Low-carb to be defined

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I wish there was an official Glycemic index, too, and it
was included on the package label.

cnn.comconfusiOpen ↗
ng.carbs.ap/index.html

martin

the interesting thing in the article is how the mention that
low carb foods are in many cases higher in calories than
their "regular" or "low fat" counterparts and that is
somehow a bad thing. If they new anything about the low carb
way of eating, they would realize that calories matter a
heck of alot less, except when you start getting close to
your ideal weight where lets be honest here, 2/3 of
americans are nowhere near.

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wish there was an official Glycemic index, too, and it
was included on the package label.

cnn.comconfusingOpen ↗
.carbs.ap/index.h tml

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

martin

the interesting thing in the article is how the mention
that low carb foods are in many cases higher in calories
than their "regular" or "low fat" counterparts and that is
somehow a bad thing. If they new anything about the low
carb way of eating, they would realize that calories
matter a heck of alot less, except when you start getting
close to your ideal weight where lets be honest here, 2/3
of americans are nowhere near.

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your body
needs, in about 4 days you'll gain a pound of fat, no matter
what those calories come from.

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<Brw6c.19701$Nj.13053@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wish there was an official Glycemic index, too, and
it was included on the package label.

cnn.comconfusiOpen ↗
ng.carbs.ap/index.h tml

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

martin

the interesting thing in the article is how the mention
that low carb foods are in many cases higher in calories
than their "regular" or "low fat" counterparts and that
is somehow a bad thing. If they new anything about the
low carb way of eating, they would realize that calories
matter a heck of alot less, except when you start
getting close to your ideal weight where lets be honest
here, 2/3 of americans are nowhere near.

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your body
needs, in about 4 days you'll gain a pound of fat, no
matter what those calories come from.

that is simply not true. recent studies on low carb vs low
fat diets consistently prove that where your calories come
from have a significant impact on your ability to lose or
gain weight.

DaKitty said:

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I wish there was an official Glycemic index, too, and
it was included on the package label.

cnn.comconfusiOpen ↗
ng.carbs.ap

index.h

Quoted message said:

tml

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

martin

the interesting thing in the article is how the mention
that low carb foods are in many cases higher in calories
than their "regular" or "low fat" counterparts and that
is somehow a bad thing. If they new anything about the
low carb way of eating, they would realize that calories
matter a heck of alot less, except when you start getting
close to your ideal weight where lets be honest here, 2/3
of americans are nowhere near.

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your body
needs, in about 4 days you'll gain a pound of fat, no
matter what those calories come from.

Its a lot more complicated than that. You have to consider
how/if the calories can be absorbed and what is excreted.

A few random facts: If your eating results in excess blood
glucose, then excess energy will tend to be deposited as
fat. The amount to glucose in the blood is regulated to some
extent by glycogen stores in the liver. And if you eat
psylliam husk (Metamucil), this tends to bind to fats in the
digestive system. Low carb diets work by excreting ketones
(4 calories/gram) via urine rathen than fully oxidising body
fat (9 calories/gram).

gtoomey

Sam Hain said:

Quoted message said:

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your body
needs, in about 4 days you'll gain a pound of fat, no
matter what those calories come from.

that is simply not true. recent studies on low carb vs low
fat diets consistently prove that where your calories come
from have a significant impact on your ability to lose or
gain weight.

The basis for the Atkins diet is that people are less likely
to overconsume a fatty protein rich meal than one of pasta.
Let's stop pretending about all that other BS - you eat less
than you take in, you lose weight.

And of course, people like diets that tell them bacon is a
good breakfast food.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

.

Quoted message said:

The basis for the Atkins diet is that people are less
likely to

overconsume

Quoted message said:

a fatty protein rich meal than one of pasta. Let's stop
pretending about all that other BS - you eat less than you
take in, you lose weight.

And of course, people like diets that tell them bacon is a
good breakfast food.
--
Jason O'Rourke

You're wrong again, Jason. Get a clue. Read up on the diet
instead of just regurgitating hearsay. Or, better yet, try
it so that you'll actually have an inkling of what you're
talking about when you open your mouth.

Pat in TX

Pat said:

You're wrong again, Jason. Get a clue. Read up on the diet
instead of just regurgitating hearsay. Or, better yet, try
it so that you'll actually have an inkling of what you're
talking about when you open your mouth.

oops, offended the cultists again. Suffering through bad
eating won't prove anything, btw.

