Why low carb?

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:24:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

jt said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are no essential carbohydrates that humans need.

Quoted message said:

The fact remains - there are no essential carbohydrates in
human nutrition.

So you recommend all adults, children, babies, etc go on a permanent
ZERO carb diet? Do I need to provide you the definition of essential?

I think everyone reading knows what "essential" means - necessary. But
it's the context that makes this one a bit more difficult. We're talking
about essential nutrients like fats and protein. Except it's carbs.

I am not talking about fats and proteins but I agree like carbs they
are essential.

Quoted message said:

Please provide the definition of "essential carbohydrates."
Do try to keep in mind that the reference, of course, is to dietary carbs as it
has been throughout this thread. Those that *must* be ingested for
humans to survive. Because "essential" in this context has a rather
specific meaning.

They are essential, you are simply playing games. Is any one
particular gram of carbohydrate essential? No Is any one particular
gram of fat or protein essential? No

Is it essential that humans ingest protein, fat, carbs in their diet?
Yes

Quoted message said:

I note you removed the request that you name those "essential
carbohydrates" that humans need to ingest to live. Please include them
in your answer.

Carbs are an essential source of energy. Is it essential that fill my
car up at a BP gas station? No Is gasoline essential for my car to
run? Yes

Thomas Muffaletto said:

I would think many vitamins and minerals are not needed to live.
but that does not mean we do not need them for improved health.

In case you must be talking about non-vitamins and minerals that is
not essential trace elements.

Vitamins are organic molecules that function as cofactors for enzymes
and that cannot be made by any cell in your body. They are continually
regenerated by other systems, like NAD/NADH + H+, NADP/NADPH + H+ etc.

Hg is such a mineral. But As is in fact an essential trace (in fact
ultratrace) element. As is needed in the same range as Se.

Or do you really think you may survive on a Se-free diet? If so, visit
Se-free areas in China. (Well, they probably don't exist anymore since
people are given Se in diet to prevent Keshan disease)

Carbohydrates are essential to life in humans. Ask Atkins. He researched
most of this quite well. Try reading just one of his books.

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jt said:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:12:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

jt wrote:

>On 22 Mar 2005 09:35:04 -0800, "TC" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bob (this one) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Robert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email hidden]...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
>>>>>
>>>>>TC
>>>>
>>>>Glucose is an essential carbohydrate whether you eat it or not.
>>>
>>>Then let's say it so you understand it and so you can't weasel/refute
>>>it. "There is no such thing as an essential *dietary* carbohydrate.
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>
>>I stand corrected, at least grammatically anyways....
>>
>>There is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate.
>>
>>It is an irefutable basic scientific fact.
>>
>>TC
>
>
>So you have documented studies of human beings who have thrived "ok
>just survived" on a ZERO carbohydrate diet?
>
>I suppose it might be possible if you are in a coma or have not left
>the couch in 7 years.
>
>Would you recommend this diet to an active child who plays sports and
>needs to acually learn somethiing in school? If you do not recommend
>it why would you recommend it for adults? Is it just for sedentary
>brain dead adults?
>
>Why make your body go through this process of converting protein into
>glucose when you can just give your body what it wants for its
>preffered energy source. Its all well in good to have fat as the logs
>in your fire but you still need the kindling.

What a splendidly [censored] answer. See if the content can penetrate that
miasma. The assertion is that there is no "essential carbohydrate" that
humans need. No one has suggested that it be a permanent diet.

So there is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate on a
temporary fad diet like LC? However on a permanent diet it is
essential? LOL!

Let me type slowly, oh, vacuous one of the slippery editing. And type it
as an absolute so even someone with the stunted abilities you show can
understand it. There are no essential carbohydrates that humans need.
Period. I was replying to your overwrought ignorance about diets and
dieting. The fact remains - there are no essential carbohydrates in
human nutrition.

If you think there are, lay it out instead of biting the ankles of your
betters. Save your sneers for when you have the remotest chance of being
correct. Unlike now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As for your fatheaded kindling comment - great science.

So I guess you you are saying carbohydrates are an essential part of
the human diet.

Of course you would guess that from what I wrote. And it's a pity you
aren't brighter than that.

So, since you scoff at the notion of there being no essential carbs,
name 'em Sparky. Rattle them off so we can all see what carbs we must
eat to survive. Skip around. Don't even need them in alphabetical order.

Oh, I see...

