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

I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 15th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Hadwin Hadwin is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by WeightlossBanter: Apr 2011
Posts: 3
Default

Hi Alan,
Losing 5kg is in one month is such an easy task..
You should chose some interesting exercise like running swimming etc.
And try to eat more veges and fruits..
personal trainer orange county

Last edited by Hadwin : April 16th, 2011 at 10:16 AM.
  #12  
Old April 18th, 2011, 04:43 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,

*"FOB" wrote:
You don't NEED any carbs. *


Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like
somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso.


That's special too. Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes
crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated
from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do.

I have a better suggestion. Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution
and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan
that works.



  #13  
Old April 18th, 2011, 06:25 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

In article
,
" wrote:

On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,

*"FOB" wrote:
You don't NEED any carbs. *


Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like
somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso.


That's special too. Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes
crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated
from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do.

I have a better suggestion. Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution
and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan
that works.


From "Uh oh...." to Dr. Atkins evangelizer in 3 days. Is that some kind
of record?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575

Better check it out quickly before Susan's priceless brilliance is
scrubbed from the net.

Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to
support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass.


Where were you Susan, and Pamela?

Then Roger Zoul Posts,"High-fat diet (HFD) and inflammation are key
contributors to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes (T2D)."
http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vao...l/ni.2022.html
http://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2011/april/ting
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575

which elicits the question from Omelet, "Does this mean that the Atkins
Fat Fast can kill you even tho' it's the fastest way to dump weight and
force the body to burn fat as fuel? "

Doug responds to the question, and then Susan criticizes Doug's
response, which is followed by defensive bickering, during which no
practical information is offered.

You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You
still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a
contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions,
Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look
it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm?

Thanks a lot. (Yes, sarcasm)
--
- Billy

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
  #14  
Old April 18th, 2011, 07:24 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

Billy wrote:

Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to
support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass.


It's probably a better idea to discuss what consistutes realistic loss
rates than to try to help someone lose at a faster rate than usually
experienced by those having 100+ pounds to go.

Water loss happens in the first month on various types of diets
especially low carb. That results in more pounds lost in the first
month, or first two weeks, than in other months. Does the OP even mean
water loss, though? Some folks want water loss for a wedding or a
wrestling match or whatever and they don't really expect to keep it off
except for that day. Is there any sign the OP was in that situation?
  #15  
Old April 18th, 2011, 09:10 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

On Apr 18, 1:25*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,


*"FOB" wrote:
You don't NEED any carbs. *


Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like
somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso..


That's special too. *Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes
crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated
from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do.


I have a better suggestion. * Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution
and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan
that works.


From "Uh oh...." to Dr. Atkins evangelizer in 3 days. Is that some kind
of record?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575

Better check it out quickly before Susan's priceless brilliance is
scrubbed from the net.

Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to
support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass.

Where were you Susan, and Pamela?


Is it now necessary for each of us to respond to every post? I
haven't seen
Roger Zoul in here for maybe a year, but he' very credible and
helpful.


Then Roger Zoul Posts,"High-fat diet (HFD) and inflammation are key
contributors to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes (T2D)."http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vao...l/ni.2022.htmlhttp://news.unchealthcare.org/news/2011/april/ting
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575

which elicits the question from Omelet, "Does this mean that the Atkins
Fat Fast can kill you even tho' it's the fastest way to dump weight and
force the body to burn fat as fuel? "

Doug responds to the question, and then Susan criticizes Doug's
response, which is followed by defensive bickering, during which no
practical information is offered.


Let's review, OK? Roger made that post and it draws a link between
saturated fat and diabetes. Omelet comes along and asks if that
means
an Atkins fat fast can kill you. In response to that, Doug makes
the
claim that " ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with
diabetes", and tries to attribute it to Atkins. If true, that would
mean
that Atkins didn't think his diet, which puts one in ketosis, was safe
for diabetics. It's contrary to everything I know about Atkins and
like Susan I was suspicious,.

To review further,
first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic. Second, I
have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to
back what Doug claimed up. Third, Doug, as many of us here
know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming
it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a
single reference to support it.





You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You
still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a
contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions,
Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look
it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm?


Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up
what he attributed to Atkins,
instead of him simply providing the reference. I merely pointed out
that
like Susan, my BS detector is going off based on prior experiences
with Doug.



