>I've asked a few times now how many of the Atkins critics >actually *read
>the book*. Still no takers.

Because it is an insulting quetion not worthy of a response.

>The Atkins diet doesn't do that, but badly managed diabetes does.

Why do you lie? Obviously you haven't looked it up and are just
parrotting the Atkins cultists.

mdginzo wrote:

>>I've asked a few times now how many of the Atkins critics >actually *read
>>the book*. Still no takers.
>
>
> Because it is an insulting quetion not worthy of a response.
>

Didn't read it, eh?

Dana

mdginzo wrote:

>>The Atkins diet doesn't do that, but badly managed diabetes does.
>
>
> Why do you lie? Obviously you haven't looked it up and are just
> parrotting the Atkins cultists.

You're still short even one citation.

Dana
>

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.

Actually, I'm unaware of *any* vitamin that can't be obtained through
low carb sources. But then, I've taken supplements since I was a kid,
took 'em all through my low fat/high carb days, so it never occurred to
me to stop when I went low carb.

If you can identify a vitamin or mineral that can't be obtained through
low carb sources, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

Dana

Craig Welch wrote:

> On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:53:00 -0400, Dana Carpender
> > wrote:
>
>
>>If you can identify a vitamin or mineral that can't be obtained through
>>low carb sources, I'd be very interested to hear about it.
>
>
> Vitamin beer.
>

Amstel light 5 grams per bottle.

Corona Light, about the same,IIRC.

Rock Green Light is lower, I believe.

Miller Light and Milwaukee's Best Light -- the same thing, I'm convinced
-- comes in at about 3.5 grams per can/bottle.

Michalob Ultra is less, but it sucks too bad to drink.

Dana

In article . com>,
"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.

Yeah, I don't do the vitamin thing, but I don't technically do Atkins.
I just stopped eating foods that made me either feel all crappy and
sluggish, or made me crave more and more even when I was full. It just
turned out the foods I stopped eating were the same foods most Atkins
dieters stop eating, or at least limit strictly. I don't think every
single thing Atkins wrote is correct for every single person. I feel no
need to stop drinking coffee, or start taking vitamins, or test ketones
or whatever.

In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> Luna wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > "mdginzo" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>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?
> >>
> >>Oh sure, many have lost weight and many feel better and are healthier.
> >> That is true of any fad diet. I am just here to do what you won't
> >>dare to do and that is point out the dangers of this diet. You got a
> >>problem with that?
> >
> >
> > I'll chime in and say I don't have a problem with it. There are dangers
> > in nearly every diet, and the main one in the Atkins diet, as with most
> > others is: Doing It Wrong.
> >
> >
>
> I've asked a few times now how many of the Atkins critics actually *read
> the book*. Still no takers.
>
> Dana

I've read one. It was just simpler for my life to just limit my diet to
vegetables, meat, eggs, cheese, and the occasional piece of fruit,
rather than counting and measuring everything and making sure I went up
by 5g each week . . . blah. So I don't technically do Atkins, because I
still drink coffee, I don't take vitamins, and I don't do the math part.

Luna wrote:

> In article >,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>Luna wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . com>,
>>> "mdginzo" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>
>>>>Oh sure, many have lost weight and many feel better and are healthier.
>>>>That is true of any fad diet. I am just here to do what you won't
>>>>dare to do and that is point out the dangers of this diet. You got a
>>>>problem with that?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll chime in and say I don't have a problem with it. There are dangers
>>>in nearly every diet, and the main one in the Atkins diet, as with most
>>>others is: Doing It Wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I've asked a few times now how many of the Atkins critics actually *read
>>the book*. Still no takers.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> I've read one. It was just simpler for my life to just limit my diet to
> vegetables, meat, eggs, cheese, and the occasional piece of fruit,
> rather than counting and measuring everything and making sure I went up
> by 5g each week . . . blah. So I don't technically do Atkins, because I
> still drink coffee, I don't take vitamins, and I don't do the math part.

