Glucose for the brain ?

Terri wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

What part of the difference between ketoacidosis and dietary ketosis
are you having difficulty with? In dietary ketosis there aren't
enough ketones to change the pH out of acceptable ranges. Fact.

Not fact. Atkin's claim.

Show me one non-diabetic who has ever acheived toxic levels of ketones
in their blood via restricting dietary carbohydrates. I explicitly
include the word toxic in their so don't play ignorant games of spilling
in urine and irrelevant non-toxic level arguments. Simply give the
name of anyone who has ever acheived toxic effects. You can't because
there are no such names. Dietary ketosis *never* reaches toxic levels.
The levels that result from dietary ketosis are controlled to stay in
the non-toxic range.

Failure to tell toxic ketoacidosis from nontoxic dietary ketosis is one
of the easiest ways to identify people who are ignorant about the
functioning of low carb diets. Failure to learn the difference isn't a
question of ignorance, so it shows either a hidden agenda or deliberate
stupidity. Name a name, try your best.

(Doug Freyburger) wrote in message . com...

Calciumis then required to buffer the excess acid in the blood and that
calcium will be taken from boine if there is no other source.

Except that in dietary ketosis there is no excess because the cells
burn it.

Calcium is not the primary buffer of blood. The primary buffer of
blood is carbon dioxide which exists in equilibrium as C02,
bicarbonate and carbonic acid in the blood. Thus... the "toxic waste
product" of breathing (as Terri claims) buffers blood.

Go he http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edud...er/Buffer.html
and scroll down to "The Carbonic-Acid-Bicarbonate Buffer in the Blood"
for info.

Phosphorous compounds and hemoglobin also buffer blood.

Anyone wishing to talk about pH might want to read the bit in the blue
box entitled "Recap of Fundamental Acid-Base Concepts" on the same
page as well so they know what the hell pH *is* before claiming that
compounds that don't even have acidic protons are somehow "acidic". A
review of what a buffer *is* might be helpful bfore talking nonsense
about amino acids as well.

Unless, of course, making a fool out of yourself while trolling Usenet
is your idea of a good time.

jpatti wrote:

(Doug Freyburger) wrote in message . com...


Calciumis then required to buffer the excess acid in the blood and that
calcium will be taken from boine if there is no other source.

Except that in dietary ketosis there is no excess because the cells
burn it.


Calcium is not the primary buffer of blood. The primary buffer of
blood is carbon dioxide which exists in equilibrium as C02,
bicarbonate and carbonic acid in the blood. Thus... the "toxic waste
product" of breathing (as Terri claims) buffers blood.

Well yes, so long as the body isn't being overwhelmed by acidic
by-products. However this is a very delicate balance as anyone who has
ever worked in an ER during a code knows well.

Go he http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edud...er/Buffer.html
and scroll down to "The Carbonic-Acid-Bicarbonate Buffer in the Blood"
for info.

Phosphorous compounds and hemoglobin also buffer blood.

Anyone wishing to talk about pH might want to read the bit in the blue
box entitled "Recap of Fundamental Acid-Base Concepts" on the same
page as well so they know what the hell pH *is* before claiming that
compounds that don't even have acidic protons are somehow "acidic". A
review of what a buffer *is* might be helpful bfore talking nonsense
about amino acids as well.

Unless, of course, making a fool out of yourself while trolling Usenet
is your idea of a good time.


Is that on the same page as the advice to eat as much as you want
(except for the evil carbs) if you want to lose weight? Or is it on the
page that promises significant weight loss beginning on the first day of
a low carb diet no matter how much of the allowed food you eat?

Terri wrote in message ...
jpatti wrote:

Calcium is not the primary buffer of blood. The primary buffer of
blood is carbon dioxide which exists in equilibrium as C02,
bicarbonate and carbonic acid in the blood. Thus... the "toxic waste
product" of breathing (as Terri claims) buffers blood.

Well yes, so long as the body isn't being overwhelmed by acidic
by-products. However this is a very delicate balance as anyone who has
ever worked in an ER during a code knows well.

Which acidic byproducts would those be, Terri? Ketones? Amino acids?
Urea? Carbon dioxide?

Can you be a bit *specific* about this? Or have you abandoned
specificity for hand-waving since every time you're specific, you end
up wrong?

