low carb diets, not necessarily

On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, wrote:

I eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mostly short-grained white
Japanese
rice, with some genmai (Japanese brown rice) mixed in.


So why are you participating in a low carb newsgroup?

This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion,
provided it is on topic.

Rice is not low carb, and thus not on topic.

Low carb diets may include some carbs.

That's why you're still fat.

LOL!

I've maintained a low body fat percentage for four years now.

6'1", 170-something pounds.

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, wrote:

I eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mostly short-grained white
Japanese
rice, with some genmai (Japanese brown rice) mixed in.


So why are you participating in a low carb newsgroup?

This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion,
provided it is on topic.

Rice is not low carb, and thus not on topic.

Low carb diets may include some carbs.


Rice is not low carb, and rice is the bulk of your diet. You're in the
wrong newsgroup.


That's why you're still fat, between the ears.

LOL! DOH!!

On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, wrote:

I eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mostly short-grained white
Japanese
rice, with some genmai (Japanese brown rice) mixed in.


So why are you participating in a low carb newsgroup?

This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion,
provided it is on topic.

Rice is not low carb, and thus not on topic.

Low carb diets may include some carbs.


Rice is not low carb, and rice is the bulk of your diet.

The statement made in the right-hand clause of this sentence is not supported
by any information I have given. It was therefore produced by something
other than an intelligent, rational thought process.

That's why you're still fat, between the ears.

From the quote marks, it appears as if I had quoted this line in my earlier
followup, but in fact the original line that I quoted was different.

LOL! DOH!!

Similarly, this line is attributed to me by the quoting level, but I didn't
write it. The original line reads only ``LOL!''.

Editing the content of quoted material, other than for brevity (and with clear
indications) is, to me, an unacceptable breach of Usenet etiquette.

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-06, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, jcderkoeing wrote:

"Kaz Kylheku" wrote in message
...
On 2008-08-05, wrote:

I eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Mostly short-grained
white
Japanese
rice, with some genmai (Japanese brown rice) mixed in.


So why are you participating in a low carb newsgroup?

This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion,
provided it is on topic.

Rice is not low carb, and thus not on topic.

Low carb diets may include some carbs.


Rice is not low carb, and rice is the bulk of your diet.

The statement made in the right-hand clause of this sentence is not
supported
by any information I have given. It was therefore produced by something
other than an intelligent, rational thought process.

That's why you're still fat, between the ears.

From the quote marks, it appears as if I had quoted this line in my
earlier
followup, but in fact the original line that I quoted was different.


You figured that out all by yourself?


LOL! DOH!!

Similarly, this line is attributed to me by the quoting level, but I
didn't
write it. The original line reads only ``LOL!''.

Editing the content of quoted material, other than for brevity (and with
clear
indications) is, to me, an unacceptable breach of Usenet etiquette.


You really care about Usenet etiquette?

How about taking your non-low carb rhetoric to another newsgroup?

jcderkoeing wrote in message ...

You really care about Usenet etiquette?

How about taking your non-low carb rhetoric to another newsgroup?

+1

Cheri

This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion,
provided it is on topic.

Read the title of the group, if you can. It says
alt.SUPPORT.diet.low-carb, Not alt.lets.debate.diet.low-carb.

You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to breathe.

BlueBrooke wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 17:17:13 -0700, "Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom
wrote:


jcderkoeing wrote in message ...

You really care about Usenet etiquette?

How about taking your non-low carb rhetoric to another newsgroup?

+1

Cheri

Maybe he's a Susan Powter refugee.

LOL, is she still alive? I haven't seen or heard about her in ages.

Cheri

On 2008-08-07, BlueBrooke wrote:
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 21:11:45 -0700, "Cheri" gserviceatinreachdotcom
wrote:


BlueBrooke wrote in message
.. .

Maybe he's a Susan Powter refugee.

LOL, is she still alive? I haven't seen or heard about her in ages.

Cheri

I actually checked. She's got a website, but the front page is all
Flash (which I have disabled) so I frankly have no idea what she's got
to say.