I never did either. I just stopped eating any concentrated carb foods
-- starches and sweets -- 11 years ago. Always ate lots of veggies, and
reasonable quantities of strawberries and grapefruit and such. Over the
years, I've added back very modest quantities of stuff like low carb
(high fiber) tortillas, and rye flatbreads, etc.

But I have read Atkins, and Protein Power, and The Carbohydrate Addict's
Diet, and Sugar Busters, and Neanderthin, and The Zone, and The Glycemic
Load Diet, and The No-Grain Diet, and The G-Factor Diet, and most of the
other books, and I know the theories behind them, and the differences
and similarities between the programs. And I also am aware of how
common it is for people to stop eating anything but meat, eggs, and
cheese and say "I'm doing Atkins." Or to read Atkins, get as far as
Induction, and figure, "Well, that's how I'll lose weight really, really
fast, so that's what I'll do."

Dana

On 2006-05-24 22:38:42 -0500, "mdginzo" > said:

>> 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.

Atkins didn't say ketostix were essential. And he said also that some
people never show more than a trace.

Rock Green Light by Latrobe is 83cal, 2.4carb according to the one in hand.
Cheers!
Jimmy

"Dana Carpender" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> Craig Welch wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:53:00 -0400, Dana Carpender
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you can identify a vitamin or mineral that can't be obtained through
> >>low carb sources, I'd be very interested to hear about it.
> >
> >
> > Vitamin beer.
> >
>
> Amstel light 5 grams per bottle.
>
> Corona Light, about the same,IIRC.
>
> Rock Green Light is lower, I believe.
>
> Miller Light and Milwaukee's Best Light -- the same thing, I'm convinced
> -- comes in at about 3.5 grams per can/bottle.
>
> Michalob Ultra is less, but it sucks too bad to drink.
>
> Dana

Atkins recommended that if one were so inclined, another diet could be
attempted for a while.
Jimmy

"Jim Prescott" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> mdginzo > wrote:
> >>That's why the "go on a diet" mentality -- the idea that you can change
> >>the way you eat just until the weight is lost, and then "go off the
> >>diet" is so pervasive.
> >Which is exactly what Atkins says to do. Just because "going off the
> >diet" is what Atkins recommends is no less "going off the diet".
>
> Where does Atkins recommend going off the diet? When I read the book
> it was pretty clear to the point of repetitiveness that it was meant
> to followed for the rest of your life.
>
> You can eat more carbs while maintaining weight than you can while
> losing weight, but you will never be able to go all the way up to
> your pre-diet levels. Even when you are able to increase carbs, you
> are still supposed to greatly limit things like sugar and white flour.
> --
> Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group
> School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY

"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. The problem with the ketone thing, is that it has gotten a bad rap
because it is a danger flag for diabetes. But that is actually called
ketoacidosis, and it could be a sign that a diabetic is not burning the
carbs that are ingested, and is having to break down fat and muscle tissue
from the body. Not a good thing.
Ketosis, on the other hand is the body's way of burning fat. Nothing wrong
with that. It's not a dangerous thing. It is often confused with
ketoacidosis, even by doctors.

>and have to take a handful of vitamins every
> day. That alone should send bells and whistles blowing.

