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 Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 30th, 2012, 06:34 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's



http://www.jerrynaughton.com/?p=462

"What is suddenly triggering this amyloid response, and why is it
accelerating? Three co-factors are implicated. First, our hysterical
avoidance of essential natural fats; compounded by their replacement
with carbohydrates, which are inflammatory; and finally, the zealous
prescribing of statins to lower cholesterol, compromising this
essential nutrient’s ability to transport fat to the brain without
being damaged in the bloodstream.

"If that’s a correct analysis, the solution to the accelerating rates
of dementia — and also obesity, diabetes, celiac, and other “diseases
of civilization” — over the last 30 years isn’t another expensive
lifetime drug prescription.

"Now the developers are hoping the remaining drugs in trial will “hit
their target.” Meaning, if they reduce plaque without killing or
making the patient worse, they can declare victory and start selling
them at $1,000-$2,500 a week. Note that definition doesn’t include
curing or stopping Alzheimer’s."

Big Pharma keeps pushing drugs that affect so-called risk markers, but
do very little to nothing to actually affect DISEASE & MORTALITY. It
does, however, keep the cash registers going "Ka-Ching!"

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #2  
Old July 30th, 2012, 08:22 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

Dogman wrote:

http://www.jerrynaughton.com/?p=462

"What is suddenly triggering this amyloid response, and why is it
accelerating? Three co-factors are implicated. First, our hysterical
avoidance of essential natural fats; compounded by their replacement
with carbohydrates, which are inflammatory; and finally, the zealous
prescribing of statins to lower cholesterol, compromising this
essential nutrient’s ability to transport fat to the brain without
being damaged in the bloodstream.

"If that’s a correct analysis, the solution to the accelerating rates
of dementia — and also obesity, diabetes, celiac, and other “diseases
of civilization” — over the last 30 years isn’t another expensive
lifetime drug prescription.


Few of us low carb fans are surprised that a standard issue low carb,
medium protein, high fat diet plan is good for yet another condition.
Few of us who read about the "Big Fat Lie" are surprised that a standard
issue low fat, medium protein, high carb diet plan makes yet another
condition worse.

Brain - That's an essential fatty acid issue combined with a fat
transport issue. It should be possible with very careful planning to
get it right on a low fat plan. In the meantime low carbers are already
ahead of the curve when it comes to essential fatty acids.

"Now the developers are hoping the remaining drugs in trial will “hit
their target.” Meaning, if they reduce plaque without killing or
making the patient worse, they can declare victory and start selling
them at $1,000-$2,500 a week. Note that definition doesn’t include
curing or stopping Alzheimer’s."


Reduced plaque shold reduce the symptoms. Well worth doing. It's a
partial cure. Better than nothing, if it's better than a standard issue
low carb diet plan anyways.

Big Pharma keeps pushing drugs that affect so-called risk markers, but
do very little to nothing to actually affect DISEASE & MORTALITY. It
does, however, keep the cash registers going "Ka-Ching!"


Big Pharma does not target a cure for any one specific condition.
Medical professors do however. Cures beat treatments in the market,
when they are available. The economic situation is a strange one where
it's harder to get a cure through the process than to get a treatment
through the approval process but the cures that do make it through the
approval process get used. Big Pharma can't quite suppress cures but
they can and do make the approval process difficult enough that a cure
needs to be strongly wanted to be able to make it through.

Note that antibiotics are cures for bacterial diseases and Big Pharma
does pursue new ones. Sort of the "exception that proves the rule".

Also note that vaccinations prevent and therefore outperform cures. In
the current market vaccinations are low money items so Big Pharma does
little to fund them other than the annual flue shots that act like a
renewable consumption. So there are government labs that work on
vaccines and there are large private charitable endowments that work on
vaccines.

When an HIV vaccine happens it won't help anyone currently infected.
Anyone currently infected wants a cure. Not gonna happen unfortunately.
Folks who debate the link between HIV and AIDS will see the number of
new cases drop after that, or they will not. I'm one of the ones who
expects the rate to drop. I'm also one of the ones who avoids all known
vector behaviors to not get infected in the first place.
  #3  
Old July 30th, 2012, 09:30 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 19:22:46 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
"Now the developers are hoping the remaining drugs in trial will “hit
their target.” Meaning, if they reduce plaque without killing or
making the patient worse, they can declare victory and start selling
them at $1,000-$2,500 a week. Note that definition doesn’t include
curing or stopping Alzheimer’s."


