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

In pursuit of sweetness



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 6th, 2012, 06:07 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default In pursuit of sweetness


In pursuit of sweetness:
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/

"There are several good choices but navigating among them is often
confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their
sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these
sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly
and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are
wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need
for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..."

--
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 October 7th, 2012, 12:48 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default In pursuit of sweetness

On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Dogman wrote:
In pursuit of sweetness:http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/

"There are several good choices but navigating among them is often
confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their
sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these
sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly
and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are
wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need
for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..."

--
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


How much more "wheatbelly" crap are you going to post?
Is your tuner broken so that's the only place you can dial
in to?
  #3  
Old October 7th, 2012, 03:30 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default In pursuit of sweetness

On Oct 6, 10:42*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Dogman wrote:
In pursuit of sweetness:http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/


"There are several good choices but navigating among them is often
confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their
sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these
sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly
and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are
wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need
for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..."

How much more "wheatbelly" crap are you going to post?


Truthfully? *As much as I want to post! *And as often as I want to
post!

And the best part about it is, you can't don't **** about it!


Except to point out to folks that these posts are coming
to you from the guy who claims to be a champion of
"the scientific method". And through which he claims:

HIV is harmless
HIV is not the cause of AIDS
AIDS is caused by diet and lack of sleep
No virus can cause cancer
HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer.

Anything else you'd like to add to your list of ignorance
today?

And then to top it off, while claiming to use the
"scientific method" he posts anecdotal crap right
and left.
  #4  
Old October 7th, 2012, 11:55 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default In pursuit of sweetness

On Oct 7, 12:23*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 07:30:25 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Oct 6, 10:42*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), "


wrote:
On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Dogman wrote:
In pursuit of sweetness:http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/


"There are several good choices but navigating among them is often
confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their
sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these
sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly
and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are
wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need
for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..."
How much more "wheatbelly" crap are you going to post?


Truthfully? *As much as I want to post! *And as often as I want to
post!


And the best part about it is, you can't don't **** about it!


Except to point out to folks that these posts are coming
to you from


You do realize how childish that sounds to most people, right?

To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by
recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science,
solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics?


You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted
about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission? With
whoever wrote it attributing diabetes remission in one girl
to a gluten-free diet without ever mentioning that the diet
was also low glycemic? That kind of article? As I said,
that would be like putting someone on LC and then
writing an article about how eliminating potatoes from
the diet produced the results. See the problem?

And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else
you consider sound science, so they can figure you
out for the ignoramus that you are.
  #5  
Old October 8th, 2012, 12:25 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default In pursuit of sweetness

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by
recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science,
solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics?


You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted
about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission?


Gluten-free was only part of it, if you'd taken the time to read the
entire study. They were trying to prove that a gluten-free diet wasn't
harmful to a NON-Celiac.

Sheesh.

That kind of article?


It wasn't an article. It was a study.

To this day, you don't seem to know the difference.

That's because there's no there there.

And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else
you consider sound science, so they can figure you
out for the ignoramus that you are.


I'm not the one who relies on summaries, doesn't know what antibodies
are, thinks children as young as 12 years old should be given
Gardasil, thinks AZT is harmless, thinks everyone should avoid salt,
believes in Al Gore's version of "global warming," and thinks everyone
should just wait around for a "study" before doing anything.

You're not only an ignoramus, you're freakin' dangerous!

--
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 October 8th, 2012, 03:11 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default In pursuit of sweetness

On Oct 7, 7:26*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by
recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science,
solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics?


You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted
about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission?


Gluten-free was only part of it, if you'd taken the time to read the
entire study.


One should not have to read an entire study to learn
that the diet they are talking about is not only gluten
free, but also LOW GLYCEMIC. Is that how the "scientifc
method" in your world works? That in the summary
you just talk about gluten? And as for reading the
entire study, I may be wrong, but I believe you have to
pay to access it.





They were trying to prove that a gluten-free diet wasn't
harmful to a NON-Celiac.

Sheesh.

That kind of article?


It wasn't an article. It was a study.





To this day, you don't seem to know the difference.


I don't know the difference?

See here is another fine example of your total inability
to comprehend "the scientific method". Here is the
link you posted, which you found via Dr. WheatBelly's
website, which seems to form the sole center of your
attention.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729336

That is NOT a study. It's a case report on ONE PATIENT.
The fact that you think it is a study speaks volumes.
And it also explains how you come to so many bizarre
conclusions. You don't even understand the difference
between a study and a case report on one patient.

