A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Calorie
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Uncovering the Atkins diet secret



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old January 26th, 2004, 03:05 AM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:28:14 -0500, Myway wrote
(in message m):

Stephen S wrote:

In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the
ground.

Humbly,

Andrew


So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym?
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
http://dragonfen.com/diet
--------------------------------


Oh my! You would argue with the great Dr. (cough) Ching?? Or was that
Chong?


Careful... you are headed for a very unpleasant encounter with the
business end of the Truth Discernment Ray :-)

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

  #32  
Old January 26th, 2004, 03:08 AM
That T Woman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret


"Stephen S" wrote in message
news:4yYQb.57939$Xq2.30132@fed1read07...
In response to Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD's post:


High protein diets really load up the kidneys and run them into the
ground.

Humbly,

Andrew


So why isn't there a dialysis center next door to every Gold's Gym?
--
Stephen S.
331 / 286 / 220 - as of 21 Jan. 04
LC since 28 Sept. 03
http://dragonfen.com/diet
--------------------------------


Because the medical district is in another part of town?



  #33  
Old January 26th, 2004, 03:36 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:48:11 GMT, posted:

"Moosh" writes:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:58:02 GMT,
posted:

Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy
transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is.

Never said otherwise.


OK, I thought you said conservation of energy only occurred in a
"closed system" (whatever that arbitrary system means exactly).


In a non-closed system, energy appears (from "sources") and disappers
(through "sinks"),


And this obvious point is supposed to shed light on what?

which means that energy equations must add terms
for the sources and sinks.


Of course. That's what I'm advocating

As traditionally stated, the first law of
thermodynamics applies to systems having no sources and no sinks.


Since when? Can you quote this? Conservation of energy is UNIVERSAL.

BTW, that's the first law, I believe, although whatever number you
give to the principle of conservation of energy, energy is still
conserved. The law about entropy is the second, I believe, and is
irrelevant here.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hypercaloric". Nobody has ever
disputed that a normal person eating 5000 cal/day will not lose
weight. What is claimed, and some of us have measured in practice,
is that changing the source of calories WITHOUT changing the number
of calories has changed us from gaining or maintaining to losing.


So show us the metabolic lab studies to back this assetion up.
"Hypercaloric" means taking more calories into the body than are
expended by that same body...


For some definition of "expended", your statement is a tautology.


How a tautology?

The
real issue is the definition of "expended", where one expenditure
includes the inefficiency of metabolizing various energy sources.


Expended simply means leaving the body in whatever form.
Sorry, I thought this would be obvious.

Here the SECOND law of thermodynamics is relevant: no conversion is
100% efficient. Therefore, an easy corollary states that two
different conversion methods are a priori unlikely to exhibit the
same efficiency.


The general principle of conservation of energy means that a calorie
can neither be created nor destroyed. All must be accounted for.
Efficiency is irrelevant...


In other words, you don't really know anything about thermodynamics,


Well I do know that energy is always conserved, a basic fact which
seems to have escaped you.

and don't understand the second law. The second law states that all
energy conversions involve some energy changing to an unusable form.


Which is not what I'm talking about. You may be. Try "conservation of
energy", the first law, I believe. You can't gain sustenance from the
heat ouput of muscular effort, but it is accounted for in the energy
balance statement.

Energy in equals energy out PLUS the change in entropy resulting from
wasted energy.


So put some numbers to this. You are saying that 1000 calories into
the body will be equal to 1000 calories out of the body plus this
"change in entropy resulting from wasted energy". Care to put a
ballpark figure on the number of calories in this PLUS bit?

All systems produce TWO things: the thing you wanted
them to produce, and waste energy.


Whoa! We are measuring ALL energy.
My poin't is that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Any energy (waste or useful) must be accounted for.
Energy *in* MUST equal energy *out*.

All calories into this system (the human body) must exactly equal
all calories out of this system...


