animals
> making up the remainder (Milton, 1993; Tutin & Fernandez, 1993). The
general
> nutritional parameters of an eating pattern along these lines can be
> estimated with modest confidence, although certainly not with mathematical
> exactitude. Protein would have contributed a greater proportion of total
> energy than it does for most contemporary humans, but with much more from
> vegetable sources than from animal. (Popovich, 1997) Simple carbohydrate
> intake would have been strikingly below that now common, and, somewhat
> counterintuitively, such diets would have provided only moderate levels of
> starch and other complex carbohydrates so that the total carbohydrate
> contribution to dietary energy would have been less, not more, than is
> typical in contemporary affluent nations. Dietary fiber would have
exceeded
> current levels by an order of magnitude: 200 grams vs. 20 grams a day

Hmmm. Seems like they're trying to say they ate low carb to me. Very
little simple carbs, and moderate levels of starches and other complex
carbs. And look at the fiber levels! Do you suppose that was because fruits
and vegetables in the wild do not contain a lot of carbs?

> (Milton, 1993): for some ancestral hominoids, colonic fiber fermentation
may
> have provided over 50% of total dietary energy. (Popovich, 1997) Daily
> intake of vitamins and minerals is likely to have been considerably
greater
> than at present with the likely exception of iodine, consumption of which
> would have varied with geographic location according to oceanic proximity,
> volcanic activity, prevailing winds and rainfall. As it is for all other
> free-living terrestrial mammals, sodium intake would have been only a
> fraction of that currently common and would have been substantially less
> than that of potassium. (Denton, 1995) Availability of phytochemicals,
like
> that of vitamins and most minerals would, in all likelihood, have been
> substantially greater than for Americans and other Westerners.
>
> Happy to Help.
>
>

Dana Carpender > writes:



>Lord Hatred wrote:


>> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
>> origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
>> homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
>> You can't have it both ways.


>No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
>long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
>requirements.

I would agree about the "completely" part, but there has been apparent
natural selection in human populations who diverged only relatively
recently. Good examples would be sickle cell anemia and thalassemia,
which presumably became more prevalent following exposure to malaria
(or less prevalent in populations who moved away from the skeeters,
I forget which).

More relevantly to diet, consider that there are groups of humans
(such as many Pacific Islanders, for example) who have a propensity
to weight gain (and in fact obesity, as well as type II diabetes).
It's hypothesized that their ancestors -- the relatively healthy
ones who survived long enough to reproduce -- had undergone numerous
selection events [1] which favored a genetic propensity toward
putting on weight, possibly because of a sort of "feast or famine"
environment (and possibly because to get to the islands they had
to ride canoes for weeks). With regular access to food, these
people tend to be on the hefty side. The Pacific islands were
settled probably between three and ten thousand years ago.

Yemenite Jews who were airlifted to Israel had much the same thing
happen to them (probably a lot "worse", in the sense that having
diabetes can be said to be worse than being in danger of starvation).

Conversely, people of European descent have the lowest prevalence
of type II diabetes (although it's increasing); it's thought that
those with the "thrifty genes" were largely, err, culled from the
population with the arrival of really dependable food sources in
the I dunno late middle ages or so.

(I'm not quite convinced this last part is true, though, because
type II diabetes usually starts appearing after the start of the
reproductive years. But I haven't read much on it.)




[1] Kind of a euphemism for "lots of horrible death".

--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

Krusty wrote:
> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> > My position all along has simply been that grains (and concentrated carb
> > foods in general) are not essential in the diet, and are prejudicial to
> > health in many.
>
> And everyone in this thread has shown you why you're wrong.
>
Actually, Krusty, I have watched this thread grow, and just decided to
read it. So I did. There is not a single post yet to counter Dana's
argument in any substantive way.

> We can't help it if you're thick headed.

I don't know all that much about diet, but I'll stack myself up against
anyone in this thread when it comes to evolution, since Brother Dimmick
is not in evidence. The anti-Dana argument wrongly supposes numerous
things: that humans are only a few tens of thousand years old; that
there is only one direction for genetic expression (always improves);
that civilization's only impact on evolution was dietary; that gains in
human fitness and survivability (such as they are) are due to
grain-eating, rather than more subtle or even more obvious effects
(everything is bigger, stronger, more). Civilization is presumptively
agrarian, but I think that includes cattle as well as soybeans, don't
you?