And make your "ER" comments elsewhere... I *taught* nursing chemistry.
There's hundreds of nurses in this country who know what to do about
acidosis because of me.

They ****ing know what pH is too.


Is that on the same page as the advice to eat as much as you want
(except for the evil carbs) if you want to lose weight? Or is it on the
page that promises significant weight loss beginning on the first day of
a low carb diet no matter how much of the allowed food you eat?

Well, of *course* you will. Duh! If you dump liver and muscle
glycogen, each molecule of which holds 4 molecules of water, you'll
lose 3-7 lbs or so. You can't go from a high-carb diet to a low-carb
diet without losing weight - not in those first few days. Everyone
who's done it gets this.

The post you are critiquing here *also* stated quite clearly that this
was water weight... and that fat loss isn't *supposed* to occur on
induction. Induction is simply a short-term period of getting blood
sugar controlled so that fat-loss *can* occur more easily. Until
blood sugar is under control, ravenous hunger is going to occur...
fat-loss doesn't generally go real well with ravenous hunger. Pretty
damned obvious.

If you want to argue that *I* said you could eat as much as you wanted
indefinetly... well, that's bull****. I never said any such thing. I
have a few score posts on this newsgroup making it clear that calories
*do* count... but that a glucagon-heavy biochemistry makes it harder
to put on fat than an insulin-weighted biochemistry. Further, fat
loss occurs much more easily once the appetie-supressing effects of
ketosis kick in.

You set up a straw man, accusing me of saying **** I didn't say, to
argue with. And for no apparent reason than because your
pseudo-scientific bull**** was disagreed with.

I checked Google... you have never posted *one* useful post to this
newsgroup. And these threads you're in are not cross-posted
elsewhere. You *deliberatly* come here and post anti-low-carb
diatribes, none of which have the slightests basis in science
whatsoever.

This makes you nothing but a troll, period.

Go for it, Terri. Find me *any* reputable reference that ketones are
acidic (where reputable = a college chemistry textbook or college
chemistry website, the references I'm using). Find me another that
shows that amino acids can cause acidosis... of *any* sort whatsoever.
And when you're done, find me a reference that shows how calcium can
be drawn out of the blood to buffer blood *faster* than simply
changing respiration patterns.

And until you can do that, shut the **** up, you stupid ****.

jpatti wrote:

Terri wrote in message ...

jpatti wrote:


Calcium is not the primary buffer of blood. The primary buffer of
blood is carbon dioxide which exists in equilibrium as C02,
bicarbonate and carbonic acid in the blood. Thus... the "toxic waste
product" of breathing (as Terri claims) buffers blood.

Well yes, so long as the body isn't being overwhelmed by acidic
by-products. However this is a very delicate balance as anyone who has
ever worked in an ER during a code knows well.


Which acidic byproducts would those be, Terri? Ketones? Amino acids?
Urea? Carbon dioxide?

Can you be a bit *specific* about this? Or have you abandoned
specificity for hand-waving since every time you're specific, you end
up wrong?

And make your "ER" comments elsewhere... I *taught* nursing chemistry.
There's hundreds of nurses in this country who know what to do about
acidosis because of me.

They ****ing know what pH is too.



Is that on the same page as the advice to eat as much as you want
(except for the evil carbs) if you want to lose weight? Or is it on the
page that promises significant weight loss beginning on the first day of
a low carb diet no matter how much of the allowed food you eat?


Well, of *course* you will. Duh! If you dump liver and muscle
glycogen, each molecule of which holds 4 molecules of water, you'll
lose 3-7 lbs or so. You can't go from a high-carb diet to a low-carb
diet without losing weight - not in those first few days. Everyone
who's done it gets this.

The post you are critiquing here *also* stated quite clearly that this
was water weight...

Which is maningless except insofar as it causes dehydration and
electrolyte imbalance - which one is supposed to counteract with
handfuls of supplements because this is such a healthy diet.

and that fat loss isn't *supposed* to occur on
induction. Induction is simply a short-term period of getting blood
sugar controlled so that fat-loss *can* occur more easily. Until
blood sugar is under control, ravenous hunger is going to occur...
fat-loss doesn't generally go real well with ravenous hunger. Pretty
damned obvious.

How *does* that work? If you're hungry you can't lose weight? Is that in
the same biochemistry book you used to teach nurses from?

