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

Dana Carpender wrote:
> 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.

You know nothing about evolution, either.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You know nothing about evolution, either.
>
> --Blair

Could you elaborate?
Thanks!

P

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> You know nothing about evolution, either.
>


Nice assertion. Care to back it up?

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> You know nothing about evolution, either.
>>
>
>
> Nice assertion. Care to back it up?

Yeah you ****ing idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2 million
years.

What else do you want to know.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>
>>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>You know nothing about evolution, either.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
>
>
> Yeah you ****ing idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2 million
> years.
>
> What else do you want to know.

Cite?

This suggests roots 3 million years back:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm

And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you want
to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our existance.

Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you do,
we can talk about who's the idiot.

Dana
>
>

In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> Krusty wrote:
>
> > "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> >
> >>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >>
> >>>Dana Carpender wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You know nothing about evolution, either.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
> >
> >
> > Yeah you ****ing idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2 million
> > years.
> >
> > What else do you want to know.
>
> Cite?
>
> This suggests roots 3 million years back:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm
>
> And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you want
> to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our existance.
>
> Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you do,
> we can talk about who's the idiot.
>


So you are calling Krusty an idiot by agreeing that you made an
ignorant statement? Good job. I think that's a new one on UseNet.


--
Stefan:

Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article >,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dana Carpender" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You know nothing about evolution, either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah you ****ing idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2 million
>>>years.
>>>
>>>What else do you want to know.
>>
>>Cite?
>>
>>This suggests roots 3 million years back:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm
>>
>>And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you want
>>to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our existance.
>>
>>Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you do,
>>we can talk about who's the idiot.
>>
>
>
>
> So you are calling Krusty an idiot by agreeing that you made an
> ignorant statement? Good job. I think that's a new one on UseNet.


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.

Dana

Lord Hatred wrote:
> In article >,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
> > Krusty wrote:
> >
> > > "Dana Carpender" > wrote
> > >
> > >>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Dana Carpender wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>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.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>You know nothing about evolution, either.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah you ****ing idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2 million
> > > years.
> > >
> > > What else do you want to know.
> >
> > Cite?
> >
> > This suggests roots 3 million years back:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm
> >
> > And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you want
> > to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our existance.
> >
> > Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you do,
> > we can talk about who's the idiot.
> >
>
>
> So you are calling Krusty an idiot by agreeing that you made an
> ignorant statement? Good job. I think that's a new one on UseNet.
>
>
> --
> Stefan:

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.

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years.

First sane thing you've said this entire thread.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years.
>
>
> First sane thing you've said this entire thread.
>

One more than you, pal.

Dana
>

I lost about 80 pounds and all kidney function on The Atkins diet. The
dialysis is helping me keep the weight off though.

mdginzo wrote:
> I lost about 80 pounds and all kidney function on The Atkins diet. The
> dialysis is helping me keep the weight off though.

You lost 80 pounds and you're complaining? :-P~~ You must not have
eaten enough Atkins bars. That'll teach ya ;-)

Carmen

>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.

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?

Carmen

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

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

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
>

>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 if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
cookbooks, now would ya?

mdginzo wrote:

>>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 if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
> cookbooks, now would ya?
>

Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.

Dana

>> And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>> cookbooks, now would ya?

>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.

No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
books. You talk about all the benefits one might get from this fad,
but you don't go on TV and talk about its dangers. These dangers, btw,
that can be avoided with a more balanced diet that includes more carbs
and grains. Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
chrissakes.

"mdginzo" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>>> cookbooks, now would ya?
>
>>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.
>
> No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
> radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
> books. You talk about all the benefits one might get from this fad,
> but you don't go on TV and talk about its dangers. These dangers, btw,
> that can be avoided with a more balanced diet that includes more carbs
> and grains. Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
> chrissakes.
>
We went through this entire scenario with Dana on alt.fashion.
Finally when almost everyone got tired of her spamming and
her ridiculous (and, in some cases dangerous, medical opinions),
and said so, she left.

FWIW, she's apparently found the one cardiologist in America
who thinks Adkins is good for people's hearts. (Just to let you
know he's about to be cited.)

Be patient.

--AJ, back to lurking & having enjoyed your ng for years and
learned many useful things, including Ranee's slow-cooking
pot roast recipe

mdginzo wrote:

>>>And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>>>cookbooks, now would ya?
>
>
>>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.
>
>
> No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
> radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
> books.

You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
spoken to that many people?


Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
> chrissakes.
>

Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
arrest from a viral cardiomyopathy. Even the AHA, no fans of the Atkins
diet, stated publicly that they felt his diet had nothing to do with his
heart problems. But if you want to believe it was his diet, I can't
stop you.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
> arrest


I'm just going to let that little archetype of your reasoning skills
lie there and soak into the audience's brains.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
>>arrest
>
>
>
> I'm just going to let that little archetype of your reasoning skills
> lie there and soak into the audience's brains.
>
>
Hey, if you don't know the difference between a heart attack -- a
coronary artery becoming clogged -- and a cardiac arrest, where the
heart can stop for some other reason -- that's not my fault.

I repeat: Atkins had a viral heart infection. It's been documented.
That's not the same as coronary artery disease, and all your poking fun
doesn't make it so.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mdginzo wrote:
>
>>>>And if you didn't promote this nonesense you wouldn't sell as many
>>>>cookbooks, now would ya?
>>
>>
>>>Right, because an argument on usenet reaches soooo many people.
>>
>>
>> No, but I am sure you promote this dangerous diet wherever you go - TV,
>> radio, your daily interactions. Otherwise, you couldn't sell your
>> books.
>
> You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
> spoken to that many people?
>
>
> Dr. Atkins himself keeled over from a heart attack fer
>> chrissakes.
>>
>
> Dr. Atkins did not have a heart attack, Dr. Atkins suffered a cardiac
> arrest from a viral cardiomyopathy. Even the AHA, no fans of the Atkins
> diet, stated publicly that they felt his diet had nothing to do with his
> heart problems. But if you want to believe it was his diet, I can't stop
> you.
>
> Dana

No sane cardiologist would ever suggest Adkins for someone with
congestive heart failure (the more common name for viral cardio-
myopathy).

I know this from anecdotal evidence (having talked with many
of them when a family member was diagnosed with congestive
heart failure) and having researched the subject, in some detail,
myself).

--AJ

>You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
spoken to that many people?

It doesn't matter how many you have "spoken" to. The fact remains that
you wouldn't sell any books if people didn't believe the crap you and
your cult spew about low-carb diets.

mdginzo wrote:

>>You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
>
> spoken to that many people?
>
> It doesn't matter how many you have "spoken" to. The fact remains that
> you wouldn't sell any books if people didn't believe the crap you and
> your cult spew about low-carb diets.


Does it occur to you that some of us actually have *improved* our health
eating this way? That some of us really *did* feel like crap eating a
carb-heavy diet? I haven't eaten this way for 11 years because it's
making me ill, you know. Or do you really believe that I'm totally
insincere about this, or actually seriously ill, and in denial?

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

>>You realize I've sold over a million books. Do you really think I've
>
> spoken to that many people?
>
> It doesn't matter how many you have "spoken" to. The fact remains that
> you wouldn't sell any books if people didn't believe the crap you and
> your cult spew about low-carb diets.
>

Oh, and you might like to see the entire two articles that came up on
pubmed in response to "Atkins diet kidney":


A low-iron-available, polyphenol-enriched, carbohydrate-restricted diet
to slow progression of diabetic nephropathy.

Facchini FS, Saylor KL.

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, San Francisco General
Hospital and University of California-San Francisco, Box 1342 UCSF, San
Francisco, CA 94143-1341, USA.

Diabetic nephropathy has become the leading cause of uremia. Several
lines of evidence suggest dietary factors other than protein intake have
a substantial role in the progression of diabetic nephropathy to
end-stage renal disease. The present investigation was initiated to
evaluate whether a carbohydrate-restricted, low-iron-available,
polyphenol-enriched (CR-LIPE) diet may delay and improve the outcome of
diabetic nephropathy to a greater extent than standard protein
restriction. To this aim, 191 diabetic patients, all with type 2
diabetes, were randomized to either CR-LIPE or standard protein
restriction and the following outcomes monitored: doubling of serum
creatinine, cumulative incidence of end-stage renal disease, and all
cause mortality. Over a mean follow-up interval of 3.9 +/- 1.8 years,
serum creatinine concentration doubled in 19 patients on CR-LIPE (21%)
and in 31 control subjects (39%) (P < 0.01). Renal replacement therapy
or death occurred in 18 patients on CR-LIPE (20%) and in 31 control
subjects (39%) (P < 0.01). These differences were independent from
follow-up interval, sex, mean arterial blood pressure, HbA(1c), initial
renal dysfunction, and angiotensin system inhibitor use. In conclusion,
CR-LIPE was 40-50% more effective than standard protein restriction in
improving renal and overall survival rates.