Reduced plaque shold reduce the symptoms.


Not if the reduced plaque is just a marker for something else:

"A growing minority of researchers are proposing that Aâ plaque is an
effect rather than a cause: that the true dysfunction is an inability
to degrade proteins; i.e., defects in the proteasome and/or the
lysosome"

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/EJIM_PUBLISHED.pdf

It would be like unscrewing the engine warning light on your car and
thinking that your car is now "cured" of whatever was wrong.

Big Pharma keeps pushing drugs that affect so-called risk markers, but
do very little to nothing to actually affect DISEASE & MORTALITY. It
does, however, keep the cash registers going "Ka-Ching!"


Big Pharma does not target a cure for any one specific condition.
Medical professors do however.


Medical professors do what their funding sources tell them to do, and
since that's usually Big Pharma, they usually look for treatments,
especially treatments that require life-long reliance on DRUGS.

I know we don't agree on this, but...

[...]
Note that antibiotics are cures for bacterial diseases and Big Pharma
does pursue new ones. Sort of the "exception that proves the rule".



Also note that vaccinations prevent and therefore outperform cures. In
the current market vaccinations are low money items so Big Pharma does
little to fund them other than the annual flue shots that act like a
renewable consumption.


We probably disagree on this, too, Doug, but I think annual flu shots
are a scam. But it's a hell of an annual revenue stream for Big
Pharma, especially if they can convince enough people that their
vaccination for, say, cervical cancer (Gardisil, etc.) prevents
cervical cancer. As you probably know by now, I (as well as others)
don't think it does. Nor do I think giving statin drugs to children as
young as 9 is a good idea, etc. Imagine the potential for damage to
someone taking statins for decades upon decades. shudder

Until the last few years, thanks to the efforts of a few courageous
veterinarians, dogs and cats in most states are no longer required to
get rabies (and a few other) vaccinations every year, opting instead
for the Three Year Protocol. An honest vet will tell you that there
never has been a *scientific* reason for giving your dog an annual
rabies shot (with the potential for major health complications as a
result), but was recommended simply because of GREED. They wanted that
annual revenue source, and felt that mandating an annual shot would
provide the opportunity to get the dog owner back in the clinic each
year, for a physical, etc.

Recent and ongoing immunization studies show that even every three
years is unnecessary.

When an HIV vaccine happens it won't help anyone currently infected.


There will never be an HIV vaccine.

You can write that down.

Anyone currently infected wants a cure.


One can avoid getting AIDS by avoiding/managing the risk factors, so
there is a "cure" already available to those who want one.

Folks who debate the link between HIV and AIDS will see the number of
new cases drop after that, or they will not.


The percentage of those said to be infected with HIV, based on initial
military physical exams, has remained constant since testing began.

I'm also one of the ones who avoids all known
vector behaviors to not get infected in the first place.


Bingo! We have a winnah winnah winnah!

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #4  
Old July 31st, 2012, 05:56 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

"Now the developers are hoping the remaining drugs in trial will “hit
their target.” Meaning, if they reduce plaque without killing or
making the patient worse, they can declare victory and start selling
them at $1,000-$2,500 a week. Note that definition doesn’t include
curing or stopping Alzheimer’s."


Reduced plaque shold reduce the symptoms.


Not if the reduced plaque is just a marker for something else:

"A growing minority of researchers are proposing that Aâ plaque is an
effect rather than a cause: that the true dysfunction is an inability
to degrade proteins; i.e., defects in the proteasome and/or the
lysosome"

http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/EJIM_PUBLISHED.pdf

It would be like unscrewing the engine warning light on your car and
thinking that your car is now "cured" of whatever was wrong.