Thanks a lot. (Yes, sarcasm)
--
- Billy

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like
Doug so much. It too is an outright lie.
Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget
in graphical terms even you may be able to understand:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/


It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil and the
Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. That is an order
of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to
be totally clueless about that with you spout. And if you want
to count Social Security, that is another $818bil.

Anything else I can help you with?


  #16  
Old April 18th, 2011, 10:49 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

In article
,
" wrote:

On Apr 18, 1:25*pm, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:32*pm, Billy wrote:
In article ,


*"FOB" wrote:
You don't NEED any carbs. *


Technically, this is true, but since I don't no carb, I would like
somebody like Doug to sign off on this first. IIRC there is a proviso.


That's special too. *Ask the guy who misquotes Atkins, makes
crap up, comes to conclusions based on his "data tabulated
from newgroups" to sign off and tell people what to do.


I have a better suggestion. * Get Dr. Atkins New Diet Revolution
and follow the advice he gave, a real doctor with a real plan
that works.


From "Uh oh...." to Dr. Atkins evangelizer in 3 days. Is that some kind
of record?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575

Better check it out quickly before Susan's priceless brilliance is
scrubbed from the net.

Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to
support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass.

Where were you Susan, and Pamela?


Is it now necessary for each of us to respond to every post? I
haven't seen
Roger Zoul in here for maybe a year,

Then you say below, "Let's review, OK? Roger made that post . . ."
To err is human, to forgive is divine ;O)

but he' very credible and
helpful.


Then Roger Zoul Posts,"High-fat diet (HFD) and inflammation are key
contributors to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes
(T2D)."http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/vao...l/ni.2022.htmlhttp://news.unch
ealthcare.org/news/2011/april/ting
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/63dcacf903a4a575?show_docid=63dcacf903a4a575

which elicits the question from Omelet, "Does this mean that the Atkins
Fat Fast can kill you even tho' it's the fastest way to dump weight and
force the body to burn fat as fuel? "

Doug responds to the question, and then Susan criticizes Doug's
response, which is followed by defensive bickering, during which no
practical information is offered.


Let's review, OK? Roger made that post and it draws a link between
saturated fat and diabetes. Omelet comes along and asks if that
means
an Atkins fat fast can kill you. In response to that, Doug makes
the
claim that " ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with
diabetes", and tries to attribute it to Atkins. If true, that would
mean
that Atkins didn't think his diet, which puts one in ketosis, was safe
for diabetics. It's contrary to everything I know about Atkins and
like Susan I was suspicious,.


What Doug said was, "Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone
diagnosed with diabetes.", and I see no explicit reference to Atkins.
Perhaps Induction, and Fat Fast are the signposts indicating Atkins, but
your "and tries to attribute it to Atkins", seems to be stretching a
point.

To review further,
first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic.

So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it? Om said
that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we
aren't apprised of.
Second, I
have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to
back what Doug claimed up.

Lack of evidence isn't proof.

Third, Doug, as many of us here
know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming
it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a
single reference to support it.

Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now?





You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You
still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a
contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions,
Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look
it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm?


Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up
what he attributed to Atkins,
instead of him simply providing the reference.

Again, if you go to
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/b7c13e4c700f7b78?show_docid=b7c13e4c700f7b78
quickly, you'll see that Doug said "Dr Atkins was more conservative on
the topic than you are."

I merely pointed out
that
like Susan, my BS detector is going off

No reference, no cite, no sense. Why don't you just call it divine
revelation?

based on prior experiences
with Doug.



Thanks a lot. (Yes, sarcasm)
--
- Billy

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like
Doug so much. It too is an outright lie.

Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of
bile.
Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget
in graphical terms even you may be able to understand:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/


It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion but not including Fatherland
Security
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

and the
Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. That is an order
of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to
be totally clueless about that with you spout. And if you want
to count Social Security, that is another $818bil.


Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Human_Services
column right-hand side

and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from
withholdings on your wages.

Anything else I can help you with?


Yes. Go play in the traffic.
--
- Billy

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
  #17  
Old April 18th, 2011, 11:28 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Billy wrote:

Let's see FOB, Russell Valler, Tony S., Hadwin, and myself came to
support ALan Smith in his quest to lose 5 kg of mass.


It's probably a better idea to discuss what consistutes realistic loss
rates than to try to help someone lose at a faster rate than usually
experienced by those having 100+ pounds to go.