Hell, you want to talk about quick evolution, look at the way we've
become a species of city-dwellers. Remarkable adaptation, that! Is
that evolution? Did you know, the way Chinese folks say they're
hungry, or "let's eat!" is literally "I want eat rice"? Even if they
don't want rice.


Mr C

Lord Hatred > writes:

>In article .com>,
> wrote:


>> No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
>> scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
>> of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.



> Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
>be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
>wouldn't call them humans at all. As I stated before, you can't accept
>evolution of a species without evolution within the species.


Homo's a genus, not a class, and of course Homo ergaster, Homo habilis,
etc. are in it. I'm not aware of any argument to include gorillas
in Homo, but there's a compelling case for chimps (and probably moreso
for bonobos).

--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

"Shuurai" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> > Problem with diet systems is they're promoted without taking age, sex &
> > lifestyle into consideration.
>
> There was a study done recently - I'd have to dig for the link - that
> showed pretty strongly that starting just about *any* regimented diet
> from nothing would generally show results. There are people out there
> who have started eating nothing but fast food and they lost weight.
>
> The reason isn't so much what they're eating but that fact that it's
> all of a sudden being controlled. Instead of eating whatever they like
> (which, for most people turns out to be more than they realize once
> they start keeping track) they actually watch what they eat, and when
> they eat it.
>
> Similar thing happens with those "lose weight while you sleep"
> suppliments that are often sold in magazines and on television. Most
> of them have as a requirement that you not eat for a set number of
> hours before going to bed. Studies have shown that it's not the
> suppliment that makes you lose the weight - it's the fact that you're
> no longer eating junk before going to bed.

Apparently, Sumo wrestlers eat a lot and then sleep right afterwards.
Kinda sounds similar to the average TV watching, junk food munching consumer
just before bed time.
>

Steve wrote:

> On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:53:12 -0400, Dana Carpender wrote
> (in article >):
>
>
>>
>>Carmen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Krusty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Carmen" > wrote...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please listen this time:
>>>>
>>>>Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
>>>>
>>>>Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It
>>>>appears
>>>>it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
>>>quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
>>>trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
>>>as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
>>>thus far.
>>
>>What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
>>grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
>>should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
>>grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
>>asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
>>unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>>
>>I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> So, where can I find some of your low carb cook books?

Bookstores everywhere. Also Amazon. Probably even some used bookstores
by now. Heck, I've even made some book clubs. I never did figure out
how my cookbooks qualified for the Crossroads Christian bookclub, but I
was happy to be listed.

Dana
>

Mr C wrote:

> Krusty wrote:
>
>>"Dana Carpender" > wrote
>>
>>>My position all along has simply been that grains (and concentrated carb
>>>foods in general) are not essential in the diet, and are prejudicial to
>>>health in many.
>>
>>And everyone in this thread has shown you why you're wrong.
>>
>
> Actually, Krusty, I have watched this thread grow, and just decided to
> read it. So I did. There is not a single post yet to counter Dana's
> argument in any substantive way.
>
>
>>We can't help it if you're thick headed.
>
>
> I don't know all that much about diet, but I'll stack myself up against
> anyone in this thread when it comes to evolution, since Brother Dimmick
> is not in evidence. The anti-Dana argument wrongly supposes numerous
> things: that humans are only a few tens of thousand years old; that
> there is only one direction for genetic expression (always improves);
> that civilization's only impact on evolution was dietary; that gains in
> human fitness and survivability (such as they are) are due to
> grain-eating, rather than more subtle or even more obvious effects
> (everything is bigger, stronger, more). Civilization is presumptively
> agrarian, but I think that includes cattle as well as soybeans, don't
> you?


Indeed, I've read that the keeping of herd animals considerably predated
grain agriculture, which makes domesticated (though not grain-fed) meat
and dairy foods older componants of diet than grains.

And I wonder if it wasn't the keeping of flocks that led to the idea
that grain-bearing plants were food.

Dana

Carmen wrote:

> mdginzo wrote:
>
>>>You lost 80 pounds and you're complaining? :-P~~ You must not have
>>
>>eaten enough Atkins bars. That'll teach ya ;-)
>>
>>I would take those 80 pounds back in a heartbeat if I could have my
>>kidneys back. Your statement typifies what is so wrong with Atkins and
>>other fad diets.
>
>
> Bungie cords dude! Bungie cords and duct tape are the secret to
> keeping your kidneys. Didn't you get the "Secrets of the Order of
> Atkins" book? You know, the one you were supposed to send away for
> with 100 Atkins bar wrappers and $9.95 P&H?
>
>

I would be curious to know whether A) MD had any kidney trouble previous
to the diet, and B) whether MD actually followed the diet as Dr. Atkins
wrote it, or if he -- as so many -- decided that he should stay on the
Induction phase for fast-fast-fast weight loss.