I think of it like putting a drip whole in the bottom of the oil pan and
adding a drip source of fresh oil at the top. Clear out the cruddy oil
fast enough to keep the oil clear of the crud and ignore whatever is
causing the crud in the first place. Definitely a hack but it is likely
to improve symptoms or at least slow symptoms while researchers try to
figure out what's causing the crud and target fixing that next.

It does fit both the endless treatment model and the treat the symptom
model of alopathic medicine.

Until the last few years, thanks to the efforts of a few courageous
veterinarians, dogs and cats in most states are no longer required to
get rabies (and a few other) vaccinations every year, opting instead
for the Three Year Protocol. An honest vet will tell you that there
never has been a *scientific* reason for giving your dog an annual
rabies shot (with the potential for major health complications as a
result), but was recommended simply because of GREED. They wanted that
annual revenue source, and felt that mandating an annual shot would
provide the opportunity to get the dog owner back in the clinic each
year, for a physical, etc.


My brother's a vet. He lost interest in the annual shots when he bought
a computer system for his clinic that would print out annual notices for
each pet. "Time for Flffy's annual check up at the vet. Call for an
appointment time." It almost doubled his business in the next year so
he no longer needed the annual rabies shots as that funding source.
Even when it's about the money there are other ways.
  #5  
Old July 31st, 2012, 04:13 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 04:56:21 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
Until the last few years, thanks to the efforts of a few courageous
veterinarians, dogs and cats in most states are no longer required to
get rabies (and a few other) vaccinations every year, opting instead
for the Three Year Protocol. An honest vet will tell you that there
never has been a *scientific* reason for giving your dog an annual
rabies shot (with the potential for major health complications as a
result), but was recommended simply because of GREED. They wanted that
annual revenue source, and felt that mandating an annual shot would
provide the opportunity to get the dog owner back in the clinic each
year, for a physical, etc.


My brother's a vet. He lost interest in the annual shots when he bought
a computer system for his clinic that would print out annual notices for
each pet. "Time for Flffy's annual check up at the vet. Call for an
appointment time." It almost doubled his business in the next year so
he no longer needed the annual rabies shots as that funding source.
Even when it's about the money there are other ways.


Yeah, but the tragedy is, that so many vets allowed greed to trump
ethics for so long. They knew the vaccinations weren't needed, yet
they jeopardized the health of the very animals they were charged to
care for. Physicians and scientists are no different. They're human
beings, too, and human beings are capable of some really horrible
stuff. We should never allow ourselves to become mesmerized by a
freakin' white smock, but many of us do.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #6  
Old July 31st, 2012, 04:21 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Jul 30, 3:22*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:

http://www.jerrynaughton.com/?p=462


"What is suddenly triggering this amyloid response, and why is it
accelerating? *Three co-factors are implicated. *First, our hysterical
avoidance of essential natural fats; compounded by their replacement
with carbohydrates, which are inflammatory; and finally, the zealous
prescribing of statins to lower cholesterol, compromising this
essential nutrient’s ability to transport fat to the brain without
being damaged in the *bloodstream.


"If that’s a correct analysis, the solution to the accelerating rates
of dementia — and also obesity, diabetes, celiac, and other “diseases
of civilization” — over the last 30 years isn’t another expensive
lifetime drug prescription.


Few of us low carb fans are surprised that a standard issue low carb,
medium protein, high fat diet plan is good for yet another condition.
Few of us who read about the "Big Fat Lie" are surprised that a standard
issue low fat, medium protein, high carb diet plan makes yet another
condition worse.

Brain - That's an essential fatty acid issue combined with a fat
transport issue. *It should be possible with very careful planning to
get it right on a low fat plan. *In the meantime low carbers are already
ahead of the curve when it comes to essential fatty acids.

"Now the developers are hoping the remaining drugs in trial will *“hit
their target.” *Meaning, if they reduce plaque without killing or
making the patient worse, they can declare *victory and start selling
them at $1,000-$2,500 a week. *Note that definition doesn’t include
curing or stopping Alzheimer’s."


Reduced plaque shold reduce the symptoms. *Well worth doing. *It's a
partial cure.




Better than nothing, if it's better than a standard issue
low carb diet plan anyways.