Where "energy out", for type I diabetics receiving no insulin,
includes lots of sugar energy wasted in their ****. You don't seem to
understand what the "energy out" comprises.


Of course I do. What part of "energy out" do you not understand?
The abnormal situation you cite is why diabetics lose a lot of weight
Doh! The sugar energy is counted. Why on Earth would you not count it?

I'm saying ALL calories MUST be accounted for. You seem to be trying
to find ones that don't.

Why?

I am unaware of any study measuring the exact conversion efficiency
of the conversion process for various fats and simple or complex
carbs.


Conversion to what? All chemical reaction pathways have been studied
rigorously. There are reference books that can tell you the exact
thermal equations for every known chemical reaction.


Then share your great wisdom by posting the exact conversion
efficiency for a given fat of your choice, and for glucose.


Well I don't know what "conversion efficiency" means other than
percentage yield of product perhaps, but you still haven't said what
the conversion is to. Then we can talk turkey, so to speak.

Your basic fallacy is that you do not account for all of the system's
energy outputs.


I do, but you seem to be trying to excuse some and invent others.
My point is that energy into a system MUST equal energy OUT of a
system. ANNOUNCEMENT: I COUNT ALL ENERGY!!!

You appear to be considering only metabolism plus work
done in the form of physical activity.


Not at all.

What do you mean here by "metabolism"?

That is your strange interpretation, and I'm not sure why you came to
this misunderstanding. I thought I'd been clear.

Moosh
  #34  
Old January 26th, 2004, 03:42 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret

On 24 Jan 2004 10:37:56 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:07:13 GMT,
posted:

writes:
On 23 Jan 2004 12:07:49 -0800,
(tcomeau) posted:

It has nothing to do with the Laws of Thermo. They apply to a
closed system. The human body is not a closed system.

Where does it state that the "conservation of energy principle"
applies only to a closed system?

In any text that covers thermodynamics. However, some conclusions can
be drawn anyway; the previous poster is incorrect.


Energy is conserved whatever. Over what arbitrary boundaries energy
transfers are measured, determines what a "closed system" is.

And what do you understand by a closed system?

A closed system is any system which has no energy sources or
sinks. The body is not "closed" because food provides an external
source of energy, and the toilet provides an external sink (!).

However, a locked room containing food for a month and a chemical
toilet IS a closed system.


Exactly!
Draw the boundaries and measure the energy transfers.

The human body can be studied as a closed system. It depends what you
measure and how rigorously.

Right.


I've been waiting many months for TC to point out ANY metabolic lab
study to show that a hypercaloric diet can result in fat storage loss.
No show, but he still persists.

Moosh


And I've been waiting just as long for you to show us the one seminal
metabolic lab study, or any metabolic lab study that conclusively
proves otherwise.


Huh? The basic laws of physics show that calories are the only source
of fat storage. Calories are indestructible, and uncreatable.

You are claiming different, and yet you can show NOT ONE study to
demonstrate this. ALL metabolic lab studies to date back up the
physical laws exactly.

Why are you avoiding giving us just one study?
Perhaps there are none?

I'm still waiting. I may not have the study to
disprove the calorie fallacy,


Well you still have your cockeyed scientific train of thought.
The calorie theory "conservation of energy" has NEVER been faulted.
You claim different, make with the evidence!

but you do not have the study or studies
that proved it in the first place.


Yes, they ALL do, every one of them!
The principle of conservation of energy has NEVER been faulted.
Are you angling for a Nobel Prize? Oh, no, of course not, they have a
conflict of interest

You are placing your trust in a
theory that has never been proven scientifically, it has only been
assumed.


Well that's because you appear to have lived in the dark all your
life.
Science has been trying to disprove the laws underpinning them for
centuries. There has NEVER been any evidence that the laws of thermo
are ever false.