Dana

Mr C wrote:

> I don't know all that much about diet, but I'll stack myself up against
> anyone in this thread when it comes to evolution, since Brother Dimmick
> is not in evidence.

I stay out of arguments about human evolution. Evolution of
invertebrates is one of my strong points, and I don't do too
badly with lower vertebrates, but there is too much about human
evolution that I don't know.

Charles

On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:53:12 -0400, Dana Carpender
> wrote:

>What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
>grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
>should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
>grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
>asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
>unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>
>I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.
>
>Dana

Hi Dana. Thanks for some interesting posts. I have to agree here that
you have in no way advocated anything cultish... or even anything that
is incorrect. I'm not sure how this thread got started, or why it's
crossposted to the apparently off-topic groups... ah, well... the
mysteries of usenet.

Your position, actually, seems congruent with the majority opinion in
asdl-c over the years. There's been a minority holding out for lengthy
induction-level carb intake, but those who have done best usually seem
to end up with a diet that includes a fair amount of carbs - usually
between 50 and 100 g on average and sometimes containing small
amounts of grain products. Some, however, have had to pretty much
eliminate grains, or certain grains, because they seem to trigger
cravings and thus hinder weight loss/maintenance.

So the "grain thing" is really up to the user. As you have correctly
stated, there is *zero* requirement for grains in the human diet. Some
people tolerate them better than others, clearly, and that's largely
genetic. But there is abundant research demonstrating that
overconsumption of grains is harmful to the health of many folks.
Lower carb-higher nutrient density vegetables are better foods for
most of us anyway.

As to Carmen's argument about whether proteins are essential or not -
well, all I can say is that she is doing a great job of demonstrating
that she's reached the sophomoric stage in her education. Here's
hoping she finds her way out of it. Switching back and forth between
colloquial and technical term usage, to support whichever side of an
argument you're favoring, isn't exactly useful here on usenet. Nor is
using that technique to set up straw man arguments. And she was doing
both.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that humans must obtain some
necessary amino acids (the essential ones) from food sources, as they
cannot be manufactured by the body. These amino acids will be taken in
as proteins from foods. The foods - like all foods - will probably be
a mixture of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrate). They can
come from animal foods (meat, etc.), from non-starchy vegetables
(which have a relatively high proportion of amino acids on a
per-calorie, but not on a per-weight basis), or from grains and other
starchy vegetables. Carmen's argument that grains, as well as meats,
contain all the essential amino acids comes as no surprise to most of
us. It's just that for many of us the large carbohydrate load that
comes along with grain protein can be harmful. The take-away point,
however, is that we are going to have to get those essential amino
acids from some outside food source, in the form of protein contained
in food, 'cause our bodies cannot manufacture them. From that
standpoint, protein is sometimes colloquially termed an "essential
macronutrient."

Likewise, there are certain essential fatty acids that our bodies
cannot manufacture, and that we'll have to get from outside food
sources - in the form of fats contained in some kind of food. From
that standpoint, fats are sometimes colloquially termed an "essential
macronutrient."

Carbohydrates are a bit different, however. Humans tend to like them,
and utilize them quite handily. They are an efficient source of
energy. However, when they are unavailable or otherwise absent from
the diet, there is an alternative pathway - gluconeogenesis - by which
humans can manufacture glucose from proteins. This means that dietary
carbohydrate intake is not necessary in humans. On that basis it is
sometimes colloquially termed a "nonessential macronutrient."

We're never going to settle all the evolutionary conjectures here on
Usenet. Nor what the implications are for carbohydrates being
"nonessential." But empirically, it's probably safe to say that many
humans in Western societies, where food is abundant, are healthier
when they limit concentrated carb intake. There's a growing body of
research backing up that position. It's hardly cultish.

