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.

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
>
>

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

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 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

jombithedjinn wrote:
> You obviously know nothing about nutrition.

You shouldn't say things like that when you are just about to say
things like this:

> Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet

A diet that forces you into an illness in order to create a particular
look for a purely subjective reason is inferior to almost any other
diet in almost every way.

Atkins was a scam, then a fad, now it's just an old joke.

--Blair

Blair P. Houghton wrote:

> jombithedjinn wrote:
>
>>You obviously know nothing about nutrition.
>
>
> You shouldn't say things like that when you are just about to say
> things like this:
>
>
>>Typical diets are inferior to the atkins diet
>
>
> A diet that forces you into an illness in order to create a particular
> look for a purely subjective reason is inferior to almost any other
> diet in almost every way.
>

People who think ketosis is an illness are misinformed. It's very likely
that our hunter/gatherer ancestors spent much of their lives in ketosis.

> Atkins was a scam, then a fad, now it's just an old joke.

Atkins works, has been around for over 30 years, and has quite a lot of
independant clinical research backing it up.

Dana

Just out of curiosity: How many of the people in this discussion who
are referring to Atkins as a "scam" or claim it's unhealthy have
actually *read* Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, or any book written by
Dr. Atkins, for that matter?

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Just out of curiosity: How many of the people in this discussion who
> are referring to Atkins as a "scam" or claim it's unhealthy have
> actually *read* Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, or any book written by
> Dr. Atkins, for that matter?
>
[ All the cross - addresses deleted ]

I read the first Atkins book through about the first 60 pages. It was
such nonsense I kept waiting for the punch line. When it hadn't
appeared by then, I tossed it. Then to my surprise it didn't go away
and developed a whole generation of True Believers. So I read
whichever was the latest book about a year and a half ago. Once again
it's premises were ludicrous but now there was a lot of pseudo-science
arrayed around it. All the same fallacies and omissions and lack of
rigor of all the other fads that Americans surround themselves with.

Not that my reading experience means anything, but: you asked. -aem

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> Just out of curiosity: How many of the people in this discussion who are
> referring to Atkins as a "scam" or claim it's unhealthy have actually
> *read* Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, or any book written by Dr. Atkins,
> for that matter?

Me. It's a scam. It's unhealthy, and you're a ****ing moron if you buy into
"fad" diets.

But hey, since this all started with an offhanded comment by Trijcomm, I'm
not surprised it drew other hopelessly clueless rubes.

On Sun, 21 May 2006 15:49:11 -0400, Dana Carpender
> wrote:

>Just out of curiosity: How many of the people in this discussion who
>are referring to Atkins as a "scam" or claim it's unhealthy have
>actually *read* Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, or any book written by
>Dr. Atkins, for that matter?
>
>Dana

My wife and I did it and I lost 45 pounds, and felt great. Why does
anybody think that giving up sugar, flour, potatoes and "sweet" fruits
are necessarily bad for you. You only give up the fruits for a short
time, then you can eat them sparingly.

My doctor pretty much summed it up when he saw the results and found
out how I did it. His response "I've never had to put anybody in the
hospital from following this diet."

Neal

"jombithedjinn" > wrote
> 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.

You're a ****ing idiot.

Seriously.

And you're totally wrong.

Wrong, AND an idiot.

Happy to Help.

Krusty wrote:

> "jombithedjinn" > wrote
>
>>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.
>
>
> You're a ****ing idiot.
>
> Seriously.
>
> And you're totally wrong.
>
> Wrong, AND an idiot.
>
> Happy to Help.
>
>

You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
> > You're a ****ing idiot.
> > Seriously.
> > And you're totally wrong.
> > Wrong, AND an idiot.
> > Happy to Help.
>
> You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
>
> Dana


Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
group.

http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...zR8hglMMGDfYZl
http://tinyurl.com/mym2n

P

In article .com>,
"Pushmi-Pullyu" > wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
> > Krusty wrote:
> > > You're a ****ing idiot.
> > > Seriously.
> > > And you're totally wrong.
> > > Wrong, AND an idiot.
> > > Happy to Help.
> >
> > You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
> >
> > Dana
>
>
> Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
> group.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...FwEzR8hglMMGDf
> YZl
> http://tinyurl.com/mym2n
>


You should also use Google to find out where this thread originated.
And to find out who the OP was. HTH.