Moosh
  #35  
Old January 26th, 2004, 03:54 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On 24 Jan 2004 10:51:45 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 18:02:47 -0800,
(tcomeau) posted:


snip


Maybe the lesson to be learned is that calories really have little
bearing when it comes to weight gain or loss in humans.

TC


snip


The only thing
complicating this simple concept is peoples unreasonable adherence to
the calories fallacy. The calories math doesn't, hasn't and will never
be a valid predictor of weight loss or gain in humans.


So show us the study. You've claimed this nonsense for years with not
a shred of evidence. Make with the evidence please. Metabolic lab
study showing hypercaloric diet results in fat storage loss.

Moosh


OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight
management in the human body,


They are directly applicable EVERYWHERE. They have never been shown to
be untrue.

and you further insist that there is no
other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor.


There are other factors which influence how much energy is ingested or
expended, but these are secondary/psychological. The basic energy
physics is never faulted.

If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no
exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics.
No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab
studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight
management in the human body.


No, your logic is slipping as usual. You claim that a hypercaloric
diet can result in fat storage loss. This has never been observed when
measured rigorously. Can you supply a study that shows otherwise?
Apparently not.

One exception, and only one exceprion,
is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to
weight management in the human body.


Yep, but of course it must be measured properly. It's so easy to be
fooled by bathroom scales and food labelling.

Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on
weight mangement in humans.


And if you think this is an energy balance statement, then you are
really sillier than you sound, and that takes some doing.


*********************
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.

Over the past year, several small studies have shown, to many experts'
surprise, that the Atkins approach actually does work better, at least
in the short run. Dieters lose more than those on a standard American
Heart Association plan without driving up their cholesterol levels, as
many feared would happen.

Skeptics contend, however, that these dieters simply must be eating
less. Maybe the low-carb diets are more satisfying, so they do not get
so hungry. Or perhaps the food choices are just so limited that
low-carb dieters are too bored to eat a lot.

Now, a small but carefully controlled study offers a strong hint that
maybe Atkins was right: People on low-carb, high-fat diets actually
can eat more.


Hint? No evidence? How sad.

The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.


Does she give the fecal calorie counts? Thought not
Wanna buy a bridge? Have I got a deal for you?

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.


And where are the energy balance sheets?
This is a terrible study, sorry, come back with a properly measured
study.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.


Does she really? How strange. Wouldn't some numbers be more convincing
than her vapid speculations. You heard of conflict of interest? Well
here it is conflict between doing some proper work, and cheap
sensationalist publicity.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.


What strikes? Greene's vapid speculations?

Not even Greene says this settles the case,


Well at least she has SOME integrity.

but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.


The journos perhaps?

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to
be open-minded."


But not so open that your brains fall out , Dear.
(Credit: Richard Dawkins)

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.


Well there was so little of it.
2, 3, 7. Now what can we postulate from these three data?

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."


Terry Comeau has, apparently, but he is saving it for the Nobel Prize
Committee.

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.


With you, so far.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass.,


Holy ****, Batman, that DOES make it scientific. You Americans will
swallow such crap!!!

so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet
plans to follow as best they could.


And you see what we are up against. Metabolic lab studies only,
thankyou. Measure the calories IN the calories OUT (CO2, heat, ****
****, sweat, semen, earwax, the bloody lot, ferchrissakes!)

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.


So ****ing what???

"This is not what people think of when they think about an Atkins
diet," Greene said. Nevertheless, the Atkins organization agreed to
pay for the research, though it had no input into the study's design,
conduct or analysis.


Looks like no-one did. A bloody three year old chimp could design a
better experiment.
The Atkins is same as Zone according to experts here on this group.
I'm confused. The term "low carb" is bandied about for just about
anything.

Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.
The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and
65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent
protein and 30 percent fat.


What? No 40% carb a la Atkins/Zone? What a swiz!!!

In the end, everyone lost weight.


How much was water, fat store, bone, muscle????
Oh, dear, back to the drawing board.