Pastorio

Pizza Girl said:

Carbohydrates are essential to life in humans. Ask Atkins. He
researched most of this quite well. Try reading just one of his
books.

So you say. I've read *all* of the Atkins books. He was right about a
lot and wrong about a lot. And his recipes and culinary advice suck.

But name one dietary carb essential to human life. Name one that we all
have to eat to survive.

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jt said:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:12:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

> jt wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> On 22 Mar 2005 09:35:04 -0800, "TC" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> Bob (this one) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> Robert wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>> There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TC
>>>>>
>>>>> Glucose is an essential carbohydrate whether you eat it
>>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> Then let's say it so you understand it and so you can't
>>>> weasel/refute it. "There is no such thing as an essential
>>>> *dietary* carbohydrate.
>>>>
>>>> Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> I stand corrected, at least grammatically anyways....
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as an essential dietary
>>> carbohydrate.
>>>
>>> It is an irefutable basic scientific fact.
>>>
>>> TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> So you have documented studies of human beings who have
>> thrived "ok just survived" on a ZERO carbohydrate diet?
>>
>> I suppose it might be possible if you are in a coma or have
>> not left the couch in 7 years.
>>
>> Would you recommend this diet to an active child who plays
>> sports and needs to acually learn somethiing in school? If
>> you do not recommend it why would you recommend it for
>> adults? Is it just for sedentary brain dead adults?
>>
>> Why make your body go through this process of converting
>> protein into glucose when you can just give your body what it
>> wants for its preffered energy source. Its all well in good
>> to have fat as the logs in your fire but you still need the
>> kindling.
>
> What a splendidly [censored] answer. See if the content can
> penetrate that miasma. The assertion is that there is no
> "essential carbohydrate" that humans need. No one has suggested
> that it be a permanent diet.

So there is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate on
a temporary fad diet like LC? However on a permanent diet it is
essential? LOL!

Let me type slowly, oh, vacuous one of the slippery editing. And
type it as an absolute so even someone with the stunted abilities
you show can understand it. There are no essential carbohydrates
that humans need. Period. I was replying to your overwrought
ignorance about diets and dieting. The fact remains - there are no
essential carbohydrates in human nutrition.

If you think there are, lay it out instead of biting the ankles of
your betters. Save your sneers for when you have the remotest
chance of being correct. Unlike now.

Quoted message said:

> As for your fatheaded kindling comment - great science.

So I guess you you are saying carbohydrates are an essential part
of the human diet.

Of course you would guess that from what I wrote. And it's a pity
you aren't brighter than that.

So, since you scoff at the notion of there being no essential
carbs, name 'em Sparky. Rattle them off so we can all see what
carbs we must eat to survive. Skip around. Don't even need them in
alphabetical order.

Oh, I see...

Pastorio

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:24:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Please provide the definition of "essential carbohydrates." Do try to
keep in mind that the reference, of course, is to dietary carbs as it

Carbohydrates that is needed in food because they can't be made by any
cells in man's body.

Fibre

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pizza Girl said:

Carbohydrates are essential to life in humans. Ask Atkins. He
researched most of this quite well. Try reading just one of his
books.

So you say. I've read *all* of the Atkins books. He was right about a
lot and wrong about a lot. And his recipes and culinary advice suck.

But name one dietary carb essential to human life. Name one that we all
have to eat to survive.

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jt wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:12:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
>> jt wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> On 22 Mar 2005 09:35:04 -0800, "TC" <[email hidden]>
>>> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> Bob (this one) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>> Robert wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>> There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glucose is an essential carbohydrate whether you eat it
>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then let's say it so you understand it and so you can't
>>>>> weasel/refute it. "There is no such thing as an essential
>>>>> *dietary* carbohydrate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> I stand corrected, at least grammatically anyways....
>>>>
>>>> There is no such thing as an essential dietary
>>>> carbohydrate.
>>>>
>>>> It is an irefutable basic scientific fact.
>>>>
>>>> TC

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> So you have documented studies of human beings who have
>>> thrived "ok just survived" on a ZERO carbohydrate diet?
>>>
>>> I suppose it might be possible if you are in a coma or have
>>> not left the couch in 7 years.
>>>
>>> Would you recommend this diet to an active child who plays
>>> sports and needs to acually learn somethiing in school? If
>>> you do not recommend it why would you recommend it for
>>> adults? Is it just for sedentary brain dead adults?
>>>
>>> Why make your body go through this process of converting
>>> protein into glucose when you can just give your body what it
>>> wants for its preffered energy source. Its all well in good
>>> to have fat as the logs in your fire but you still need the
>>> kindling.
>>
>> What a splendidly [censored] answer. See if the content can
>> penetrate that miasma. The assertion is that there is no
>> "essential carbohydrate" that humans need. No one has suggested
>> that it be a permanent diet.
>
> So there is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate on
> a temporary fad diet like LC? However on a permanent diet it is
> essential? LOL!

