In article
,
" wrote:
On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote:
To review further,
first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic.
So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it?
That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger.
Om said
that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we
aren't apprised of
. Second, I
have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to
back what Doug claimed up. *
Lack of evidence isn't proof.
You can't be real. You've been here a fraction of the time that
Susan
or I have.
Seniority makes you right??
But you still have been here long enough to know that
Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never
backs them up.
What are you talking about? Nearly nobody posts here. In the couple of
years I've watched this site I've never noticed anyone but Susan who was
rude to the readers and Doug. There are times when clever people are
wrong, but when you ask a question, you are so buried in B.S. that you
can't see the sky. That's how I feel.
This is what he said this time:
"Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with
diabetes."
"It was Doctor Atkin's stance. He wanted any low carbing diabetic to
work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. Anyone
can
feel free to look it up. Look for diabetes in the index of any
edition
of his book. "
As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and
looked in the index and found nothing close to the above.
How about diabetes 273-287, Atkins Nutritional Approach to 228-229,
dangers associated with, 277, or just diet and 274, 275, 277-278.
Now Billy,
You can call me, Mister Rose.
I don't know how it works where you come from. But in my world
it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other
way around.
Except you took exception with what was said. You didn't say it doesn't
go like that. It goes like this. You haven't shown reason to to believe
you, except for Susan going nuttso over Doug. Shouldn't the person
making the claim to back it up?
Third, Doug, as many of us here
know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming
it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a
single reference to support it.
Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now?
If you paid attention you'd know the history here. Susan has seen it,
I have seen it. Funny how you demand citations and examples from
us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged.
You mean stuff like, "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the
Controversial Science of Diet and Health"
by Gary Taubes
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...nce/dp/1400033
462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1
(Available at better libraries near you.)
REDUCING DIETS 319
Though glucose is a primary fuel for the brain, it is not, however the
only fuel, and dietary carbohydrates are not the only source of that
glucose. If the diet includes less than 130 grams of carbohydrates, the
liver increases its synthesis of molecules called ketone bodies, and
these supply the necessary fuel for the brain and central nervous
system. If the diet includes no carbohydrates at all, ketone bodies
supply three-quarters of the energy to the brain. The rest comes from
glucose synthesized from the amino acids in protein, either from the
diet or from the breakdown of muscle, and from a compound called
glycerol that is released when glycerides in the fat tissue are broken
down into their component fatty acids. In these cases, the body is
technically in a state called ketosis, and the diet is often referred to
as a ketogenic diet. Whether the diet is ketogenic or
anti-ketogenicÐrepresenting a difference of a few tens of grams of
carbohydrates each dayÐmight influence the response to the diet,
complicating the question of whether carbohydrates are responsible for
some effect or whether there is another explanation. (Ketosis is often
incorrectly described by nutritionists as "pathological." This confuses
ketosis with the ketoacidosis of uncontrolled diabetes. The former is a
normal condition; the latter is not. The ketone-body level in diabetic
ketoacidosis typically exceeds 200 mg/dl, compared with the 5 mg/dl
ketone levels that are typically experienced after an overnight
fastÐtwelve hours after dinner and before eating breakfastÐand the 5-20
mg/dl ketone levels of a severly carbohydrate-restricted diet with only
5-10 percent carbohydrates.)
--
Ketosis is often incorrectly described by nutritionists as
"pathological." This confuses ketosis with the ketoacidosis of
uncontrolled diabetes. The former is a normal condition; the
latter is not.
-
You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You
still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a
contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions,
Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look
it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm?
Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up
what he attributed to Atkins,
instead of him simply providing the reference. *
Again, if you go to
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/b7c13e4c700f7b78?show_docid=b7c13e4c700f7b78
quickly, you'll see that Doug said "Dr Atkins was more conservative on
the topic than you are."
I don;t even know what you're talking about here.
That's where you came in ;O)
I merely pointed out
that
like Susan, my BS detector is going off
No reference, no cite, no sense. Why don't you just call it divine
revelation?
That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference.
Om didn't ask him for one, but again, you are the one who said he is
wrong. Where's your proof? Shouldn't the person making the claim back it
up?
Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion
Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like
Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie.
Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of
bile.
Quite the contrary, it's based on fact.
Not in evidence.
Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget
in graphical terms even you may be able to understand:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/
It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil
Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland
Security *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
and the
Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order
of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to
be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want
to count Social Security, that is another $818bil.
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion
column right-hand side
The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit
anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and
Medicaid payments which are the vast MAJORITY of spending
on Health and Human Services. This is another new trick, along
the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try
to fool people who don't know any better. In your case, it
obviously worked.
Anyone, at anytime can look at the site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Are you so lame as to suggest that I'm so desperate to look smart in
front of an idiot like you, that I would doctor a web site? Are you
stark raving insane?
I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block
diagrams. And the Health and Human services block sure
ain't your ridiculous 78bil. It's closer to $1tril, significantly
larger than the defense budget. Don't believe MSNBC?
Here's the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...get/index.html
Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to
defense. Still want to lie that it's only 78bil?
and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from
withholdings on your wages.
Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social
security withholdings, it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget.
Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. Social
security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending.
Because the retirement money went into the general fund.
I don't have time to help you read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
We are 5% of the worlds population. We don't need to spend half of the
worlds military budget while supporting over a 1000 bases around the
world. The biggest threat that we have to our democracy is here in
America. The country is dying. We need jobs, and we need to get the
blood sucking leaches off of us.
Taxes
Citizen$ --- Government --- Corporations --- Top 1% -- Where the
money went
America is not broke.
- MICHAEL MOORE
http://theuptake.org/2011/03/05/mich...wisconsin-is-b
roke/
"Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away "their"
wealth."
- Lucy Parsons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Parsons
--
- Billy
Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953