Water loss happens in the first month on various types of diets
especially low carb. That results in more pounds lost in the first
month, or first two weeks, than in other months. Does the OP even mean
water loss, though? Some folks want water loss for a wedding or a
wrestling match or whatever and they don't really expect to keep it off
except for that day. Is there any sign the OP was in that situation?


Oh, come on, Doug, you know that totally flies in
the face of clinical research.

Doug, why do you hate clinical research? ;O))
---

Anyway all we got was:
Helooo friends !!!!
This is ALan Smith I am Working as a content writer
I am bit bulky so loose the weight I have joined the
Gym. Still I have not concentrated on my diet so please
suggest me Low Carbohydrate Diets.....
Smith ALan
--
The subject line was "I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month",
and according to Google he was a first time poster.
I doubt we'll ever see him again.
--
- Billy

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
  #18  
Old April 19th, 2011, 04:12 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote:

To review further,
first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic.


So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it?


That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger.


Om said
that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we
aren't apprised of

.. Second, I
have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to
back what Doug claimed up. *


Lack of evidence isn't proof.


You can't be real. You've been here a fraction of the time that
Susan
or I have. But you still have been here long enough to know that
Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never
backs them up. This is what he said this time:

"Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with
diabetes."

"It was Doctor Atkin's stance. He wanted any low carbing diabetic to
work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. Anyone
can
feel free to look it up. Look for diabetes in the index of any
edition
of his book. "

As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and
looked in the index and found nothing close to the above. Now Billy,
I don't know how it works where you come from. But in my world
it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other
way around.




Third, Doug, as many of us here
know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming
it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a
single reference to support it.


Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now?


If you paid attention you'd know the history here. Susan has seen it,
I have seen it. Funny how you demand citations and examples from
us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged.



You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You
still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a
contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions,
Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look
it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm?


Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up
what he attributed to Atkins,
instead of him simply providing the reference. *


Again, if you go to
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/b7c13e4c700f7b78?show_docid=b7c13e4c700f7b78
quickly, you'll see that Doug said "Dr Atkins was more conservative on
the topic than you are."


I don;t even know what you're talking about here.



I merely pointed out
that
like Susan, my BS detector is going off


No reference, no cite, no sense. Why don't you just call it divine
revelation?


That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference.


Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like
Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie.


Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of
bile.


Quite the contrary, it's based on fact.



Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget
in graphical terms even you may be able to understand:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/


It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil


Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland
Security *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

and the
Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order
of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to
be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want
to count Social Security, that is another $818bil.


Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion

column right-hand side


The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit
anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and
Medicaid payments which are the vast MAJORITY of spending
on Health and Human Services. This is another new trick, along
the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try
to fool people who don't know any better. In your case, it
obviously worked.

I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block
diagrams. And the Health and Human services block sure
ain't your ridiculous 78bil. It's closer to $1tril, significantly
larger than the defense budget. Don't believe MSNBC?
Here's the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...get/index.html

Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to
defense. Still want to lie that it's only 78bil?




and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from
withholdings on your wages.


Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social
security withholdings, it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget.
Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. Social
security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending.


  #19  
Old April 19th, 2011, 07:21 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Billy[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

In article
,
" wrote:

On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote:

To review further,
first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic.


So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it?


That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger.


Om said
that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we
aren't apprised of

. Second, I
have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to
back what Doug claimed up. *


Lack of evidence isn't proof.


You can't be real. You've been here a fraction of the time that
Susan
or I have.

Seniority makes you right??

But you still have been here long enough to know that
Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never
backs them up.

What are you talking about? Nearly nobody posts here. In the couple of
years I've watched this site I've never noticed anyone but Susan who was
rude to the readers and Doug. There are times when clever people are
wrong, but when you ask a question, you are so buried in B.S. that you
can't see the sky. That's how I feel.

This is what he said this time:

"Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with
diabetes."

"It was Doctor Atkin's stance. He wanted any low carbing diabetic to
work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. Anyone
can
feel free to look it up. Look for diabetes in the index of any
edition
of his book. "

As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and
looked in the index and found nothing close to the above.

How about diabetes 273-287, Atkins Nutritional Approach to 228-229,
dangers associated with, 277, or just diet and 274, 275, 277-278.
Now Billy,

You can call me, Mister Rose.
I don't know how it works where you come from. But in my world
it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other
way around.

Except you took exception with what was said. You didn't say it doesn't
go like that. It goes like this. You haven't shown reason to to believe
you, except for Susan going nuttso over Doug. Shouldn't the person
making the claim to back it up?




