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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger 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. 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.

Paleolithic plans use rules that if anyone is intolerant of a food it's
to be avoided. The list of foods that remain is large. Each
paleolithic plan has slightly different rules resulting in slightly
different lists but the result is the same.

Atkins starts with a list of allowed foods. On that list are eggs and
dairy which are a major loophole to the principle of starting with foods
that have extremely low chance of having intolerance reactions.
Starting from the list of allowed foods for Induction ingredients are
supposed to be added one by one and tested in the
eliminate-and-challenge style. Few follow that part of the directions
but it does appear in the directions.