Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma

On 25 Mar 2004 11:56:13 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

Why is it that fat and protein takes a hit and refined carbohydrates
are conveniently ignored?

What are you talking about? Refined foods have taken a "hit" as you
put it for 50 years that I know of.

Bias?

Blindness?

Trying to add to the all fats and all
proteins are bad and all carbs are good argument?

Where did you see this? The local newspaper? No reputable nutritionist
has ever advocated this. They all advocate a balanced diet of
wholefoods. Well the eputable ones do.

Seems fishy to me.

Doesn't everything? You don't seem to know the difference between
conflict of interest and fraud.

On 25 Mar 2004 12:28:19 -0800, (Doug Freyburger)
posted:

pearl wrote:
The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:

Wow! It's a good thaing that Atkins is a vegatable-rich, moderate
protein/low carbohydrate diet, emphasizing plenty of fiber-rich
vegetables like cauliflower, broccoli and cabbage!

It is, and it does?

Yup. Veggies are mandatory from day one on.

They were taboo in his first book, IIRC.
You had to get into ketosis and veges would preclude this for many.

I thought you could eat as much fat and protein
as you desired, but that vegetables and fruit were restricted?

Because you haven't even read the book.

Which one?

Yet you're foolish enough
to go around making pronouncements about it.

Them?

Do you have any idea
how hilarious it is watching idiots who haven't even read the book
go around pontificating about it?

See above.

maybe you should do some research instead of just making assumptions.

Why don't you answer my questions in a civil manner instead of just
making assumptions?

It's not the job of regulars on ASDLC to read the book for others.
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is incurable. Are you ignorant or
stupid? Reading the book will cure ignorance. Go for it!

Again, which book?

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:28:37 -0500, "essense"
posted:


So fruits *are* restricted on low-carb' diets? Atkins' diet too?


Heck no. I eat lots of tomatoes and bell peppers. Of course, I do
eat some sweet fruit also like berries and melon.

essense


Berries have lots of that nasty fructose

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 17:31:58 GMT, Bob in CT
posted:

On 25 Mar 2004 17:25:19 GMT, Ignoramus20562
wrote:
[cut]


fruits are always restricted because they contain a lot of carbs (sans
avocado).

That said, within one's daily allowance of carbs, fruits are
permitted. I feel that vegetables give more bang for the buck than
fruits anyway, and eat about one apple per day only as far as fruits
are concerned.

I personally think that there is a lot of truth in raw foodism, which
is saying that raw foods are great foods. The logical fallacy that
they make is saying that they want to ONLY eat raw foods, instead of
correctly saying that they should eat a lot of raw foods.

So, a great majority of what I eat is raw, sans for meat and
such. Tried to eat raw meat also, but it is not very practicable due
to spoliation/contamination issues.

i

Veges are way better than fruits in my opinion -- less carbs and higher
fiber typically.

Why "than"? Can't you eat some of each?

I do tend toward the berries though, and eat some type
of berry almost every day.

So aren't veges better than these?
Or do you like that extra sweet fructose?

On 25 Mar 2004 17:37:09 GMT, Ignoramus20562
posted:

In article , Bob in CT wrote:
On 25 Mar 2004 17:25:19 GMT, Ignoramus20562
wrote:
[cut]


fruits are always restricted because they contain a lot of carbs (sans
avocado).

That said, within one's daily allowance of carbs, fruits are
permitted. I feel that vegetables give more bang for the buck than
fruits anyway, and eat about one apple per day only as far as fruits
are concerned.

I personally think that there is a lot of truth in raw foodism, which
is saying that raw foods are great foods. The logical fallacy that
they make is saying that they want to ONLY eat raw foods, instead of
correctly saying that they should eat a lot of raw foods.

So, a great majority of what I eat is raw, sans for meat and
such. Tried to eat raw meat also, but it is not very practicable due
to spoliation/contamination issues.

i

Veges are way better than fruits in my opinion -- less carbs and higher
fiber typically. I do tend toward the berries though, and eat some type
of berry almost every day. My typical day includes a large salad,
tomatoes, onions, cooked tomatoes (salsa), and berries. Also, I eat nuts
almost every day.


I could have repeated what you said, word for word.