This may be as good a place as any to reiterate the point that Dr.
Atkins never recommended an extremely low intake of
carbohydrate-containing foods, except for a few weeks, essentially to
reduce insulin levels and appetite. He was always in favor of eating
as many low-starch veggies as you could, along with some low-sugar
fruits and even limited amounts of whole grains... if the person
wanted them and was able to tolerate them. But... the myth of Atkins
as a high meat - low vegetable diet persists, because people who write
about it too often haven't read the book, or only the first couple
chapters.

Thanks again to Dana and Susan for persevering in the face of a lot of
the usual usenet idiocy.

HG

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > mdginzo wrote:
> >
> >>>You lost 80 pounds and you're complaining? :-P~~ You must not have
> >>
> >>eaten enough Atkins bars. That'll teach ya ;-)
> >>
> >>I would take those 80 pounds back in a heartbeat if I could have my
> >>kidneys back. Your statement typifies what is so wrong with Atkins and
> >>other fad diets.
> >
> >
> > Bungie cords dude! Bungie cords and duct tape are the secret to
> > keeping your kidneys. Didn't you get the "Secrets of the Order of
> > Atkins" book? You know, the one you were supposed to send away for
> > with 100 Atkins bar wrappers and $9.95 P&H?
>
> I would be curious to know whether A) MD had any kidney trouble previous
> to the diet, and B) whether MD actually followed the diet as Dr. Atkins
> wrote it, or if he -- as so many -- decided that he should stay on the
> Induction phase for fast-fast-fast weight loss.

Basing my statements on a Google search (as my posts to MD have been as
well) MD is pulling our collective leg. If I believed MD was on
dialysis I certainly wouldn't be saying the things I've been saying in
this thread.

Carmen

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Carmen wrote:
>
> > Krusty wrote:
> >
> >>"Carmen" > wrote...
> >>
> >>>Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
> >>>
> >>>Please listen this time:
> >>
> >>Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
> >>
> >>Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It appears
> >>it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
> >>
> >>I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
> >
> >
> > Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
> > quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
> > trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
> > as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
> > thus far.
>
> What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
> grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
> should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
> grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
> asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
> unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>
> I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.

Dana, you started all this baloney by creating a strawman argumaent in
the first place. *You* were the one who said this:

"And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part
of
the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
around, it's really hard to see how they're essential."

Nobody had said a thing to the contrary. You just began arguing as if
someone *had*, and we were off to the races. Despite a lack of anyone
saying a thing to the contrary, you reiterated your self-constructed
argument once again, this time ratcheting up the heat in this post:

"Nope. It's a question of what you want to call "human history." I
was
clarifying, and making the point that even if you want to go with the
narrowest possible definition, we still, as a species, have an
overwhelming history of eating a hunter-gatherer diet, which makes
claims that grains and beans are essential for human health
ridiculous."

To recap, nobody has made this claim! Later in the thread, you claimed
"carbohydrate is inessential" in this post:

"Carbohydrate is inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is
defined as something
the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs."

I pointed out that protein could also be "inessential" given carbs and
fat because the body can make all the protein it needs. Thus far
you've just tap-danced unsucessfully around that one.

In your zeal to cheerlead for lowcarb you've gone overboard. You've
made claims like the ones below:

"My position all along has simply been that grains (and concentrated
carb
foods in general) are not essential in the diet, and are prejudicial to
health in many."

and this one:

(In reference to using Atkins diet)
"And millions of them have lost weight. Improved their health, too."

No proof of the claims' validity offered. There were however multiple
instances offering your own experience as an exemplar. Not valid.
People like you and I do not have normally functioning endocrine
systems - that's why we have to resort to low carb long term, and
probably what helps keep us on the straight and narrow. I know without
it I'd probably still be sick as hell and still weigh twice what I do.

The cultishness lies in the combination of dismissiveness for others'
viewpoints as they pertain to food, the dead certainty that your way is
The Way, and the dogged refusal to bow to reason when confronted with
situations with clearcut parallels - such as the "protein is
inessential" example. I used *your* rules to compose the argument, and
then you refused to acknowledge the end result. When onlookers see
that sort of behavior they just *might* end up with the take-away
message that "those Atkins people are brainwashed culties".

Carmen

Hannah Gruen wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:53:12 -0400, Dana Carpender
> > wrote:
>
> >What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
> >grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
> >should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
> >grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
> >asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
> >unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>
> As to Carmen's argument about whether proteins are essential or not -
> well, all I can say is that she is doing a great job of demonstrating
> that she's reached the sophomoric stage in her education. Here's
> hoping she finds her way out of it. Switching back and forth between
> colloquial and technical term usage, to support whichever side of an
> argument you're favoring, isn't exactly useful here on usenet. Nor is
> using that technique to set up straw man arguments. And she was doing
> both.