If you want to argue that *I* said you could eat as much as you wanted
indefinetly... well, that's bull****. I never said any such thing. I
have a few score posts on this newsgroup making it clear that calories
*do* count... but that a glucagon-heavy biochemistry makes it harder
to put on fat than an insulin-weighted biochemistry. Further, fat
loss occurs much more easily once the appetie-supressing effects of
ketosis kick in.

You set up a straw man, accusing me of saying **** I didn't say, to
argue with. And for no apparent reason than because your
pseudo-scientific bull**** was disagreed with.

I checked Google... you have never posted *one* useful post to this
newsgroup. And these threads you're in are not cross-posted
elsewhere. You *deliberatly* come here and post anti-low-carb
diatribes, none of which have the slightests basis in science
whatsoever.

Useful being defined as supporting a harmful fad diet?

This makes you nothing but a troll, period.

Go for it, Terri. Find me *any* reputable reference that ketones are
acidic (where reputable = a college chemistry textbook or college
chemistry website, the references I'm using). Find me another that
shows that amino acids can cause acidosis... of *any* sort whatsoever.
And when you're done, find me a reference that shows how calcium can
be drawn out of the blood to buffer blood *faster* than simply
changing respiration patterns.

And until you can do that, shut the **** up, you stupid ****.


Are you the poster child for improvement in thinking and disposition
while eating low carb?

"Terri" wrote in message
...
jpatti wrote:

Terri wrote in message
...

jpatti wrote:
Well, of *course* you will. Duh! If you dump liver and muscle
glycogen, each molecule of which holds 4 molecules of water, you'll
lose 3-7 lbs or so. You can't go from a high-carb diet to a low-carb
diet without losing weight - not in those first few days. Everyone
who's done it gets this.

The post you are critiquing here *also* stated quite clearly that this
was water weight...

Which is maningless except insofar as it causes dehydration and
electrolyte imbalance - which one is supposed to counteract with
handfuls of supplements because this is such a healthy diet.

I don't take 'handfuls of supplements'. I take ONE multivitamin (no iron),
and one or two flaxseed oil gelcaps per day. The flax isn't 'necessary' to
anything, it's just got a host of good benefits (high in EFA's, etc) that
make it worthwhile to take (and I also get EFA's from diet, but eating fish
every single day would get old so I also supplement). That's it. The
vitamin is no more and no less an amount than any doctor would prescribe me
to take, whether I was on a special diet or not. Let's face it, our food
supply is lacking in some areas nutrient-wise, no matter what you choose to
eat or not eat.



and that fat loss isn't *supposed* to occur on
induction. Induction is simply a short-term period of getting blood
sugar controlled so that fat-loss *can* occur more easily. Until
blood sugar is under control, ravenous hunger is going to occur...
fat-loss doesn't generally go real well with ravenous hunger. Pretty
damned obvious.

How *does* that work? If you're hungry you can't lose weight? Is that in
the same biochemistry book you used to teach nurses from?

Have you ever tried to lose weight while constantly hungry? To me, what you
just said speaks of someone who has never been put on a 1000-cal per day
diet, low-fat and high carb, and tried to stick with it long enough for it
to do some good. Yes, it *is* difficult to lose weight and stick to a
'diet' when your stomach is constantly gnawing at you and all you can think
about is where your next meal is coming from. Even if you weren't
food-preoccupied mentally before starting, you'll very quickly become
preoccupied when you're starving. Talk about mental concentration issues...



I checked Google... you have never posted *one* useful post to this
newsgroup. And these threads you're in are not cross-posted
elsewhere. You *deliberatly* come here and post anti-low-carb
diatribes, none of which have the slightests basis in science
whatsoever.

Useful being defined as supporting a harmful fad diet?

Show me 'harmful'. While you're at it, show me 'fad' as well. Here's what
this WOE has done for me over the past year, and I definitely would not
consider any of this harmful:

- 46 pounds lost. BMI from 30.1 (obese) to 22.9 (healthy).

- Almost complete disappearance of GERD (acid reflux) symptoms. Have not
renewed my 'script for Prevacid since starting this WOE. Symptoms
disappeared _before_ I had any significant weight loss. Doctor was amazed.

- Better sleep. Rarely wake up during the night anymore, rarely need my
alarm clock in the morning.