Let me type slowly, oh, vacuous one of the slippery editing. And
type it as an absolute so even someone with the stunted abilities
you show can understand it. There are no essential carbohydrates
that humans need. Period. I was replying to your overwrought
ignorance about diets and dieting. The fact remains - there are no
essential carbohydrates in human nutrition.

If you think there are, lay it out instead of biting the ankles of
your betters. Save your sneers for when you have the remotest
chance of being correct. Unlike now.

>> As for your fatheaded kindling comment - great science.
>
> So I guess you you are saying carbohydrates are an essential part
> of the human diet.

Of course you would guess that from what I wrote. And it's a pity
you aren't brighter than that.

So, since you scoff at the notion of there being no essential
carbs, name 'em Sparky. Rattle them off so we can all see what
carbs we must eat to survive. Skip around. Don't even need them in
alphabetical order.

Oh, I see...

Pastorio

Alf Christophersen said:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:24:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Please provide the definition of "essential carbohydrates." Do try to
keep in mind that the reference, of course, is to dietary carbs as it

Carbohydrates that is needed in food because they can't be made by any
cells in man's body.

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio

With that logic essential vitamins and minerals are not nneded at
all.....LOL

Maybe you want to correct what you posted, or even read it?

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio

Pizza Girl said:

With that logic essential vitamins and minerals are not nneded at
all.....LOL

Maybe you want to correct what you posted, or even read it?

Let's parse it so maybe even you could grasp it, shall we...?

Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients. So there are none that we use that can't be made in our
bodies. Still with me...?

So, if there are none we use that we can't make, then there are none
that we need to eat. Simple, simple, simple...

If it had said, for example, "There are no carbs needed in food, because
they can't be made in man's body." Then it would be incomprehensible to
normal people. But it doesn't. It's apparently just incomprehensible to
you. Even though it parallels the words to which I replied.

With reading skills like yours, you should hang out in <alt.dimbulb>
Tell us again how something indigestible is toxic. Oh, and you still
haven't listed those essential carbs. I'm sure it's just your busy
schedule that prevents it. Bwah.

Now go read the below again, this time, don't point and try not to move
your lips so much. Maybe that's where your confusion comes from. Nah...

And top posting is a wonderful way to obscure the path of discourse. But
you already know that. It's like giving the answer before the question.

I think you need a timeout, Missy...

Bob

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio

Doctors have been putting children with epilepsy on ketogenic diets for
years with no ill effects.

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

Quoted message said:

TC said:

Bob (this one) said:

Robert wrote:

> "TC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>> There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate.
>>
>> TC
>
> Glucose is an essential carbohydrate whether you eat it or not.

Then let's say it so you understand it and so you can't weasel/refute
it. "There is no such thing as an essential *dietary* carbohydrate.

Pastorio

I stand corrected, at least grammatically anyways....

There is no such thing as an essential dietary carbohydrate.

It is an irefutable basic scientific fact.

TC

So you have documented studies of human beings who have thrived "ok
just survived" on a ZERO carbohydrate diet?

I suppose it might be possible if you are in a coma or have not left
the couch in 7 years.

Would you recommend this diet to an active child who plays sports and
needs to acually learn somethiing in school? If you do not recommend
it why would you recommend it for adults? Is it just for sedentary
brain dead adults?

Why make your body go through this process of converting protein into
glucose when you can just give your body what it wants for its
preffered energy source. Its all well in good to have fat as the logs
in your fire but you still need the kindling.

So let's get this straight for the world to see. ( I love the squirming
part)

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

is saying the human body can manufacture starches, sugars and fibre all on
it's own.
"Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients."

Now let me quote the text when you apparently were drunk( I 'll let you off
the hook a bit here) while you posted.

"There are no carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio"

As I stated in my last post you may want to reconsider that last statement
but now we have it. You appear to be illiterate and your mommy writes you
posts.

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pizza Girl said:

With that logic essential vitamins and minerals are not nneded at
all.....LOL

Maybe you want to correct what you posted, or even read it?