No, if you'll go back and check Dana started the entire argument by
creating a strawman. It was also Dana who switched between colloquial
and technical teminology. She created an argument by saying this:

"And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part
of
the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
around, it's really hard to see how they're essential."

Nobody had said squat-all about them being essential. She created her
own argument. Later on she herself brought up the shift to
carbohydrates - not me. This is where she did it:

"Except that they are exactly that -- inessential. Carbohydrate is
inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is defined as something
the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs."

As you can see above, it was Dana who was responsible for the
sophomoric behavior you accused me of. I would think that after all
these years you'd know me better than that. Perhaps not.
As far as the protein argument goes, I used Dana's own "inessential"
parameters to make that argument. She refused to recognize them when
applied to any other macronutrient however, which was informative.

Carmen

Steve wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Carm>Please
>>
>>What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
>>grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
>>should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
>>grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
>>asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
>>unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>>
>>I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> So, where can I find some of your low carb cook books?
>
I just bought two of her books, used, on Amazon.com. There are some
good ideas in there, Dana, which I will be using shortly.

Gillian

Steve wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:53:12 -0400, Dana Carpender wrote
> (in article >):
>
> >
> >
> > Carmen wrote:
> >
> >> Krusty wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Carmen" > wrote...
> >>>
> >>>> Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
> >>>>
> >>>> Please listen this time:
> >>>
> >>> Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
> >>>
> >>> Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It
> >>> appears
> >>> it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
> >> quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
> >> trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
> >> as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
> >> thus far.
> >
> > What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
> > grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
> > should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
> > grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
> > asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
> > unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
> >
> > I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.
> >
> > Dana
>
> So, where can I find some of your low carb cook books?

There are some on Ebay, especially Ebay stores. Buy it Now too.

Carmen

HEY!
HELLO DANA!

--



"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
news
>
>
> jombithedjinn wrote:
>
>> Krusty wrote:
>>
>>>"trijcomm" > wrote ...
>>>
>>>>>That's really unfair, Janis. Where did you learn all this info....was
>>>>
>>>>the setup to one of your women's apartment wrestling videos some chick
>>>>
>>>>>in pantyhose reading an Atkins diet book?
>>>>
>>>>You should really look into that Atkins diet book ...
>>>
>>>Hardly, it's a "diet" for idiots.
>>>
>>>Get a biology degree and *really* learn about food.
>>
>>
>> You obviously know nothing about nutrition. Do you REALLY think human
>> beings were truly meant to eat grass like wheat and barley? I'm sure
>> that you do, you're just the type to be so undereducated.
>>
>> Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet strictly because the
>> conventional diets would have people eat foods that nature never
>> intended for human beings to eat. Humans were meant to eat meat, eggs,
>> green leafy vegetables, and certain berries. They were certainly not
>> meant to eat wheat grass.
>
> Data Point: I've been eating a low carb diet for going on eleven years
> now. I am very healthy; all the tests confirm it. Have kept 40 pounds
> off (with the occasional bump upward after a nasty car wreck, when I
> couldn't exercise; and when I've gone hypothyroid.) Drastically improved
> my energy level. Enjoy the food tremendously, and really don't miss
> anything.
>
> And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part of
> the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
> around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research indicates
> that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly 50%-60%
> animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low sugar) fruit in
> season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
>
> Dana
>

>Isn't any diet where weight is lost a starving of sorts?
Jimmy

No.

mdginzo wrote:
> >Basing my statements on a Google search (as my posts to MD have been as
> well) MD is pulling our collective leg. If I believed MD was on
> dialysis I certainly wouldn't be saying the things I've been saying in
> this thread.
>
> Put your money where your (stupid) mouth is? Why wouldn't you believe
> it?

Well crap. I'm sorry Mark. I didn't spend enough time searching
yesterday, just did a quickie because I thought I already knew the
answer. You really are on dialysis - although not because of Atkins,
because of diabetes. I'm sorry.

Ironic thing is, some of us low carb so our blood sugar stays low and
we get to *keep* our kidneys, and toes, and eyesight...my fasting
morning BGs run mid 80s these days w/o insulin or meds (Type II).