Those on the lower-cal, low-carb
regimen took off 23 pounds,


OF WHAT???

while people who got the same calories on
the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds.


OF WHAT???

The big surprise, though, was that
volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost
20 pounds.


The big surprise to me is that this bull**** got funded.
PT Barnham lives!!!

"It's very intriguing, but it raises more questions than it answers,"
said Gary Foster of the University of Pennsylvania. "There is lots of
data to suggest this shouldn't be true."


What exactly shouldn't be true? There is so much data missing, the
second coming could be deduced from this crock of ****!

Greene said she can only guess why the people getting the extra
calories did so well. Maybe they burned up more calories digesting
their food.


Sheesh, enough said!
Has this dumb bitch got no imagination?
Why not do an experiment to see where the calories went?
Don't want to know? Already been done?
You certainly have been, folks!

Dr. Samuel Klein of Washington University, the obesity organization's
president, called the results "hard to believe" and said perhaps the
people eating more calories also got more exercise or they were less
apt to cheat because they were less hungry.


It gets better!!!
Why not throw this out, and go back and do the bloody thing properly?

EDITOR'S NOTE: Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special
correspondent for The Associated Press.


Now why doesn't this surprise me?

******************


Have you got anything else Terry? That was such fun....


Moosh
  #36  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:02 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:16:20 GMT, posted:

(tcomeau) writes:

OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight
management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no
other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor.
If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no
exceptions. No Exceptions...


I should make it clear that Mr. Moosh *believes* that conservation of
energy implies that (food) calories in equals (energy) calories
out. As I pointed out, he is neglecting the second law of
thermodynamics, which implies that there is a wastage term he is
neglecting to consider.


Try the first law! The second is irrelevant to our discussion coz I'm
counting ALL energy.

More generally, he has failed to consider all
possible energy expenditures in the body.


I am specifically including ALL calories IN and OUT. You are the one
postulating that this and that have been neglected. That's why I'm
insisting that Terry supply a metabolic lab study where ALL these INs
and OUTs can be measured and accounted for. When this is done, they
MUST balance. Never been a variation in this. TC claims otherwise, but
can't supply one study. He gets a lot of his theory from his own
studies on himself using a bathroom scale and food labels. He claims
to have lost 20# but has no idea whether this is water or bone or
muscle or fat store. He also claims that nutritional science is all
guesswork, and has never been verified.
He started this nearly two years ago to my knowledge with a huge
thread titled "Calorie Theory Bogus" where he said many contradictory
things, but among them, that the laws of thermo don't apply to the
human body. There were many other similar clangers, all available via
Google.

But the fact does remain that the laws of thermodynimics hold, always,
without exceptions. Mr. Moosh is simply applying them wrong--or at
least, failing to justify his application of them.


How so, when I insist on a metabolic lab study where NOTHING is
neglected, and Terry waffles on about magic disappearances and
appearances of calories and hormones and so on.
I suggest you try reading more carefully in future.

Moosh
  #37  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:03 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:03:35 +0100, "Mirek Fidler"
posted:

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight


I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC
waterloss...



Nah, every decrease in Terry's bathroom scale reading is pure fat
storage loss, just ask him


Moosh
  #38  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:03 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On 25 Jan 2004 14:23:51 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message ...
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight


I guess that that 3lb difference was very likely caused by LC
waterloss...

Mirek


You guess? Well that settles it then. You *guess* then it must be
true. What an amazing scientific mind you have.


But how do you "know"?
You are guessing as well, like you are doing with your bathroom scales
and food labels.


Moosh
  #39  
Old January 26th, 2004, 04:10 AM
Moosh:)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Uncovering the Atkins diet secret - for Moosh

On 25 Jan 2004 11:48:27 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

(tcomeau) wrote in message

snip


OK. You claim that the Laws of Thermo is directly applicable to weight
management in the human body, and you further insist that there is no
other factors involved other than the calories-in/calories-out factor.
If that is the case then it applies in *every* circumstance with no
exceptions. No Exceptions. That is the nature of a *Law* of physics.
No Exceptions. In this case we are not restricted to metabolic lab
studies to disprove the applicability of the Law of Thermo to weight
management in the human body. One exception, and only one exceprion,
is enough to disprove the idea that the Law of Thermo applies to
weight management in the human body.