Big Pharma keeps pushing drugs that affect so-called risk markers, but
do very little to nothing to actually affect DISEASE & MORTALITY. It
does, however, keep the cash registers going "Ka-Ching!"


Big Pharma does not target a cure for any one specific condition.



And your reference for that would be?



Medical professors do however. *Cures beat treatments in the market,
when they are available. *The economic situation is a strange one where
it's harder to get a cure through the process than to get a treatment
through the approval process but the cures that do make it through the
approval process get used. *Big Pharma can't quite suppress cures but
they can and do make the approval process difficult enough that a cure
needs to be strongly wanted to be able to make it through.


Wild unsupported accusations.




Note that antibiotics are cures for bacterial diseases and Big Pharma
does pursue new ones. *Sort of the "exception that proves the rule".


Oh, then what you posted above you already admit
is untrue.



Also note that vaccinations prevent and therefore outperform cures. *In
the current market vaccinations are low money items so Big Pharma does
little to fund them other than the annual flue shots that act like a
renewable consumption.


Your source for that claim would be? My sources
say over half of the funding for vaccine research
comes from the drug companies.




*So there are government labs that work on
vaccines and there are large private charitable endowments that work on
vaccines.

When an HIV vaccine happens it won't help anyone currently infected.
Anyone currently infected wants a cure. *Not gonna happen unfortunately..


And how could you possibly know that there will never be
a cure for AIDS?




Folks who debate the link between HIV and AIDS will see the number of
new cases drop after that, or they will not.


It won't matter a bit to the denialists because just like
the rest of the mountain of evidence that shows that
HIV is the cause of AIDS, they will just ignore it.





*I'm one of the ones who
expects the rate to drop. *I'm also one of the ones who avoids all known
vector behaviors to not get infected in the first place.- Hide quoted text -


And sadly if you listen to the AIDS denialists, you
won't avoid many of those paths to infection since
they tell you that HIV is harmless.
  #7  
Old July 31st, 2012, 05:47 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Until the last few years, thanks to the efforts of a few courageous
veterinarians, dogs and cats in most states are no longer required to
get rabies (and a few other) vaccinations every year, opting instead
for the Three Year Protocol. An honest vet will tell you that there
never has been a *scientific* reason for giving your dog an annual
rabies shot (with the potential for major health complications as a
result), but was recommended simply because of GREED. They wanted that
annual revenue source, and felt that mandating an annual shot would
provide the opportunity to get the dog owner back in the clinic each
year, for a physical, etc.


My brother's a vet. He lost interest in the annual shots when he bought
a computer system for his clinic that would print out annual notices for
each pet. "Time for Flffy's annual check up at the vet. Call for an
appointment time." It almost doubled his business in the next year so
he no longer needed the annual rabies shots as that funding source.
Even when it's about the money there are other ways.


Yeah, but the tragedy is, that so many vets allowed greed to trump
ethics for so long.


My brother's a good clinician. The dogs, cats, ferrets and whatever
love him even when he's cutting them. The owners observe their pets'
reactions and love him as well. He's a better businessman than he is a
clinician. Second biggest clinic in his state last I heard. Not that
he would mention to me if someone grew past him. ;^)

They knew the vaccinations weren't needed, yet
they jeopardized the health of the very animals they were charged to
care for. Physicians and scientists are no different. They're human
beings, too, and human beings are capable of some really horrible
stuff. We should never allow ourselves to become mesmerized by a
freakin' white smock, but many of us do.


Science is a self correcting method. Medicine, not nearly as much.
It's called a practice not a science for that reason.

There is science in medicine but medicine as such is a practice that
draws on science. Same as engineering - There is science in engineering
but engineering as such is a practice that draws on science.
  #8  
Old July 31st, 2012, 06:37 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
And sadly if you listen to the AIDS denialists, you
won't avoid many of those paths to infection since
they tell you that HIV is harmless.


And since it *is* harmless, by avoiding the REAL risks and behaviors
expressed by Duesberg, et al., "AIDS" may (if we're lucky) eventually
just "dissappear" all by itself one day. In like a lion, out like a
lamb.