Effects of carbohydrate restriction on renal injury in the obese Zucker rat.

Kasiske BL, Cleary MP, O'Donnell MP, Keane WF.

The obese Zucker rat model of nonimmune-mediated, spontaneous focal
glomerulosclerosis is ideally suited to study the influence of diet on
the initiation and progression of glomerular injury. Young (6 wk) and
old (33 wk) lean and obese female Zucker rats were fed a
carbohydrate-restricted diet intermittently for 27 wk. Carbohydrate
restriction resulted in lower body weight (460 +/- 16 versus 310 +/- 7
g, p less than 0.025), kidney weight (1.26 +/- 0.04 versus 1.07 +/- 0.05
g, p less than 0.025), and glomerular area (6930 +/- 290 versus 5780 +/-
230 micron2, p less than 0.025) in young obese Zucker rats compared to
ad libitum-fed rats. Although urine-albumin excretion was substantially
reduced by carbohydrate restriction in young obese Zucker rats (41.1 +/-
12.3 versus 6.9 +/- 2.9 mg/24 h, p less than 0.01), glomerular injury
was not significantly altered. In old obese rats, carbohydrate
restriction did not significantly reduce albuminuria or prevent the
progression of glomerular injury. Thus, intermittent carbohydrate
restriction failed to alter significantly either the initiation of
glomerular injury in young, or the progression of nephron damage in old,
obese Zucker rats.

*******************

So while your doctor blames your kidney failure on your low carb diet,
there's not a lot of research to back him/her up. Certainly it has been
my experience that no matter what the health problem, from a cold to
residual pain from my car wreck, some doctor somewhere will see fit to
blame it on my low carb diet.

And you still haven't answered: Did you read the book and follow Atkins
as written, adding back progressively greater quantities of healthy
carbs every week, until you were in a very mild state of ketosis? Or
did you just decide that Induction was the whole diet, and call it "Atkins?"

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
news
>
>
> 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.

That sounds like you have no health problems at all. Congratulations!


>Have kept 40 pounds off (with the occasional bump upward... when I've gone
>hypothyroid.)


Wait, that sounds like a health problem. I must be missing something. Did
the hypothyroidism go away on its own, or do you still have to take
medication for it?

Ernie Sty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
> news >
>>
>>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.
>
>
> That sounds like you have no health problems at all. Congratulations!
>
>
>
>>Have kept 40 pounds off (with the occasional bump upward... when I've gone
>>hypothyroid.)
>
>
>
> Wait, that sounds like a health problem. I must be missing something. Did
> the hypothyroidism go away on its own, or do you still have to take
> medication for it?

I take Armour thyroid. You're aware that hypothyroidism is exceedingly
common among middle-aged women? Also that there's at least some feeling
it runs in families? My mom was hypo.

Dana

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ernie Sty wrote:
>
>> "Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> That sounds like you have no health problems at all. Congratulations!
>>
>>
>>
>>>Have kept 40 pounds off (with the occasional bump upward... when I've
>>>gone hypothyroid.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait, that sounds like a health problem. I must be missing something.
>> Did the hypothyroidism go away on its own, or do you still have to take
>> medication for it?
>
> I take Armour thyroid. You're aware that hypothyroidism is exceedingly
> common among middle-aged women?

Of course, I'm not trying to say your diet caused it or anything. I know
enough about Atkins to know that any effect it may have on the thyroid is
more likely to be beneficial than harmful. My point is that you said you
were completely healthy, all the tests confirmed it. Then later you said
your thyroid was having problems. I was confused by that and wondered why
you would say you were completely healthy and then indicate that you have a
health problem that you have to take medication to control.

>>>>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

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
news
>
>
> jombithedjinn wrote:
>


> 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.

Except that in your diet, the animal food is probably cooked. That
customary not have been around long before grains became part of the human
diet, if at all; so maybe humans were never meant to eat cooked food either.

There are people who will not eat anything heated to over body temperature.
Aajonus Vonderplanitz claims to have cured his own systemic cancer by eating
raw meats and animal fats. He believes that raw, unheated fat absorbs
toxins from the body and carries them out in the waste, whereas heated or
cooked fats become toxic and therefore release more toxins into the body
instead of removing the ones already there.

I don't necessarily agree with his theories and I can't bring myself to try
eating raw meat, but his stories about his experiences are very interesting.

Here's an interview with him. It's a fascinating read, even if his theories
do seem a little "out there." http://www.drbass.com/aajonus.html