On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:24:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
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.

In your bizarro world, anything goes, eh?

diabetes = illness

cancer = illness

Diabetes is not the same thing as cancer!

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.

Again, those are your words (and yet another straw man!).

I didn't say they were equivalent {just like I didn't say visceral fat
was specific to wheat belly).

visceral fat = wheat belly

This should not suggest that other things can't also be "=" to wheat
belly!

An apple is a fruit.
A peach is a fruit.

Exactly!

And it's irrelevant.

That doesn't mean an apple is a peach.
With visceral fat = wheat belly, you've effectively said that an
apple is a peach.

No I haven't. I said that visceral fat = wheat belly.

In the same way that diabetes = illness and cancer = illness.

Think about it, it'll sink in eventually.

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.

So what?

I used GI.

Pick your poison.

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.

Yes, but you find anything "suspect" that doesn't comport with your
preconceived notions!

Good message.
Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better.

If that's what you think the message is, you're beyond stupid, you're
somewhere between moron and imbecile.

The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant
impact
on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc.

Exactly! They're virtually the same. But they affect different people
differently. And you have no way to determine how it might be
affecting YOU unless you TEST.

I think to
be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books.

No, it's about informing people of the DANGERS associated with wheat!

The vast majority of people think wheat is actually good for them!
That it's healthy, etc. Well, it's NOT! And the poor dumb schmucks
like yourself, who listen to the ADA push wheat on people who already
have diabetes(!) and say nothing about it are part of the ****ing
problem!

Asshole.

"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 do!

I don't recall
a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing.

And that's a problem!

And that's precisely why many diabetics don't know even that they're
diabetic!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-diabetes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269507804132831.html

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/304...lications.html

They've essentially unscrewed their engine warning light.

How smart is that?

And somehow
we've all been living fine without you and your required methods.

Everyone lives fine, until they get sick, or keel over and die.

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?

No, because many wise scientists and doctors say so. Common sense says
so.

See: preventive medicine

Who put you in charge?

I'm not in charge of anything. But you don't get to tell me what I can
and cannot say here, you little prick! Got that?

I make posts here that I think might help others with various
diet-related problems. Yes, you're welcome to critique them, that's
what newsgroups are all about.

But you're not in charge here, and for as long as you want to
incessantly follow me around and gnaw on my ankles (rather than have
an honest discussion), I'm going to keep kicking you in the teeth.

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 say fine, too. But they should at least know what that may be doing
to their health markers when they do it. If they don't care, they
don't care.

And if they don't care, I don't care.

C'est la vie.

Nota bene: But this is exactly the kind of attitude that accounts for
so many diet failures. Not to mention obesity, diabetes, poor general
health and pre-mature death. "Once in a while" can quickly become
"once a week" which can quickly become "everyday."

See: any 12-step addiction program.

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.

Yet another straw man!

Really, if you didn't have straw men to argue with, you'd be one
lonely SOB, wouldn't you?

I recommended *periodic* testing. Period. It's cheap, and pretty
accurate.

Once you know the numbers for your standard diet, there's no reason to
keep testing just for the hell of it. But if you change something in
your diet (like adding wheat), you'd be wise to want to know how that
particular change affects you (everything you eat affects you).

Got it now, you freakin' idiot?

That's a good message to get more people to do LC.

If losing weight (and keeping it off), improving key health markers,
avoiding or curing diabetes, etc., aren't attractive enough messages,
they're doomed to failure anyway.

Are you as sure about the need for that as you are that
HIV is harmless? That AIDS is caused by diet?

HIV is mostly harmless. Yes.

AIDS can be caused by diet (malnutrition), because without proper
nutrition, the immune system will gradually weaken, and even collapse.
Yes.

Even someone as dumb as you are probably knows what happens when your
immune system collapses, eh?

In Africa, it's known as "wasting."

Go ahead and **** with your immune system and very bad things will
happen to you.

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.

I'm not doing your work for you. You know you said it, and I know you
said it.

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!

http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POISON.PDF

And one more message, just for you:

......................./´¯/)
.....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\...

--
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