Are you on a transplant list? I know the lists are atrociously long,
more so for minorities, and dialysis is a stop-gap measure but are you
in relatively good health now?

Carmen

Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:

> I stay out of arguments about human evolution. Evolution of
> invertebrates is one of my strong points, and I don't do too
> badly with lower vertebrates, but there is too much about human
> evolution that I don't know.
>
> Charles


Ah, so you're who I should ask when I have any questions about
politicians...

P

Hannah Gruen wrote:

<snip excellent post>

> This may be as good a place as any to reiterate the point that Dr.
> Atkins never recommended an extremely low intake of
> carbohydrate-containing foods, except for a few weeks, essentially to
> reduce insulin levels and appetite. He was always in favor of eating
> as many low-starch veggies as you could, along with some low-sugar
> fruits and even limited amounts of whole grains... if the person
> wanted them and was able to tolerate them. But... the myth of Atkins
> as a high meat - low vegetable diet persists, because people who write
> about it too often haven't read the book, or only the first couple
> chapters.
>


Thanks for bringing it back to this. I asked how many of the people who
were calling Atkins a "fad" and a "scam", and call those who follow the
program "idiots" had ever actually *read* Dr. Atkin's New Diet
Revolution. I got no takers.

But you're absolutely right. Atkins *never* advocated a carb-free diet;
the strictest phase, Induction, was never meant to last more than a
couple of weeks, and even that included four servings per day of
vegetables, more than most Americans eat. Carb was then added back to
the diet, in the form of fruits, more vegetables, nuts and seeds, and
yes, even modest servings of whole grains if you found you could
tolerate them (I, by way of example, ate a few Finn Crisp crackers
yesterday -- roughly 12 grams of non-fiber carb worth) until you were
losing slowly but steadily.

People like to scorn Atkins with "Oh, that's that diet where you can eat
all the bacon cheeseburgers you want." That's technically true, but
it's equally accurate to say, "Oh, that's that diet where you can eat
all the grilled salmon and caesar salad you want." But nobody ever says
that, because it's so obviously reasonable.

That some people, simply hearing about the diet, decided that if low
carb was good, no carb was better, or that they should stay on Induction
to lose their weight fast-fast-fast, is not the fault of Robert Atkins.
Nor is the fact that the media never seemed to get past Induction
either, and consistently wrote about the diet as if that were the whole
deal.

You can't make anything fool-proof. Fools are way too persistant for that.

Dana

Carmen wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Carmen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Krusty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Carmen" > wrote...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dietary protein is not essential. Dietary amino acids are essential.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please listen this time:
>>>>
>>>>Hahaha...fat chance. Guy's got carbohydrates for brains.
>>>>
>>>>Sadly, even though I'm really enjoying your casual bitchslapping, It appears
>>>>it's obviously falling on deaf ears.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect his ears are filled with red meat.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dana Carpender is a "she". She's been writing low carb cookbooks for
>>>quite some time, and is well known to low carbers. I haven't been
>>>trying to bitch slap her, just trying to get her to stop coming across
>>>as some sort of reformed substance abuser or cult follower. No joy
>>>thus far.
>>
>>What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
>>grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
>>should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
>>grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
>>asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
>>unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>>
>>I stand by that. If that bothers you, there's not much I can do about it.
>
>
> Dana, you started all this baloney by creating a strawman argumaent in
> the first place. *You* were the one who said this:
>
> "And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part
> of
> the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
> around, it's really hard to see how they're essential."
>
> Nobody had said a thing to the contrary.

The media, the medical establishment, the USDA, all have told us
repeatedly that it's terribly important that we eat grains. In the face
of statements that a diet that sharply limits concentrated carbs is a
"scam" and those who eat this way are "idiots", I don't think the point
was off-topic.


>
> "Carbohydrate is inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is
> defined as something
> the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
> perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs."
>
> I pointed out that protein could also be "inessential" given carbs and
> fat because the body can make all the protein it needs. Thus far
> you've just tap-danced unsucessfully around that one.

You're wrong. The body cannot make protein from carbs and fats. That
some foods that are high in carbohydrate also contain some protein
doesn't change that. The body cannot change carbohydrate or fat into
protein. It can, however, change the glycerol backbone of fats, and
proteins into carbohydrate.


>
> No proof of the claims' validity offered. There were however multiple
> instances offering your own experience as an exemplar. Not valid.
> People like you and I do not have normally functioning endocrine
> systems - that's why we have to resort to low carb long term, and
> probably what helps keep us on the straight and narrow. I know without
> it I'd probably still be sick as hell and still weigh twice what I do.

Me, too. But have you done any reading on the prevailance of "metabolic
syndrome", "Syndrome X", the explosive growth of type II diabetes? Have
you run a quick Pubmed search to see how many studies are turning up a
diet with a high glycemic load as a strong risk factor for the "diseases
of civilization?" Because I have. Given the number of people who
evidence an inability to tolerate a high glycemic load without obesity
and disease, I don't consider carb intolerance "abnormal." I also don't
think that everyone is carbohydrate intolerant, and I've never said so.
>
> The cultishness lies in the combination of dismissiveness for others'
> viewpoints as they pertain to food, the dead certainty that your way is
> The Way, and the dogged refusal to bow to reason when confronted with
> situations with clearcut parallels - such as the "protein is
> inessential" example. I used *your* rules to compose the argument,

They're not my rules. The definition of "essential" as pertains to
nutrition is clear-cut: That which *must* be derived from the diet,
because it cannot be created within the body. Again, that many
carbohydrate foods also contain protein does not mean that the body can
turn carbohydrate into protein -- the protein was there to begin with.
But the body absolutely *can* create carbohydrate from protein, and to a
lesser degree, from fat.

From the Encyclopedia Brittanica: Under most circumstances, there is no
absolute dietary requirement for carbohydrates—simple sugars, complex
carbohydrates such as starches, and the indigestible plant carbohydrates
known as dietary fibre.

And I repeat, from the Food and Nutrition Board:
"The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently
is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed."

That's the definition of "inessential" when speaking of nutrition.
Doesn't make me cultish, just makes me correct.

Dana

Carmen wrote:

> Hannah Gruen wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 May 2006 19:53:12 -0400, Dana Carpender
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What have I said that's cultish? I haven't said that no one should
>>>grains. I haven't advocated zero carbs, or suggested that everyone
>>>should eat the same way. I haven't said that no one should ever eat
>>>grains. I haven't said that everyone needs to eat a low carb diet. I've
>>>asserted that grains -- and concentrated carbs in general -- are
>>>unnecessary foods, and that carbohydrate is inessential.
>>
>>As to Carmen's argument about whether proteins are essential or not -
>>well, all I can say is that she is doing a great job of demonstrating
>>that she's reached the sophomoric stage in her education. Here's
>>hoping she finds her way out of it. Switching back and forth between
>>colloquial and technical term usage, to support whichever side of an
>>argument you're favoring, isn't exactly useful here on usenet. Nor is
>>using that technique to set up straw man arguments. And she was doing
>>both.
>
>
> No, if you'll go back and check Dana started the entire argument by
> creating a strawman. It was also Dana who switched between colloquial
> and technical teminology. She created an argument by saying this:
>
> "And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part
> of
> the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
> around, it's really hard to see how they're essential."
>
> Nobody had said squat-all about them being essential. She created her
> own argument. Later on she herself brought up the shift to
> carbohydrates - not me. This is where she did it:
>
> "Except that they are exactly that -- inessential. Carbohydrate is
> inessential. In nutrition-speak, "essential" is defined as something
> the body cannot make for itself. Given protein and fat, the body is
> perfectly capable of making all the glucose it needs."
>
> As you can see above, it was Dana who was responsible for the
> sophomoric behavior you accused me of. I would think that after all
> these years you'd know me better than that. Perhaps not.
> As far as the protein argument goes, I used Dana's own "inessential"
> parameters to make that argument.

They're not my parameters. The word "essential" has a very specific
definition when it comes to nutrition -- something the body needs, but
cannot create. I didn't make up that definition; it's standard.

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

>>Isn't any diet where weight is lost a starving of sorts?
>
> Jimmy
>
> No.
>

Sure there is. Many, many low calorie diets would qualify.

Dana

>Well crap. I'm sorry Mark. I didn't spend enough time searching
yesterday, just did a quickie because I thought I already knew the
answer. You really are on dialysis - although not because of Atkins,
because of diabetes. I'm sorry.

