Atkins was right

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
m...
Brevity is the soul of wit.

HTH

Then, why not apply this yourself? Your post was just 7 words too long.

"Lictor" wrote in message
...
"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
m...
Brevity is the soul of wit.

HTH

Then, why not apply this yourself? Your post was just 7 words too long.



Why use two sentences when one will do?

"Crafting Mom" wrote in message
...
Look I have been transparent about what my *chemical* reactions to food
are, and you don't seem to be listening, but I'll try again...

But low carb doesn't even fit all the people with similar chemical problems.
Some people with diabete, especially type 1, have troubles with it. With
type 2, insulino-resistance is so strongly linked to weight that any diet
that makes you lose a large amount of weight will work to some extent.
People with reactive hypoglycemia can have good results on a diet that focus
on very slow carbs (which some people also call low carbs) rather than on
reducing carbs as a whole.

The chemical reaction is physical. But the resulting craving is a
behavioural (or psychological or learnt) reaction to a given stimulus (the
reactive hypoglycemia). The craving is felt in your brain, that's a place
where it's hard to make the difference between the purely chemical and the
rest. For instance, hypoglycemia doesn't cause me to crave for food or
sugary stuff, it makes me nauseous. If I wait for too long on my
hypoglycemia, eating actually becomes a problem. I find hypoglycemia highly
unpleasant, but my brain doesn't seem to make a strong link between that
condition and wanting to eat. I can feel a slight hunger at the beginning of
some hypoglycemia, but it's just regular hunger, not craving. Brain just is
not wired that way. I have to deal with that on a very conscious level : if
I exercise and feel like ****, I have to think about eating some slowish
carbs (usually fruits) to make things better.
We probably have a similar chemical background (fluctuating blood sugar -
result of lower insulino-resistance and oral insulino-secretors being too
strong for me), but the end result is widely different. I don't think you
can explain everything at the chemical level, human beings are just
(thankfully) too complex for that.

Well, you do whatever you do with your body, including terminating it,
putting drugs in it or selling it. That's your own freedom.

Well, it's obvious you don't understand what I've been saying. My way
of eating has improved my health dramatically and you're equating it to
damaging it as is evidenced in the above paragraph.

Errr... No, I just meant precisely what I say : whatever you do to your
body, including if it's damaging, is your own business. It's off topic, but
I'm all for legalizing stuff like drugs, prostitution or suicide - including
suicide by poor diet (as long as you're fully informed of the consequences).
I don't think it's right to force vegans to eat meat or muslims to eat pork,
I'm not going to force you to eat refined sugar.
I did not say you were hurting it, just that even if you were, that would
also be fine. Anyway, I don't know enough about the specifics of your diet
to know if it's actually hurting you or not. As I wrote, it seems to me low
carb is actually a very broad category. I'm sure you can eat healthy within
its constraints just like you could eat extremelly unhealthy.
If your diet improves your health, that's good for you. But even if it
didn't, and as long as you're not in a sect or brainwashed by a guru into
following, it would be pointless to save you from yourself.

However, I do have a problem with low carb becoming a business, like it
seems to be now.

I agree. I hate the way it is marketed as being a "for everyone" type
of diet as opposed to a "this is a diet which attacks a *specific*
problem" type of diet.

It's also marketed as a miracle diet (eat whatever you want, calories don't
matter). People here deny this, but that's how *all* diets are sold in the
mass market.
Most people here seem to have built their own personnal variation of it. But
the newsgroup going Internet users are a small minority. I'm not so sure the
broad mass of TV watching low carbers are that sensible. Also, many people
seem to think they *have* to eat low carb products (chocolate bars,
vitamins, low carb activator chemicals or whatever) as part of their diet.
Real chocolate is a good substitute for chocolate bar, it's even less
expensive.

However, the fact that it is marketed has no bearing on the fact that
such a diet has made ME healthier.

I don't think I would have any way to make you change your diet. I mean, I'm
not going to walk down to your home carrying a bucket of high fructose corn
syrup and a funnel Most people I have read here seem to have worked
things out in reverse : they first tried out things, found something that
worked, and then found books that talked about the things they had
discovered. Some people also don't seem to hold Atkins himself in such high
esteem. Many are not so fond of the whole Atkins Corp. business either.
That's the exact opposite of mass marketing. Just like my own psychological
approach was something I had discovered for myself, before I found books
where doctors had made the exact same discovery. I have not much problems
there, as long as it comes from personnal experimentation and not gurus,
mysticism or miracle diets, it seems a pretty healthy psychological process
to me.

