low carb diets, not necessarily
in [Low-Carb]
|
Prev: High protein diet and low eGFR (estimated kidney function below 60)
Next: The Best Weight Loss and Nutritional Products worldwide
From: Cheri on 7 Aug 2008 00:11 BlueBrooke wrote in message <3krk949641e9ofhiiagk8aoqfldl9njdc0(a)4ax.com>... >On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:17:13 -0700, "Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom> >wrote: > >> >>jcderkoeing wrote in message ... >> >>>You really care about Usenet etiquette? >>> >>>How about taking your non-low carb rhetoric to another newsgroup? >> >>+1 >> >>Cheri > >Maybe he's a Susan Powter refugee. LOL, is she still alive? I haven't seen or heard about her in ages. Cheri
From: Kaz Kylheku on 7 Aug 2008 14:39 On 2008-08-07, BlueBrooke <me(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom> > wrote: > >> >>BlueBrooke wrote in message >><3krk949641e9ofhiiagk8aoqfldl9njdc0(a)4ax.com>... > >>>Maybe he's a Susan Powter refugee. > >>LOL, is she still alive? I haven't seen or heard about her in ages. >> >>Cheri > > I actually checked. She's got a website, but the front page is all > Flash (which I have disabled) so I frankly have no idea what she's got > to say. > > But yeah! She's still there! I don't know if she's still doing > infomercials. Now that I have satellite, I'm spared those > indignities. ;-) I remember, I saw this woman on television many years ago. It couldn't have been later than around 1991 because that was around the time I stopped watching TV. She was on some talk show, introduced as an outspoken advocate of eating better and exercising, who personally lost a lot of weight. I thought she was a more than a little over-the-top, but that's what made her memorable. Anyway, wow, she looks amazing. Even better than she did then, dare I say. She's kept it up. Though she's older, she is thinner, and more conscious about image, which make up for it. Whatever she has believed and done over the years has obviously worked for her. It's not clear why you two pigs brought her up. Are you trying to say that this woman /doesn't/ know what she's doing when it comes to losing fat and getting into shape? What does it mean to say that someone is a ``refugee from Susan Powter''? It sounds to me like some sort of skinny-bashing, fat-acceptance rhetoric, which has to do with hating people who are more successful than you are. That's hardly a position from which you can legitimately support others.
From: Kaz Kylheku on 7 Aug 2008 14:56 On 2008-08-07, john <jvbajb(a)cox.net> wrote: > >>This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion, >>provided it is on topic. > > Read the title of the group, if you can. It says > alt.SUPPORT.diet.low-carb, Not alt.lets.debate.diet.low-carb. Fact is that the low-carb supporters do use this newsgroup to debate. Without opposing views, there is no true debate. The ``support'' part refers to helping people who are trying to diet. It doesn't refer to supporting the dieting ideology itself! People who are dieting are not helped by lies, such as that energy doesn't matter. As a successful dieter, and one who doesn't envy and hate even more successful dieters, I'm actually more in a position to support others. I've tried a lot of different ways of eating. All the ways that worked had only one thing in common: reduced calories. > You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to breathe. Insulting like this is completely ineffective when it's the bulk of your message. You will earn the privilege of insulting me properly when you actually cobble together a coherent argument.
From: john on 7 Aug 2008 16:23 >The ``support'' part refers to helping people who are trying to diet. It >doesn't refer to supporting the dieting ideology itself! Apparently you still haven't learned how to read. The support refers to the low-carb diet. Read the title of this group, if you can. > >People who are dieting are not helped by lies, such as that energy >doesn't matter. I think you are citing the first law of thermodynamics. Of course, that theory is basically irrefutable for all our collective knowledge but that the problem is that this scientific law is being grossly misapplied. Issue 1: The body is not a perfect system. We leak all over, our lungs, our noses, and more importantly our genitalia and our anuses constantly expunge matter. It is uncontestable that fat is turned into ketoids and we release those ketoids is all sorts of different ways without necessarily storing it as fat. Issue 2: Calories are not a physical entity, they are a measure of potential energy. However, we don't burn "fat", our cells utilize ketones and glucose. Furthermore there at least 4 different path ways that foods become usable energy, and by definition, there are most likely as many discrete levels of efficiency for all these processes. Two of these are dramatically different in nature (ketones vs. glucose) which makes the assumption of equal efficiency suspicious. Issue 3: A calorie is _not_ equal to how or why your body stores fat. One is measure of heat, and the other is a complicated metabolic process. We are concerned with storing fat. It is on its face an improper comparison. >I've tried a lot of different ways of eating. All the ways that worked >had only one thing in common: reduced calories. There have been documented studies which demonstrate that equal calorie diets based on different caloric composition result in different degrees of weight loss. It's not magic. Its not a subversion of physics. It's simple biology. Our body has two ways of processing energy and demonstrates different propensity for fat storage with each one. It's not a stretch unless you're insisting on a naive model of how the body operates. > >> You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to breathe. > >Insulting like this is completely ineffective when it's the bulk of your >message. You will earn the privilege of insulting me properly when you >actually cobble together a coherent argument. I earned the right to insult you because you are an idiot. You take stupidity to a new level.
From: Cheri on 7 Aug 2008 16:59
BlueBrooke wrote in message speaking of Susan Powter >But yeah! She's still there! I don't know if she's still doing >infomercials. Now that I have satellite, I'm spared those >indignities. ;-) I hope she got a new hair do at least. ;-) Cheri |