- Fat loss without corresponding muscle loss. Since I'm getting enough
protein and not putting my body into starvation mode, it isn't eating my
muscle for fuel.

- More energy throughout the day, and especially after lunch. No more
afternoon 'slump' from a high-carb meal.

- Better dental health from lack of sugar consumption.

What you don't seem to understand about this WOE is that it isn't about what
I (or anyone else) am eating so much as it is about what I'm _not_ eating.
What I'm not eating are foods high in sugar/starch and refined flour,
period. I'm not wolfing down protein (I usually eat around 80g-90g/day),
though I am eating lots more fat (saturated and unsaturated). My carbs come
from green/yellow vegetables instead of bread, rice, pasta or potatoes. I
get fiber from flax and soy products, and don't have to supplement it. I
even eat some foods made with wheat, in moderation. Are you somehow trying
to say that sugar is necessary and healthful? Refined flour? That rice has
more nutritional value than cauliflower? That a handful of low-salt
pretzels (a typical LF staple snack) is healthier than a handful of almonds
or macadamia nuts?

You cannot tell me that a dinner of baked skinless chicken with a cup of
pasta and a baked potato (topped with low-fat, low-cal margarine which is
chock-full of trans fats) is somehow more healthy or 'balanced' a meal than
baked skin-on chicken with a serving of greens or cauliflower, and some
broccoli spears (topped with real butter) is. Guess what, the latter is an
acceptable Atkins meal even for *Induction*, and is also the kind of thing I
eat most often. I don't eat beef at every meal - not because I believe
there's anything wrong with beef, only because it would get boring for me
very quickly. I don't like beef as much as I like chicken, and never have.
Others have seen good weight loss and great cholesterol improvement while
eating mostly beef. And you're wrong, the Atkins site has *not* backed off
and said 'more lean meat' - go visit their site, they put out a press
release about that very rumor several months ago.

Stargazer
Atkins since Apr '03
192/146/140
5'7" F

Terri wrote:

Well, of *course* you will. Duh! If you dump liver and muscle
glycogen, each molecule of which holds 4 molecules of water, you'll
lose 3-7 lbs or so. You can't go from a high-carb diet to a low-carb
diet without losing weight - not in those first few days. Everyone
who's done it gets this.

The post you are critiquing here *also* stated quite clearly that this
was water weight...

Which is maningless except insofar as it causes dehydration and
electrolyte imbalance - which one is supposed to counteract with
handfuls of supplements because this is such a healthy diet.

Please explain, Oh Ignorant One (OIO), how losing water from one's
muscles and liver is going to cause electrolyte balances in the
bloodstream, given that the water that is lost was *never* part of the
bloodstream to begin with.

You talk about *nothing* - you write the most semantically-null
pseudo-science crap I've ever heard. Even creationists aren't *this*
stupid about science.

And *which* is such a healthy diet? Which diet is it you're critiquing
here?

Can you *ever* be specific about what you're talking about? Or must you
avoid it since ever specific pseudo-fact you've provided has turned out
to be utter crap?

I don't know about handfuls of supplements, I take the same stuff as I
did before low-carbing. I don't know that a multivitamin really
qualifies as "handfuls." Do you know *anything* about what you're
criticizing?


How *does* that work? If you're hungry you can't lose weight? Is that in
the same biochemistry book you used to teach nurses from?

Of course you can lose weight hungry. Any calorie-limiting diet will
result in weight loss. Who said anything different?

The guy we're talking about had failed repeatedly on the first day...
due to *hunger*. My advice was about how to combat that hunger, which
is, after all, what he asked for.

Context, OIO, context. Try using the other brain cell as well.

You offered no advice whatsoever. Which is typical... you don't post
anything useful, just attacks and pseudo-intellectual stupidity.

Ketones are acidic! OIO says so! All chemists everywhere, note... she
discovered an acidic proton on ketones! Let's get her a Nobel Prize!



Useful being defined as supporting a harmful fad diet?

Again, which diet are you talking about? I don't support harmful fad
diets.

I'm a tad confused that *anyone* could see something *harmful* in
cutting out sugar? Can we be specific about what exact harm you see
from cutting out sugar?

Last time, you claimed we needed to eat sugar because normal catabolism
of protein was harmful cause it produced "acidic" ketones and "toxic"
urea. You've claimed that carbon dioxide is also toxic, yet worried
over buffering blood in spite of the fact that it is the primary blood
buffer.

