If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Ignoramus23157 wrote:
Do you mean abstract? Abstract/extract, posting when overtired will do that. Both diets, it seems, did not limit calories as such. So, if one group ate less, that was due to their individual choices. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15148063 That's not the abstract cited that we were discussing. It was this one: Sondike S, Jacobson, Copperman. The ketogenic diet increases weight loss but not cardiovascular risk: A randomized controlled trial. J Adolescent Health Care 2000; 26: 91. Which said, One group ate a conventional low-fat, carbohydrate based "slimming" diet composed of whole grains, fruits and vegetables with fat-free dairy products, low-fat meats, poultry and fish. Their total intake was limited to 1,100 calories per day. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Faye wrote:
I came across still another explaination of this, but with an interesting observation....from Sandra Cabot, Md. (Australian native) author of a book relating to Syndrome X, and Secrets That Keep You Fat....and I quote: "When carb consumption is low snip you burn stored body fat. The process cannot occur without the formation of ketones. Ketones can be used as fuel by most parts of the body including the heart and brain." This is actually incorrect. Many parts of the body can use FFA as fuel without it being converted to ketones. Ketones are produced primarily for the brain, since it doesn't use FFA as a fuel. But your heart, muscles (type I fibers) and most organs can use FFA as fuel. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Faye wrote:
I came across still another explaination of this, but with an interesting observation....from Sandra Cabot, Md. (Australian native) author of a book relating to Syndrome X, and Secrets That Keep You Fat....and I quote: "When carb consumption is low snip you burn stored body fat. The process cannot occur without the formation of ketones. Ketones can be used as fuel by most parts of the body including the heart and brain." This is actually incorrect. Many parts of the body can use FFA as fuel without it being converted to ketones. Ketones are produced primarily for the brain, since it doesn't use FFA as a fuel. But your heart, muscles (type I fibers) and most organs can use FFA as fuel. -- Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is little credibility in waht you have posted. On 14 Aug 2004 20:10:37 GMT, jamie wrote: I'm sure I could list as many diverse made-up qualifications under anonymous screennames as you have over the years, but it wouldn't enhance my credibility any more than it has yours. My credibility is of no concern to me on Usenet since I find all the assurances I need in the real world; the one in and of which I live, work and practice; the real world where performance is gauged, recorded and tangible. As to my abilities, ask any questions you wish; if my answers can be refuted, found to be inaccurate or light weight, then my Usenet credibility will so follow. I have offered this time and time again so if you are up to it, have at me. If not, then you can join the numerous naysayers who have fallen by the wayside, whose own Usenet credibilities suffered accordingly; those that have made personal, school yard types of comments, like yours above, but, when challenged, ran off and hid. Credibility, jamie, comes not from real names (is yours jamie with a small "j") or "made up qualifications"; it comes from the test of time, the test of knowledge and the tests of scrutiny. Over to you. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
Look, jamie, all of the above is nice conversation but the use of your analyses of either an abstract or the cited study itself is practically valueless. Put simply, you don't have the background, the education, the experience or the credentials to analyze these studies. Hence, there is little credibility in waht you have posted. On 14 Aug 2004 20:10:37 GMT, jamie wrote: I'm sure I could list as many diverse made-up qualifications under anonymous screennames as you have over the years, but it wouldn't enhance my credibility any more than it has yours. My credibility is of no concern to me on Usenet since I find all the assurances I need in the real world; the one in and of which I live, work and practice; the real world where performance is gauged, recorded and tangible. As to my abilities, ask any questions you wish; if my answers can be refuted, found to be inaccurate or light weight, then my Usenet credibility will so follow. I have offered this time and time again so if you are up to it, have at me. If not, then you can join the numerous naysayers who have fallen by the wayside, whose own Usenet credibilities suffered accordingly; those that have made personal, school yard types of comments, like yours above, but, when challenged, ran off and hid. Credibility, jamie, comes not from real names (is yours jamie with a small "j") or "made up qualifications"; it comes from the test of time, the test of knowledge and the tests of scrutiny. Over to you. Your Roosenet credibility is of no concern to me, either; as far as I'm concerned, you have none. Nor am I interested in the sort of extended flamewars of verbal oneupsmanship that is your primary interest in posting. Perhaps Bob would still be interested, since you lost interest in having your hat and ass handed to you in MFW and decided ASDLC would be easier to prey upon. However, the way you always manage to keep your nose so high in the air whilst keeping it firmly imbedded in Andrew's backside is an amazing feat of balance. It might be worthy of the brown-nosing hall of fame, were you not so often compelled to tag-team him in to cover for you by crossposting. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Aug 2004 04:51:08 GMT, jamie wrote:
