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

The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 7th, 2012, 02:40 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

Dogman wrote:

The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...-to-fear-bacon

"In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and
nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health.


For the large majority of people. There exist people who are sensative
to nitrates and/or nitrates. They should avoid foods with nitrates
and/or nitrites.

To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. Few are willing to
do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what
actually causes their problems. So they eliminate some class of foods,
get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. or they
eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will
get the same benefit.
  #2  
Old October 7th, 2012, 03:26 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Oct 7, 9:40*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:

The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...other-reason-n...


"In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and
nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health.


For the large majority of people. *There exist people who are sensative
to nitrates and/or nitrates. *They should avoid foods with nitrates
and/or nitrites.

To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to
do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what
actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods,
get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they
eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will
get the same benefit.


The principle issue with nitrites and the one raised in the post is
that some studies showed they were probable carcinogens
and linked to CANCER. I don't see how anyone is going to
do an elimination challenge to determine that.
  #3  
Old October 7th, 2012, 05:22 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:

The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...-to-fear-bacon

"In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and
nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health.


For the large majority of people. There exist people who are sensative
to nitrates and/or nitrates. They should avoid foods with nitrates
and/or nitrites.

To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. Few are willing to
do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what
actually causes their problems. So they eliminate some class of foods,
get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. or they
eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will
get the same benefit.


Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that
they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. It
should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear
of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be
counterproductive to one's health.

And that was the point of the article.


--
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
  #4  
Old October 8th, 2012, 12:25 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Oct 7, 12:23*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 13:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger





wrote:
Dogman wrote:


The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-...other-reason-n....


"In general, the bulk of the science suggests that nitrates and
nitrites are not problematic and may even be beneficial to health.


For the large majority of people. *There exist people who are sensative
to nitrates and/or nitrates. *They should avoid foods with nitrates
and/or nitrites.


To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to
do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what
actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods,
get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they
eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will
get the same benefit.


Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that
they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat.


Talk about strawmen, this is a classic. Doug didn't
say people should refrain from eating foods they might
have sensitivity issues with. He said they should do an
eliminate/challenge approach to find out what they have
issues with.



It
should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear
of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be
counterproductive to one's health.

And that was the point of the article.

--
Dogman


And this coming from the guy who gave us a lecture
just a week ago about Carbquik. Remember that
dogman? You said I was an idiot and would ruin my
health if I didn't do blood glucose testing and blood
lipid testing to find out my personal response to
Carbquik. Even though I made it clear I eat maybe a few
Carbquik pancakes a week and am not diabetic. And
as if that is even possible, to find a lipid difference in
a diet where 99.99% of what I'm eating is not Carbquik.

But this week, it's OK to eat anything, including those
nitrites, as long as you're not sensitive or having an
alergic reaction. Go figure.
  #5  
Old October 8th, 2012, 12:47 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:25:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to
do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what
actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods,
get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they
eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will
get the same benefit.


Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that
they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat.


Talk about strawmen, this is a classic. Doug didn't
say people should refrain from eating foods they might
have sensitivity issues with. He said they should do an
eliminate/challenge approach to find out what they have
issues with.


That's not a straw man (really, you should look up that term in your
Funk & Wagnall). It's just an add-on to Doug's add-on comments,
comments that I generally agreed with.

But the point of the article was to inform that nitrates, etc.,
shouldn't be avoided due to fears of cancer and heart attacks. I
didn't want to see that IMPORTANT point lost.

What an idiot you are.

It
should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear
of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be
counterproductive to one's health.

And that was the point of the article.


And this coming from the guy who gave us a lecture
just a week ago about Carbquik. Remember that
dogman?


I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other.

And I don't give lectures. I offer advice and information.

Take it or leave it.

You said I was an idiot and would ruin my
health


That's not a straw man, either, it's just a freakin' lie, which seem
to be coming faster and faster from you lately. Yes, you're a freakin'
liar.

if I didn't do blood glucose testing and blood
lipid testing to find out my personal response to
Carbquik.


You should do it only if you want to know what it's doing to your
blood sugars, and whether you care what it may be doing to your LDL-P
numbers (not that you even know what LDL-P numbers are). Since your
apparent strategy is to just get sick, then take medicine or have an
operation, rather than PREVENT disease in the first place, I would
never expect you to test much of anything. Unless it's how many
poppers you can inhale without dying, or something like that.

Even though I made it clear I eat maybe a few
Carbquik pancakes a week and am not diabetic.


And since being diabetic is irrelevant, because the damage is done to
us all, yes, whether we're diabetic or not, or for how many years
you've been eating wheat, the only thing that you've ever made clear
to me is that you're a freakin' idiot.

And as if that is even possible, to find a lipid difference in
a diet where 99.99% of what I'm eating is not Carbquik.