--
Stefan:

"Pushmi-Pullyu" > wrote
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>> Krusty wrote:
>> > You're a ****ing idiot.
>> > Seriously.
>> > And you're totally wrong.
>> > Wrong, AND an idiot.
>> > Happy to Help.
>>
>> You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big
>> mouth?
>>
>> Dana
>
>
> Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
> group.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...zR8hglMMGDfYZl
> http://tinyurl.com/mym2n

I started the thread, Captain Scientician.

Hey, next time the clue-bus stops by, get on board.

Krusty wrote:

> "Pushmi-Pullyu" > wrote
>
>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>>Krusty wrote:
>>>
>>>>You're a ****ing idiot.
>>>>Seriously.
>>>>And you're totally wrong.
>>>>Wrong, AND an idiot.
>>>>Happy to Help.
>>>
>>>You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big
>>>mouth?
>>>
>>>Dana
>>
>>
>>Oops, someone accidentally wandered in here from the pro-wrestling
>>group.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...zR8hglMMGDfYZl
>>http://tinyurl.com/mym2n
>
>
> I started the thread, Captain Scientician.
>
> Hey, next time the clue-bus stops by, get on board.

Oh, look. Still not a Krusty-supplied fact in sight.

Dana
>
>

"Dana Carpender" > wrote...
> Krusty wrote:
>> "jombithedjinn" > wrote
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> You're a ****ing idiot.
>>
>> Seriously.
>>
>> And you're totally wrong.
>>
>> Wrong, AND an idiot.
>>
>> Happy to Help.
>
> You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big
> mouth?
>
> Dana

What "big mouth". The person who responded to me made up an assertion that I
never made, then based an entire line of reasoning on it.

I said *nothing* about what people were "meant" to eat. I never made the
assertion that "human beings were meant to eat grass like wheat and barley".

So, given the above, then yeah, the guy's a ****ing idiot AND wrong.

How's that? Douchebag.

Krusty wrote:
> "Dana Carpender" > wrote...
> > Krusty wrote:
> >> "jombithedjinn" > wrote
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>
> >> You're a ****ing idiot.
> >>
> >> Seriously.
> >>
> >> And you're totally wrong.
> >>
> >> Wrong, AND an idiot.
> >>
> >> Happy to Help.
> >
> > You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big
> > mouth?
> >
> > Dana
>
> What "big mouth". The person who responded to me made up an assertion that I
> never made, then based an entire line of reasoning on it.
>
> I said *nothing* about what people were "meant" to eat. I never made the
> assertion that "human beings were meant to eat grass like wheat and barley".
>
> So, given the above, then yeah, the guy's a ****ing idiot AND wrong.
>
> How's that? Douchebag.

You made a pitiful little statement condemning low carb diets, which
would mean to any sane person that you do indeed endorse high-carb
eating. You DID indeed say something about what people were meant to
eat. You implied that people were meant to eat copious amounts of
carbs.

Do you know where carbs come from, Krusty? Take a guess. They are found
in ... gasp .... wheat and barley. They have lots and lots of carbs in
them, Krusty.

"jombithedjinn" > wrote
> You made a pitiful little statement condemning low carb diets, which
> would mean to any sane person that you do indeed endorse high-carb
> eating.

Only if they're prone to incredibly ridiculous leaps in logic.

Idiot.

What are you, ****ing retarded?