That is not true. It is recommended that a person dieting to lose weight
take a vitamin supplement if calories are very low. Many diets recommend
that. Besides, doesn't it make sense that if you are taking in less food,
that you may be unable to get enough vitamins? But that is the price you pay
for gaining all the weight. The body isn't as good at storing vitamins as it
is storing extra fat. When you put on weight, you're not getting any
healthier by eating extra food and vitamins. When you are trying to lose
weight, you still need adequate vitamins and minerals, but may not be eating
enough food to supply them.
Also on the topic of vitamins. When grains and sugar are refined, they are
stripped of most of the vitamins, minerals, and fiber. Many packaged foods
state, "Fortified with vitamins and nutrients". They wouldn't have to
fortify the foods if they weren't removed in the first place. Atkins' is
mainly about removing these empty calories from the diet.
It's funny that nobody worries about vitamin deficiencies when you're
eating white bread, french fries, pasta, potatoes, white rice and pop. These
are staples in many families' average food intake. How many vitamins are in
these foods? How much fiber is there in white flour?
This post was started mainly about what Humans ate over their history.
Many arguments were made about whether we should be eating whole grains or
not, how much meat we should be eating, what % of all this should be carbs,
saturated fats and cholesterol, etc. Well, when I walk down the aisles in a
grocery store, I don't see a lot of whole grain foods. All I see is highly
refined white flour products. Where's the whole grains? Is it in Honeynut
Cheerios made with whole grains? Is it in the brown colored bread? I
wouldn't have a problem with someone that actually ate whole grains.
Most of the white flour products seem to be categorized as whole grains,
but they are not. This is supposed to be healthy? This is supposed to be 50
to 60% of what we eat? Grains that are stripped of most of the vitamins and
nutrients, with added preservatives and bonding chemicals?
We may have adapted somewhat to eating grains. Fine. But, grains can not
be eaten without some kind of refinement of crushing and cooking. Whether
you want to argue about the amounts we should be eating, I don't care. But
we are not eating whole grains. We are mainly eating the calories extracted
from the grains. That is not natural, and no animal is designed to eat them
that way.
I have been eating low carb for 2 years. I have lost the extra weight, my
cholesterol and blood pressure are down, I no longer suffer from acid
reflux. Generally, I'm a lot healthier than before. I notice that many of
the people that dis the Atkins diet eat a lot of crap, and don't eat as many
vegetables as I do. They're scared of eating fat, but the alarm bells don't
go off for them when they are eating french fries or ice cream. It's got
carbs, so it must be ok to eat them, eh?
I don't eat any of that stuff, but since I'm doing Atkins, people tell me
my kidneys are going to drop out, my cholesterol is going to soar, and I
must be vitamin deficient. Isn't it diabetics that mainly have kidney
problems and high cholesterol?

>

>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.

>You're still short even one citation.

Anyone with access to Google and is honest has all the citations they
need. That diabetes causes kidney scarring is a lie.

mdginzo wrote:
> >You're still short even one citation.
>
> Anyone with access to Google and is honest has all the citations they
> need. That diabetes causes kidney scarring is a lie.



I found lots of links for "diabetes" + "kidney scarring". The first
link I clicked makes the point, "Diabetes is one of the most common
causes of kidney (renal) failure...." but goes on to suggest, as one
way to prevent kidney damage:


"Controlling Diet
Low Protein Diet: Low protein diets have been suggested as treatment
for people with chronic renal failure. Recent research supports the
theory that high protein diets may speed up renal destruction."


http://www.advantagerx.com/diabetes_kidneydisease.htm


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

Supplements are just insurance because regardless of the type of diet, most
people don't plan their food intake to insure they are getting proper
amounts of all required vitamins and minerals--of which there are many.
Lots of people take and lots of doctors recommend daily supplements
regardless of the kind eating their patients do.

In ups.com,
mdginzo > stated

| 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.

Okay, smartypants, would you please tell me just how many grams of protein a
day you consider high protein? I never can get any Atkins critic to give me
such a figure. In order to know if something is "high protein", a number is
needed.

In oups.com,
mdginzo > stated
| Why do you lie? Obviously you haven't looked it up and are just
| parrotting the Atkins cultists.

mdginzo wrote:

>>You're still short even one citation.
>
>
> Anyone with access to Google and is honest has all the citations they
> need. That diabetes causes kidney scarring is a lie.
>

http://kidney.niddk.nih.gov/kudiseases/pubs/glomerular/

Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of glomerular disease and of
total kidney failure in the United States. Kidney disease is one of
several problems caused by elevated levels of blood glucose, the central
feature of diabetes. In addition to scarring the kidney, elevated
glucose levels appear to increase the speed of blood flow into the
kidney, putting a strain on the filtering glomeruli and raising blood
pressure.