Sheesh. It doesn't matter. The damage is done over time. It's
accumulative. Like smoking.

But this week, it's OK to eat anything, including those
nitrites, as long as you're not sensitive or having an
alergic reaction. Go figure.


Yeah, go figure. Then see if you can find a clue.

I won't be holding my breath.

......................./´¯/)
.....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\...


--
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, 02:49 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Oct 7, 7:48*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:25:22 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to
do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what
actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods,
get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they
eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will
get the same benefit.


Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that
they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat.


Talk about strawmen, this is a classic. *Doug didn't
say people should refrain from eating foods they might
have sensitivity issues with. * He said they should do an
eliminate/challenge approach to find out what they have
issues with.


That's not a straw man (really, you should look up that term in your
Funk & Wagnall). It's just an add-on to Doug's add-on comments,
comments that I generally agreed with.

But the point of the article was to inform that nitrates, etc.,
shouldn't be avoided due to fears of cancer and heart attacks. I
didn't want to see that IMPORTANT point lost.

What an idiot you are.

It
should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear
of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be
counterproductive to one's health.


And that was the point of the article.

And this coming from the guy who gave us a lecture
just a week ago about Carbquik. *Remember that
dogman?


I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other.


Of course you don't because, well you're the village idiot
who has become a shill for Dr. Wheatbelly.
Doug proposed that people can do a trial of some foods for
potential problems, see how they react, and eliminate those
that they have issues with. Very much in line with Atkins and
other diet authorities.

Your response:

"Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods
that
they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. It
should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example..."


Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing
us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose
response and lipid response to anything suspect that
we eat. The case in point was occasional use of
Carbquik, which many of us regulars use. You claimed
it was dangerous and irresponsible
to NOT do BG and lipid testing, even though we are not
diabetic. Which is hysterically foolish, because among
other things, every thinking person here knows that it's
nuts to expect a measurable difference in lipids from
eating a couple Carbquik pancakes once or twice a week,
which might represent .1% of an overall diet.

And now here you are, saying just the opposite.
Got it now?

And as a second point, Doug never said that people should
refrain from eating all foods they might be sensitive to.
So, yes indeed, you created a nice strawman.
  #7  
Old October 8th, 2012, 04:29 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing
us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose
response and lipid response to anything suspect that
we eat.


That's a lie, no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply.

The case in point was occasional use of
Carbquik, which many of us regulars use. You claimed
it was dangerous and irresponsible
to NOT do BG and lipid testing, even though we are not
diabetic.


That's another lie,dm no matter how many times you copy and paste
your reply.

Which is hysterically foolish, because among
other things, every thinking person here knows that it's
nuts to expect a measurable difference in lipids from
eating a couple Carbquik pancakes once or twice a week,


That's a straw man, no matter how many times you copy and paste the
your reply.

And now here you are, saying just the opposite.
Got it now?


Yes, I got it. You have to lie to make it appear that I was saying
just the opposite.

And as a second point, Doug never said that people should
refrain from eating all foods they might be sensitive to.
So, yes indeed, you created a nice strawman.


Again, that wasn't a straw man (do you not even own a Funk &
Wagnall?). It was an add-on to Doug's comments, putting the focus
back on not needing to eliminate nitrates and nitrites from your diet
because of a fear of cancer or heart attacks, which was the point of
the article. And which I think is important for low-carbers to know.

And if you don't like it, you can stick it in your ear.

And for crissakes, learn how to make a post that doesn't require a
background in cryptography to decipher it.

What an asshole.

......................./´¯/)
.....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\...


--
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
  #8  
Old October 8th, 2012, 06:35 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Oct 8, 11:30*am, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 06:49:08 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing
us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose
response and lipid response to anything suspect that
we eat.


That's a lie, no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply.


Here it is for you from that other thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...f3a064a?hl=en#

Trader4:
So, I see. The new reqirement is that anyone that chooses to use
a LC product like Carbquik must now purchase a glucometer
and do a study on themselves before they use it, even if they
are not diabetic and doing perfectly fine with years of LC
experience.



dogman:
Only if they're smart!

Trader4:
And now Dogman
has tried to extend that to testing the product's effect on your
LDL? I eat maybe 6 Carbquik pancakes a week and then
not even every week. How the
hell could anyone expect me to test for it's effect on LDL?


dogman:
Easy, dumb****. Eat that way for a good 90 days, then have an NMR
test
(a test you *should* want to have done anyway).
Is your LDL particle number (LDL-P) low? Or high?


So it's clear what you said. You said that those of us
that use Carbquik and that are not diabetic should do BG
monitoring or we're not smart. And what is really, really
dumb is to suggest that lipid testing should be done too.
Like a few Carbquik pancakes are going to show up in
a lipid test and be able to be seperated out from the 99.9%
of the other food one eats. Dumb, really, really, dumb
and everyone else here knows it too.