Fruits are basically a lot of sugar with some fiber and vitamins. Vegs
are basically a little bit of sugar with fiber and vitamins. Better
than fruits.

Why exactly? Starch is the same as sugar to the body, and many veges
have a deal of this. Where are you getting your energy requirements
from?

On 26 Mar 2004 12:30:11 -0800, (Doug Freyburger)
wrote:

Gotcha, troll. You have chosen stupid over ignorant. Thanks for that.
Back to your PETA warrens, please.

I see the pearl troll is back.

Yes, you can gain 50 or 60 pounds in water easy when you are in
congestive heart failure. Have a friend who has had 175 pounds of
water flushed out twice.

I'm not Atkins doctor. I saw him within 6 months of when he died and
he was not fat then.


Barbara Hirsch, Publisher
OBESITY MEDS AND RESEARCH NEWS
The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development
http://www.obesity-news.com/

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

Why exactly? Starch is the same as sugar to the body, and many veges
have a deal of this. Where are you getting your energy requirements
from?

This thread is massively cross-posted.

When low-carbers talk about the piles of vegetables they eat, we
usually aren't referring to potatoes. Starchy vegetables are avoided
on low-carb.

Energy requirements are easily fulfilled with protein and fat, carbs
are not necessary for calories. Protein can be metabolized as
glucose, so starch or sugar is not needful even for production of
glucose for blood sugar.

The reason some people consider veggies "better" than fruits is
because if you are restricting carbohydrates, you get more bang for
your buck out of cabbage than from an apple... more food and hence
more fiber and micronutrients for the same amount of carb.

This is also why berries and melon are often referred to, these are
lower carb than most fruits.

As to whether low-carb is a healthy diet, this depends on how the
individual chooses to do it. Some get virtually all their carbs from
vegetables and fruit. Others do low-carb by eating "low carb" junk
food. Obviously, there's a big difference in how healthy those diets.

I am personally sort of intermediate, I eat a lot of vegetables, some
fruit, but probably more dairy than I strictly need. My diet would be
improved by getting more of my carbs from veggies and fewer from
cheese and cream.

"Moosh" wrote in message . ..

Where did you see this? The local newspaper? No reputable nutritionist
has ever advocated this. They all advocate a balanced diet of
wholefoods. Well the eputable ones do.

What "balanced" means can vary tremendously depending on individuals
though.

For instance, the ADA diet is *extremely* "unbalanced" for diabetics,
yet is generally recommended by repoutable nutritionists in spite of
the fact that high blood sugars have more serious health repercussions
than any of the supposed negative effects from high dietary fat
intake.

"Bob in CT" wrote in message news
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 13:51:11 -0000, pearl wrote:

"Ignoramus20562" wrote in message
...
In article , pearl wrote:
"Ignoramus20562" wrote in
message
...
Why correlation is not causation:

It is not often when people eat low carb diet that is high in meat and
fat and at the same time is high in vegetables (which are obviously
good things), and at the same time relatively low in carbs and
calories.

So, studies studying general populations and their trends, are going
to miss that segment of people due to its size, and therefore are not
instructive for people like me who follow the diet Idescribed.

Like I said, I eat several pounds of vegetables per day, one apple,
plenty of meat, some fat, at the same time it is relatively low in
calorie. 50% calories from fat, 25% from carbs and 25% from protein.

A typical fat person who eats a lot of meat has a diet that could not
be farther from what I eat. Why should I be , therefore, influenced by
their health problems that have little to do with meat, as such.

Carb intake of most other people and their adiposity IS the confouding
factor that makes conclusions based on correlation unwarranted.

Improperly digested animal protein is associated with endogenous
production of active oxygen (free radicals), leading to oxidative stress
(and cancer).

so you are now starting a completely new line of thought, instead of
conceding that I am right.

That's what you did, saying that .. the risk was with high-carbs
and meat, not meat. I'm showing you one reason why it's the meat.

OK, let's say that A and B are two conditions that occur in the people
studied. A is only ever examined (B is not), and the conclusion is that A
causes something (a disease, whatever). How do they know it's A and not
B? They don't.

Now, go back and insert "meat" for "A" and "carbs" for "B." Rethink your
hypothesis.