Third, Doug, as many of us here
know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming
it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a
single reference to support it.


Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now?


If you paid attention you'd know the history here. Susan has seen it,
I have seen it. Funny how you demand citations and examples from
us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged.


You mean stuff like, "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the
Controversial Science of Diet and Health"
by Gary Taubes
http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-...nce/dp/1400033

462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271102831&sr=1-1
(Available at better libraries near you.)
REDUCING DIETS 319
Though glucose is a primary fuel for the brain, it is not, however the
only fuel, and dietary carbohydrates are not the only source of that
glucose. If the diet includes less than 130 grams of carbohydrates, the
liver increases its synthesis of molecules called ketone bodies, and
these supply the necessary fuel for the brain and central nervous
system. If the diet includes no carbohydrates at all, ketone bodies
supply three-quarters of the energy to the brain. The rest comes from
glucose synthesized from the amino acids in protein, either from the
diet or from the breakdown of muscle, and from a compound called
glycerol that is released when glycerides in the fat tissue are broken
down into their component fatty acids. In these cases, the body is
technically in a state called ketosis, and the diet is often referred to
as a ketogenic diet. Whether the diet is ketogenic or
anti-ketogenicÐrepresenting a difference of a few tens of grams of
carbohydrates each dayÐmight influence the response to the diet,
complicating the question of whether carbohydrates are responsible for
some effect or whether there is another explanation. (Ketosis is often
incorrectly described by nutritionists as "pathological." This confuses
ketosis with the ketoacidosis of uncontrolled diabetes. The former is a
normal condition; the latter is not. The ketone-body level in diabetic
ketoacidosis typically exceeds 200 mg/dl, compared with the 5 mg/dl
ketone levels that are typically experienced after an overnight
fastÐtwelve hours after dinner and before eating breakfastÐand the 5-20
mg/dl ketone levels of a severly carbohydrate-restricted diet with only
5-10 percent carbohydrates.)
--
Ketosis is often incorrectly described by nutritionists as
"pathological." This confuses ketosis with the ketoacidosis of
uncontrolled diabetes. The former is a normal condition; the
latter is not.
-



You know Susan, you could have just given your advice/opinion to Om. You
still could give your advice/opinion to Om. As we have it now, we have a
contentious newsgroup with recriminations flying in all directions,
Pamela spitting out her gratuitous sarcasm, & Trader advising to go look
it up. Is it any wonder why a.s.d.l.c. is utilized so little, hmmmm?


Actually, it's Doug who suggested the rest of us should go look up
what he attributed to Atkins,
instead of him simply providing the reference. *


Again, if you go to
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...rowse_thread/t
hread/8157a0986c6fd748/b7c13e4c700f7b78?show_docid=b7c13e4c700f7b78
quickly, you'll see that Doug said "Dr Atkins was more conservative on
the topic than you are."


I don;t even know what you're talking about here.

That's where you came in ;O)



I merely pointed out
that
like Susan, my BS detector is going off


No reference, no cite, no sense. Why don't you just call it divine
revelation?


That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference.

Om didn't ask him for one, but again, you are the one who said he is
wrong. Where's your proof? Shouldn't the person making the claim back it
up?


Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like
Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie.


Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of
bile.


Quite the contrary, it's based on fact.

Not in evidence.




Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget
in graphical terms even you may be able to understand:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/


It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil


Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland
Security *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

and the
Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order
of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to
be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want
to count Social Security, that is another $818bil.


Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion

column right-hand side


The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit
anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and
Medicaid payments which are the vast MAJORITY of spending
on Health and Human Services. This is another new trick, along
the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try
to fool people who don't know any better. In your case, it
obviously worked.

Anyone, at anytime can look at the site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Are you so lame as to suggest that I'm so desperate to look smart in
front of an idiot like you, that I would doctor a web site? Are you
stark raving insane?

I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block
diagrams. And the Health and Human services block sure
ain't your ridiculous 78bil. It's closer to $1tril, significantly
larger than the defense budget. Don't believe MSNBC?
Here's the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...get/index.html

Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to
defense. Still want to lie that it's only 78bil?




and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from
withholdings on your wages.


Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social
security withholdings, it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget.
Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. Social
security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending.

Because the retirement money went into the general fund.
I don't have time to help you read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
We are 5% of the worlds population. We don't need to spend half of the
worlds military budget while supporting over a 1000 bases around the
world. The biggest threat that we have to our democracy is here in
America. The country is dying. We need jobs, and we need to get the
blood sucking leaches off of us.

