| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
Dogman wrote:
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon: http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...-to-fear-bacon "In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health. For the large majority of people. There exist people who are sensative to nitrates and/or nitrates. They should avoid foods with nitrates and/or nitrites. To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. Few are willing to do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what actually causes their problems. So they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. or they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will get the same benefit. |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Oct 7, 9:40*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote: The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon: http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...other-reason-n... "In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health. For the large majority of people. *There exist people who are sensative to nitrates and/or nitrates. *They should avoid foods with nitrates and/or nitrites. To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will get the same benefit. The principle issue with nitrites and the one raised in the post is that some studies showed they were probable carcinogens and linked to CANCER. I don't see how anyone is going to do an elimination challenge to determine that. |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: Dogman wrote: The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon: http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...-to-fear-bacon "In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health. For the large majority of people. There exist people who are sensative to nitrates and/or nitrates. They should avoid foods with nitrates and/or nitrites. To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. Few are willing to do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what actually causes their problems. So they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. or they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will get the same benefit. Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be counterproductive to one's health. And that was the point of the article. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Oct 7, 12:23*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote: Dogman wrote: The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon: http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...other-reason-n.... "In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health. For the large majority of people. *There exist people who are sensative to nitrates and/or nitrates. *They should avoid foods with nitrates and/or nitrites. To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will get the same benefit. Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. Talk about strawmen, this is a classic. Doug didn't say people should refrain from eating foods they might have sensitivity issues with. He said they should do an eliminate/challenge approach to find out what they have issues with. It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be counterproductive to one's health. And that was the point of the article. -- Dogman And this coming from the guy who gave us a lecture just a week ago about Carbquik. Remember that dogman? You said I was an idiot and would ruin my health if I didn't do blood glucose testing and blood lipid testing to find out my personal response to Carbquik. Even though I made it clear I eat maybe a few Carbquik pancakes a week and am not diabetic. And as if that is even possible, to find a lipid difference in a diet where 99.99% of what I'm eating is not Carbquik. But this week, it's OK to eat anything, including those nitrites, as long as you're not sensitive or having an alergic reaction. Go figure. |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:25:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will get the same benefit. Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. Talk about strawmen, this is a classic. Doug didn't say people should refrain from eating foods they might have sensitivity issues with. He said they should do an eliminate/challenge approach to find out what they have issues with. That's not a straw man (really, you should look up that term in your Funk & Wagnall). It's just an add-on to Doug's add-on comments, comments that I generally agreed with. But the point of the article was to inform that nitrates, etc., shouldn't be avoided due to fears of cancer and heart attacks. I didn't want to see that IMPORTANT point lost. What an idiot you are. It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be counterproductive to one's health. And that was the point of the article. And this coming from the guy who gave us a lecture just a week ago about Carbquik. Remember that dogman? I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other. And I don't give lectures. I offer advice and information. Take it or leave it. You said I was an idiot and would ruin my health That's not a straw man, either, it's just a freakin' lie, which seem to be coming faster and faster from you lately. Yes, you're a freakin' liar. if I didn't do blood glucose testing and blood lipid testing to find out my personal response to Carbquik. You should do it only if you want to know what it's doing to your blood sugars, and whether you care what it may be doing to your LDL-P numbers (not that you even know what LDL-P numbers are). Since your apparent strategy is to just get sick, then take medicine or have an operation, rather than PREVENT disease in the first place, I would never expect you to test much of anything. Unless it's how many poppers you can inhale without dying, or something like that. Even though I made it clear I eat maybe a few Carbquik pancakes a week and am not diabetic. And since being diabetic is irrelevant, because the damage is done to us all, yes, whether we're diabetic or not, or for how many years you've been eating wheat, the only thing that you've ever made clear to me is that you're a freakin' idiot. And as if that is even possible, to find a lipid difference in a diet where 99.99% of what I'm eating is not Carbquik. Sheesh. It doesn't matter. The damage is done over time. It's accumulative. Like smoking. But this week, it's OK to eat anything, including those nitrites, as long as you're not sensitive or having an alergic reaction. Go figure. Yeah, go figure. Then see if you can find a clue. I won't be holding my breath. ......................./´¯/) .....................,/¯../ ..................../..../ ............