Let's parse it so maybe even you could grasp it, shall we...?

Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients. So there are none that we use that can't be made in our
bodies. Still with me...?

So, if there are none we use that we can't make, then there are none
that we need to eat. Simple, simple, simple...

If it had said, for example, "There are no carbs needed in food, because
they can't be made in man's body." Then it would be incomprehensible to
normal people. But it doesn't. It's apparently just incomprehensible to
you. Even though it parallels the words to which I replied.

With reading skills like yours, you should hang out in <alt.dimbulb>
Tell us again how something indigestible is toxic. Oh, and you still
haven't listed those essential carbs. I'm sure it's just your busy
schedule that prevents it. Bwah.

Now go read the below again, this time, don't point and try not to move
your lips so much. Maybe that's where your confusion comes from. Nah...

And top posting is a wonderful way to obscure the path of discourse. But
you already know that. It's like giving the answer before the question.

I think you need a timeout, Missy...

Bob

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio

Lest the denial starts again
------------------------------------
Path:
dwarf.nntpserver.com!statler.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!new
sfeed.news2me.com!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-x
it-08!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>
Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Subject: Re: Why low carb?
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:09:21 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]> <[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
<[email hidden]>
In-Reply-To: <[email hidden]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: [email hidden]
Lines: 15
Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com sci.med.nutrition:161170

Alf Christophersen said:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:24:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Please provide the definition of "essential carbohydrates." Do try to
keep in mind that the reference, of course, is to dietary carbs as it

Carbohydrates that is needed in food because they can't be made by any
cells in man's body.

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio

First Pastoria posts the statement:
"That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There
are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.
Pastorio"

When he is offered to correct his error by Pizza Girl
"Maybe you want to correct what you posted, or even read it?"

Pastoria returns with firther illiteracy
"Let's parse it so maybe even you could grasp it, shall we...?"

"Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients. So there are none that we use that can't be made in
our
bodies. Still with me...?"

Next Pastoria proceeds to be an [censored] to everybody because he can't rad
his own text
"With reading skills like yours, you should hang out in
<alt.dimbulb> "
"Now go read the below again, this time, don't point and try
not
to move your lips so much"

Now Pastoria, much to their despair, groups himself with the bottom posters.
(couldn't think of anything else intelligent to argue) admitting he cannot
follow a thread.
"And top posting is a wonderful way to obscure the path of
discourse. But
you already know that. It's like giving the answer before the
question."

Finally, the great Pastoria decribes himself
"Simple, simple, simple...
Pastorio"

Are we done now. Your points are not worth much to anybody here now.

Pizza Girl said:

So let's get this straight for the world to see. (I love the squirming
part)

Delusions "R" you, sweetie.

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

is saying the human body can manufacture starches, sugars and fibre all on
it's own.

See how silly making these unwarranted assumptions make you look. *You*
said that. Not me. And it doesn't follow from what I did say.

Quoted message said:

"Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients."

So suddenly we *need* starches and fiber? One of which isn't actually a
nutritive carb? What metabolic function do we have that requires
starches? A short list will work fine. Just write down any one.

Fiber, as has been pointed out to you, isn't a nutrient at all. It's
chemically a carbohydrate because of its composition, but fiber has no
available nutrients; we don't digest it. So, while we can't synthesize
fiber, it's non-nutritive and, therefore, not to be considered as an
"essential nutrient."

No matter the trouble you seem to have with getting all the [censored] out of
yourself. Fiber can be your friend. But did you hear about the problem
of the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil.

Have someone explain it to you.

Quoted message said:

Now let me quote the text when you apparently were drunk(I'll let you off
the hook a bit here) while you posted.

"There are no carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio"

As I stated in my last post you may want to reconsider that last statement
but now we have it. You appear to be illiterate and your mommy writes you
posts.

Poor, Pizza Girl. The answer to your less-than-intelligent observation
is right here... a few lines down. To spare you the onerous task of
actually reading and thinking, here it is:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients. So there are none that we use that can't be made in
our bodies. Still with me...?

So, if there are none we use that we can't make, then there are none
that we need to eat. Simple, simple, simple...

I'm desolated that this bit of reasoning is beyond you. I had such hopes
for you. Dashed to earth, they are.

Lightweight.

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pizza Girl said:

With that logic essential vitamins and minerals are not nneded at
all.....LOL

Maybe you want to correct what you posted, or even read it?

Let's parse it so maybe even you could grasp it, shall we...?

Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients. So there are none that we use that can't be made in our
bodies. Still with me...?

So, if there are none we use that we can't make, then there are none
that we need to eat. Simple, simple, simple...

If it had said, for example, "There are no carbs needed in food, because
they can't be made in man's body." Then it would be incomprehensible to
normal people. But it doesn't. It's apparently just incomprehensible to
you. Even though it parallels the words to which I replied.

With reading skills like yours, you should hang out in <alt.dimbulb>
Tell us again how something indigestible is toxic. Oh, and you still
haven't listed those essential carbs. I'm sure it's just your busy
schedule that prevents it. Bwah.

Now go read the below again, this time, don't point and try not to move
your lips so much. Maybe that's where your confusion comes from. Nah...

And top posting is a wonderful way to obscure the path of discourse. But
you already know that. It's like giving the answer before the question.

I think you need a timeout, Missy...

Bob

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
>carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.
>
>Pastorio

Pizza Girl said:

First Pastoria posts the statement:

Wow. Couldn't even copy the spelling of my name. I know. Much too much
concentration necessary.

Quoted message said:

"That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There
are no carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.
Pastorio"

When he is offered to correct his error by Pizza Girl
"Maybe you want to correct what you posted, or even read it?"

Hilarious. Projection. Classically demonstrated. She can't understand
the sequence of discussion, so I'm at fault. Wonderful...

Even after having a few explanations, it still gets past her. Probably
not enough of that good pizza in her diet. With real dairy cheese.

Quoted message said:

Pastoria returns with firther illiteracy

(Don't you love it when someone accuses you of something and then does
it herself? Repeatedly. Two in 5 words.)

Quoted message said:

"Let's parse it so maybe even you could grasp it, shall we...?"

"Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients. So there are none that we use that can't be made in our
bodies. Still with me...?"

You left out the important part; I'm sure it was accidental.

">>So, if there are none we use that we can't make, then there are none

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that we need to eat. Simple, simple, simple..."

Quoted message said:

Next Pastoria proceeds to be an [censored] to everybody because he can't rad
his own text
"With reading skills like yours, you should hang out in <alt.dimbulb> "
"Now go read the below again, this time, don't point and try not
to move your lips so much"

I actually can't "rad" my own text. Excuse me, aren't you the fatuous
top-poster who keeps calling me illiterate? While demonstrating your own
in glorious abundance. Right. Thought so.

Quoted message said:

Now Pastoria, much to their despair, groups himself with the bottom posters.
(couldn't think of anything else intelligent to argue) admitting he cannot
follow a thread.

Poor, scantwit Pizza Girl is of that wonderful persuasion that says that
whatever they do is correct, perfect and unquestionable. Social skills
of a chimp with even less understanding of convention than that.

Quoted message said:

"And top posting is a wonderful way to obscure the path of discourse. But
you already know that. It's like giving the answer before the question."

I note no intelligent dispute to the simple statement of fact. But then
it's our very own Pizza Girl being all she can be. Unfortunately for her.

Quoted message said:

Finally, the great Pastoria decribes himself
"Simple, simple, simple...
Pastorio"

What a shabby little show you put on, darlin'

Semi-literacy at best, blowhole assertions with nothing to support them,
rants that are so cleanly off-the-mark, and a general knowledge level of
the entire subject dwarfed by the contents of your average Sponge Bob
coloring book.

Quoted message said:

Are we done now. Your points are not worth much to anybody here now.

As if you could even begin to know...

I'm still waiting for some points of yours to be documented. Any one.
Skip around and just pick one...

Right.

PastoriO (HTH)

Pizza Girl said:

Lest the denial starts again

Your desperate wriggling is hilarious. I've not denied that I wrote
these words below. In fact, I've explained them to you in simple terms
that even a grade-schooler would understand. To no avail, obviously.

Pity it's too complex for you. And the committee was hoping you could
offer something rational this one time.

What I wrote echoes Alf's comment. Uses the same words to make the point
absolute. That clearly zooms over your vapid head.

The message is that there are no carbs we need to eat - those "essential
nutrients" you seem not to understand even though a few people have
tried to explain it - that we can't synthesize. We don't need starches.
We don't need fiber. We do need sugars we can manufacture from other
macronutrients. So, given that fact, there are no dietary carbs we
*need.* Dietary is the big word.

And you keep trying to make something of it but have yet to identify a
single carb necessary for us to eat to survive. Back it up or back it out.

