mdginzo wrote:
> >Why? People without diabetes have spikes higher than that.
>
> You'll have to excuse Carmen. She also thinks that people on dialysis
> can't eat pizza or drink alcohol.

Correction. People on dialysis could eat pizza, or potato chips or use
a salt lick. However, people on dialysis are supposed to eat sodium
restricted diets. Sucking back pizza ( a very high sodium food)
wouldn't be a *wise* thing to do.
Silly me, thinking that doing what one is supposed to be doing is what
someone with a serious health condition would actually *do*. Where was
my head?

Carmen

>However, people on dialysis are supposed to eat sodium
restricted diets.

Why is that, moron? This should be good.

>I wish I weren't diabetic. My latest HbA1c was 4.9, and I'll be damned
>if I let it go into the 6 or 7 range. BG readings of 170 would be
>grounds for an emergent appointment with my doctor to see what's going
>on.

>>Even though nothing would be going on? Again, I state that people
>>*without* diabetes often have that kind of reading after a meal. So
>>long as it doesn't stay that high, there's no problem.

I'll bet the nurses roll their eyes at Carmen's doctor's office when
she calls for an appt! "Please, I have to see the doctor RIGHT AWAY! I
got a Bg of 170!"

mdginzo wrote:
> >However, people on dialysis are supposed to eat sodium
> restricted diets.
>
> Why is that, moron? This should be good.

Sweet Jesus, are you for real? Sodium intake leads to water retention.
Kidneys that don't function no longer get rid of that fluid so it sits
around until dialysis time. The heart has to work harder to pump the
extra fluid as expanded blood volume. You cannot *not* know this.
*Somebody* damn well told you to restrict your sodium intake. Don't
play dumb.

Carmen

mdginzo wrote:
> >I wish I weren't diabetic. My latest HbA1c was 4.9, and I'll be damned
> >if I let it go into the 6 or 7 range. BG readings of 170 would be
> >grounds for an emergent appointment with my doctor to see what's going
> >on.
>
> >>Even though nothing would be going on? Again, I state that people
> >>*without* diabetes often have that kind of reading after a meal. So
> >>long as it doesn't stay that high, there's no problem.
>
> I'll bet the nurses roll their eyes at Carmen's doctor's office when
> she calls for an appt! "Please, I have to see the doctor RIGHT AWAY! I
> got a Bg of 170!"

First, I was instructed to do so. My health care team would rather
help their diabetic patients live healthy lives - with eyesight, and
feet and functioning kidneys. They're funny like that. Second, I
don't *have* BG readings of 170, so it's an academic exercise.

Strict BG control is worth it. I'd urge you to reconsider it for
yourself. My husband is an amputee for a different reason, and phantom
limb pain is *not* fun. Imagine feeling like your foot is horribly
mangled and cut up - after it's gone. It's not an easy type of pain to
manage.

Carmen

mdginzo wrote:
>> I wish I weren't diabetic. My latest HbA1c was 4.9, and I'll be
>> damned if I let it go into the 6 or 7 range. BG readings of 170
>> would be grounds for an emergent appointment with my doctor to see
>> what's going on.
>
>>> Even though nothing would be going on? Again, I state that people
>>> *without* diabetes often have that kind of reading after a meal. So
>>> long as it doesn't stay that high, there's no problem.
>
> I'll bet the nurses roll their eyes at Carmen's doctor's office when
> she calls for an appt! "Please, I have to see the doctor RIGHT AWAY!
> I got a Bg of 170!"


Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their blood glucose levels are
stupid. Who needs *both* feet?

>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?

Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.

Carmen is right about this. People on dialysis are supposed to stay
away from salt 100%.
To do less could kill them.