But then you believe HIV is harmless, that AIDS
is caused by poor diet and lack of sleep, and that no
virus can cause cancer. Nuff said....






  #9  
Old October 8th, 2012, 10:59 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On Oct 8, 2:24*pm, Dogman wrote:


Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing
us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose
response and lipid response to anything suspect that
we eat.


That's a lie, no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply.


Here it is for you from that other thread:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...b/browse_frm/t...


Trader4:
So, I see. *The new reqirement is that anyone that chooses to use
a LC product like Carbquik must now purchase a glucometer
and do a study on themselves before they use it, even if they
are not diabetic and doing perfectly fine with years of LC
experience.


It's still a lie! I said everyone *should* want to. Period.



Not a word about "absolutely" or "must" do anything.



OK, you said everyone who uses Carbquik "should" do both a
BG test on themselves, even if they are not diabetic, and also
lipid testing, with and without Carbquik to see if it has an effect
on it. And then when I pointed out it makes no sense, you
continued to insist on it. Do you feel better? Do you really
think that materially
changes it? Does it change how dumb it is to think that a
person's blood lipids are going to show a measurable difference
from just a few Carbquik pancakes a week compared to
the 99.99% of the rest of the food they eat?




Just like they should want to know their BP, their *measured* LDL-P
(or apoB) numbers, and other KEY health markers.


No, what you proposed was testing to determine the specific
effect of Carbquik.





dogman:
Only if they're smart!


Trader4:
And now Dogman
has tried to extend that to testing the product's effect on your
LDL? * I eat maybe 6 Carbquik pancakes a week and then
not even every week. * How the
hell could anyone expect me to test for it's effect on LDL?


dogman:
Easy, dumb****. Eat that way for a good 90 days, then have an NMR
test
(a test you *should* want to have done anyway).
Is your LDL particle number (LDL-P) low? Or high?


So it's clear what you said.


Yes, that it's a test that everyone *should* want to have done anyway
(and for many reasons).


LOL, sure now try to run away from it. You specifically said to
do the testing relative to Carbquik and it's all there in context for
all to see. And of course you could not possibly just do the testing
just once, you'd have to do it at least twice, with and without
the Carbquik. And that is assuming any rational person believes
that there is going to be any measurable difference in lipids from
eating a few Carbquik pancakes a week, as opposed to the 99.99
percent of the rest of one's diet.



?YOU are the dumb****, as you've proven time
and time again. Whether anyone else wants to join your ranks, well,
that's their choice.


Are you as sure about that as you are that HIV is harmless?




You said *that those of us
that use Carbquik and that are not diabetic should do BG
monitoring or we're not smart.


No, just that YOU aren't smart.

QED.

And why are you always shilling for Carbquik? And drugs?


I've never been shilling for either. Carbquik only came up
in the discussion because someone brought up LC flour
substitutes. For examples of shilling, you need to look no
further than all the many posts YOU have made referring to
the preachings of Dr. WheatBelly and posting link after link
to his website. Why the newsgroup is just full of them
and they are ALL from YOU.




And what is really, really
dumb is to suggest that lipid testing should be done too.


Yes, it *should* be done, provided they want to know if they're at
high risk for a heart attack and/or CAD.


Nice try, but it was lipid testing specific to Carbquik that
you recommended.



Like a few Carbquik pancakes are going to show up in
a lipid test and be able to be seperated out from the 99.9%
of the other food one eats. *Dumb, really, really, dumb
and everyone else here knows it too.


Yes, the regular use of Carbquik, i.e., WHEAT, is going to affect your
LDL-P number, and your LDL-P number is a critical number for CAD and
heart attacks.


So there you go again. Back to claiming that eating a few
Carbquik pankcakes a week is going to have a measurable
effect on your blood lipid levels. Did someone else hyjack
your puter and post this yesterday:


dogman:
It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear
of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be
counterproductive to one's health.


So, what's up with that? First it's non-diabetics need to test
their BG and lipid response specific to a few Carbquik pancakes a
week.
Then it's unless you have an allergic reaction or sensitivity to
something, there is no reason to do even a simple elimination test to
see how it effects you? Now it's back to you should do BG tests
and lipid tests.
dogman:

"I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other. "


Of course not, because you're just soooo way in over your head
here dear.




But then you believe HIV is harmless, that AIDS
is caused by poor diet and lack of sleep, and that no
virus can cause cancer.
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs


Absolutely!



Nuff said......
  #10  
Old October 9th, 2012, 12:45 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon

On 08/10/2012 6:59 PM, wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:24 pm, Dogman wrote:


Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing
us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose
response and lipid response to anything suspect that
we eat.


That's a lie, no matter how many times you copy and paste your reply.


