'Put fat children on Atkins diet'

"Mirek Fidler" wrote in message
...
You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my experience
that
making the transition from sweets to artificial sweets to no sweets
eventually kills or greatly lessens the sweet cravings. If you could
wean
yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to the taste of
food
without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want the candy. In
theory, at least. That might not work for you; I don't know.

Well, actually I admit this approach is even better. But I am just a
human

I understand where you are coming from, but we are creatures of habit and
habits can be changed with the application of will and a workable strategy.
Personally, I don't want to just openly surrender to any known bad habit.
The sweet habit is one that you could probably change by weaning yourself
off it, over time.

mack
austin

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
m...
Mack wrote:

Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-carb"
advocates is their lack of distinction between simple carbs, i.e.
sugars,
and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.

Unless you deal with nasty inconvenient hard work topics like truth,
paying attention to the endless discussion of experienced low carbers
teaching naive new low carbers, and shock of shocks actually reading
the entire contents of a few of the well known low carb plan books,
anyways. What rock did you crawl out from under that you missed
simple basics like every single well known low carb plan without
exception puts much focus on glycemic index? Heck, there's even
Sugarbusters that focuses on complex vs simple carbs almost to the
exclusion of restricting total carb intake.

Thomas Edison said: "Most people miss opportunity because it is
dressed in coveralls and looks like work." Mack, actually reading the
books you attempt to discuss looks like work, but you really need to
try it. You know. Pick up book, open to page one, read the table
of contents. That sort of stuff that you clearly haven't done yet.
There isn't a single book out there that lacks focus on glycemic
index so it doesn't even matter *which* popular one you pick. Get
with the program. Do your homework. If you want to object to low
carbing, learn enough that you can actually do so on a basis of the
facts.

Wow! How does it make you feel more manly to be personally insulting when
you are in your little protected room, just typing on your computer? I
doubt you would talk to me like that in person. People with character don't
do that. Unfortunately, the web is highly-populated with cowardly jerks.
Why choose to be one of them?

For whatever it's worth, I have, in fact, read all the "Sugar Busters"
material, as well as Walford's "Beyond the 120 Year Diet" and quite a few
other popular and not-so-popular books on this subject. I suspect that I am
significantly better-read than you, just based on the observation that you
do not sound here like the type who would be much of a reader. More of a
drive-by insult artist.

My current approach to diet began with an article on glycemic index that was
posted on the wall of my gym, years ago, and is very similar to what you
find in "Sugar Busters", not including CRON. I am familiar, as well, with
Atkins, having used that diet to lose weight for about a year in 1972-73,
probably before you were born.

By "low-carb advocates", I was not referring to responsible books, which do,
in fact, mostly deal to some extent with the glycemic index. I was
certainly not referring to the the "Sugar Busters" book, with which I
largely agree. Obviously, my comment should have been more clear, at least
for you. I meant the individuals who constantly post here and on other
boards who do not seem to make very much if any distinction between sugars,
vegetables, whole grains, seeds, etc. A carb is a carb to them. But,
obviously, your point was not to find out what I meant or to have a real
discussion.

mack
austin

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:05:01 +0800, "Moosh"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine foods in
moderation.

Fruit, yes. Honey, however, offers such little nutritive benefit that
it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-spoonful, from white sugar.

Dawn

No breakfast, a cambridge bar and a tab for lunch, milk and a tv
dinner for dinner. She gained weight and this was the diet my mother
in law put her on to lose weight. It didn't work.

brian
290/227/210
july 8, 2003


"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message . com...
She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab.

Yeah, right.

I knew a lady who gained weight on two cabbage leaves and a cracker.

;-)

--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little.

Becky P.

"brian lanning" wrote in message
om...
No breakfast, a cambridge bar and a tab for lunch, milk and a tv
dinner for dinner. She gained weight and this was the diet my mother
in law put her on to lose weight. It didn't work.

brian
290/227/210
july 8, 2003


"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
. com...
She gained weight on a cambridge bar and a tab.

Yeah, right.

Wow! Does it make you feel more manly to be so personally insulting when
you are in your little protected room, just typing on your computer? I
doubt you would talk like that in person.

For whatever it's worth, I have, in fact, read all the "Sugar Busters"
material, as well as Walford's "Beyond the 120 Year Diet" and quite a few
other popular and not-so-popular books on this subject. You don't really
come off as much of a reader, yourself. More of a drive-by insult artist.

My current approach to diet began with an article on glycemic index that was
posted on the wall of my gym, years ago, and is very similar to what you
find in "Sugar Busters", not including the CRON. I am familiar, as well,
with
Atkins, having used that diet to lose weight for about a year in 1972-73.
Before you were born?

By "low-carb advocates", I was not referring to responsible books, which do,
in fact, mostly deal to some extent with the glycemic index. I was
certainly not referring to the the "Sugar Busters" book, with which I
largely agree.

Obviously, my comment should have been more clear, at least
for you. I meant the individuals who constantly post here and on other
boards who do not seem to make very much if any distinction between sugars,
vegetables, whole grains, seeds, etc. A carb is a carb to them. But,
obviously, your point was not to find out what I meant or to have a real
discussion.

mack
austin


"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
m...
Mack wrote:

Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-carb"
advocates is their lack of distinction between simple carbs, i.e.
sugars,
and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.