Taxes
Citizen$ --- Government --- Corporations --- Top 1% -- Where the
money went


America is not broke.
- MICHAEL MOORE
http://theuptake.org/2011/03/05/mich...wisconsin-is-b
roke/

"Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away "their"
wealth."
- Lucy Parsons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Parsons
--
- Billy

Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 16 April 1953
  #20  
Old April 19th, 2011, 12:50 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default I am planning to loose at least 5 kg in a month

On Apr 19, 2:21*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,
" wrote:
On Apr 18, 5:49*pm, Billy wrote:


To review further,
first, Omelet never mentioned that he/she was diabetic.


So, if she isn't the comment wouldn't relate to Om, would it?


That;s right and it makes Doug's reply even stranger.


Om said
that she has talked to Doug before, so maybe there is a communication we
aren't apprised of

. Second, I
have DANDR right here in front of me and I can find nothing to
back what Doug claimed up. *


Lack of evidence isn't proof.


You can't be real. *You've been here a fraction of the time that
Susan
or I have. *


Seniority makes you right??


You really do have a comprehension problem. I never said or
implied that. What I said was that while Susan and I have been
here a lot longer, you've been here long enough to see Doug
caught spinning crap with nothing to back it up.



But you still have been here long enough to know that
Doug attributes things to Atkins and when challenged, never
backs them up.


What are you talking about? Nearly nobody posts here. In the couple of
years I've watched this site I've never noticed anyone but Susan who was
rude to the readers and Doug.


I guess a lot gets by you.


There are times when clever people are
wrong,


Yes there are. But honest ones then admit it. Honest ones provide
references when challenged and don't tell everyone else to go
look up what Atkins said.


but when you ask a question, you are so buried in B.S. that you
can't see the sky. That's how I feel.


That must be because you're paying too much attention to Doug.



This is what he said this time:


*"Unsupervised ketosis is counterindicated for anyone diagnosed with
diabetes."


"It was Doctor Atkin's stance. *He wanted any low carbing diabetic to
work closely with a doctor informed on the topic of lowcarb. *Anyone
can
feel free to look it up. *Look for diabetes in the index of any
edition
of his book. "


As I stated, I have a copy of Atkins New Diet Revolution, 2002 and
looked in the index and found nothing close to the above. *


How about diabetes 273-287, Atkins Nutritional Approach to 228-229,
dangers associated with, 277, or just diet and 274, 275, 277-278.


Now, like Doug, instead of addressing the specific issue, you are
trying to cover up or squirm away. I did not say DIABETES was not in
the index or that Atkins did not warn about the dangers of DIABETES.
Nor did Susan. What we challenged was Doug's assertion that
Atkins said unsupervised ketosis was counterindicated for anyone
with diabetes and that he wanted diabetics to be monitored by
their doctor while doing Atkins.

Show us where THAT is contained Atkins books. And BTW,
it would be a good idea to include the edition, because I have
the 2002 soft edition of DANDR and while the topics you cite are
in the index, the page numbers do not correspond. I've looked
through the pages in my addition that you reference and
what Doug claimed is NOT there.

And when you find it, fair use allows some short excerpts, so
just post where Atkins said it.



Now Billy,

You can call me, Mister Rose. I don't know how it works where you come from. *But in my world
it's up to the person making the claim to back it up, not the other
way around.


Except you took exception with what was said. You didn't say it doesn't
go like that. It goes like this. You haven't shown reason to to believe
you, except for Susan going nuttso over Doug. Shouldn't the person
making the claim to back it up?



You really aren't very well grounded in logic, are you? Let's say
someone
claimed that Jack LaLane said excercise is dangerous for people with
diabetes. According to you, anyone that knows about LaLane and
has doubts that he said it, is the one that has to prove that he did
not
say it? Did you ever hear about the difficulty of proving a
negative?




Third, Doug, as many of us here
know from experience, has a habit of making crap up, claiming
it comes from Atkins, and when challenged, can't provide a
single reference to support it.


Example and citation please, or are we running a kangaroo court now?


If you paid attention you'd know the history here. *Susan has seen it,
I have seen it. * Funny how you demand citations and examples from
us, but whatever crap Doug spews goes unchallenged.



Long Taubes quote excerpted, because that is what Taubes said, not
what Doug says. But it does show that you apparently understand
that fair use allows for some brief excerpts. We'd think by now, if
Atkins really said what Doug claimed, we'd have that posted here
which would have ended the discussion long ago.