But low carb is also something that is getting a huge coverage in the
medias. In France, stuff like Montignac (mostly low carb, with a bit of
dissociated eating) is among the best selling diets (right under the best
selling Adamo fad, based on your blood type). The fact that it is marketed
calls for looking it at the large scale, and see what effects it will have
on society as a whole. In several decades, it might be as "successful" as
the low fat mania. I'm pretty sure that once broadcasted and oversimplified
on mainstream medias, it will be just as damaging to society as a whole as
the low fat craze. Actually, it will probably be even worse, these things
tend to accumulate rather than replace each others. I'm willing to bet that
to the general public, *both* fats and carbs will become evil. This leaves
only proteins to make up the bulk of the calories intake. But very high
protein diets are not healthy. The hyper-proteidic diet is just as bad as
the low fat one, and it gives very poor long term results. Actually, feeding
high protein content to young kids is the best way to tune their body to
become obese in the future (high protein=high growth hormone secretion=high
number of cells specialized in storing fats)!
I just think it's wrong to promote any rigid diet until it becomes the
artificial norm. All previous instances of this have only worsened things,
and it will be no different this time.

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
...
Why use two sentences when one will do?

Mmm... Because I know it will annoy you? You need to take care of your pet
troll by titillating it from time to time, other the poor little thing
starts to wither from inaction.

"Lictor" wrote in message
...
other the poor little thing
starts to wither from inaction.



Can I get a translation into English on this?

"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
m...
"Lictor" wrote in message
...
other the poor little thing
starts to wither from inaction.



Can I get a translation into English on this?


No, you will have to use your brain. Pattern matching is something brains
are supposed to be very good at. Brain is like a muscle, even if yours is in
very poor shape, daily workout like this will eventually improve things. Of
course, you can't offset poor genetics, but it is always possible to
improve, no matter how little God gave you to start with.

"Lictor" wrote in message
...
"JC Der Koenig" wrote in message
m...
"Lictor" wrote in message
...
other the poor little thing
starts to wither from inaction.



Can I get a translation into English on this?


very poor shape, daily workout like this will eventually improve things.


Your English sucks.

No, you will have to use your brain. Pattern matching is something brains
are supposed to be very good at. Brain is like a muscle, even if yours is in
very poor shape, daily workout like this will eventually improve things. Of
course, you can't offset poor genetics, but it is always possible to
improve, no matter how little God gave you to start with.


You have a good way with words.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 14:01:30 +1200, "Supergoof"
wrote:

"Sleepyman" wrote ...
Jackie Patti wrote:

Many people here are not frankly diabetic like me. But many are "on the
way" to diabetes and will end up there if they don't eat low-carb.

Wrong...As you know diabetes is brought on by genetics. Eating crap
and being pre-disposed, can bring it on faster. Eating crap with no
pre-disposition will not make one a diabetic. Diabetes is scary
enough, without using further scare tactics.

So the medical fraternity go on about the obesity epidemic and diabetes
epidemic, telling us that being obese will give us diabetes.

Are you saying that this only the case if you're genetically predisposed to
diabetes in the first place?

And does that mean we're breeding more and more people with that genetic
predisposition to diabetes?

So if I, with insulin resistance, had continued to eat crap and get fatter
was I guaranteed to get full blown diabetes in the future?

Enquiring minds want to know.

cheers
Rachel
(New Zealand)


If obesity led directly to diabetes, then all obese people should be
diabetic, and there should be no skinny diabetics. Any doc who says
obesity causes diabetes, is wrong. If anything the opposite may be
true. Many think that insulin resistance in a diabetic, is what causes
weight gain.

The standards for being Dx'd diabetes, have changed radically in the
last few years. Thus many would not have been Dx'd a few years ago,
now are. Thus more diabetics.

Insulin resistance is a warning. It is not a diagnoses on it's own
however. We are also seeing a rise in Diabetes diagnoses, because many
pre-disposed people in fact *are* eating a more dangerous diet.

HTH

Sleepy

____________________________________
The True Axis of Evil
Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld
____________________________________

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 18:40:42 -0400, Sleepyman wrote:

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 12:07:44 -0400, Jackie Patti
wrote:

Many people here are not frankly diabetic like me. But many are "on the
way" to diabetes and will end up there if they don't eat low-carb.

Wrong...As you know diabetes is brought on by genetics. Eating crap
and being pre-disposed, can bring it on faster. Eating crap with no
pre-disposition will not make one a diabetic. Diabetes is scary
enough, without using further scare tactics.

Sleepy

Jackie, I mistakenly deleted your reply to me, about this post,
without reading it. Would you care to repost it? Also, did you see
the post I left for you about test studies?

Sleepy

____________________________________
The True Axis of Evil
Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld
____________________________________