All that was taken into account. TC (tcomeau) provided further
details (*emphasis added):

"In this population-based case-control study, we found an increased
risk of NHL associated with higher consumption of animal protein,
saturated fat, and carbohydrates. An increased risk was also observed
for higher consumption of eggs and dairy products (including milk and
butter products) and *white bread*. On the other hand, a significantly
reduced risk was observed for a greater intake of dietary fiber,
tomatoes, broccoli, squash, cabbage, cauliflower, onions, leeks,
mixed lettuce salad with vegetables (such as carrots, tomatoes),
*dark bread*, tortillas, popcorn, citrus fruits, apples, and pears."

So we have an increased risk observed for higher consumption
of white bread, but a significantly reduced risk observed for
dark bread - both high in carbohydrates. So it can't be the
carbohydrate in bread that increases risk, but the form in
which it's consumed- wholegrain (inc. fibre and nutrients) or
refined (stripped of fibre and valuable nutrients). 'a significantly
reduced risk was observed for a greater intake of dietary fiber'
(helps peristalsis), while white bread contributes to constipation,
so,- that improperly digested putrefying meat sits in the colon
moving through ever-so-slowly, (as opposed to moving through
at a steadyish rate), as toxins are absorbed into the bloodstream.

The problem is that "meat" has been "known" to be be "bad" for some time.
Everyone believes this to be so, regardless of data that appears to throw
this "conclusion" into question.

The data doesn't throw that into question. Meat increases risk
regardless of any other factors.

"Luna" wrote in message
...
In article , "pearl"
wrote:

A good quality veg*n diet would be healthier and if it's
weight that concerns you;

A vegan diet may very well be healthy for some people, maybe even for me.
I used to be semi-vegetarian, I ate fish but not too frequently. Anyway,
the problem was that I ate too much pasta and bread on that diet,

That can happen, and when eaten in excess, can produce a craving
as well as allergic response (headaches, tiredness, fuzzy-headedness,
abdominal discomfort, bloating, tinnitus (referred) [especially with,
wheat-bran, shredded wheat, and weetabix, .. all of which are highly
abrasive to the colon, especially the ileo-caecal valve, situated
between the small and large intestine- just above the appendix]).

because vegetables alone didn't fill me up.

Nuts, seeds, legumes, cereals, sweet fruits, roots, leafy greens, rice?

But the pasta and bread didn't fill me up either!

Wholegrain or refined?

I could eat unlimited quantities of starchy foods, seemingly,
and never feel satiated.

You may have been missing out some higher protein plant-foods.

(Were you drinking 'diet' cokes, etc?).

Eliminating those foods has made it a lot easier
to eat less, and I feel a lot better too.

For cutting out all the wheat, no doubt.

Meat is a nutritionally dense
food, meat eating animals don't need to eat nearly as frequently to survive
as plant eating animals do.

Meat is a high protein food, in fact so high that it's unhealthy for us.
Otherwise, plant foods are far richer than meat in most nutrients,
and we can obtain all the essential nutrients we require, in suitable
and balanced amounts; sans all the unhealthy anti-nutrients in meat.

I think one of the things that gets missed in
the debate about low-carb diets is that for the people who respond well to
it, you end up eating less overall than before.

The conclusion in the in-depth documentary I saw, was that protein
satiates appetite very quickly. But you could just as easily eat plant
foods that are high in protein, such as nuts and legumes, also rice.

If I look at my diet now as
compared to before (not the semi-vegetarian phase, but before that) I am
eating less meat and dairy now, and more green veggies. I have a salad and
some broccoli instead of a butter laden potato with my meat, for example,
and the meat portion is usually much smaller than it was before. So even
though meat may be a higher _percentage_ of my diet now, the actual
quantities are _lower_.

So you're eating less, all in all.

Also, I'd like to see a study about moderate
protein, high fat diets where sugar and starches are at a minimum, to see
if any health problems come from that. Because I'd wager it's the
combination of high fat AND high carb that causes health problems, not one
or the other. If you study people who eat an excessive amount of meat, but
they're also eating an excessive amount of sugar, then you can't know which
excess is the culprit for the health problems, or if it's excessiveness in
general that is the problem.

Ketogenic Diets
http://www.ecologos.org/keto.htm

High-protein diets not proven effective and may pose health risks
http://www.americanheart.org/present...entifier=11103