Can a low-carb diet fail if you take in too many calories?

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."

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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."

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."