Got any better fairy tales, Oh Ignorant One?

No. Because whenever you get specific you make stupid elementary
mistakes in chemistry. So you go back to hand-waving bull****.

Because you're stupid and figure the rest of the folks here are too
stupid to see how stupid you are. That's OK, OIO... I'll happily point
out to anyone too clueless to follow your ignorance that you're posting
with a half deck.


Go for it, Terri. Find me *any* reputable reference that ketones are
acidic (where reputable = a college chemistry textbook or college
chemistry website, the references I'm using). Find me another that
shows that amino acids can cause acidosis... of *any* sort whatsoever.
And when you're done, find me a reference that shows how calcium can
be drawn out of the blood to buffer blood *faster* than simply
changing respiration patterns.

And until you can do that, shut the **** up, you stupid ****.

Are you the poster child for improvement in thinking and disposition
while eating low carb?

OOO... a personal attack. Granted, I engaged in one myself, but I
*also* posted useful facts backed up by college chemistry textbooks.

You can't support *one* of the pseudo-facts you've posted. Not one.

Show me where ketones are acidic.

Show me where ketones cause acidosis.

Show me where amino acids cause acidosis.

Show me where normal levels of urea and carbon dioxide are toxic.
*Normal* levels, OIO, cause abnormal levels of *anything* are toxic -
even oxygen, which most people don't consider toxic.

Show me where buffering is accomplished more by calcium leached from the
bones than by the bicarbonate buffer.

Show me where protein byproducts in the blood cause more kidney damage
than high blood sugar.

Show me *any* evidence of *any* of your pseudo-facts, Oh Ignorant One.

And you're not doing all that well with the personal attacks either.
Are you the poster child for how *stupid* one becomes while wolfing down
sugar? Is it your sugar intake that makes you so stupid that you can't
comprehend basic chemistry, OIO?

If you believe a low-carb diet is so terribly unhealthy, WHY THE ****
ARE YOU HERE? You're here to prosletyize that diabetics should eat
sugar? That's not any different than an atheist harassing a Christian
newsgroup (or vice-versa).

It's called trolling. You're a troll. An ugly, filthy, stupid troll.
A troll whose glucose-ladled brain has sunk to immeasurable depths of
stupidity.

Jackie Patti wrote:

Terri wrote:

Well, of *course* you will. Duh! If you dump liver and muscle
glycogen, each molecule of which holds 4 molecules of water, you'll
lose 3-7 lbs or so. You can't go from a high-carb diet to a low-carb
diet without losing weight - not in those first few days. Everyone
who's done it gets this.

The post you are critiquing here *also* stated quite clearly that this
was water weight...


Which is maningless except insofar as it causes dehydration and
electrolyte imbalance - which one is supposed to counteract with
handfuls of supplements because this is such a healthy diet.


Please explain, Oh Ignorant One (OIO), how losing water from one's
muscles and liver is going to cause electrolyte balances in the
bloodstream, given that the water that is lost was *never* part of the
bloodstream to begin with.

I guess physiology wasn't a part of your "education." Do you think that
hypovolemia is the same as dehydration? Did you know that dehydration is
something that happens at the cellular level? How exactly does this
weight melt off? sweating? breathing? or does it go into the
bloodstream, taking electrolytes with it, and thence to the kidney where
it is filtered, with some electrolytes being retained in the bloodstream
while others end up filtered out into the urine. This process is often
not exact and one can end up with low K and or low Na in particular.

You talk about *nothing* - you write the most semantically-null
pseudo-science crap I've ever heard. Even creationists aren't *this*
stupid about science.

And *which* is such a healthy diet? Which diet is it you're critiquing
here?

A healthy diet contains all food groups. I've been eating one for 58
years - no diabetes, no health problems of any kind and 5'7" and 118lbs.

Can you *ever* be specific about what you're talking about? Or must you
avoid it since ever specific pseudo-fact you've provided has turned out
to be utter crap?

I don't know about handfuls of supplements, I take the same stuff as I
did before low-carbing. I don't know that a multivitamin really
qualifies as "handfuls." Do you know *anything* about what you're
criticizing?

Maybe *you* only take a multivitamin - that's still one pill you
wouldn't need if you ate a normal diet, but most low carbers eat
handfuls of them, especially if they're following Atkins who recommends
10 different ones.