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ .........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ .........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........\.................'...../ ...........''...\.......... _.·´ .............\..............( ...............\.............\... -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Oct 7, 7:48*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:25:22 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will get the same benefit. Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. Talk about strawmen, this is a classic. *Doug didn't say people should refrain from eating foods they might have sensitivity issues with. * He said they should do an eliminate/challenge approach to find out what they have issues with. That's not a straw man (really, you should look up that term in your Funk & Wagnall). It's just an add-on to Doug's add-on comments, comments that I generally agreed with. But the point of the article was to inform that nitrates, etc., shouldn't be avoided due to fears of cancer and heart attacks. I didn't want to see that IMPORTANT point lost. What an idiot you are. It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be counterproductive to one's health. And that was the point of the article. And this coming from the guy who gave us a lecture just a week ago about Carbquik. *Remember that dogman? I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other. Of course you don't because, well you're the village idiot who has become a shill for Dr. Wheatbelly. Doug proposed that people can do a trial of some foods for potential problems, see how they react, and eliminate those that they have issues with. Very much in line with Atkins and other diet authorities. Your response: "Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example..." Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose response and lipid response to anything suspect that we eat. The case in point was occasional use of Carbquik, which many of us regulars use. You claimed it was dangerous and irresponsible to NOT do BG and lipid testing, even though we are not diabetic. Which is hysterically foolish, because among other things, every thinking person here knows that it's nuts to expect a measurable difference in lipids from eating a couple Carbquik pancakes once or twice a week, which might represent .1% of an overall diet. And now here you are, saying just the opposite. Got it now? And as a second point, Doug never said that people should refrain from eating all foods they might be sensitive to. So, yes indeed, you created a nice strawman. |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose response and lipid response to anything suspect that we eat. That's a lie, no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply. The case in point was occasional use of Carbquik, which many of us regulars use. You claimed it was dangerous and irresponsible to NOT do BG and lipid testing, even though we are not diabetic. That's another lie,dm no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply. Which is hysterically foolish, because among other things, every thinking person here knows that it's nuts to expect a measurable difference in lipids from eating a couple Carbquik pancakes once or twice a week, That's a straw man, no matter how many times you copy and paste the your reply. And now here you are, saying just the opposite. Got it now? Yes, I got it. You have to lie to make it appear that I was saying just the opposite. And as a second point, Doug never said that people should refrain from eating all foods they might be sensitive to. So, yes indeed, you created a nice strawman. Again, that wasn't a straw man (do you not even own a Funk & Wagnall?). It was an add-on to Doug's comments, putting the focus back on not needing to eliminate nitrates and nitrites from your diet because of a fear of cancer or heart attacks, which was the point of the article. And which I think is important for low-carbers to know. And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear. And for crissakes, learn how to make a post that doesn't require a background in cryptography to decipher it. What an asshole. ......................./´¯/) .....................,/¯../ ..................../..../ ............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ .........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ .........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........\.................'...../ ...........''...\.......... _.·´ .............\..............( ...............\.............