And morons like you will be left standing there, scratching your
heads, and going: "WTF happened"?

Moron.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #9  
Old July 31st, 2012, 06:48 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 16:47:08 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
They knew the vaccinations weren't needed, yet
they jeopardized the health of the very animals they were charged to
care for. Physicians and scientists are no different. They're human
beings, too, and human beings are capable of some really horrible
stuff. We should never allow ourselves to become mesmerized by a
freakin' white smock, but many of us do.


Science is a self correcting method. Medicine, not nearly as much.
It's called a practice not a science for that reason.


Tru dat. Unfortunately, a lot of harm can be done while everyone's
sitting around waiting for the "correction."

I like to do things to expedite it, such as help publicize alternative
opinions, theories, explanations, etc., and then let people (the ones
still capable of deductive logic) make up their own minds.

In my world, "consensus" is a four-letter word.

The pay is terrible, but I sleep like a baby.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #10  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 02:32 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Jul 31, 1:37*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:21:59 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

And sadly if you listen to the AIDS denialists, you
won't avoid many of those paths to infection since
they tell you that HIV is harmless.


And since it *is* harmless, by avoiding the REAL risks and behaviors
expressed by Duesberg, et al., "AIDS" may (if we're lucky) eventually
just "dissappear" all by itself one day. In like a lion, out like a
lamb.


Duesberg is a denialist douche bag. And if people
listen to him and you, many will die. Actually Duesberg is
a good example of a denialist who has helped cost thousands
of people people their lives. He was an advisor to South Africa
under president Thabo Mbeki and helped convice him not to
take the appropriate public health steps the rest of the world was
taking to prevent the spread of AIDS.


From Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...,43510,00.html

"Duesberg has been so thoroughly discredited among AIDS researchers in
the U.S. that this is equivalent to South Africa trying to import out-
of-date medicines," says TIME medical correspondent Christine Gorman.
"If South Africa approaches this question in good faith they'll find
out what everybody else has figured out, which is that HIV causes AIDS
— but in the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
people will suffer because of some misplaced distrust of medical
authority."

With AIDS threatening to wipe out a full 25 percent of South Africa's
population by the year 2010, the current debate has arisen over the
government's responsibilities in treating the disease. Despite growing
pressure from the South African medical and AIDS activist communities,
the government refuses to make available the drugs AZT or Nevirapine
to rape victims and pregnant women. Some 22 percent of pregnant women
in South Africa are HIV-positive, and AZT and Nevirapine have been
successful in preventing mother-to-child transmission of the virus.
"AZT has been shown to prevent transmission of the virus to unborn
children," says Gorman. "There's always a chance that HIV won't
transmit and that some of those being treated might now have
contracted HIV anyway, but even if women aren't compelled to take it
there's no excuse not to make it available."

That was from 2000. Since then we have 12 more years
of evidence that HIV causes AIDS that Duesberg and similar
denialists continue to ignore.




And morons like you will be left standing there, scratching your
heads, and going: "WTF happened"?

Moron.

--
Dogman



You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug
said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those
vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV
causes AIDS. But of course that won't work because
for denialists, nothing will ever prove it to you. For
example, the whole world saw that as soon as a test
for HIV was available for blood products, hemophiliacs
stopped getting AIDS. Kids like Ryan White no longer
got AIDS and died. Same thing with blood transfusion
recipients. Powerful proof, that we all saw with our own
eyes and has been documented extensively by AIDS
researchers. But the denialist just reject all the real
science that doesn't fit their belief system and agenda.
 




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
Effect of weight loss on the postprandial response to high-fat and high-carbohydrate meals in obese women. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 3rd, 2007 01:27 PM
High-Carbohydrate Diet Can Increase Blood Pressure in Type 2 Patients Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 November 12th, 2005 04:12 AM
High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Could Curb Alzheimer's Irv Finkleman General Discussion 6 October 23rd, 2005 03:55 PM
High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Could Curb Alzheimer's Irv Finkleman Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 October 23rd, 2005 03:55 PM
High Fat, Low Carbo Diet Improves Alzheimer's Disease In Mice jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 October 18th, 2005 02:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 AM.


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