How *does* that work? If you're hungry you can't lose weight? Is that
in the same biochemistry book you used to teach nurses from?


Of course you can lose weight hungry. Any calorie-limiting diet will
result in weight loss. Who said anything different?

The guy we're talking about had failed repeatedly on the first day...
due to *hunger*. My advice was about how to combat that hunger, which
is, after all, what he asked for.

Eat more and you'll lose weight. That's really useful. Anyone who thinks
s/he can lose weight or even maintain a decent weight without feeling
hungry most of the time is fooling himself/herself.

Context, OIO, context. Try using the other brain cell as well.



You offered no advice whatsoever. Which is typical... you don't post
anything useful, just attacks and pseudo-intellectual stupidity.

Ketones are acidic! OIO says so! All chemists everywhere, note... she
discovered an acidic proton on ketones! Let's get her a Nobel Prize!

It's almost impossible to find a place that doesn't make this point.
Start with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies

Then you can try:

http://www.westga.edu/~chem/courses/...9a/tsld017.htm

Finally try:

http://www.genomeknowledge.org/cgi-b...OUS_ID=73 870





Useful being defined as supporting a harmful fad diet?


Again, which diet are you talking about? I don't support harmful fad
diets.

I'm a tad confused that *anyone* could see something *harmful* in
cutting out sugar? Can we be specific about what exact harm you see
from cutting out sugar?

Last time, you claimed we needed to eat sugar because normal catabolism
of protein was harmful cause it produced "acidic" ketones and "toxic"
urea. You've claimed that carbon dioxide is also toxic, yet worried
over buffering blood in spite of the fact that it is the primary blood
buffer.

Does the word homeostasis ring a bell?

Got any better fairy tales, Oh Ignorant One?

No. Because whenever you get specific you make stupid elementary
mistakes in chemistry. So you go back to hand-waving bull****.

Because you're stupid and figure the rest of the folks here are too
stupid to see how stupid you are. That's OK, OIO... I'll happily point
out to anyone too clueless to follow your ignorance that you're posting
with a half deck.

Keep it up. Your invective, vulgarities and profanities betray the
paucity of your arguments.


Go for it, Terri. Find me *any* reputable reference that ketones are
acidic (where reputable = a college chemistry textbook or college
chemistry website, the references I'm using). Find me another that
shows that amino acids can cause acidosis... of *any* sort whatsoever.
And when you're done, find me a reference that shows how calcium can
be drawn out of the blood to buffer blood *faster* than simply
changing respiration patterns.

And until you can do that, shut the **** up, you stupid ****.


Are you the poster child for improvement in thinking and disposition
while eating low carb?


OOO... a personal attack. Granted, I engaged in one myself, but I
*also* posted useful facts backed up by college chemistry textbooks.



You can't support *one* of the pseudo-facts you've posted. Not one.

Show me where ketones are acidic.

Show me where ketones cause acidosis.

Show me where amino acids cause acidosis.

Show me where normal levels of urea and carbon dioxide are toxic.
*Normal* levels, OIO, cause abnormal levels of *anything* are toxic -
even oxygen, which most people don't consider toxic.

Show me where buffering is accomplished more by calcium leached from the
bones than by the bicarbonate buffer.

Show me where protein byproducts in the blood cause more kidney damage
than high blood sugar.

Show me *any* evidence of *any* of your pseudo-facts, Oh Ignorant One.

And you're not doing all that well with the personal attacks either. Are
you the poster child for how *stupid* one becomes while wolfing down
sugar? Is it your sugar intake that makes you so stupid that you can't
comprehend basic chemistry, OIO?

If you believe a low-carb diet is so terribly unhealthy, WHY THE ****
ARE YOU HERE? You're here to prosletyize that diabetics should eat
sugar? That's not any different than an atheist harassing a Christian
newsgroup (or vice-versa).

It's called trolling. You're a troll. An ugly, filthy, stupid troll. A
troll whose glucose-ladled brain has sunk to immeasurable depths of
stupidity.

Terri wrote:

I guess physiology wasn't a part of your "education." Do you think that
hypovolemia is the same as dehydration? Did you know that dehydration is
something that happens at the cellular level? How exactly does this
weight melt off? sweating? breathing? or does it go into the
bloodstream, taking electrolytes with it, and thence to the kidney where
it is filtered, with some electrolytes being retained in the bloodstream
while others end up filtered out into the urine. This process is often
not exact and one can end up with low K and or low Na in particular.