Let me help you out. If they did a study with 100
similar diabetic patients, divided them into two groups, removed
only gluten from the diet of 50, replaced the gluten
products with similar refined carbs and then measured
the results, THAT would be a study of the effect of a
gluten-free diet.




That's because there's no there there.

And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else
you consider sound science, so they can figure you
out for the ignoramus that you are.


I'm not the one who relies on summaries, doesn't know what antibodies
are, thinks children as young as 12 years old should be given
Gardasil, thinks AZT is harmless, thinks everyone should avoid salt,
believes in Al Gore's version of "global warming," and thinks everyone
should just wait around for a "study" before doing anything.

You're not only an ignoramus, you're freakin' dangerous!

--



The above list of lies comes to you from the guy that is
an AIDS denialist and tells people HIV is harmless. That AIDS
is really caused by diet and lack of sleep. Everyone can
figure out who the one giving out dangerous advice here
really is.
  #7  
Old October 8th, 2012, 04:15 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default In pursuit of sweetness

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:11:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 7, 7:26*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by
recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science,
solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics?


You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted
about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission?


Gluten-free was only part of it, if you'd taken the time to read the
entire study.


One should not have to read an entire study to learn


That *exactly* what a person needs to do, first, if he or she wants to
see if the study conforms to the scientific method, and wants to
actually LEARN something besides the typical boilerplate.

Of course, this leaves you out, because you're too lazy to do your own
due diligence, and prefer to rely on PR releases and propaganda.

You probably only read the Forewards of books, too. Idiot!

They were trying to prove that a gluten-free diet wasn't
harmful to a NON-Celiac.

Sheesh.

That kind of article?


It wasn't an article. It was a study.


To this day, you don't seem to know the difference.


I don't know the difference?


No, you do NOT.

See here is another fine example of your total inability
to comprehend "the scientific method". Here is the
link you posted, which you found via Dr. WheatBelly's
website, which seems to form the sole center of your
attention.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729336

That is NOT a study. It's a case report on ONE PATIENT.


Yes, that is a study!

They were STUDYING the effects of a gluten-free diet on a NON-Celiac
with Type 1 diabetes! And they STUDIED him for many months, carefully
controlled his diet, measured his blood glucose, performed other
tests, reported the results, etc. They PROVED that even for a
NON-Celiac it was possible to safely go gluten-free, etc.

All of which you would have known had you actually read the STUDY.

What a maroon.

That's because there's no there there.

And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else
you consider sound science, so they can figure you
out for the ignoramus that you are.


I'm not the one who relies on summaries, doesn't know what antibodies
are, thinks children as young as 12 years old should be given
Gardasil, thinks AZT is harmless, thinks everyone should avoid salt,
believes in Al Gore's version of "global warming," and thinks everyone
should just wait around for a "study" before doing anything.

You're not only an ignoramus, you're freakin' dangerous!


The above list of lies comes to you from the guy that is
an AIDS denialist and tells people HIV is harmless.


Those aren't lies, and anyone can see for themselves by checking the
archives.

That AIDS is really caused by diet and lack of sleep.


Now you're lying again. It's become a habit for you now, hasn't it?

AIDS *can* be caused by diet (i.e., chronic malnutrition), as it does
in Africa, when it accompanies poor hygiene, a lack of clean drinking
water, parasitical infestation, etc. It's called "wasting" or "slim"
disease, and is indistinguishable from "AIDS."

A lack of sleep, when accompanied by chronic recreational drug abuse,
chronic heavy drinking, routinely inhaling poppers, taking antibiotics
prophylactically (almost round the clock, for months at a time),
having multiple STDs, having hundreds of male-to male sexual
encounters a month, and essentially "burning the candle at both ends",
over time, will eventually DESTROY YOUR IMMUNE SYTEM (i.e., AIDS).

And when your immune system is gone, it's gone. And so are you.

Don't believe me? Update your insurance policy and give it a try.

It's the ultimate n=1 experiment.

Everyone can
figure out who the one giving out dangerous advice here
really is.


I sure hope so.

--
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
 




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
sweetness Will McGugan General Discussion 1 August 1st, 2005 09:52 PM
Splenda, Sweetness and variances Preesi Low Carbohydrate Diets 13 December 18th, 2003 01:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.