Keep believing if it makes you happy.

I'll stay happier with an unrestricted diet.

I hope you're not drinking Atkins approved beer!

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're wrong again, Jason. Get a clue. Read up on the
diet instead of

just

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

regurgitating hearsay. Or, better yet, try it so that
you'll actually

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an inkling of what you're talking about when you open
your mouth.

oops, offended the cultists again. Suffering through bad
eating won't

prove

Quoted message said:

anything, btw.

Keep believing if it makes you happy.

I'll stay happier with an unrestricted diet.

I hope you're not drinking Atkins approved beer!

--
Jason O'Rourke

Jason, by your own admittance, you have not tried this diet.
You have not studied it, nor have you listened to anyone who
has. You are standing on the outside calling everybody names
because they aren't as uninformed as are you---if being
totally uninformed is indeed your idea of knowing what you
are talking about. You are not presenting yourself as a
thinking person, only as a contrarian simply for the purpose
of being contrary. If you think this gives you some
significance, it does not. Your postings are quickly ignored
as the rantings of someone who just wants to be noticed--for
anything at all----so long as it gets you 15 minutes of
attention.

How do I know this? Because once a person completes the
initial phases of the Atkins diet, it becomes an
unrestricted diet.

Pat in TX

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<Brw6c.19701$Nj.13053@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> I wish there was an official Glycemic index, too,
> and it was

included

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> on the package label.
>
>

cnn.comconfusingOpen ↗
.carbs.ap/index.h

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tml

Quoted message said:

>
> martin

the interesting thing in the article is how the
mention that low carb foods are in many cases higher
in calories than their "regular" or "low fat"
counterparts and that is somehow a bad thing. If they
new anything about the low carb way of eating, they
would realize that calories matter a heck of alot
less, except when you start getting close to your
ideal weight where lets be honest here, 2/3 of
americans are nowhere near.

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your body
needs, in about

4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days you'll gain a pound of fat, no matter what those
calories come

from.

Quoted message said:

that is simply not true. recent studies on low carb vs low
fat diets consistently prove that where your calories come
from have a significant impact on your ability to lose or
gain weight.

hahaha, it's been true as long as basic physics and
chemistry has been true.

I could care less about the low carb and many other recent
unbalanced diet fads.

First define what you consider "significant impact"

"Gregory Toomey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:1105876.jHgqBHG2CP@GMT-hosting-and-pickle-farming...

Quoted message said:

DaKitty said:

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> I wish there was an official Glycemic index, too, and
> it was included on the package label.
>
>

cnn.comconfuOpen ↗
sing.carbs.ap

index.h

Quoted message said:

tml

Quoted message said:

>
> martin

the interesting thing in the article is how the mention
that low carb foods are in many cases higher in
calories than their "regular" or "low fat" counterparts
and that is somehow a bad thing. If they new anything
about the low carb way of eating, they would realize
that calories matter a heck of alot less, except when
you start getting close to your ideal weight where lets
be honest here, 2/3 of americans are nowhere near.

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your body
needs, in about

4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days you'll gain a pound of fat, no matter what those
calories come

from.

Quoted message said:

Its a lot more complicated than that. You have to consider
how/if the calories can be absorbed and what is excreted.

I know it's more complicated. One thing that you neglect to
pay attention to is that the little chemical nuances that
you;re talking about only amount to about 10% or at best 15%
of the effective absorbtion and processing of energy sources
(food), in a healthy person. Still. about 90% of your
dieting sucess is dependent on not taking in more calories
than your body needs.

The little nuances that you're talking about should be
accounted for in figuring out what your body needs, based on
your build, activity levels and any potential medical
conditions.

Quoted message said:

A few random facts: If your eating results in excess blood
glucose, then excess energy will

tend

Quoted message said:

to be deposited as fat. The amount to glucose in the blood
is regulated to some extent by glycogen stores in the
liver. And if you eat psylliam husk (Metamucil), this
tends to bind to fats in the digestive system. Low carb
diets work by excreting ketones (4 calories/gram) via
urine rathen than fully oxidising body fat (9
calories/gram).

If you take Metamucil or any other laxative, or puke out
what you've eaten, the food will be purged out of the body
before it has been digested.