---

http://www.jeffersonuniversityhospit...icle10350.html

Kidney scarring results from the excessive activity of a molecule called
transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta). In previous studies, Dr.
Sharma’s research group found the TGF-beta stimulates overproduction of
the scar tissue in the kidneys of diabetic patients and prevents normal
kidney function. The new drug, pirfenidone, was shown to block the
damaging effects of TGF-beta. “This trial will help us is to see if an
antifibrotic approach will add to the armamentarium of arresting
diabetic nephropathy.”

---

http://www.kidney.org.uk/Medical-Inf.../diabetes.html

An important complication of diabetes is kidney disease. The commonest
problem is urine infection, which is much commoner in diabetes than the
general population. It is usually treated well with antibiotics and
better control of sugar levels.

However the most serious complication is diabetic kidney disease, which
is not caused by infection. It occurs in up a to a third of diabetics,
particularly those who have had diabetes for many years. A kidney
affected by diabetes looks abnormal under the microscope with scarring
and swelling in the filtering elements. This damage to the filtering
elements causes protein to leak into the urine, which is an important
marker for diabetic kidney disease.

---

Want more? There's lots.

It doesn't seem that Google is *your* friend.

Vicki

mdginzo wrote:
> >You're still short even one citation.
>
> Anyone with access to Google and is honest has all the citations they
> need. That diabetes causes kidney scarring is a lie.

Diabetes is the most common cause of kidney damage:
http://tinyurl.com/hu8al

"Each year in the United States, more than 100,000 people are diagnosed
with kidney failure, a serious condition in which the kidneys fail to
rid the body of wastes. Kidney failure is the final stage of kidney
disease, also known as nephropathy.

Diabetes is the most common cause of kidney failure, accounting for
nearly 45 percent of new cases. Even when diabetes is controlled, the
disease can lead to nephropathy and kidney failure. Most people with
diabetes do not develop nephropathy that is severe enough to cause
kidney failure. About 18 million people in the United States have
diabetes, and more than 150,000 people are living with kidney failure
as a result of diabetes.

People with kidney failure undergo either dialysis, which substitutes
for some of the filtering functions of the kidneys, or transplantation
to receive a healthy donor kidney. Most U.S. citizens who develop
kidney failure are eligible for federally funded care. In 2003, care
for patients with kidney failure cost the Nation more than $27 billion.

African Americans, American Indians, and Hispanics/Latinos develop
diabetes, nephropathy, and kidney failure at rates higher than
Caucasions. Scientists have not been able to explain these higher
rates. Nor can they explain fully the interplay of factors leading to
diabetic nephropathy-factors including heredity, diet, and other
medical conditions, such as high blood pressure. They have found that
high blood pressure and high levels of blood glucose increase the risk
that a person with diabetes will progress to kidney failure."

You're a Type I so this is relevant:
"Type 1 Diabetes
About 5 to 10 percent of people with diagnosed diabetes have type 1
diabetes, which tends to first occur in young adults and children. Type
1 used to be known as insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus or juvenile
diabetes. In type 1 diabetes, the body stops producing insulin. People
with type 1 diabetes must take daily insulin injections or use an
insulin pump. They also control blood glucose levels with meal planning
and physical activity. Type 1 diabetes is more likely to lead to kidney
failure. Twenty to 40 percent of people with type 1 diabetes develop
kidney failure by the age of 50. Some develop kidney failure before the
age of 30."

Let's see, a Latino Type I diabetic. Here, in another of your posts
(from 2000) you mention you also had *high blood pressure* - the
second leading cause of kidney disease:

"I am a T1 diabetic whose kidneys have been damaged probably due to
hypertension. I have been on Clonidine for about 9 months and been
fairly
under control. Right now I am dealing with the pain of three broken
ribs.
This may be what is causing my BP to shoot to 180/110. I have to get
this
down. I have an appt with my endo next week. What meds should I ask
him
about? I have gotten severe bad reactions from vasotec. I would love
to get
off clonidine if I can. Thanks."