The majority of water waste produced by the body is excreted by
respiration... when you exhale.

Further, low sodium isn't exactly a major health concern for most
people... very few don't get enough sodium in their diets.

Low potassium on a low-carb diet as been shown to be a temporary effect.
Yes, it occurs. Rarely to the life-threatening levels you would like
to believe though... other symptoms tend to kick in long before
dangerously low levels of potassium are noted.

Meanwhile, why don't you explain to our listening audience exactly what
benefit there is to carrying and extra 4-6 pounds of water in their
liver and muscles is?


A healthy diet contains all food groups. I've been eating one for 58
years - no diabetes, no health problems of any kind and 5'7" and 118lbs.

Low-carb diets contain all food groups too. So?

*My* point being you recommend even those who *are* diabetic or
insulin-resistant not follow a low-carb diet. And that is a
recommendation that causes amputation, kidney disease, heart disease,
blindness and death.

Again, OIO, *why* are *you* here? Read the ng name again...
alt.support.diet.low-carb - support for people on a low-carb diet. If
you're not on one and opposed to them, why are you here?

Troll.


Maybe *you* only take a multivitamin - that's still one pill you
wouldn't need if you ate a normal diet, but most low carbers eat
handfuls of them, especially if they're following Atkins who recommends
10 different ones.

Right.

Please explain how adding starch and sugar to my diet is going
to result in providing my nutritional needs better than my current
vegetable-heavy diet.

Fewer salads and more sugar is not a diet *anyone* will benefit from,
regadless of their sugar status. There is no RDA for potato chips, you
idjit.

BTW, you are not posting to alt.support.Atkins - you are posting to
alt.support.diet.low-carb.

I personally do not think highly of much of Atkin's work. I've stated
that clearly many times. I do happen to think highly of Bernstein's
work and of the Eades work. And a few others that you're unlikely to
have heard of (that last is *not* a dig, most laymen don't know "names"
in science anyways).



Eat more and you'll lose weight. That's really useful. Anyone who thinks
s/he can lose weight or even maintain a decent weight without feeling
hungry most of the time is fooling himself/herself.

Get through induction and get past the cravings and you *will* lose
weight. For most, appetite supression is intense on low-carb. Further,
whether the appeteite suppresion effect occurs in any individual or no,
a glucagon-mediated biochemistry preferentially burns fat instead of
storing it as opposed to an insulin-mediated biochemistry which stores
it. Thus induction, or a similar very low-carb phase, is an excellent
prelude to weight loss.

Your argument is equivalent to saying... that a cast will not help a
pitcher develop his pitching abilities. No, it won't. But if his arm
is broken, wearing that cast is the first step to pitching better.
Similarly, for those with excessive insulin or insulin resistance,
reducing insulin and increasing glucagon is the *first* step towards
losing weight.


Does the word homeostasis ring a bell?

Sure. In laymen's terms, homeostasis is about staying the same. That
the body tries to do that is *usually* a good thing - as in buffers
mediating changes in pH in the blood. As in respiration not producing
danger in spite of the "toxic" compound carbon dioxide. Homeostasis is
why 95% of your assertions are stupid.

For someone who is obese or has elevated blood sugars or elevated
cholesterol, homeostasis is not what they're looking for since *change*
is necessary to improve health. Staying the same isn't a goal in the
case of illness.


Keep it up. Your invective, vulgarities and profanities betray the
paucity of your arguments.

On the other hand, your stupidity and ignorance does *not* betray your
trollish behavior. Not at all.


Go for it, Terri. Find me *any* reputable reference that ketones are
acidic (where reputable = a college chemistry textbook or college
chemistry website, the references I'm using). Find me another that
shows that amino acids can cause acidosis... of *any* sort whatsoever.
And when you're done, find me a reference that shows how calcium can
be drawn out of the blood to buffer blood *faster* than simply
changing respiration patterns.

And until you can do that, shut the **** up, you stupid ****.

Apparently, you Googled for evidence and came up with...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone_bodies

This link says that in Type 1 diabetes, excess ketone bodies can cause
ketoacidosis. Granted, that's not *entirely* the mechanism, the
mechanism is not covered in detail at this link.