But then, your body needs fat for a number of reasons, and
if you ingest a proper amount of fat for your needs, and
then take Metamucil, how will you be able to know whether
your body got what it really needed, or if you're getting
depleted (which will later on result in unbalanced cravings,
and potentially cause you to drop the diet because it will
feel too hard to maintain). Not knowing how much of what is
getting in and out of your body is not exactly a good way to
achieve nutritional balance, is it?

"Jason O'Rourke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sam Hain said:

Quoted message said:

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your
body needs, in

about 4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days you'll gain a pound of fat, no matter what those
calories come

from.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that is simply not true. recent studies on low carb vs
low fat diets consistently prove that where your calories
come from have a significant impact on your ability to
lose or gain weight.

The basis for the Atkins diet is that people are less
likely to

overconsume

Quoted message said:

a fatty protein rich meal than one of pasta. Let's stop
pretending about all that other BS - you eat less than you
take in, you lose weight.

That is very true!

Quoted message said:

And of course, people like diets that tell them bacon is a
good breakfast food.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

DaKitty said:

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"DaKitty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<Brw6c.19701$Nj.13053@fed1read01>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Sam Hain" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> Martin W. Smith <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> > I wish there was an official Glycemic index, too,
> > and it was

included

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > on the package label.
> >
> >

cnn.comconfusinOpen ↗
g.carbs.ap/index.h

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tml
> >
> > martin
>
> the interesting thing in the article is how the
> mention that low carb foods are in many cases higher
> in calories than their "regular" or "low fat"
> counterparts and that is somehow a bad thing. If they
> new anything about the low carb way of eating, they
> would realize that calories matter a heck of alot
> less, except when you start getting close to your
> ideal weight where lets be honest here, 2/3 of
> americans are nowhere near.

well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your
body needs, in about

4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

days you'll gain a pound of fat, no matter what those
calories come

from.

Quoted message said:

that is simply not true. recent studies on low carb vs
low fat diets consistently prove that where your calories
come from have a significant impact on your ability to
lose or gain weight.

hahaha, it's been true as long as basic physics and
chemistry has been true.

It isn't basic physics and chemistry. It is more complex
than basic physics and chemistry. Are you an expert on those
subjects too? How many months have you been working in those
fields then.

Quoted message said:

I could care less about the low carb and many other recent
unbalanced diet fads.

First define what you consider "significant impact"

When you used to be hungry all the time, especially soon
after eating a meal with a high glycemic load, and then
after you switch to a low-carb diet and you aren't hungry
anymore, we call that significant impact on your ability to
lose weight.

martin

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

.

Quoted message said:

The basis for the Atkins diet is that people are less
likely to

overconsume

Quoted message said:

a fatty protein rich meal than one of pasta. Let's stop
pretending

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all that other BS - you eat less than you take in, you
lose weight.

And of course, people like diets that tell them bacon is
a good

breakfast

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

food.
--
Jason O'Rourke

You're wrong again, Jason. Get a clue. Read up on the diet
instead of just regurgitating hearsay. Or, better yet, try
it so that you'll actually have an inkling of what you're
talking about when you open your mouth.

Actually, he is not wrong at all. You need to read up some.

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're wrong again, Jason. Get a clue. Read up on the
diet instead of

just

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

regurgitating hearsay. Or, better yet, try it so that
you'll actually

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an inkling of what you're talking about when you open
your mouth.

oops, offended the cultists again. Suffering through bad
eating won't

prove

Quoted message said:

anything, btw.

Keep believing if it makes you happy.

I'll stay happier with an unrestricted diet.

I hope you're not drinking Atkins approved beer!

--
Jason O'Rourke

Jason, by your own admittance, you have not tried this
diet. You have not studied it, nor have you listened to
anyone who has.

I've tried it, and studied it, and my ex husband had been on
it for few years, about 12 years ago, long before it became
the lates fad. What Jason just sdaid is actually very true.

DaKitty said:

"Jason O'Rourke" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sam Hain said:

> well, if you eat 1000 calories a day more than your
> body needs, in

about 4

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> days you'll gain a pound of fat, no matter what those
> calories come

from.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that is simply not true. recent studies on low carb vs
low fat diets consistently prove that where your
calories come from have a significant impact on your
ability to lose or gain weight.