But yeah! She's still there! I don't know if she's still doing
infomercials. Now that I have satellite, I'm spared those
indignities. ;-)

I remember, I saw this woman on television many years ago. It couldn't have
been later than around 1991 because that was around the time I stopped watching
TV.

She was on some talk show, introduced as an outspoken advocate of eating better
and exercising, who personally lost a lot of weight. I thought she was a more
than a little over-the-top, but that's what made her memorable.

Anyway, wow, she looks amazing. Even better than she did then, dare I say.
She's kept it up. Though she's older, she is thinner, and more conscious about
image, which make up for it.

Whatever she has believed and done over the years has obviously worked
for her.

It's not clear why you two pigs brought her up. Are you trying to say that
this woman /doesn't/ know what she's doing when it comes to losing fat and
getting into shape?

What does it mean to say that someone is a ``refugee from Susan Powter''? It
sounds to me like some sort of skinny-bashing, fat-acceptance rhetoric, which
has to do with hating people who are more successful than you are.

That's hardly a position from which you can legitimately support others.

On 2008-08-07, john wrote:

This is a discussion group where everyone is entitled to his opinion,
provided it is on topic.

Read the title of the group, if you can. It says
alt.SUPPORT.diet.low-carb, Not alt.lets.debate.diet.low-carb.

Fact is that the low-carb supporters do use this newsgroup to debate.

Without opposing views, there is no true debate.

The ``support'' part refers to helping people who are trying to diet. It
doesn't refer to supporting the dieting ideology itself!

People who are dieting are not helped by lies, such as that energy
doesn't matter.

As a successful dieter, and one who doesn't envy and hate even more
successful dieters, I'm actually more in a position to support others.

I've tried a lot of different ways of eating. All the ways that worked
had only one thing in common: reduced calories.

You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to breathe.

Insulting like this is completely ineffective when it's the bulk of your
message. You will earn the privilege of insulting me properly when you
actually cobble together a coherent argument.

The ``support'' part refers to helping people who are trying to diet. It
doesn't refer to supporting the dieting ideology itself!

Apparently you still haven't learned how to read. The support refers
to the low-carb diet. Read the title of this group, if you can.


People who are dieting are not helped by lies, such as that energy
doesn't matter.

I think you are citing the first law of thermodynamics. Of course,
that theory is basically irrefutable for all our collective knowledge
but that the problem is that this scientific law is being grossly
misapplied.

Issue 1: The body is not a perfect system. We leak all over, our
lungs, our noses, and more importantly our genitalia and our anuses
constantly expunge matter. It is uncontestable that fat is turned into
ketoids and we release those ketoids is all sorts of different ways
without necessarily storing it as fat.

Issue 2: Calories are not a physical entity, they are a measure of
potential energy. However, we don't burn "fat", our cells utilize
ketones and glucose. Furthermore there at least 4 different path ways
that foods become usable energy, and by definition, there are most
likely as many discrete levels of efficiency for all these processes.
Two of these are dramatically different in nature (ketones vs.
glucose) which makes the assumption of equal efficiency suspicious.

Issue 3: A calorie is _not_ equal to how or why your body stores fat.
One is measure of heat, and the other is a complicated metabolic
process. We are concerned with storing fat. It is on its face an
improper comparison.

I've tried a lot of different ways of eating. All the ways that worked
had only one thing in common: reduced calories.

There have been documented studies which demonstrate that
equal calorie diets based on different caloric composition result in
different degrees of weight loss. It's not magic. Its not a subversion
of physics. It's simple biology. Our body has two ways of processing
energy and demonstrates different propensity for fat storage with each
one. It's not a stretch unless you're insisting on a naive model of
how the body operates.


You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to breathe.

Insulting like this is completely ineffective when it's the bulk of your
message. You will earn the privilege of insulting me properly when you
actually cobble together a coherent argument.

I earned the right to insult you because you are an idiot.

You take stupidity to a new level.