But keep trying. One of these days you might actually make a valid point.

No, seriously...

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Alf Christophersen said:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 06:24:26 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Please provide the definition of "essential carbohydrates." Do try to
keep in mind that the reference, of course, is to dietary carbs as it

Carbohydrates that is needed in food because they can't be made by any
cells in man's body.

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:09:21 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Do you really deny that there may happen gluconeogenesis in our
bodies?? Well, if we are not able to make carbohydrates ourself, then
think carbohydrates are essential nutrients :-)

(Well, that is strictly said, opposite of what is known. We can make
carbohydrates ourself so no carbohydrates are essential to us in
diet.)

On the opposite side. Gluconeogenesis starts with amino acids. And
while carbohydrates are there a lot of in food, protein sources in a
world scale is limited. Need for protein worldwide may even be a
reason for warfare, like supplies of water is expected to be reasons
for warfare in future.

Those who have the money gets the proteins, the rest of world will
more or less starve to death.
Period.

Alf Christophersen said:

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:09:21 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Do you really deny that there may happen gluconeogenesis in our
bodies??

No. My point is that we can make what we need. So no dietary carbs are
necessary.

Quoted message said:

(Well, that is strictly said, opposite of what is known. We can make
carbohydrates ourself so no carbohydrates are essential to us in
diet.)

I'm sorry it wasn't clear what I was saying. But what you said is
exactly what I've been saying.

Quoted message said:

On the opposite side. Gluconeogenesis starts with amino acids. And
while carbohydrates are there a lot of in food, protein sources in a
world scale is limited. Need for protein worldwide may even be a
reason for warfare, like supplies of water is expected to be reasons
for warfare in future.

Those who have the money gets the proteins, the rest of world will
more or less starve to death.

Isn't that how it's always been...? Sad but true.

Pastorio

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:03:28 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Alf Christophersen said:

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:09:21 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Do you really deny that there may happen gluconeogenesis in our
bodies??

No. My point is that we can make what we need. So no dietary carbs are
necessary.

Not a very good idea if you don't like loose of muscles. Amno acids
are what is used to produce our own carbohydrates, socalled
gluconeogenesis.

Since protein sources globally is in fact a scarce ressource, it is
not a good idea to induce gluconeogenesis.

But, since we are able to produce carbohydrates, dietary carbohydrates
are not essential. Remark. They are essential in the meaning they
should be provided by diet, but physiologically/nutritionally
speaking, the word "essential" used eg. for nutrients, do not mean
needed, but the word is used to describe a molecule that can't be made
of our own body, but is strictly needed to be a content of food.

Therefor, carbohydrates in any form are needed in diet, but is not an
essential nutrient.
Again, it is because otherwise you need much more protein to keep a
positive balance.

When starving and in infections, body produce both glucose and free
glutamic acid in order to feed the immune system and heart. Also free
fatty acid is freed up from stores to feed heart and brain.

When combining starvation and heavy infection, breakdown of body may
run at a quite big rate. In fact several kg plus several l of body
water daily.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Most of the people that
have a problem with dietary carbohydrates being non-essential seem to
have a reading problem. Alas! The education system has failed them,
poor souls! :o(

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:54:56 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Pizza Girl said:

With that logic essential vitamins and minerals are not nneded at
all.....LOL

Maybe you want to correct what you posted, or even read it?

Let's parse it so maybe even you could grasp it, shall we...?

Our bodies can manufacture any carbs we need to function from other
macronutrients. So there are none that we use that can't be made in our
bodies. Still with me...?

So, if there are none we use that we can't make, then there are none
that we need to eat. Simple, simple, simple...

If it had said, for example, "There are no carbs needed in food, because
they can't be made in man's body." Then it would be incomprehensible to
normal people. But it doesn't. It's apparently just incomprehensible to
you. Even though it parallels the words to which I replied.

With reading skills like yours, you should hang out in <alt.dimbulb>
Tell us again how something indigestible is toxic. Oh, and you still
haven't listed those essential carbs. I'm sure it's just your busy
schedule that prevents it. Bwah.

Now go read the below again, this time, don't point and try not to move
your lips so much. Maybe that's where your confusion comes from. Nah...

And top posting is a wonderful way to obscure the path of discourse. But
you already know that. It's like giving the answer before the question.

I think you need a timeout, Missy...

Bob

Quoted message said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's certainly a definition. But it misses the point. There are no
carbs needed in food because they can't be made in man's body.

Pastorio