It does not state that ketones are acidic, which is the mechanism you
claimed. It also does not state that amino acids are acidic, which is
the secondary mechanism you claimed for ketoacidosis.

No one here has ever denied that ketoacidosis exists, particularly in
Type 1 diabetics. *You*, however, stated that the mechanism was that pH
was lowered by ketones themselves, that ketones were acidic. Your link
does not support your argument at all.

Diabetic ketoacidosis happens when the blood sugar is insanely high, but
the somatic cells cannot use said sugar and switch to fatty acid
metabolism as an energy source instead.

Fatty acid metabolism in itself is not the problem, it occurs to some
degree or another whether on a ketogenic diet or not. To lose weight,
it *has* to happen since the fat must be metabolized to leave the body
short of liposuction.

The problem that precipitates diabetic ketoacidosis is not fatty acid
metabolism, but fatty acid metabolism in the presence of severly
elevated blood sugar.

What causes elevated blood sugar, OIO?

Blood sugar is most elevated most rapidly by carbs. Thus carbs are the
food that precipitates dietary ketoacidosis.

Protein would be much less likely to do so as it produces a much lower
amount of glucose per gram than carbs do - raising the blood sugar a
lesser amount over a loner period of time.

If a Type 1 diabetic (who produces absolutely no insulin) overate enough
protein to elevate their blood sugar and didn't take enough insulin to
cover the rise, it could be possible to induce high enough blood sugar
to induce ketoacidosis... however, it'd be much more severe if they had
ingested carbs instead of protein.

Further, ketones *never* produce dietary ketoacidosis without the
presence of extremely elevated blood glucose. It doesn't happen,
there's no cases where it's been shown to happen.

Your theory is that ketoacidosis happens in normal people just from not
ingesting enough carbs to fuel the brain's need for glucose. Nothing in
any of the links you've provided indicates this is even a remote
possibility. If it were so, the Inuit would've died out a long time ago.


Then you can try:


http://www.westga.edu/~chem/courses/...9a/tsld017.htm



Finally try:


http://www.genomeknowledge.org/cgi-b...OUS_ID=73 870


Neither of these links show that *ketones* are acidic. Neither show
that amino acids are acidic. These are the things that *you* claimed
and cannot back up.

That ketoacidosis exists was never an issue... no one has stated
otherwise.

You have stated that acidosis occurs due to ketones and amino acids
themselves, which are acidic. That ketoacidosis occurs in Type 1
diabetes with extremely elevated blood sugar does not support your
assertion.

You have postulated that subclinical damage occurs to kidneys due to
urea. You haven't even addressed this assertion.

You have made numerous other stupid statements that make it clear that
you do not comprehend the stuff you are talking about. You can't
apparently even Google and read something and tell whether it supports
your assertions or not.

A reminder of what you have stated in this thread:

You can't support *one* of the pseudo-facts you've posted. Not one.

Show me where ketones are acidic.

Show me where ketones cause acidosis.

Show me where amino acids cause acidosis.

Show me where normal levels of urea and carbon dioxide are toxic.
*Normal* levels, OIO, cause abnormal levels of *anything* are toxic -
even oxygen, which most people don't consider toxic.

Show me where buffering is accomplished more by calcium leached from
the bones than by the bicarbonate buffer.

Show me where protein byproducts in the blood cause more kidney damage
than high blood sugar.

Show me *any* evidence of *any* of your pseudo-facts, Oh Ignorant One.


And OIO, if you choose to ignore all requests to support your
pseudo-facts, please address this last one. You are opposed to low-carb
diets. You are posting to a low-carb newsgroup. How exactly does this
make you anything but a troll?

My assertion (which your posts provide ample evidence for) is:

It's called trolling. You're a troll. An ugly, filthy, stupid troll.
A troll whose glucose-ladled brain has sunk to immeasurable depths of
stupidity.

Jackie Patti wrote:
Again, OIO, *why* are *you* here? Read the ng name again...
alt.support.diet.low-carb - support for people on a low-carb diet. If
you're not on one and opposed to them, why are you here?

I've been wondering that, too. I've also been wondering if we can
find Terri a bridge she might be happier hiding under. Possibly in
alt.troll.

--
Lexin
(300/223/182) (5'7)
LC since 9 June 2003