Credibility, jamie, comes not from real names (is yours jamie with a small "j") or "made up qualifications"; it comes from the test of time, the test of knowledge and the tests of scrutiny. Over to you. Your Roosenet credibility is of no concern to me, either; as far as I'm concerned, you have none. Nor am I interested in the sort of extended flamewars of verbal oneupsmanship that is your primary interest in posting. Oh, I see you aren't interested in exploring my base of knowledge, eh? Let's see what other Usenet insults you have in store........ Perhaps Bob would still be interested, since you lost interest in having your hat and ass handed to you in MFW and decided ASDLC would be easier to prey upon. Prey on? You feel pursued? On Usenet? Really? Seriously? As to misc.fitness.weights, those participants know exactly where I can be found and have known for years now. However, the way you always manage to keep your nose so high in the air whilst keeping it firmly imbedded in Andrew's backside is an amazing feat of balance. It might be worthy of the brown-nosing hall of fame, were you not so often compelled to tag-team him in to cover for you by crossposting. Translation: jamie passes on testing "Roose"; his knowledge, expertise etc.; prefers to continue with personal insults, baseless as they are. 'Nuff said. sigh PS. Btw, since you decided to insult Chung AND delete the Xpost to SMC, I assisted by reestablishing it. Now no one can claim you to be trying to hide libel away in ASDLC now, can they? You are welcome. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Aug 2004 04:51:08 GMT, jamie wrote:
Credibility, jamie, comes not from real names (is yours jamie with a small "j") or "made up qualifications"; it comes from the test of time, the test of knowledge and the tests of scrutiny. Over to you. Your Roosenet credibility is of no concern to me, either; as far as I'm concerned, you have none. Nor am I interested in the sort of extended flamewars of verbal oneupsmanship that is your primary interest in posting. Oh, I see you aren't interested in exploring my base of knowledge, eh? Let's see what other Usenet insults you have in store........ Perhaps Bob would still be interested, since you lost interest in having your hat and ass handed to you in MFW and decided ASDLC would be easier to prey upon. Prey on? You feel pursued? On Usenet? Really? Seriously? As to misc.fitness.weights, those participants know exactly where I can be found and have known for years now. However, the way you always manage to keep your nose so high in the air whilst keeping it firmly imbedded in Andrew's backside is an amazing feat of balance. It might be worthy of the brown-nosing hall of fame, were you not so often compelled to tag-team him in to cover for you by crossposting. Translation: jamie passes on testing "Roose"; his knowledge, expertise etc.; prefers to continue with personal insults, baseless as they are. 'Nuff said. sigh PS. Btw, since you decided to insult Chung AND delete the Xpost to SMC, I assisted by reestablishing it. Now no one can claim you to be trying to hide libel away in ASDLC now, can they? You are welcome. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
PS. Btw, since you decided to insult Chung AND delete the Xpost to SMC, I assisted by reestablishing it. Now no one can claim you to be trying to hide libel away in ASDLC now, can they? In order to be libel, an identifiable person must be defamed, the plaintiff must prove injury, such as damage to reputation or income, and must prove the statement false. Morphing trolls who claim to have invincible reputations and credibility can't be subject to libel. That you brownnose Andrew and attempt to have him to fight your battles for you by crossposting might be considered defamatory to you, if it weren't true and you were identifiable, but isn't defamatory to Andrew. Had I said actually anything defamatory about Andrew, it was you who identified Dr. Chung, who seems to be quite capable of defaming himself without your help. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
PS. Btw, since you decided to insult Chung AND delete the Xpost to SMC, I assisted by reestablishing it. Now no one can claim you to be trying to hide libel away in ASDLC now, can they? In order to be libel, an identifiable person must be defamed, the plaintiff must prove injury, such as damage to reputation or income, and must prove the statement false. Morphing trolls who claim to have invincible reputations and credibility can't be subject to libel. That you brownnose Andrew and attempt to have him to fight your battles for you by crossposting might be considered defamatory to you, if it weren't true and you were identifiable, but isn't defamatory to Andrew. Had I said actually anything defamatory about Andrew, it was you who identified Dr. Chung, who seems to be quite capable of defaming himself without your help. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
MU wrote:
PS. Btw, since you decided to insult Chung AND delete the Xpost to SMC, I assisted by reestablishing it. Now no one can claim you to be trying to hide libel away in ASDLC now, can they? In order to be libel, an identifiable person must be defamed, the plaintiff must prove injury, such as damage to reputation or income, and must prove the statement false. Morphing trolls who claim to have invincible reputations and credibility can't be subject to libel. That you brownnose Andrew and attempt to have him to fight your battles for you by crossposting might be considered defamatory to you, if it weren't true and you were identifiable, but isn't defamatory to Andrew. Had I said actually anything defamatory about Andrew, it was you who identified Dr. Chung, who seems to be quite capable of defaming himself without your help. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | Robin Smith | Low Calorie | 9 | October 15th, 2010 02:51 PM |
Something new | MOM PEAGRAM | Weightwatchers | 7 | June 13th, 2004 01:35 AM |
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret | tcomeau | Low Calorie | 113 | February 14th, 2004 02:26 PM |
Table 3. Hit List of Weight-Gaining Behaviors from Dr. Phil's book | That T Woman | General Discussion | 45 | January 20th, 2004 01:23 PM |
Low carb diets | Weightwatchers | 245 | January 8th, 2004 11:15 PM |