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Krusty wrote:
>
> > "jombithedjinn" > wrote
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >
> > You're a ****ing idiot.
> >
> > Seriously.
> >
> > And you're totally wrong.
> >
> > Wrong, AND an idiot.
> >
> > Happy to Help.
> >
> >
>
> You're long on vitriol and short on facts. Care to back up your big mouth?
>
> Dana

Hi Dana. Carmen here, one of the old-timers in ASDL-C. Wanted to take
a moment to say that this sort of quasi-cultist "all-or-nothing" thread
is what helped get Atkins tagged as a fad. It helped it appeal to the
"quick fix" crowd, and we saw them swell this newsgroup to amazing
traffic flow stats. As you can see now, ASDL-C is getting a mere
trickle of posts nowadays, and most old-timers have quietly faded away.
I pop my head in every once in a while, but it gets old seeing the
same rigidity exhibiting itself. For those of us who've adapted to a
low carb diet for the longterm it's usually for health reasons, and we
end up learning that the "carbs are evil" mantra that got us started
isn't quite true. For people with functional endocrine systems, who
live healthy lifestyles and eat an overall healthy diet carbs are no
big deal, just more fuel for the furnace. For diabetics carbs are a
firewalk, you find out what your body likes and functions well on - for
me it's things like lentils and AllBran w/Extra Fiber - and let it have
those carbs.

When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs" and then
start trying to justify it by cherry-picking data (and you have been,
I've been watching the thread) it doesn't help legitimize low-carb as
an option for those who need it. It just makes low carb (and by
extension low carbers) look whacked-out.

Carmen

"Carmen" > wrote
> Hi Dana. Carmen here, one of the old-timers in ASDL-C. Wanted to take
> a moment to say that this sort of quasi-cultist "all-or-nothing" thread
> is what helped get Atkins tagged as a fad. It helped it appeal to the
> "quick fix" crowd, and we saw them swell this newsgroup to amazing
> traffic flow stats. As you can see now, ASDL-C is getting a mere
> trickle of posts nowadays, and most old-timers have quietly faded away.
> I pop my head in every once in a while, but it gets old seeing the
> same rigidity exhibiting itself. For those of us who've adapted to a
> low carb diet for the longterm it's usually for health reasons, and we
> end up learning that the "carbs are evil" mantra that got us started
> isn't quite true. For people with functional endocrine systems, who
> live healthy lifestyles and eat an overall healthy diet carbs are no
> big deal, just more fuel for the furnace. For diabetics carbs are a
> firewalk, you find out what your body likes and functions well on - for
> me it's things like lentils and AllBran w/Extra Fiber - and let it have
> those carbs.
>
> When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs" and then
> start trying to justify it by cherry-picking data (and you have been,
> I've been watching the thread) it doesn't help legitimize low-carb as
> an option for those who need it. It just makes low carb (and by
> extension low carbers) look whacked-out.
>
> Carmen

What a fantastic post.

"Krusty" > wrote in message .. .
> "Carmen" > wrote
>> Hi Dana. Carmen here, one of the old-timers in ASDL-C. Wanted to take
>> a moment to say that this sort of quasi-cultist "all-or-nothing" thread
>> is what helped get Atkins tagged as a fad. It helped it appeal to the
>> "quick fix" crowd, and we saw them swell this newsgroup to amazing
>> traffic flow stats. As you can see now, ASDL-C is getting a mere
>> trickle of posts nowadays, and most old-timers have quietly faded away.
>> I pop my head in every once in a while, but it gets old seeing the
>> same rigidity exhibiting itself. For those of us who've adapted to a
>> low carb diet for the longterm it's usually for health reasons, and we
>> end up learning that the "carbs are evil" mantra that got us started
>> isn't quite true. For people with functional endocrine systems, who
>> live healthy lifestyles and eat an overall healthy diet carbs are no
>> big deal, just more fuel for the furnace. For diabetics carbs are a
>> firewalk, you find out what your body likes and functions well on - for
>> me it's things like lentils and AllBran w/Extra Fiber - and let it have
>> those carbs.
>>
>> When you go down the path of "people shouldn't eat carbs" and then
>> start trying to justify it by cherry-picking data (and you have been,
>> I've been watching the thread) it doesn't help legitimize low-carb as
>> an option for those who need it. It just makes low carb (and by
>> extension low carbers) look whacked-out.
>>
>> Carmen
>
> What a fantastic post.
>
>


IAWTP. Before I read your reply Krusty, I was thinking "that's the most succinct and logical post I've seen in RSPW for awhile."