Unless you deal with nasty inconvenient hard work topics like truth,
paying attention to the endless discussion of experienced low carbers
teaching naive new low carbers, and shock of shocks actually reading
the entire contents of a few of the well known low carb plan books,
anyways. What rock did you crawl out from under that you missed
simple basics like every single well known low carb plan without
exception puts much focus on glycemic index? Heck, there's even
Sugarbusters that focuses on complex vs simple carbs almost to the
exclusion of restricting total carb intake.

Thomas Edison said: "Most people miss opportunity because it is
dressed in coveralls and looks like work." Mack, actually reading the
books you attempt to discuss looks like work, but you really need to
try it. You know. Pick up book, open to page one, read the table
of contents. That sort of stuff that you clearly haven't done yet.
There isn't a single book out there that lacks focus on glycemic
index so it doesn't even matter *which* popular one you pick. Get
with the program. Do your homework. If you want to object to low
carbing, learn enough that you can actually do so on a basis of the
facts.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:23:17 GMT, "Mack"
posted:

No, it definitely does not "put the kybosh" on fruit. I only avoid the
particularly high-glycemic fruits, like watermelon, ripe bananas,
pineapples, raisins. It does put it on honey. Two very different things.
Honey is an extremely high-glycemic food, like sugar.

Nope, neither are high. Fructose is quite low AAMOF.

Sugared and
artifically-sweetened food tastes -- at least to me -- dramatically sweeter
than any fruit I eat.

You really must overdo the sweetener. I find a drop or two of
saccharine in a cup of tea to be fine. Just sweet.

But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Apples and pears are quite low GI but extremely sweet. It's all that
fructose or fruit sugar. Very sweet, but very low GI.


mack
austin

"Moosh" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Mar 2004 03:34:54 GMT, Ignoramus21235
posted:

In article , Mack wrote:
You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my experience that
making the transition from sweets to artificial sweets to no sweets
eventually kills or greatly lessens the sweet cravings. If you could
wean
yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to the taste of
food
without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want the candy. In
theory, at least. That might not work for you; I don't know.

Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing sweetened. My
theory is that good food does not need sweetening.

Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine foods in
moderation.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:50:07 -0800, Dawn Taylor
posted:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:05:01 +0800, "Moosh"
announced in front of God and everybody:

Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine foods in
moderation.

Fruit, yes. Honey, however, offers such little nutritive benefit that
it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-spoonful, from white sugar.

Apparently not, as you can see by looking up the nutrition tables.
It should be used sparingly like all energy dense foods, but a little
of what you like.....

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:36:39 +0800, "Moosh"
announced in front of God and everybody:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:50:07 -0800, Dawn Taylor
posted:

Honey, however, offers such little nutritive benefit that
it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-spoonful, from white sugar.

Apparently not, as you can see by looking up the nutrition tables.
It should be used sparingly like all energy dense foods, but a little
of what you like.....

Honey contains two simple sugars, glucose and fructose. Table sugar
has the same two sugars, bound together to form a double sugar called
sucrose. In your body, they end up in exactly the same way. Once
sucrose reaches your intestine, it's broken back down into glucose and
fructose. So your body metabolizes honey and sugar in exactly the same
way.

A tablespoon of white sugar has 64 calories and a tablespoon of honey
contains water, so that it has only 46. But you add sweeteners by
taste, so you end up eating the same number of calories to obtain the
same sweetness using either sugar or honey.

And yes, honey has some minerals that sugar does not. But let's be
real -- to get, say, your RDA of iron, you'd have to eat 10 cups of
honey a day -- 40 cups for your RDA of calcium. The amount of
nutrients in a tablespoon of honey are so scant as to be
inconsequential.

Dawn

Honey: In Walford's "Beyond" book, glycemic index chart table 9.3, he lists
honey in the "80-90%" (2nd highest) area. (Glucose = 100%.) Same category
as cornflakes, baked (white) potato, watermelon and white bread. I would
avoid honey as an extremely high-glycemic food. But to each his own.

But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Obviously, "sweet" is a subjective term. I do not avoid most fruit, if
that's what you mean.

mack
austin



"Moosh" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:23:17 GMT, "Mack"
posted:

No, it definitely does not "put the kybosh" on fruit. I only avoid the
particularly high-glycemic fruits, like watermelon, ripe bananas,
pineapples, raisins. It does put it on honey. Two very different
things.
Honey is an extremely high-glycemic food, like sugar.

Nope, neither are high. Fructose is quite low AAMOF.

Sugared and
artifically-sweetened food tastes -- at least to me -- dramatically
sweeter
than any fruit I eat.

You really must overdo the sweetener. I find a drop or two of
saccharine in a cup of tea to be fine. Just sweet.

But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Apples and pears are quite low GI but extremely sweet. It's all that
fructose or fruit sugar. Very sweet, but very low GI.


mack
austin

"Moosh" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Mar 2004 03:34:54 GMT, Ignoramus21235
posted:

In article , Mack wrote:
You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my experience
that
making the transition from sweets to artificial sweets to no sweets
eventually kills or greatly lessens the sweet cravings. If you
could
wean
yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to the taste of
food
without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want the candy.
In
theory, at least. That might not work for you; I don't know.

Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing sweetened. My
theory is that good food does not need sweetening.

Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine foods in
moderation.