Here it is for you from that other thread:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...b/browse_frm/t...

Trader4:
So, I see. The new reqirement is that anyone that chooses to use
a LC product like Carbquik must now purchase a glucometer
and do a study on themselves before they use it, even if they
are not diabetic and doing perfectly fine with years of LC
experience.


It's still a lie! I said everyone *should* want to. Period.



Not a word about "absolutely" or "must" do anything.



OK, you said everyone who uses Carbquik "should" do both a
BG test on themselves, even if they are not diabetic, and also
lipid testing, with and without Carbquik to see if it has an effect
on it. And then when I pointed out it makes no sense, you
continued to insist on it. Do you feel better? Do you really
think that materially
changes it? Does it change how dumb it is to think that a
person's blood lipids are going to show a measurable difference
from just a few Carbquik pancakes a week compared to
the 99.99% of the rest of the food they eat?




Just like they should want to know their BP, their *measured* LDL-P
(or apoB) numbers, and other KEY health markers.


No, what you proposed was testing to determine the specific
effect of Carbquik.





dogman:
Only if they're smart!


Trader4:
And now Dogman
has tried to extend that to testing the product's effect on your
LDL? I eat maybe 6 Carbquik pancakes a week and then
not even every week. How the
hell could anyone expect me to test for it's effect on LDL?


dogman:
Easy, dumb****. Eat that way for a good 90 days, then have an NMR
test
(a test you *should* want to have done anyway).
Is your LDL particle number (LDL-P) low? Or high?


So it's clear what you said.


Yes, that it's a test that everyone *should* want to have done anyway
(and for many reasons).


LOL, sure now try to run away from it. You specifically said to
do the testing relative to Carbquik and it's all there in context for
all to see. And of course you could not possibly just do the testing
just once, you'd have to do it at least twice, with and without
the Carbquik. And that is assuming any rational person believes
that there is going to be any measurable difference in lipids from
eating a few Carbquik pancakes a week, as opposed to the 99.99
percent of the rest of one's diet.


Actually one would have to do it several times both before and after
in order to estimate the measurement error of the test. Only then can
any observed difference be said to be unlikely considering the normal
variability of the test measurements. Stat 101.




?YOU are the dumb****, as you've proven time
and time again. Whether anyone else wants to join your ranks, well,
that's their choice.


Are you as sure about that as you are that HIV is harmless?




You said that those of us
that use Carbquik and that are not diabetic should do BG
monitoring or we're not smart.


No, just that YOU aren't smart.

QED.

And why are you always shilling for Carbquik? And drugs?


I've never been shilling for either. Carbquik only came up
in the discussion because someone brought up LC flour
substitutes. For examples of shilling, you need to look no
further than all the many posts YOU have made referring to
the preachings of Dr. WheatBelly and posting link after link
to his website. Why the newsgroup is just full of them
and they are ALL from YOU.




And what is really, really
dumb is to suggest that lipid testing should be done too.


Yes, it *should* be done, provided they want to know if they're at
high risk for a heart attack and/or CAD.


Nice try, but it was lipid testing specific to Carbquik that
you recommended.



Like a few Carbquik pancakes are going to show up in
a lipid test and be able to be seperated out from the 99.9%
of the other food one eats. Dumb, really, really, dumb
and everyone else here knows it too.


Yes, the regular use of Carbquik, i.e., WHEAT, is going to affect your
LDL-P number, and your LDL-P number is a critical number for CAD and
heart attacks.


So there you go again. Back to claiming that eating a few
Carbquik pankcakes a week is going to have a measurable
effect on your blood lipid levels. Did someone else hyjack
your puter and post this yesterday:


dogman:
It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear
of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be
counterproductive to one's health.


So, what's up with that? First it's non-diabetics need to test
their BG and lipid response specific to a few Carbquik pancakes a
week.
Then it's unless you have an allergic reaction or sensitivity to
something, there is no reason to do even a simple elimination test to
see how it effects you? Now it's back to you should do BG tests
and lipid tests.
dogman:

"I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other."


Of course not, because you're just soooo way in over your head
here dear.




But then you believe HIV is harmless, that AIDS
is caused by poor diet and lack of sleep, and that no
virus can cause cancer.
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs


Absolutely!



Nuff said......



--
-jw
 




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
REC: Low Carb, Nitrate-Free Bacon Reg Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 June 2nd, 2004 06:33 PM
no nitrate bacon TasTyMorsL Low Carbohydrate Diets 12 April 14th, 2004 09:32 PM
Nitrate-free Bacon?? GarciaGM Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 January 28th, 2004 06:08 AM
Nitrite/nitrate free stuff Bob M Low Carbohydrate Diets 9 October 26th, 2003 03:03 AM
Nitrate free bacon?? PJ DiSanti Low Carbohydrate Diets 11 October 1st, 2003 05:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.