On Sep 25, 2:12*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:57 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]





Visceral fat = "wheat belly"
I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is
specific
to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from
sources other than wheat.

Read the book.
As usual, you have no studies.

As usual, you expect others to do the work for you.

Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words,
not mine),
Must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard
that typed this:

"Visceral fat = "wheat belly"

Exactly! But being equal to something is not the same thing as being
specific to something!

Man = homo sapien

and

Woman = homo sapien

Equal to in my world means they are the same thing.
And in your above example, while both a man
and a woman are homosapiens, a man or woman is not equivalent
to the term homosapian. An apple is a fruit.
A peach is a fruit. That doesn't mean an apple is a peach.
With visceral fat = wheat belly, you've effectively said that an
apple is a peach. .



of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar,
a can of Coke, etc.

Let's look at the facts:

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

I'm not a fan on Dr Mendosa,

Nor am I, so why refer to him?

I only used a convenient table he has that shows the
glycemic load of various foods. You can find similar
tables of glycemic load from various sources that show
bread doesn't have any significantly worse impact than
coke or a snickers bar.
As usual, you completely edited that whole part out.
Let me put it back in for you:


Wonder Bread 30g GL 10
Snickers 60g GL 15 to 23
Coke 250ml GL 16






http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2011/...nhealthy-Whole...

"People are usually shocked when I tell them that whole wheat bread
increases blood sugar to a higher level than sucrose.1 Aside from some
extra fiber, eating two slices of whole wheat bread is really little
different, and often worse, than drinking a can of sugar-sweetened
soda or eating a sugary candy bar.

"This information is not new. A 1981 University of Toronto study
launched the concept of the glycemic index, i.e., the comparative
blood sugar effects of carbohydrates: the higher the blood sugar after
consuming a specific food compared to glucose, the higher the glycemic
index (GI). The original study showed that the GI of white bread was
69, while the GI of whole grain bread was 72 and Shredded Wheat cereal
was 67, while that of sucrose (table sugar) was 59.2 Yes, the GI of
whole grain bread is higher than that of sucrose. Incidentally, the GI
of a Mars Bar nougat, chocolate, sugar, caramel, and all�is 68.

That�s
better than whole grain bread. The GI of a Snickers bar is 41�far
better than whole grain bread.


And accoriing to other sources, the GI of that snickers bar is
43 to 68. I find the 41 number to be highly suspect. And the 68 is
probably closer to the truth. But the 41 is a good hook to rope in
the dopes by those writing sensationalist books. Good message.
Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better.
The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant
impact
on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc. I think to
be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books.
But if you have some studies that shows wheat is unique on it's
impact on BG, I'd be happy to see them.




"This has important implications for body weight, since glucose is
unavoidably accompanied by insulin, the hormone that allows entry of
glucose into the cells of the body, converting the glucose to fat. The
higher the blood glucose after consumption of food, the greater the
insulin level, the more fat is deposited. This is why, say, eating a
three-egg omelet that triggers no increase in glucose does not add to
body fat, while two slices of whole wheat bread increases blood
glucose to high levels, triggering insulin and growth of fat,
particularly abdominal or deep visceral fat."

Moreover, these numbers are rough estimates. The only way to determine
what these foods actually do to YOUR OWN blood sugar levels is to TEST
them! *But since you have no interest in finding out what these foods
are doing to YOU, it seems a bit strange that you would even enter
this conversation. *Besides being an ankle-biting TROLL, that is.

You do all the testing on yourself that you want. I don't recall
a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing. And somehow
we've all been living fine without you and your required methods.





Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet
would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two
slices of bread, escapes me.

Maybe because once in a while they feel like it
and they aren't an extremist.

But maybe they should be more extreme and less...wishy-washy?

Why, just because you say so? Who put you in charge? If LC is
working for folks and once in a while they want to eat a snickers
bar or have a desert made with sugar because they are dining out
at a fancy restaurant, I say fine.





I'm not saying everyone
should do it, but if it works for some, it doesn't bother
me.

You have no idea whether it's bothering you or not, because you don't
believe in testing.

Yes, I know. We're all supposed to be conducting constant
BG monitoring. That's a good message to get more people to
do LC. Make it 10X harder than it has to be just because you
say so. Are you as sure about the need for that as you are that
HIV is harmless? That AIDS is caused by diet?




I never said any such thing.

Yes you did. You said you only wanted to "lose a few pounds."

You can look it up.

You're the one making the claim. I say you're a liar. Now, go
ahead, make my day. Show everyone where I said it. Of course,
just like your studies, that won't be forthcoming, because it doesn't
exist.



You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL.
And you're the poster who claims:
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs

Absolutely!