Barbara

Carmen wrote:

>mdginzo wrote:
>
>
>>>However, people on dialysis are supposed to eat sodium
>>>
>>>
>>restricted diets.
>>
>>Why is that, moron? This should be good.
>>
>>
>
>Sweet Jesus, are you for real? Sodium intake leads to water retention.
> Kidneys that don't function no longer get rid of that fluid so it sits
>around until dialysis time. The heart has to work harder to pump the
>extra fluid as expanded blood volume. You cannot *not* know this.
>*Somebody* damn well told you to restrict your sodium intake. Don't
>play dumb.
>
>Carmen
>
>
>

Bob Geary wrote:
> mdginzo wrote:
> >> I wish I weren't diabetic. My latest HbA1c was 4.9, and I'll be
> >> damned if I let it go into the 6 or 7 range. BG readings of 170
> >> would be grounds for an emergent appointment with my doctor to see
> >> what's going on.
> >
> >>> Even though nothing would be going on? Again, I state that people
> >>> *without* diabetes often have that kind of reading after a meal. So
> >>> long as it doesn't stay that high, there's no problem.
> >
> > I'll bet the nurses roll their eyes at Carmen's doctor's office when
> > she calls for an appt! "Please, I have to see the doctor RIGHT AWAY!
> > I got a Bg of 170!"
>
>
> Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their blood glucose levels are
> stupid. Who needs *both* feet?

Alright, so I'm selfish. Is that so wrong? :-P~

Carmen

On Tue, 30 May 2006 04:41:30 -0700, Carmen wrote
(in article .com>):

> My husband is an amputee for a different reason, and phantom
> limb pain is *not* fun. Imagine feeling like your foot is horribly
> mangled and cut up - after it's gone. It's not an easy type of pain to
> manage.
>

I have no experience with this, so take what I write with that in
mind.

Have you read "Phantoms in the Brain" by V. S. Ramachandran? In it,
he discusses some ways to address phantom limb pain. The book is
about much more than that, though. I found it a very interesting
exposition about what is known about how brains work, as well as what
is not known.

--
Jerry Randal Bauer

Carmen:
> >>>However, people on dialysis are supposed to eat sodium
> >>restricted diets.

Mdginzo:
> >>Why is that, moron? This should be good.

Carmen:
> >Sweet Jesus, are you for real? Sodium intake leads to water retention.
> > Kidneys that don't function no longer get rid of that fluid so it sits
> >around until dialysis time. The heart has to work harder to pump the
> >extra fluid as expanded blood volume. You cannot *not* know this.
> >*Somebody* damn well told you to restrict your sodium intake. Don't
> >play dumb.

Bjpruett:
> Carmen is right about this. People on dialysis are supposed to stay
> away from salt 100%.
> To do less could kill them.

Hi Barbara. It's been a while lady! Lots of people I haven't seen in
a while are turning up. :-)

This one (mdginzo) has me just shaking my head. Susan has posted a
link for studies on higher BG levels (levels he finds acceptable)
leading to neuropathy. The sodium restriction for hemodialysis
patients is just a basic level knowledge thing. It's bad form to
crosspost this subthread to alt.support.diabetes, otherwise I'd do it.
Mark needs to be over there.

Carmen

Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2006 04:41:30 -0700, Carmen wrote
> (in article .com>):
>
> > My husband is an amputee for a different reason, and phantom
> > limb pain is *not* fun. Imagine feeling like your foot is horribly
> > mangled and cut up - after it's gone. It's not an easy type of pain to
> > manage.
> >
>
> I have no experience with this, so take what I write with that in
> mind.
>
> Have you read "Phantoms in the Brain" by V. S. Ramachandran? In it,
> he discusses some ways to address phantom limb pain. The book is
> about much more than that, though. I found it a very interesting
> exposition about what is known about how brains work, as well as what
> is not known.

No, but it looks interesting. Thank you for recommending it. We're
lucky in that my DH's doctors (all military) are aware of the
syndrome(s) as being physiological as opposed to psychiatric disorders.
Amputees are somewhat more common around military hospitals than they
used to be, especially teaching hospitals like Walter Reed. They also
tried a technique to avert the development of the syndromes in the
first place. The technique involved batheing the main nerve bundle in
the arm (it was a left hand amputation) with anesthetic before, during
and for several days after the surgery in an attempt to prevent the
traumatized nerves from setting up a cyclic pattern with the brain.
For the first month post-surgery it seemed to have worked, but then it
showed its ugly face. They still get max credit for their efforts to
try and avert it though. :-)

Once again, thank you for the steer.
Take care,
Carmen

DisplayName wrote:

> Rock Green Light by Latrobe is 83cal, 2.4carb according to the one in hand.
> Cheers!
>
Yep, had a few this weekend. I may make that the new house beer.

Dana

Tom G wrote:

> "mdginzo" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>>If the diet is followed correctly, it is NOT high protein. Here's >an
>>>example, imagining a typical American overweight person and >what may be
>>>a typical meal:
>>
>>Even done right, with the Atkins diet you still have to worry about
>>testing your Ketone level
>
>
> Testing ketone levels is only a fun tool. It's not necessary to test for
> them.

Well, and testing positive for ketosis only tells you that you're
running a fat-burning metabolism instead of a glucose burning
metabolism. It doesn't tell you whether you're burning body fat or
dietary fat.

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

>>Do you think vegetarianism is a dangerous fad diet? You know, the need
>
> for B12 supplements and all.
>
> Yes. Humans were meant to be omnivores. But the need for one vitamin
> is not nearly as bad as being on a diet where you have to worry about
> ketones as well as not getting enough nutrients.

Why would I worry about ketones? They're a perfectly normal byproduct
of fat metabolism.

And I know of not a single vitamin or mineral that cannot be obtained
from low carb sources.

Dana

>>>>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.


Can the arguement. No one else wants to see it. And you are not *proving*
anything. AK

Joseph Michael Bay wrote:

> Dana Carpender > writes:
>
>
>
>
>>mdginzo wrote:
>
>
>>>>If the diet is followed correctly, it is NOT high protein. Here's >an
>>>>example, imagining a typical American overweight person and >what may be
>>>>a typical meal:
>>>
>>>
>>>Even done right, with the Atkins diet you still have to worry about
>>>testing your Ketone level and have to take a handful of vitamins every
>>>day. That alone should send bells and whistles blowing.
>
>
>>Do you think vegetarianism is a dangerous fad diet? You know, the need
>>for B12 supplements and all.
>
>
> Maybe for vegans. But even so, it's probably because they're
> not drinking real beer. A pity, really.
>
> Probably any diet could benefit from *some* kind of supplementation --
> minerals that are found in one region might be absent from another,
> and it's just not practical to export all food everywhere, not to
> mention that some people just won't eat, say, Italian broccoli rabe,
> no matter how much yttrium it has.
>
> (That's a made up example, by the way. I'm pretty sure nobody
> needs yttrium in their diet. I just like saying "yttrium").


You might. I remember reading somewhere that getting teeny amounts of
the "rare earths" (whichever minerals those might be) seemed to improve
health and extend lifespan, but I've completely spaced where I got that
from, or any details. Still, might be that getting 0.001mcg of yttrium
a day is a good idea. Who knows?

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

>>I spent months checking google and Medline, which is how I know >there
>>isn't a single one.
>
>
>>If they're so easy to find, with documented evidence, then post them.
>
>
> Jesus, if you are that stupid that you cannot punch in Atkins and
> "kidney scarring" into a Google box then I will just dismiss you.
>

Dude, you're sounding more and more like Bill Bonde.

Dana

Joseph Michael Bay wrote:

> "Veronique" > writes:
>
>
>
>>mdginzo wrote:
>>
>>>>I spent months checking google and Medline, which is how I know >there
>>>>isn't a single one.
>>>
>>>>If they're so easy to find, with documented evidence, then post them.
>>>
>>>Jesus, if you are that stupid that you cannot punch in Atkins and
>>>"kidney scarring" into a Google box then I will just dismiss you.
>
>
>
>>I don't think it matters whether she can punch it in or not, as
>>everything brought up by Google is opinion in her opinion [heh]. Except
>>for her opinion that the authors of scientific studies showing a link
>>between kidney damage in diabetics and high protein diets are making up
>>conclusions rather than analyzing the data. Yet another national
>>scandal to break the surface on usenet.
>
>
> To be fair, the study shows accelerated kidney damage at the limit
> of statistical significance (just enough correlation to say there's
> correlation); they suspect but don't demonstrate causation, although
> of course the future kidney damage can't cause someone to go on a
> high-protein diet. Also the Atkins diet is supposedly high-fat but
> not high-protein, although the Atkins company says it's high-protein.

My rather conservate nutrition text wants you to eat a gram of protein
per kilo of body weight per day; that's pretty close to the old health
food store standard of half a gram per day per pound of body weight,
minimum. The text also says that you can eat double that with no
problems at all.

I happen to know, because I keep track, that I generally get between 100
and 125 grams of protein per day. So I'm not on what that nutrition
text would consider a seriously high-protein diet.

I do, however, generally get at least 60% of my calories from fat.

Dana

Greg Goss wrote:

> "Krusty" > wrote:
>
>
>>1. Early man's diet was mostly vegetables. There's *overwhelming* evidence
>>of this in the scientific community, in additon to hundreds of published
>>papers on the subject.
>
>
> The discussion was about grains, and you're suddenly talking about
> vegetables. Low carb advisors LIKE vegetables and tell people to eat
> them. So there is no argument about vegetables. Can we resume
> talking about grains, where there does seem to be a dispute?

Well, and are we talking "mostly vegetables" by weight? By volume? By
percentage of calories? Because I've been reading that 50-65% of
calories came from animal foods, and the rest from vegetables, fruits,
and other plant foods. Since animal foods are far more calorically
dense than plant foods, the volume of vegetables would have been far
greater. Still doesn't make it a high carbohydrate diet.

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
>
>
> Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
> the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
>

Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
levels, too.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
>
> mdginzo wrote:
>
> >>Do you think vegetarianism is a dangerous fad diet? You know, the need
> >
> > for B12 supplements and all.
> >
> > Yes. Humans were meant to be omnivores. But the need for one vitamin
> > is not nearly as bad as being on a diet where you have to worry about
> > ketones as well as not getting enough nutrients.
>
> Why would I worry about ketones? They're a perfectly normal byproduct
> of fat metabolism.
>
> And I know of not a single vitamin or mineral that cannot be obtained
> from low carb sources.
>
"Meat is walking vegetables."


--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

Dana Carpender wrote:
>
> mdginzo wrote:
>
> >>I spent months checking google and Medline, which is how I know >there
> >>isn't a single one.
> >
> >
> >>If they're so easy to find, with documented evidence, then post them.
> >
> >
> > Jesus, if you are that stupid that you cannot punch in Atkins and
> > "kidney scarring" into a Google box then I will just dismiss you.
> >
>
> Dude, you're sounding more and more like Bill Bonde.
>
I haven't "dismissed" anyone.



--
Papa don't preach, I've been losing sleep,
But I made up my mind, oh, I'm keeping my Abba records.

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

Dana Carpender wrote:
> mdginzo wrote:
>
> >>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
> >>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
> >
> >
> > Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
> > the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
> >
>
> Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
> hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
> levels, too.
>
> Dana

Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?

Dana Carpender wrote:
> mdginzo wrote:
>
> >>Do you think vegetarianism is a dangerous fad diet? You know, the need
> >
> > for B12 supplements and all.
> >
> > Yes. Humans were meant to be omnivores. But the need for one vitamin
> > is not nearly as bad as being on a diet where you have to worry about
> > ketones as well as not getting enough nutrients.
>
> Why would I worry about ketones? They're a perfectly normal byproduct
> of fat metabolism.

Because you can go into a coma.

..

"theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
oups.com...

You an me both brother. Particularly Meatlovers with BBQ sauce.

Fraser

"theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
Do you also eat your own shit?

Mr Black schreef:

> "theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> Do you also eat your own shit?

Are you some kind of scatology freak or what?

theoriginaldimi wrote:
> Mr Black schreef:
>
> > "theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > Do you also eat your own shit?
>
> Are you some kind of scatology freak or what?

Aw come on, man, maybe he just wants to eat Fraser's shit. (ya know,
like "are you going to eat that?")

"Ray" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> theoriginaldimi wrote:
>> Mr Black schreef:
>>
>> > "theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
>> > oups.com...
>> > >
>> > Do you also eat your own shit?
>>
>> Are you some kind of scatology freak or what?
>
> Aw come on, man, maybe he just wants to eat Fraser's shit. (ya know,
> like "are you going to eat that?")
>

I'll eat some peanuts so he can pretend it's a snickers bar.

Fraser

"theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Mr Black schreef:
>
>> "theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> Do you also eat your own shit?
>
> Are you some kind of scatology freak or what?
>

If your culinary standards are no greater than the hut, it would not suprise
me if you dine on down town brown.

> > Are you some kind of scatology freak or what?
> >
>
> If your culinary standards are no greater than the hut, it would not suprise
> me if you dine on down town brown.

This coming from a man who's entertainment standards are no greater
than the WWE.

mdginzo wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>mdginzo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
>>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
>>>
>>>
>>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
>>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
>>>
>>
>>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
>>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
>>levels, too.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
> limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
> you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
> losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
> you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
>

You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
book sales by arguing on usenet?

No. Diabetics sustain dramatically more glycation damage because of
sustained high blood sugar levels.

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>mdginzo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Do you think vegetarianism is a dangerous fad diet? You know, the need
>>>
>>>for B12 supplements and all.
>>>
>>>Yes. Humans were meant to be omnivores. But the need for one vitamin
>>>is not nearly as bad as being on a diet where you have to worry about
>>>ketones as well as not getting enough nutrients.
>>
>>Why would I worry about ketones? They're a perfectly normal byproduct
>>of fat metabolism.
>
>
> Because you can go into a coma.

Huh? I know of *no* evidence that you can go into a coma from dietary
ketosis. Are you mistaking dietary ketosis for diabetic ketoacidosis?

Dana
>

mdginzo wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>mdginzo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Do you think vegetarianism is a dangerous fad diet? You know, the need
>>>
>>>for B12 supplements and all.
>>>
>>>Yes. Humans were meant to be omnivores. But the need for one vitamin
>>>is not nearly as bad as being on a diet where you have to worry about
>>>ketones as well as not getting enough nutrients.
>>
>>Why would I worry about ketones? They're a perfectly normal byproduct
>>of fat metabolism.
>
>
> Because you can go into a coma.
>

You're confusing benign dietary ketosis with diabetic ketoacidosis.

Repeat after me: "DKA is caused by lack of insulin, DKA is caused by
lack of insulin" over and over.

Vicki

Mr Black schreef:

> "theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Mr Black schreef:
> >
> >> "theoriginaldimi" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> Do you also eat your own shit?
> >
> > Are you some kind of scatology freak or what?
> >
>
> If your culinary standards are no greater than the hut, it would not suprise
> me if you dine on down town brown.

Given your culinary interests let me use an anal-ogy (get it??):

Like every healthy man with a *normal* sexual interest I prefer
good-looking, well-mannered and educated girls. However, from time to
time, I'll get off by banging that dumb, nasty **** that you call your
wife |:-(

It's not as good as it gets, but sometimes it'll just have to do.

Dimitri

Shuurai wrote:
>>>Are you some kind of scatology freak or what?
>>>
>>
>>If your culinary standards are no greater than the hut, it would not suprise
>>me if you dine on down town brown.
>
>
> This coming from a man who's entertainment standards are no greater
> than the WWE.

Who are you talking to?


--
Milhouse Guidry

Dana Carpender wrote:
> mdginzo wrote:
> > Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> >>mdginzo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
> >>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
> >>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
> >>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
> >>levels, too.
> >>
> >>Dana
> >
> >
> > Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
> > limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
> > you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
> > losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
> > you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
> >
>
> You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
> book sales by arguing on usenet?

Despite what many think, USENET is no longer some isolated part of the
INternet detached from all the rest. Yes, if you were to tell the
truth and admit that Atkins is a fad diet, you would lose many sales.
Lo-carb fads are your bread and butter. It is something you are going
to promote everywhere - if only tyo convince yourself of something that
is not true.

And, it tastes almost like beer! It is my new "house" beer.
I have low standards and this works to my advantage in the diet arena.
Please beer snobs, keep to your nothing.
Jimmy

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
news
>
>
> DisplayName wrote:
>
> > Rock Green Light by Latrobe is 83cal, 2.4carb according to the one in
hand.
> > Cheers!
> >
> Yep, had a few this weekend. I may make that the new house beer.
>
> Dana