\... -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Oct 8, 11:30*am, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:08 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose response and lipid response to anything suspect that we eat. That's a lie, no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply. Here it is for you from that other thread: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...f3a064a?hl=en# Trader4: So, I see. The new reqirement is that anyone that chooses to use a LC product like Carbquik must now purchase a glucometer and do a study on themselves before they use it, even if they are not diabetic and doing perfectly fine with years of LC experience. dogman: Only if they're smart! Trader4: And now Dogman has tried to extend that to testing the product's effect on your LDL? I eat maybe 6 Carbquik pancakes a week and then not even every week. How the hell could anyone expect me to test for it's effect on LDL? dogman: Easy, dumb****. Eat that way for a good 90 days, then have an NMR test (a test you *should* want to have done anyway). Is your LDL particle number (LDL-P) low? Or high? So it's clear what you said. You said that those of us that use Carbquik and that are not diabetic should do BG monitoring or we're not smart. And what is really, really dumb is to suggest that lipid testing should be done too. Like a few Carbquik pancakes are going to show up in a lipid test and be able to be seperated out from the 99.9% of the other food one eats. Dumb, really, really, dumb and everyone else here knows it too. But then you believe HIV is harmless, that AIDS is caused by poor diet and lack of sleep, and that no virus can cause cancer. Nuff said.... |
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Oct 8, 2:24*pm, Dogman wrote:
Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose response and lipid response to anything suspect that we eat. That's a lie, no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply. Here it is for you from that other thread: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...b/browse_frm/t... Trader4: So, I see. *The new reqirement is that anyone that chooses to use a LC product like Carbquik must now purchase a glucometer and do a study on themselves before they use it, even if they are not diabetic and doing perfectly fine with years of LC experience. It's still a lie! I said everyone *should* want to. Period. Not a word about "absolutely" or "must" do anything. OK, you said everyone who uses Carbquik "should" do both a BG test on themselves, even if they are not diabetic, and also lipid testing, with and without Carbquik to see if it has an effect on it. And then when I pointed out it makes no sense, you continued to insist on it. Do you feel better? Do you really think that materially changes it? Does it change how dumb it is to think that a person's blood lipids are going to show a measurable difference from just a few Carbquik pancakes a week compared to the 99.99% of the rest of the food they eat? Just like they should want to know their BP, their *measured* LDL-P (or apoB) numbers, and other KEY health markers. No, what you proposed was testing to determine the specific effect of Carbquik. dogman: Only if they're smart! Trader4: And now Dogman has tried to extend that to testing the product's effect on your LDL? * I eat maybe 6 Carbquik pancakes a week and then not even every week. * How the hell could anyone expect me to test for it's effect on LDL? dogman: Easy, dumb****. Eat that way for a good 90 days, then have an NMR test (a test you *should* want to have done anyway). Is your LDL particle number (LDL-P) low? Or high? So it's clear what you said. Yes, that it's a test that everyone *should* want to have done anyway (and for many reasons). LOL, sure now try to run away from it. You specifically said to do the testing relative to Carbquik and it's all there in context for all to see. And of course you could not possibly just do the testing just once, you'd have to do it at least twice, with and without the Carbquik. And that is assuming any rational person believes that there is going to be any measurable difference in lipids from eating a few Carbquik pancakes a week, as opposed to the 99.99 percent of the rest of one's diet. ?YOU are the dumb****, as you've proven time and time again. Whether anyone else wants to join your ranks, well, that's their choice. Are you as sure about that as you are that HIV is harmless? You said *that those of us that use Carbquik and that are not diabetic should do BG monitoring or we're not smart. No, just that YOU aren't smart. QED. And why are you always shilling for Carbquik? And drugs? I've never been shilling for either. Carbquik only came up in the discussion because someone brought up LC flour substitutes. For examples of shilling, you need to look no further than all the many posts YOU have made referring to the preachings of Dr. WheatBelly and posting link after link to his website. Why the newsgroup is just full of them and they are ALL from YOU. And what is really, really dumb is to suggest that lipid testing should be done too. Yes, it *should* be done, provided they want to know if they're at high risk for a heart attack and/or CAD. Nice try, but it was lipid testing specific to Carbquik that you recommended. Like a few Carbquik pancakes are going to show up in a lipid test and be able to be seperated out from the 99.9% of the other food one eats. *Dumb, really, really, dumb and everyone else here knows it too. Yes, the regular use of Carbquik, i.e., WHEAT, is going to affect your LDL-P number, and your LDL-P number is a critical number for CAD and heart attacks. So there you go again. Back to claiming that eating a few Carbquik pankcakes a week is going to have a measurable effect on your blood lipid levels. Did someone else hyjack your puter and post this yesterday: dogman: It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be counterproductive to one's health. So, what's up with that? First it's non-diabetics need to test their BG and lipid response specific to a few Carbquik pancakes a week. Then it's unless you have an allergic reaction or sensitivity to something, there is no reason to do even a simple elimination test to see how it effects you? Now it's back to you should do BG tests and lipid tests. dogman: "I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other. " Of course not, because you're just soooo way in over your head here dear. But then you believe HIV is harmless, that AIDS is caused by poor diet and lack of sleep, and that no virus can cause cancer. AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs Absolutely! Nuff said...... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter