About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On 05/05/2012 3:06 PM, wrote:
On May 5, 9:18 am, James wrote:
On 05/05/2012 9:55 AM, wrote:





On May 4, 10:33 pm, James wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:20 PM, Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:03:20 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

A good study.

You've got one. Yours.

Not good enough. I am just an anecdote.

Then stop what you're doing and go back to eating the way you used to
eat.

It might all be due to something else I did that coincided
with the diet.

What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.

Also, these beneficial effects might be offset by very bad
effects that I don't know about.

For example?

LC implies high fat.

Not necessarily.

Too much protean is harmful to the kidneys. There must be carbs or
fats to prevent kidney damage.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. You claim to have been
on LC for a year, lost 35 lbs, gone of meds, blood sugar is
now well controlled. Yet, you appear remarkably skeptical
about LC.

What? I can't be skeptical? The LC case is pretty good but it is not
rock solid. Why would you not want to make the case more solid?

Anything that's done to research LC is fine with me. It's just
that you seem to be VERY skeptical of what you say has worked
for you. And you want some definitive study which we all
know is next to impossible and not likely to happen.



And now you've come up with the above gem,
which is the classic anti-LC lie. LC is NOT low fat.

I know. It is high fat. I responded to the "Not necessarily" comment.

Certainly not if you're doing Atkins or a similar approach.
Nor is Atkins or any rational approach to LC, no carb.
And if there must be carbs to prevent kidney damage,
how exactly are the Inuit still alive and healthy?

What's next? Are you gonna invite the media in to
see a refrigerator filled with just steak and bacon?

Why are you so defensive?

I just get annoyed when people start misrepresenting what
LC is about and spouting the silly nonsense that so called "experts"
put forth all the time to try to discredit LC. And sorry, but when
you say that LC doesn't have fat,

I did not say that. I forgot who I was talking too but the reply to
what I said was that LC need not be high fat. Anyway I don't have
a problem with LC high fat.

imply that LC doesn't have any
carbs and start talking about kidney
damage, well I think just maybe you're a troll.

Kidney damage is a risk of a high protean diet that has little
carbs or fat. Add some carbs or fat, preferably fat, and the
risk is minimized.




Let settle it once and for all.
Let's find out if there is an ideal diet and what that
might be.



Dogman and others have tried to explain this to you. What
exact study do you need? You can't put humans in a cage,
control what they eat, control the environment like they were
lab animals. There isn't ever going to be a definitive study
that settles anything. It's just naive to think that one study
could ever settle anything about diets. Why can't you just be
happy and supportive of what has obviously worked for you?

Because I want to understand what is happening when we adopt a
certain diet. What are the benefits and what are the risks, not
just to me but to the population at large. Only by doing well controlled
studies can we find out. Simply studying self selected samples can't
is not sufficient.

On May 5, 10:13*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2012 3:06 PM, wrote:





On May 5, 9:18 am, James *wrote:
On 05/05/2012 9:55 AM, wrote:

On May 4, 10:33 pm, James * *wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:20 PM, Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:03:20 -0300, James Warren
* * *wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren
* * * wrote:

[...]
It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

A good study.

You've got one. *Yours.

Not good enough. I am just an anecdote.

Then stop what you're doing and go back to eating the way you used to
eat.

It might all be due to something else I did that coincided
with the diet.

What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.

Also, these beneficial effects might be offset by very bad
effects that I don't know about.

For example?

LC implies high fat.

Not necessarily.

Too much protean is harmful to the kidneys. There must be carbs or
fats to prevent kidney damage.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. *You claim to have been
on LC for a year, lost 35 lbs, gone of meds, blood sugar is
now well controlled. * Yet, you appear remarkably skeptical
about LC.

What? I can't be skeptical? The LC case is pretty good but it is not
rock solid. Why would you not want to make the case more solid?

Anything that's done to research LC is fine with me. *It's just
that you seem to be VERY skeptical of what you say has worked
for you. *And you want some definitive study which we all
know is next to impossible and not likely to happen.

And now you've come up with the above gem,
which is the classic anti-LC lie. *LC is NOT low fat.

I know. It is high fat. I responded to the "Not necessarily" comment.

Certainly not if you're doing Atkins or a similar approach.
Nor is Atkins or any rational approach to LC, no carb.
And if there must be carbs to prevent kidney damage,
how exactly are the Inuit still alive and healthy?

What's next? *Are you gonna invite the media in to
see a refrigerator filled with just steak and bacon?

Why are you so defensive?

I just get annoyed when people start misrepresenting what
LC is about and spouting the silly nonsense that so called "experts"
put forth all the time to try to discredit LC. *And sorry, but when
you say that LC doesn't have fat,

I did not say that. I forgot who I was talking too but the reply to
what I said was that LC need not be high fat. Anyway I don't have
a problem with LC high fat.

imply that LC doesn't have any
carbs and start talking about kidney
damage, well I think just maybe you're a troll.

Kidney damage is a risk of a high protean diet that has little
carbs or fat. Add some carbs or fat, preferably fat, and the
risk is minimized.







Let settle it once and for all.
Let's find out if there is an ideal diet and what that
might be.

Dogman and others have tried to explain this to you. *What
exact study do you need? * You can't put humans in a cage,
control what they eat, control the environment like they were
lab animals. * There isn't ever going to be a definitive study
that settles anything. * It's just naive to think that one study
could ever settle anything about diets. * Why can't you just be
happy and supportive of what has obviously worked for you?

Because I want to understand what is happening when we adopt a
certain diet. What are the benefits and what are the risks, not
just to me but to the population at large. Only by doing well controlled
studies can we find out. Simply studying self selected samples can't
is not sufficient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell us exactly how you do "well controlled studies" that last
decades. You can't lock up people in cages like lab rats,
control what they eat, what they do, how they live for most
or all of their lifespan. And the data is always going to be
self-reported. As soon as one of those studies was done,
I'm sure you'd be here complaining that it leaves too many
questions unanswered.

As for me, I'm comfortable doing what works for me.
And I'm not spreading misinformation about kidney
damage and misrepresenting LC either.

On May 5, 2:43*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:09:55 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]





I include statins in the treatment category, just like I would include
almost any drug prescription, including cancer chemotherapy.

Vaccines? In my opinion, we seriously overvaccinate. I think most of
them are totally unnecessary. The flu vaccine, for example. Tetanus
vaccine, however, would be a vaccination (considering the serious risk
of death without it) I would put in the necessary category.

And don't get me started on the practice of vaccinating children as
young as 9 (both boys and girls!) with the so-called HPV vaccine
(Gardisil)!

What a sham.

--
Dogman

Whether we over vaccinate or not, it's a classic example of drug
companies preventing disease.

I'd put it another way. For example, "It's a classic example of drug
companies ripping off the public."

As for statins, the majority of
those on them are taking them to PREVENT heart disease,
not to treat it.

I'll make you the same deal: show me one randomiszed, double-blind
trial that proves statin drugs prevent heart disease.

Do they lower cholesterol? *Yes.

Do they prevent heart disease? *No.

Now you can argue about whether it does prevent disease all
you want.

That's precisely what I'm arguing.

You're having that argument with Susan.
The argument you're having with
me was over your assertion that drug companies are only
interested in disease TREATMENT, not prevention.
Which implies there is no market, substantial profits,
etc to be made in disease prevention products.

I gave you statins as an example of a huge prevention
market for drug companies. I also gave you the example
of vaccines. You rejoinder to the vaccine statement was
that we over vaccinate. Assuming that is true, so what?
If anything that adds to the case that drug companies are
interested in prevention too. It's a big market that drug
companies are engaged in.

Now you want to claim that statins are not an example
of a disease prevention market because according to
you they don't work. I'm not going there because it's
irrelevant. Statins are still a huge market showing that
drug companies are not just focused on disease
treatment, but also on prevention. I could find you
drugs for treatment that are questionable as to their
efficacy. That doesn't make the case that drug
companies are not interested in treatment, does it?




But the fact that it's a class of drugs being used to
prevent disease can't be disputed.

Again, I'd put it another way. It's a class of drugs designed to rip
off the public.

Whether it's a rip off or not, it is a drug targeted at
PREVENTION. Do you really believe the drug companies
all just together came up with phoney statin drugs
knowing they were all useless? Or do you think
they believed the prevailing research and medical community
consensus, which was that lower cholesterol translates into
less CHD, which would save lives
and set out to find drugs that would lower cholesterol?
If you believe the latter, which I think most reasonable
people would, then it's clear that drug companies
are interested in the prevention market. Whether the
resulting drugs achieve that or not is an entirely different
discussion.

wrote in message news:892852f0-bf21-4c22-8d9a-

As for me, I'm comfortable doing what works for me.
And I'm not spreading misinformation about kidney
damage and misrepresenting LC either.


=================


+1

Cheri

On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:01:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Whether we over vaccinate or not, it's a classic example of drug
companies preventing disease.

I'd put it another way. For example, "It's a classic example of drug
companies ripping off the public."

As for statins, the majority of
those on them are taking them to PREVENT heart disease,
not to treat it.

I'll make you the same deal: show me one randomiszed, double-blind
trial that proves statin drugs prevent heart disease.

Do they lower cholesterol? *Yes.

Do they prevent heart disease? *No.

Now you can argue about whether it does prevent disease all
you want.

That's precisely what I'm arguing.

You're having that argument with Susan.
The argument you're having with
me was over your assertion that drug companies are only
interested in disease TREATMENT, not prevention.

The topics have now overlapped, Trader.

Which implies there is no market, substantial profits,
etc to be made in disease prevention products.

I initially said the "medical establishment," but you're focusing on
just the drug companies. The drug companies focus on profits. Period.

In fact, they often discontinue manufacturing various drugs that no
longer make them enough money, to the detriment of public health.

I gave you statins as an example of a huge prevention
market for drug companies. I also gave you the example
of vaccines. You rejoinder to the vaccine statement was
that we over vaccinate. Assuming that is true, so what?

Again, we're talking about several topics here. I said that statins
don't work to prevent heart disease. The drug companies know they
don't work. So how can that be an example of their focus on disease
prevention, if they know the drugs don't prevent anything?

If anything that adds to the case that drug companies are
interested in prevention too. It's a big market that drug
companies are engaged in.

Yes, but they are mostly interested in profits.

Now you want to claim that statins are not an example
of a disease prevention market because according to
you they don't work. I'm not going there

Well, you should go there, because that's my point. If statins worked
to prevent disease, I might take a different stance.

Statins are still a huge market showing that
drug companies are not just focused on disease
treatment, but also on prevention. I could find you
drugs for treatment that are questionable as to their
efficacy. That doesn't make the case that drug
companies are not interested in treatment, does it?

Yes, because it still boils down to profits being their main
objective. Which is why they fight so hard to extend patents, and to
develop drugs that treat the masses, beginning at the earliest
possible age. Again, I'll use the HPV vaccine as the most recent
example of that. HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer (it causes genital
warts), and the drug companies know that. But now that they can detect
antibodies to HPV ( a mostly harmless virus, they're able to blame all
kinds of things on HPV, even though there is no proof that a person is
actually infected with a live virus. You have antibodies to thousands
of harmless and mostly harmless viruses and retroviruses in your body.
What that means is that you were once exposed to a particular virus,
not that the virus is still any danger for you. That's why we have
immune systems, to control viruses, retroviruses, and other foreign
"invaders." The drug companies may claim they're "preventing" cervical
cancer, but they aren't, and they know it. They just want to sell this
vaccine to as many people as possible, which is why they now want to
give it to children as young as 9 years old.

But the fact that it's a class of drugs being used to
prevent disease can't be disputed.

Again, I'd put it another way. It's a class of drugs designed to rip
off the public.

Whether it's a rip off or not, it is a drug targeted at
PREVENTION.

Some are, like Gardisil, but they know it doesn't prevent anything,
and it surely doesn't prevent cervical cancer.

Do you really believe the drug companies
all just together came up with phoney statin drugs
knowing they were all useless?

That surprises you?

Look, they came up with a drug that lowers cholesterol (lots of things
can reduce cholesterol levels), and since the dominant paradigm is
that high cholesterol causes heart disease, they can make all sorts of
ridiculous claims. For many years, Lipitor had a disclaimer on its
insert that said "Lipitor has not been proven to prevent heart
disease."

The drug comapanies know this, of course, which is why they have
fudged so many studies, and designed so many unscientific trials.

Or do you think
they believed the prevailing research and medical community
consensus, which was that lower cholesterol translates into
less CHD, which would save lives
and set out to find drugs that would lower cholesterol?

No, I think they know that the conventional lipid hypothesis is a
sham, but they found a way to take advantage of it because of the
enormous potential for profit. It's all about the $$$$.


--
Dogman

"Cheri" wrote in message
...
wrote in message news:892852f0-bf21-4c22-8d9a-

As for me, I'm comfortable doing what works for me.
And I'm not spreading misinformation about kidney
damage and misrepresenting LC either.


=================


+1

Cheri




Cheri, Great minds...... I think you have got something the-) I am
having success with the vitamix. For meself. The operative word in this
group is SUPPORT!

Thank you.

Nana

On 06/05/2012 11:36 AM, wrote:
On May 5, 10:13 pm, James wrote:
On 05/05/2012 3:06 PM, wrote:





On May 5, 9:18 am, James wrote:
On 05/05/2012 9:55 AM, wrote:

On May 4, 10:33 pm, James wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:20 PM, Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:03:20 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

A good study.

You've got one. Yours.

Not good enough. I am just an anecdote.

Then stop what you're doing and go back to eating the way you used to
eat.

It might all be due to something else I did that coincided
with the diet.

What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.

Also, these beneficial effects might be offset by very bad
effects that I don't know about.

For example?

LC implies high fat.

Not necessarily.

Too much protean is harmful to the kidneys. There must be carbs or
fats to prevent kidney damage.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. You claim to have been
on LC for a year, lost 35 lbs, gone of meds, blood sugar is
now well controlled. Yet, you appear remarkably skeptical
about LC.

What? I can't be skeptical? The LC case is pretty good but it is not
rock solid. Why would you not want to make the case more solid?

Anything that's done to research LC is fine with me. It's just
that you seem to be VERY skeptical of what you say has worked
for you. And you want some definitive study which we all
know is next to impossible and not likely to happen.

And now you've come up with the above gem,
which is the classic anti-LC lie. LC is NOT low fat.

I know. It is high fat. I responded to the "Not necessarily" comment.

Certainly not if you're doing Atkins or a similar approach.
Nor is Atkins or any rational approach to LC, no carb.
And if there must be carbs to prevent kidney damage,
how exactly are the Inuit still alive and healthy?

What's next? Are you gonna invite the media in to
see a refrigerator filled with just steak and bacon?

Why are you so defensive?

I just get annoyed when people start misrepresenting what
LC is about and spouting the silly nonsense that so called "experts"
put forth all the time to try to discredit LC. And sorry, but when
you say that LC doesn't have fat,

I did not say that. I forgot who I was talking too but the reply to
what I said was that LC need not be high fat. Anyway I don't have
a problem with LC high fat.

imply that LC doesn't have any
carbs and start talking about kidney
damage, well I think just maybe you're a troll.

Kidney damage is a risk of a high protean diet that has little
carbs or fat. Add some carbs or fat, preferably fat, and the
risk is minimized.







Let settle it once and for all.
Let's find out if there is an ideal diet and what that
might be.

Dogman and others have tried to explain this to you. What
exact study do you need? You can't put humans in a cage,
control what they eat, control the environment like they were
lab animals. There isn't ever going to be a definitive study
that settles anything. It's just naive to think that one study
could ever settle anything about diets. Why can't you just be
happy and supportive of what has obviously worked for you?

Because I want to understand what is happening when we adopt a
certain diet. What are the benefits and what are the risks, not
just to me but to the population at large. Only by doing well controlled
studies can we find out. Simply studying self selected samples can't
is not sufficient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell us exactly how you do "well controlled studies" that last
decades. You can't lock up people in cages like lab rats,
control what they eat, what they do, how they live for most
or all of their lifespan. And the data is always going to be
self-reported. As soon as one of those studies was done,
I'm sure you'd be here complaining that it leaves too many
questions unanswered.

FOur or five years would probably suffice. Compliance can be monitored.
Food can be supplied. It is an important question worth the cost of
finding the truth.


As for me, I'm comfortable doing what works for me.
And I'm not spreading misinformation about kidney
damage and misrepresenting LC either.


I am not misleading anyone about LC. I am acknowledging the uncertainties
that exist in the field.

On 06/05/2012 2:30 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 6 May 2012 08:01:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Whether we over vaccinate or not, it's a classic example of drug
companies preventing disease.

I'd put it another way. For example, "It's a classic example of drug
companies ripping off the public."

As for statins, the majority of
those on them are taking them to PREVENT heart disease,
not to treat it.

I'll make you the same deal: show me one randomiszed, double-blind
trial that proves statin drugs prevent heart disease.

Do they lower cholesterol? Yes.

Do they prevent heart disease? No.

Now you can argue about whether it does prevent disease all
you want.

That's precisely what I'm arguing.

You're having that argument with Susan.
The argument you're having with
me was over your assertion that drug companies are only
interested in disease TREATMENT, not prevention.

The topics have now overlapped, Trader.

Which implies there is no market, substantial profits,
etc to be made in disease prevention products.

I initially said the "medical establishment," but you're focusing on
just the drug companies. The drug companies focus on profits. Period.

In fact, they often discontinue manufacturing various drugs that no
longer make them enough money, to the detriment of public health.

I gave you statins as an example of a huge prevention
market for drug companies. I also gave you the example
of vaccines. You rejoinder to the vaccine statement was
that we over vaccinate. Assuming that is true, so what?

Again, we're talking about several topics here. I said that statins
don't work to prevent heart disease. The drug companies know they
don't work. So how can that be an example of their focus on disease
prevention, if they know the drugs don't prevent anything?

If anything that adds to the case that drug companies are
interested in prevention too. It's a big market that drug
companies are engaged in.

Yes, but they are mostly interested in profits.

Now you want to claim that statins are not an example
of a disease prevention market because according to
you they don't work. I'm not going there

Well, you should go there, because that's my point. If statins worked
to prevent disease, I might take a different stance.

Statins are still a huge market showing that
drug companies are not just focused on disease
treatment, but also on prevention. I could find you
drugs for treatment that are questionable as to their
efficacy. That doesn't make the case that drug
companies are not interested in treatment, does it?

Yes, because it still boils down to profits being their main
objective. Which is why they fight so hard to extend patents, and to
develop drugs that treat the masses, beginning at the earliest
possible age. Again, I'll use the HPV vaccine as the most recent
example of that. HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer (it causes genital
warts), and the drug companies know that. But now that they can detect
antibodies to HPV ( a mostly harmless virus, they're able to blame all
kinds of things on HPV, even though there is no proof that a person is
actually infected with a live virus. You have antibodies to thousands
of harmless and mostly harmless viruses and retroviruses in your body.
What that means is that you were once exposed to a particular virus,
not that the virus is still any danger for you. That's why we have
immune systems, to control viruses, retroviruses, and other foreign
"invaders." The drug companies may claim they're "preventing" cervical
cancer, but they aren't, and they know it. They just want to sell this
vaccine to as many people as possible, which is why they now want to
give it to children as young as 9 years old.

But the fact that it's a class of drugs being used to
prevent disease can't be disputed.

Again, I'd put it another way. It's a class of drugs designed to rip
off the public.

Whether it's a rip off or not, it is a drug targeted at
PREVENTION.

Some are, like Gardisil, but they know it doesn't prevent anything,
and it surely doesn't prevent cervical cancer.

Please tell us how you know this?


Do you really believe the drug companies
all just together came up with phoney statin drugs
knowing they were all useless?

That surprises you?

Look, they came up with a drug that lowers cholesterol (lots of things
can reduce cholesterol levels), and since the dominant paradigm is
that high cholesterol causes heart disease, they can make all sorts of
ridiculous claims. For many years, Lipitor had a disclaimer on its
insert that said "Lipitor has not been proven to prevent heart
disease."

The drug comapanies know this, of course, which is why they have
fudged so many studies, and designed so many unscientific trials

Or do you think
they believed the prevailing research and medical community
consensus, which was that lower cholesterol translates into
less CHD, which would save lives
and set out to find drugs that would lower cholesterol?

No, I think they know that the conventional lipid hypothesis is a
sham, but they found a way to take advantage of it because of the
enormous potential for profit. It's all about the $$$$.

The lipid hypothesis might be incorrect but calling it a sham is
a little over the top.

On 06/05/2012 11:11 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:59:14 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
If you don't have a decent background in molecular or cell biology,
you may not understand what I'm saying.

From:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV

What is the association between HPV infection and cancer?

High-risk HPV infection accounts for approximately 5 percent of all cancers worldwide (4). However,
most high-risk HPV infections occur without any symptoms, go away within 1 to 2 years, and do not
cause cancer. These transient infections may cause cytologic abnormalities, or abnormal cell
changes, that go away on their own.

Some HPV infections, however, can persist for many years. Persistent infections with high-risk HPV
types can lead to more serious cytologic abnormalities or lesions that, if untreated, may progress
to cancer.

Which cancers are caused by HPVs?

Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by HPV infections, with just two HPV types, 16 and 18,
responsible for about 70 percent of all cases (5, 6). HPV also causes anal cancer, with about 85
percent of all cases caused by HPV-16. HPV types 16 and 18 have also been found to cause close to
half of vaginal, vulvar, and penile cancers (7).

Most recently, HPV infections have been found to cause cancer of the oropharynx, which is the middle
part of the throat including the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils. In the United
States, more than half of the cancers diagnosed in the oropharynx are linked to HPV-16 (8).

The incidence of HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer has increased during the past 20 years,
especially among men. It has been estimated that, by 2020, HPV will cause more oropharyngeal cancers
than cervical cancers in the United States (9).

There are both. I really don't care if you believe me or not. You
sound like you're far too trusting of Big Pharma.

Not at all. But evidence is more convincing than paranoia.

At this point, James, you've basically proven to me that you don't
have a clue as to what that word ("evidence") actually means.

Actually I do have a pretty good idea of what evidence means. Much of thew work
I do involves statistical analyses.


Yep, that's what prescribing statin drugs to people is - a sham.
Because they know they don't prevent heart disease. Besides maybe
fraudulent, I can't of a better word to describe it.

It may not be effective but it was believed to be effective when
introduced.

No, it wasn't. They knew exactly what they were (and are) doing.

And how do you know this?

You wouldn't believe me if I told you, so...

Top Secret, eh.


So if you want to consider that "over-the-top," I'm okay with that.

Now that's all I'm going to say about it. If you do want to know more
about it, you're going to have to do your own due diligence. And if
you have any daughters, you should do exactly that.

--
Dogman

I'm beginning to think that you're a bit conspiratorial in your thinking.

I don't care.

And now that's it. Do your own due diligence. The Internet is a
wonderful place.

Yep, it is. It also contains a lot of bull****. Can you tell the difference?

Yes, most of what you posted above = bull****.

Roughly equivalent to the government's "Food Pyramid."

Not at all. Now you're just flinging **** at random.


Which you apparently are smart enough to know is bull****, otherwise
you wouldn't be eating low-carb, etc.

Maybe one day you'll be smart enough to know what you posted above is
bull****. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Well, I guess there is always hope for all of us.


--
Dogman

On May 6, 7:06*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 06/05/2012 11:36 AM, wrote:





On May 5, 10:13 pm, James *wrote:
On 05/05/2012 3:06 PM, wrote:

On May 5, 9:18 am, James * *wrote:
On 05/05/2012 9:55 AM, wrote:

On May 4, 10:33 pm, James * * *wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:20 PM, Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:03:20 -0300, James Warren
* * * *wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren
* * * * wrote:

[...]
It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

A good study.

You've got one. *Yours.

Not good enough. I am just an anecdote.

Then stop what you're doing and go back to eating the way you used to
eat.

It might all be due to something else I did that coincided
with the diet.

What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.

Also, these beneficial effects might be offset by very bad
effects that I don't know about.

For example?

LC implies high fat.

Not necessarily.

Too much protean is harmful to the kidneys. There must be carbs or
fats to prevent kidney damage.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. *You claim to have been
on LC for a year, lost 35 lbs, gone of meds, blood sugar is
now well controlled. * Yet, you appear remarkably skeptical
about LC.

What? I can't be skeptical? The LC case is pretty good but it is not
rock solid. Why would you not want to make the case more solid?

Anything that's done to research LC is fine with me. *It's just
that you seem to be VERY skeptical of what you say has worked
for you. *And you want some definitive study which we all
know is next to impossible and not likely to happen.

And now you've come up with the above gem,
which is the classic anti-LC lie. *LC is NOT low fat.

I know. It is high fat. I responded to the "Not necessarily" comment..

Certainly not if you're doing Atkins or a similar approach.
Nor is Atkins or any rational approach to LC, no carb.
And if there must be carbs to prevent kidney damage,
how exactly are the Inuit still alive and healthy?

What's next? *Are you gonna invite the media in to
see a refrigerator filled with just steak and bacon?

Why are you so defensive?

I just get annoyed when people start misrepresenting what
LC is about and spouting the silly nonsense that so called "experts"
put forth all the time to try to discredit LC. *And sorry, but when
you say that LC doesn't have fat,

I did not say that. I forgot who I was talking too but the reply to
what I said was that LC need not be high fat. Anyway I don't have
a problem with LC high fat.

imply that LC doesn't have any
carbs and start talking about kidney
damage, well I think just maybe you're a troll.

Kidney damage is a risk of a high protean diet that has little
carbs or fat. Add some carbs or fat, preferably fat, and the
risk is minimized.

Let settle it once and for all.
Let's find out if there is an ideal diet and what that
might be.

Dogman and others have tried to explain this to you. *What
exact study do you need? * You can't put humans in a cage,
control what they eat, control the environment like they were
lab animals. * There isn't ever going to be a definitive study
that settles anything. * It's just naive to think that one study
could ever settle anything about diets. * Why can't you just be
happy and supportive of what has obviously worked for you?

Because I want to understand what is happening when we adopt a
certain diet. What are the benefits and what are the risks, not
just to me but to the population at large. Only by doing well controlled
studies can we find out. Simply studying self selected samples can't
is not sufficient.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Tell us exactly how you do "well controlled studies" that last
decades. * You can't lock up people in cages like lab rats,
control what they eat, what they do, how they live for most
or all of their lifespan. *And the data is always going to be
self-reported. *As soon as one of those studies was done,
I'm sure you'd be here complaining that it leaves too many
questions unanswered.

FOur or five years would probably suffice. Compliance can be monitored.
Food can be supplied. It is an important question worth the cost of
finding the truth.



OK, so we have people who have been eating God knows
what for 20 to 50 years. Now you want to put them on some
kind of carefully controlled LC diet for 5 years. Supplying
them food? Gee should be easy to round up 5,000 people
to do that. And you expect to see definitive results regarding
CHD, stroke, cancer, life expectancy at 5 years?

I guarantee you one thing. Whatever the results were there
would be more than enough unanswered questions so that
you'd still be unconvinced.




As for me, I'm comfortable doing what works for me.
And I'm not spreading misinformation about kidney
damage and misrepresenting LC either.

I am not misleading anyone about LC. I am acknowledging the uncertainties
that exist in the field.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

When you start talking about LC as if it were no carb
and drag possible kidney failure into it, I think you're
remarkably close to misleading people.