Here is one study that shows that calories are not the last word on
weight mangement in humans.

*********************
http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/na...?storyID=74896

Surprise: Low-carb dieters eat more calories, still lose weight

By DANIEL Q. HANEY

AP Medical Editor

10/14/2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- The dietary establishment has long argued
it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the
idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than
folks on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

Perhaps no idea is more controversial in the diet world than the
contention -- long espoused by the late Dr. Robert Atkins -- that
people on low-carbohydrate diets can consume more calories without
paying a price on the scales.


snip


The study, directed by Penelope Greene of the Harvard School of Public
Health and presented at a meeting here this week of the American
Association for the Study of Obesity, found that people eating an
extra 300 calories a day on a very low-carb regimen lost just as much
during a 12-week study as those on a standard lowfat diet.

Over the course of the study, they consumed an extra 25,000 calories.
That should have added up to about seven pounds.

But for some reason, it did not.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that
says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight,"
Greene said.

That strikes at one of the most revered beliefs in nutrition: A
calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It does not matter whether they
come from bacon or mashed potatoes; they all go on the waistline in
just the same way.

Not even Greene says this settles the case, but some at the meeting
found her report fascinating.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being
challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to
be open-minded."

Others, though, found the data hard to swallow.

"It doesn't make sense, does it?" said Barbara Rolls of Pennsylvania
State University. "It violates the laws of thermodynamics. No one has
ever found any miraculous metabolic effects."

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three
categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or
low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a
third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale
Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Mass., so researchers knew exactly
what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet
plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a
bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch. Instead of lots
of red meat and saturated fat, which many find disturbing about
low-carb diets, these people ate mostly fish, chicken, salads,
vegetables and unsaturated oils.


snip

OK Moosh. There is your study that shows or at least indicates the
real possibility that calories are not a valid and practical approach
to weight management.


In your gullible little eyes, apparently. How sad!
That report shows to me much confusion and NO science.

I challenge you to find me *one* study that wasn't put out by industry
researchers that proves definitively that calories are directly
applicable to control weight in humans. I want any study that wasn't
paid for by industry that makes it crystal clear that weight can be
managed by restricting calories.


Restricting calories is the ONLY way to reduce fat storage loss.
No other way has ever been demonstrated.
And calorie restriction ALWAYS results in fat storage loss.
Of course the way you achieve this calorie restriction is of very
little interest to me here (smn). Try a dieting group for the most
effective schemes.

Better yet, find me the seminal study that first made this assertion.
Find me the one or the series of studies that *first* concluded that
calories are it. Such a ground breaking and historical document must
be easy to find. The researchers must be world reknown for their
brilliant discovery. Give me the study(s) and the names. This is the
study(s) that your whole world of nutritional science hangs its hat
on. Should be easy.


That's the whole body of science. Open your eyes.
You are contradicting this huge body of science, so the onus is on you
to show just one anomaly, and it will turn the whole scentific corpus
on its head Good luck!

Moosh





































TC


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
You want PROOF - Here's Quackery Proof. marengo Low Carbohydrate Diets 173 April 17th, 2004 11:26 PM
Uncovering the Atkins diet secret Diarmid Logan General Discussion 135 February 14th, 2004 05:56 PM
Atkins diet may reduce seizures in children with epilepsy Diarmid Logan General Discussion 23 December 14th, 2003 12:39 PM
ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works Jim Marnott Low Carbohydrate Diets 108 December 12th, 2003 04:12 AM
Was Atkins Right After All? Ken Kubos Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 November 23rd, 2003 12:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.