In the above post you note that your kidneys are already damaged. You
also say that it's likely due to hypertension - so you've already been
hypertensive for long enough for that to be possible.
At this point we have a Latino Type I diabetic with chronic high blood
pressure who develops kidney disease - but you and the doctors now want
to blame what you ate for a couple of years?
Does that pass the "make sense" test?

Carmen

Dana Carpender > writes:



>Craig Welch wrote:

>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 23:53:00 -0400, Dana Carpender
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you can identify a vitamin or mineral that can't be obtained through
>>>low carb sources, I'd be very interested to hear about it.
>>
>>
>> Vitamin beer.
>>

>Amstel light 5 grams per bottle.

>Corona Light, about the same,IIRC.

>Rock Green Light is lower, I believe.

>Miller Light and Milwaukee's Best Light -- the same thing, I'm convinced
>-- comes in at about 3.5 grams per can/bottle.


Yeah, I believe the term used was "beer", though.



--
"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

I was not debating that diabetes caused kidney damage and you know it.
The other poster lied that diabetes cause kidney scarring.

>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.

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.


V.
--
Vernoique Chez Sheep

Carmen, up until 2000 I was fairly healthy. No hypertension. My BP
shot up due to the pain of the ribs. I had elevated kidney function
that year with I thought was due to the elevated BP. After seeing a
few doctors I learned that having a high BP for a few weeks does not
cause kidney damage. I never had kidney damage nor high BP before. I
dont have high BP now 5 years later. The kidney damage - if caused by
diabtes - would appear long before 2000 since I was a diabetic for 20
years. BP being ruled out and diiabetes ( I have no other diabetic
symptoms), then the diet (Atkins) is the only thing that could have
damaged the kidneys nd that makes medical sense. That is not to say
that eebryone that goes on Atkins gets kidney damage. It is merely one
of the dangers of a fad diet.

"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.

--
"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

"Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
...

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").

LOL.. so .. what is it?

Ophelia

mdginzo wrote:
> Carmen, up until 2000 I was fairly healthy. No hypertension. My BP
> shot up due to the pain of the ribs. I had elevated kidney function
> that year with I thought was due to the elevated BP. After seeing a
> few doctors I learned that having a high BP for a few weeks does not
> cause kidney damage. I never had kidney damage nor high BP before. I
> dont have high BP now 5 years later. The kidney damage - if caused by
> diabtes - would appear long before 2000 since I was a diabetic for 20
> years. BP being ruled out and diiabetes ( I have no other diabetic
> symptoms), then the diet (Atkins) is the only thing that could have
> damaged the kidneys nd that makes medical sense. That is not to say
> that eebryone that goes on Atkins gets kidney damage. It is merely one
> of the dangers of a fad diet.

Mark, you were a diabetic with out of control BG levels:

"I am a diet-controlled diabetic going on a 5-day hike. I use no
insulin
right now and am on a low-carb diet. I keep my blood-sugar at about 170
or below even though I only test it when I have had excess carbs"

The above post you wrote in 1997. Good God, *170*? What on earth were
you thinking? What doctor told you that was an acceptable BG level to
aim for? My doc would have kittens if I had a single BG level reading
that high. Those are levels that rob you of eyesight and kidneys and
feet. You were lucky your kidneys lasted as long as they did.

Mark, I don't know what else to say. You've got some odd ideas about
kidney disease and diabetes. The "kidney scarring" you seem to think
is somehow different than diabetes and hypertension caused kidney
disease isn't. It's too late to save your kidneys, but if you are
still with the endo who is telling you that post-prandials of 170 are
okay then run like hell and find somebody with a clue. They've already
probably cost you your kidneys. There are diabetes newsgroups that
have a lot of information, and you *really* need good information.

Carmen

Ophelia wrote:

> "Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> 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").
>
> LOL.. so .. what is it?

Yttrium is a major ingredient in yttrofluorite.
I collected some of that in Colorado back in 1961.