But why would you say such a stupid thing in the first place - that I
wasn't on dialysis when you had no idea either way? In any case, I had
diabetes for over 20 years with absolutely no problem with my kidneys.
The third year on Atkins I am on dialysis. In any case, my official
diagnosis is kidney failure due to high protein diet not diabetes. I
am not saying everyone on Atkins will suffer kidney failure, but i am
saying that Atkins is not a miracle diet and not for everyone. It is
still a quick-lose fad diet and one has to be careful when recommending
it as a panacea(sp?) for weight loss.

>Ironic thing is, some of us low carb so our blood sugar stays low and
>we get to *keep* our kidneys, and toes, and eyesight...my fasting
>morning BGs run mid 80s these days w/o insulin or meds (Type II).

Yes, as a matter of fact, while I was on Atkins I was able to stiop my
insulin because my blood sugar stayed low. I was happy about that, but
didn't know it was killing me anyway. Just Google on Atkins and
kidneys.

>Are you on a transplant list? I know the lists are atrociously long,
>more so for minorities, and dialysis is a stop-gap measure but are >you
>in relatively good health now?

Besides being on dialysis I amin excellent health and in great shape
for a transplant. We are lookign at an average of 3 years on thye list
in my area - less for me since I need a pancreas also and that list is
shorter. I am very active and every week my blood tests come out in
the optimum ranges. Thanks for asking.

mdginzo wrote:
> >Well crap. I'm sorry Mark. I didn't spend enough time searching
> yesterday, just did a quickie because I thought I already knew the
> answer. You really are on dialysis - although not because of Atkins,
> because of diabetes. I'm sorry.
>
> But why would you say such a stupid thing in the first place - that I
> wasn't on dialysis when you had no idea either way?

Chiefly because when I Googled I came across things like posts about
pizza (high as heck sodium) as well as all your alcohol posts (some is
okay on dialysis, but the fluid limitations shouldn't allow for much)
and in concert with the discord between your antipathy towards Atkins
(a "high protein" diet) and the normal diet for folks on dialysis -
high protein - it didn't make a whole lot of sense that you were doing
anything but pulling people's legs.
..
> In any case, I had
> diabetes for over 20 years with absolutely no problem with my kidneys.
> The third year on Atkins I am on dialysis. In any case, my official
> diagnosis is kidney failure due to high protein diet not diabetes. I
> am not saying everyone on Atkins will suffer kidney failure, but i am
> saying that Atkins is not a miracle diet and not for everyone. It is
> still a quick-lose fad diet and one has to be careful when recommending
> it as a panacea(sp?) for weight loss.

I personally do not see it as just a weight loss diet. For me it is a
medical tool. For the masses that jumped on it a couple of years ago?
It was primarily for weight loss. They're off doing Bozo the Clown's
South Hampton Diet or something now.

I'm sorry your kidneys shut down. Your doctors chose to lay your
kidney failure at the feet of your diet and not your disease. Why, I'm
not sure. Diabetes is one of the leading cause of CKD while there have
been no published journal studies showing low carb diets are linked to
CKD. It doesn't matter in the end I suppose. It doesn't change what
happened.

> >Ironic thing is, some of us low carb so our blood sugar stays low and
> >we get to *keep* our kidneys, and toes, and eyesight...my fasting
> >morning BGs run mid 80s these days w/o insulin or meds (Type II).
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact, while I was on Atkins I was able to stiop my
> insulin because my blood sugar stayed low. I was happy about that, but
> didn't know it was killing me anyway. Just Google on Atkins and
> kidneys.
>
> >Are you on a transplant list? I know the lists are atrociously long,
> >more so for minorities, and dialysis is a stop-gap measure but are >you
> >in relatively good health now?
>
> Besides being on dialysis I amin excellent health and in great shape
> for a transplant. We are lookign at an average of 3 years on thye list
> in my area - less for me since I need a pancreas also and that list is
> shorter. I am very active and every week my blood tests come out in
> the optimum ranges. Thanks for asking.

Now *that* is excellent news. :-) Keep doing what you're doing,
because it's working for you - even if it does include tippling
homemade wine. ;-)

Carmen

" > writes:


>Shuurai wrote:

>> > We wouldn't have enzymes
>> > > specifically designed for digesting them.
>> >
>> > We don't. We do have carbohydrate digesting enzymes, but they're
>> > equally applicable to fruits and vegetables.

>More. Uncooked grains aren't particularly digestible.

The invention of weapons allowed early humans to hunt animals they
wouldn't otherwise have been able to hunt. The discovery of fire
enabled them to eat things they couldn't otherwise have eaten.



--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University