SWarah,
You are the one with the "Agenda".
You are here to "Save" people from low carb. And, you make the mistake
of common ignorance in not being able to use the english terms Lose and
LOOSE correctly. You should be ashamed.
The body has no absolute need for carbohydrates... Source, Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciencesin thier reports titled
"Dietary Reference Intakes". See below.......
You can read this stuff yourself, without resorting to some crappy
biased "diet guru".
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=275
The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently
is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.
However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal
health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations that
ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount
of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases
for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and
Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was
no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an
essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland
natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928).
However, a detailed modern comparison with populations ingesting the
majority of food energy as carbohydrate has never been done.
It has been shown that rats and chickens grow and mature successfully on
a carbohydrate-free diet (Brito et al., 1992; Renner and Elcombe, 1964),
but only if adequate protein and glycerol from triacylglycerols are
provided in the diet as substrates for gluconeogenesis. It has also been
shown that rats grow and thrive on a 70 percent protein,
carbohydrate-free diet (Gannon et al., 1985). Azar and Bloom (1963) also
reported that nitrogen balance in adults ingesting a carbohydrate-free
diet required the ingestion of 100 to 150 g of protein daily. This, plus
the glycerol obtained from triacylglycerol in the diet, presumably
supplied adequate substrate for gluconeogenesis and thus provided at
least a minimal amount of completely oxidizable glucose.
The ability of humans to starve for weeks after endogenous glycogen
supplies are essentially exhausted is also indicative of the ability of
humans to survive without an exogenous supply of glucose or
monosaccharides convertible to glucose in the liver (fructose and
galactose). However, adaptation to a fat and protein fuel requires
considerable metabolic adjustments.
The only cells that have an absolute requirement for glucose as an
oxidizable fuel are those in the central nervous system (i.e., brain)
and those cells that depend upon anaerobic glycolysis (i.e., the partial
oxidation of glucose to produce lactate and alanine as a source of
energy), such as red blood cells, white blood cells, and medulla of the
kidney. The central nervous system can adapt to a dietary fat-derived
fuel, at least in part (Cahill, 1970; Sokoloff, 1973). Also, the
glycolyzing cells can obtain their complete energy needs from the
indirect oxidation of fatty acids through the lactate and
alanine-glucose cycles.
In the absence of dietary carbohydrate, de novo synthesis of glucose
requires amino acids derived from the hydrolysis of endogenous or
dietary protein or glycerol derived from fat. Therefore, the marginal
amount of carbohydrate required in the diet in an energy-balanced state
is conditional and dependent upon the remaining composition of the diet.
Nevertheless, there may be subtle and unrecognized, untoward effects of
a very low carbohydrate diet that may only be apparent when populations
not genetically or traditionally adapted to this diet adopt it. This
remains to be determined but is a reasonable expectation.
Sarah said:"jcderkoeing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:"Sarah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:"jcderkoeing" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>"Sarah" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>
>><[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...
>>
>>>I don't know what it is lately but I can't make myself get off my ass.
>>>In times past I've been able to prescribe my workout goals before a
>>>week starts, say -- this week 'll walk 45 minutes four times and do
>>>Pilates four times, and then do it.
>>>
>>>Lately...it takes me *forever* to get around to this. I procrastinate.
>>>I spend an hour curling my hair, which is something I'd never even
>>>*do* normally, instead of just getting out and hitting the track.
>>>Pilates is totally easy to get around to -- I just have to get on my
>>>bedroom floor, but I'll turn on my TV, lay on my bed and stay there
>>>for just hours before braving the one foot vertical distance to my
>>>workout mat.
>>>
>>>Out on my walks, I can't wait til they're over. I think, ugh, another
>>>lap? I can't, next time.
>>>
>>>I've become a complete sloth and I do not understand the reason. It
>>>makes me wonder if our new hero Taubes was right about insulin
>>>resistance causing laziness.
>>>
>>>Tips? Tricks? Treats?
>>>
>>>c
>>>On the verge of lipo
>>>
>>
>>Since you are posting here, I assume you are following a low-carb diet
>>plan. A low-carb ketogenic diet strips the body of glycogen. This is
>>the reason for the illusion of rapid weight loss. The body normally
>>stores up to 2000 calories in glycogen. Each gram of glycogen ties up
>>3-4 grams of water. When you loose the glycogen, you loose the water.
>>
>
>You lose water, not loose.
>
>Idiot.
>
>
>
>>The worst part is that without its store of glycogen, the body looses
>>its
>
>
>The body doesn't loose anything.
>
>Idiot.
>
>
>
>>ability to perform sustained strenuous activities. This leads to
>>fatigue and lack of motivation and as you put it, you become a complete
>>sloth. When experiencing glycogen deficiency, athletes often experience
>>extreme fatigue to the point that it is difficult to move.
>>
>
>Do you know this from experience or merely from shared old wives tales?
>
>Idiot.
>
>
>
>>Treat your body to some healthy carbs for a few days and see if that
>>makes a difference.
>>
>
>Carbs are non-essential.
>
>Idiot.
>
>
>
>>Don't listen to the low-carb fanatics that post here. They have their
>>own agenda.
>>
>
>This is a low-carb newsgroup.
>
>
>Idiot.
>
See what I mean about their own agenda. When they are challenged, they
respond with nitpicking and name calling.
Don't listen to these rude, crude idiots.
Sarah
Your misinformation is the worst part of this newsgroup.
Idiot.
Then why don't you leave and never come back.
I intend to greatly increase my presence here to make the newbie's aware
that low-carbing can cause problems and may be dangerous to their health. It
may be justified to manage diseases like diabetes and epilepsy but should
not be used just for weight loss. It don't lead to long term weight loss
anyway.
Sarah