Charles "purveyor of useless information for 65 years"

On Fri, 26 May 2006 19:48:41 GMT, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
> wrote:

>Ophelia wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> 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").
>>
>> LOL.. so .. what is it?
>
>Yttrium is a major ingredient in yttrofluorite.
>I collected some of that in Colorado back in 1961.
>
>Charles "purveyor of useless information for 65 years"


What the going rate for the yttrium info?

Boron

"Charles Wm. Dimmick" > wrote in message
. net...
> Ophelia wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> 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").
>>
>> LOL.. so .. what is it?
>
> Yttrium is a major ingredient in yttrofluorite.
> I collected some of that in Colorado back in 1961.
>
> Charles "purveyor of useless information for 65 years"

Um errrrr nodnodnod.. whatever you say)))

"Ophelia" > writes:


>"Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
...

> 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").

>LOL.. so .. what is it?

If I tell you, will you buy me one of these?

http://www.nonzerochance.com/index.p...style= tshirt


--
"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

Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
> "Ophelia" > writes:
>
>
>
>>"Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>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").
>
>
>>LOL.. so .. what is it?
>
>
> If I tell you, will you buy me one of these?
>
> http://www.nonzerochance.com/index.p...style= tshirt
>
>
I am *SO* getting myself one of those..



P.

--
Unless otherwise indicated, anything I write is either garnered from
experience or pulled out of my ass, depending on situational needs..

"Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
...
> "Ophelia" > writes:
>
>
>>"Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
...
>
>> 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").
>
>>LOL.. so .. what is it?
>
> If I tell you, will you buy me one of these?
>
> http://www.nonzerochance.com/index.p...style= tshirt

oh! It opened) If you want it, you may have it)

>The above post you wrote in 1997. Good God, *170*? What on earth were
>you thinking? What doctor told you that was an acceptable BG level to
>aim for? My doc would have kittens if I had a single BG level reading
>that high. Those are levels that rob you of eyesight and kidneys and
>feet. You were lucky your kidneys lasted as long as they did.

Huh? Carmen I am beginning to doubt you have diabetes at all or else,
you have some wacky doctors. I get Bgs of 170 now and I have a AIC of
6.1. Where do you get your diabetes information from, by straring at a
puddle of water and scrying for it?

>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.

"Ophelia" > wrote:

>
>"Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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").
>
>LOL.. so .. what is it?

There is an obscure small ghost town in scandinavia named Ytterby.
Because ores from near it were studied in a certain era of the age of
chemical discovery, there are FOUR elements named after that obscure
ghost town. The most important attribute of the "lanthanide"
elements is that they are almost entirely the same as each other. If
you discover an element that is essentially identical to the next
element over, then how do you come up with a name for it? For several
of these, letters were dropped from the previous element. Ytterbium.
Yttrium. Terbium. Erbium.

Or something like that. I'm disconnected from the net at the moment
and don't remember my chemistry well enough to look it up. And I'm
not at home to look it up in reference works.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

"Krusty" > wrote:

>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.

This is supposed to be a cite AGAINST Dana? The person who says that
simple carbohydrates were strikingly lower and that complex carbs were
less than is typical in contemporary affluent nations?

OK, you've provided Dana's cite. Now how about one for your own
argument?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

"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?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

"Greg Goss" > wrote in message
...
> "Ophelia" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Joseph Michael Bay" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> 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").
>>
>>LOL.. so .. what is it?
>
> There is an obscure small ghost town in scandinavia named Ytterby.
> Because ores from near it were studied in a certain era of the age of
> chemical discovery, there are FOUR elements named after that obscure
> ghost town. The most important attribute of the "lanthanide"
> elements is that they are almost entirely the same as each other. If
> you discover an element that is essentially identical to the next
> element over, then how do you come up with a name for it? For several
> of these, letters were dropped from the previous element. Ytterbium.
> Yttrium. Terbium. Erbium.
>
> Or something like that. I'm disconnected from the net at the moment
> and don't remember my chemistry well enough to look it up. And I'm
> not at home to look it up in reference works.

Thank you very much for your explanations Greg

best

O