That's right, DOUG has no cite, no reference.


Om didn't ask him for one, but again, you are the one who said he is
wrong. Where's your proof? Shouldn't the person making the claim back it
up?


You really need to get grounded in logic and critical thinking.





Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion
Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion


Perhaps the above shows your level of thinking and why you like
Doug so much. *It too is an outright lie.


Ad hominem attack, and assertions without substantiation, butt plenty of
bile.


Quite the contrary, it's based on fact.


Not in evidence.



I provided you with links to both the NY Times and MSNBC, both
of which clearly show spending on Health and Human Services
on the order of $1tril, far exceeding defense.



Here's a link to the MSNBC which shows the 2012 budget
in graphical terms even you may be able to understand:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41575850...s-white_house/


It shows that the Dept of Defense budget is $727bil


Dept. of Defense budget: $663.8 billion *but not including Fatherland
Security *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png


and the
Health and Human Services budget is $887bil. *That is an order
of magnitude larger than your BS number and proves you to
be totally clueless about that with you spout. * *And if you want
to count Social Security, that is another $818bil.


Dept. of Health and Human Services budget: $78.4 billion

column right-hand side


The only problem with that Wikipedia cite, where anyone can edit
anythiing, is that it conveniently leaves out all Medicare and
*Medicaid payments which are the vast *MAJORITY of spending
on Health and Human Services. * This is another new trick, along
*the lines of "number of jobs saved", that is being used to try
to fool people who don't know any better. * In your case, it
obviously worked.


Anyone, at anytime can look at the site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
Are you so lame as to suggest that I'm so desperate to look smart in
front of an idiot like you, that I would doctor a web site? Are you
stark raving insane?



I did not say you doctored Wikipedia, only that it's an open
forum and anyone can edit what's posted there. In other words,
it would not be my first choice as a credible reference for anything.
There are folks who want to distort things for their own purposes
because their arguments won't stand on their own. In the case
in point, this is done by taking only DISCRETIONARY spending
on Health and Human Services and leaving out the biggest part,
Medicare and Medicaid. Then you try to compare it to the
defense budget, with is a totally bogus comparison.








I gave you a link to MSNBC that shows it all in pretty block
diagrams. *And the Health and Human services block sure
ain't your ridiculous 78bil. *It's closer to $1tril, significantly
larger than the defense budget. * Don't believe MSNBC?
* Here's the NY Times:


http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...0119-budget/in...


Look at the Health and Human Services block compared to
defense. *Still want to lie that it's only 78bil?


and Social Security doesn't count, does it, because it is paid from
withholdings on your wages.


Wrong, while the money coming in to pay for it is from the social
security withholdings, *it's part of the $3.7 trillion federal budget..
* Unless you think MSNBC, NY Times, CBO, etc are lying. * Social
security is right there as part of the $3.7tril budget spending.


Because the retirement money went into the general fund.
I don't have time to help you read.


Oh, OK, so in your world, social security revenue counts when it
comes into the federal budget, but not when it goes out. Figures.
You explain to us how if social security is not included in the
budget how the budget for 2012 is $3.7 tril


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
We are 5% of the worlds population. We don't need to spend half of the
worlds military budget while supporting over a 1000 bases around the
world. The biggest threat that we have to our democracy is here in
America. The country is dying. We need jobs, and we need to get the
blood sucking leaches off of us.


If you want to have that discussion, then you need to be honest and
not
start off with gross distortions. You tried to claim that spending on
defense is 10X what it is on Health and Human Services. You did
that by leaving out the biggest part of health spending, which is
Medicare and Medicaid. When you include them, as any reasonable
person would, then you find that spending on HHS is about 1.5X
what it is on defense.

If I were to similarly distort things, it would be like talking about
defense
spending and leaving out the Navy and AirForce.
 




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
Poor Planning and good planning - long King's Crown Weightwatchers 6 September 5th, 2006 03:57 PM
menu planning malaka General Discussion 30 January 30th, 2006 08:21 PM
Phentermine 3 month supply as low as $33 per month, Free UPS shipping [email protected] Medications related to Weight Control 0 March 8th, 2005 06:31 PM
How Does Planning Help You? Al Fresco Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 February 7th, 2004 05:48 PM
Im planning ahead Preesi Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 December 21st, 2003 03:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 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.