The basis for the Atkins diet is that people are less
likely to

overconsume

Quoted message said:

a fatty protein rich meal than one of pasta. Let's stop
pretending about all that other BS - you eat less than
you take in, you lose weight.

That is very true!

It is true, but it isn't the basis for the diet. It is the
basis for the reduced hunger and craving.

martin

DaKitty said:

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You're wrong again, Jason. Get a clue. Read up on the
>diet instead of

just

Quoted message said:

>regurgitating hearsay. Or, better yet, try it so that
>you'll actually

have

Quoted message said:

>an inkling of what you're talking about when you open
>your mouth.

oops, offended the cultists again. Suffering through
bad eating won't

prove

Quoted message said:

anything, btw.

Keep believing if it makes you happy.

I'll stay happier with an unrestricted diet.

I hope you're not drinking Atkins approved beer!

--
Jason O'Rourke

Jason, by your own admittance, you have not tried this
diet. You have not studied it, nor have you listened to
anyone who has.

I've tried it, and studied it, and my ex husband had been
on it for few years, about 12 years ago, long before it
became the lates fad. What Jason just sdaid is actually
very true.

What Jason said describes the basis for the reduced hunger
and craving, not the basis for the diet, as he claimed. The
basis for the diet is the basis described in the Atkins
literature. Whether it is accurate or not is a separate
issue, but what the Atkins literature describes as the basis
for the diet is the basis for the diet.

martin

DaKitty said:

"Pat" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
berlin.de...

Quoted message said:

.

Quoted message said:

The basis for the Atkins diet is that people are less
likely to

overconsume

Quoted message said:

a fatty protein rich meal than one of pasta. Let's stop
pretending

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all that other BS - you eat less than you take in, you
lose weight.

And of course, people like diets that tell them bacon
is a good

breakfast

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

food.
--
Jason O'Rourke

You're wrong again, Jason. Get a clue. Read up on the
diet instead of just regurgitating hearsay. Or, better
yet, try it so that you'll actually have an inkling of
what you're talking about when you open your mouth.

Actually, he is not wrong at all. You need to read up some.

That's right, he isn't even wrong. What he described as the
basis for the diet has nothing to do with the basis for the
diet. It is the basis for why people succeed with the diet.
The basis of the diet is the one described in the
literature, which is pretty much what Sam wrote.

martin

Pat said:

Quoted message said:

I hope you're not drinking Atkins approved beer!

Just leaving this comment out again - there's nothing more
disgusting than the notion of low carb beer. Tonight I just
saw an ad on tv for low carb OJ. I hope they can make money
off this lunancy - more power to them.

Quoted message said:

Jason, by your own admittance, you have not tried this
diet. You have not studied it, nor have you listened to
anyone who has. You are standing on the outside calling
everybody names because they aren't as uninformed as are
you---if being totally uninformed is indeed your idea of
knowing what you

This is a nice collection of falsehoods.

It's hard not listening to devotees - you can hardly get
some of them

on this thread.

Quoted message said:

How do I know this? Because once a person completes the
initial phases of the Atkins diet, it becomes an
unrestricted diet.

Come on, Martin, tell me this is a lie.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Martin W. Smith said:

What Jason said describes the basis for the reduced hunger
and craving, not the basis for the diet, as he claimed. The
basis for the diet is the basis described in the Atkins
literature. Whether it is accurate or not is a separate
issue, but what the Atkins literature describes as the
basis for the diet is the basis for the diet.

It's hardly a separate issue in my mind, esp if people
keep harping about it. To me, the 'science' of Dr Atkins
is like the WMD argument Bush used to destroy Iraq. Fuzzy,
nice sounding, but unfounded. So let's stop pretending and
focus on the real stuff. People are bad about counting
calories. They've only 'learned' that fat is bad, so low
fat licorice is ok. From a health perspective, the balance
matters. But from a weight perspective, it's only about
the calorie count.

Diet studies are now allowing that people can have success
with the low carb routines, but I don't think any have shown
this blood chemistry or that the source of the 2000 calories
one eats actually matters. It shouldn't be very hard to do
so either, leaving nothing to doubt. Yet still the establed
contend the diet is borderline quackery. What's their
incentive to do so? A personal grudge against a dead man?

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com