Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

Ralph DuBose wrote:
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.

Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).

2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.

This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
becoming problematic than diet alone will.

Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.

It's a bull**** measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable for
healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates -- especially
complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them. I am
NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance should go
hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to restrict
carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).

Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for normal
people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road, when the
body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities can
occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that applies
to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for normal
people. Everything in moderation.

Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
always happen every bit helps.

Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise causes
sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can either
be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine or
poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort and joy.

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
muscle groups as possible.

This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.

4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.

I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
carbs, and avoid the latter.

5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.

IOW, two simple rules:
1. Exercise regularly.
2. Eat a well-balanced diet.

That's all.

Consider the Amish.

No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still

My information about them might be out of date or even some what
flawed.

Very flawed.

However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.

I don't know where you got that example (I seem to recall it either from Barry
Sears or Atkins), but it's a flawed one from the start. The Amish haven't fallen
behind; they were never in front of the pack.

It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.

Issues worthy of consideration for that: most people food they cooked at home
from scratch, instead of fast food and over-processed junk foods; portion sizes
were much smaller than they are now; restaurants did not supersize for a
marginal sum, nor was there a proliferation of all you can eat buffets; that
time period includes the Depression, and many people knew what it felt like to
go to bed hungry (waistlines began increasing following the Depression, as
incomes rose and employment rebounded, and exploded as our society prospered
into the '60s and '70s). One more note about that era: people didn't stay thin
on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and flour and
other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.

stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
Those all play a role in their health data.

They all move about constantly.

No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.

They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.

Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
rather than walking.

They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.

According to whom?

They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.

Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.

They
cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.

Bull****ing****! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
them instead:

Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.

I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!

Source for Amish healthy study data:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
...

usual suspect wrote in message ...
Ralph DuBose wrote:
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.

Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).

2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.

This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
becoming problematic than diet alone will.

Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.

It's a bull**** measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable for
healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates

I never actually meant to say bad things about complex carbs. For
one thing, they are the only alternative to fat and protein as a food
source.
However, I do have a hunch that one important thing about reducing
the amount of simple carbs is that it helps ones appetite to be better
scaled to real energy needs. In other words, some foods do a better
job of suppressing hunger per calorie consumed than others. This might
be related to the apparent "sweet tooth" that so many people have --
simple carbs-sugars are so desired that the feed back loop to satiety
is impaired and slower.
When the Adkins diet seems to work for people, that is my hunch as
to why.

-- especially
complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them. I am
NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance should go
hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to restrict
carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).

Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for normal
people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road, when the
body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities can
occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that applies
to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for normal
people. Everything in moderation.

Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
always happen every bit helps.

Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise causes
sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can either
be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine or
poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort and joy.

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
muscle groups as possible.

This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.

4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.

I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
carbs, and avoid the latter.

5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.

IOW, two simple rules:
1. Exercise regularly.
2. Eat a well-balanced diet.

That's all.

Consider the Amish.

No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still

My information about them might be out of date or even some what
flawed.

Very flawed.

However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.

I don't know where you got that example (I seem to recall it either from Barry
Sears or Atkins), but it's a flawed one from the start. The Amish haven't fallen
behind; they were never in front of the pack.

It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.

Issues worthy of consideration for that: most people food they cooked at home
from scratch, instead of fast food and over-processed junk foods; portion sizes
were much smaller than they are now; restaurants did not supersize for a
marginal sum, nor was there a proliferation of all you can eat buffets; that
time period includes the Depression, and many people knew what it felt like to
go to bed hungry (waistlines began increasing following the Depression, as
incomes rose and employment rebounded, and exploded as our society prospered
into the '60s and '70s). One more note about that era: people didn't stay thin
on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and flour and
other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.

stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
Those all play a role in their health data.

They all move about constantly.

No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.

They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.

Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
rather than walking.

They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.

According to whom?

They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.

Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.

They
cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.

Bull****ing****! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
them instead:

Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.

I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!

Source for Amish healthy study data:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
...

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Ralph DuBose wrote:
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.

Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin
release"
(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and
insulin
resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people
aren't
getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring
examples of
the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever
devised to
help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one*
list of
GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in
each
list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a
better tool,
but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight
control
(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).

2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.

This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the
bogeyman
of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary
lifestyle.
Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and
cholesterol from
becoming problematic than diet alone will.

Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.

It's a bull**** measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable
for
healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates -- especially
complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them.
I am
NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance
should go
hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to
restrict
carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).

Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for
normal
people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road,
when the
body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities
can
occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that
applies
to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for
normal
people. Everything in moderation.
I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists, but please be aware that
your subjective emotional biases simply do not hold up to objective reality.

1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE
of the insulin resistence epidemic. It is not as uncommon as you assume.
Insulin resistence also causes diabetes and CHD, which, unsurprisingly, have
also elevated through the roof. The "war against obesity" is pathetic
blunder of symptom-based medicine... obesity does not cause these diseases,
IRS does. There is a much stronger association between IRS and diabetes/chd
than between obesity and diabetes/chd. One who has diabetes and CHD will
almost certainly be IRS, but they may or may not be obese. This is because
obesity is merely another symptom of IRS, and therefore commonly occurs in
those with diabetes and/or CHD.

2) Total glycemic load of your diet is *absolutely related* to propensity to
develop IRS. High glycemic load suppresses the body's manufacture of insulin
receptor substrate 1, and simple sugar intake (glucose, fructose, galactose
i.e. HFCS, sucrose) suppresses the body's manufacuring of insulin receptor
substrate 2. These proteins are *vital* to sensitize the insulin receptor to
the actions of insulin. When the body cannot perceive insulin various
abnormalities are observed: unstable energy balance (hyper and/or
hypoglycemia), ravenous appetite in spite of frequent gorging on food, and
in females reproductive abnormality (usually hyperandrogenization and
infertility syndrome called PCOS).

Since we have already established that the diabesity/CHD epidemic is a
direct response to the IRS epidemic, and since the IRS epidemic is a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE of our countries foolish decision to lower fat, animal products,
and increase total carbohydrate intake (especially in the form of simple
sugars), it would be wise for many people to elect a lower glycemic load
diet. If you are someone with severe IRS - the morbidly obese, the diabetic,
hypoglycemic, or those women with reproductive disturbances caused by PCOS -
Atkins-levels may be required (and, by the way, are completely HEALTH
PROMOTING if one structures their diet properly).

3) Your body has ZERO requirement for dietary carbohydrate. Your body has a
requirement for glucose, and a requirement for certain vitamins, but this
does not PRECLUDE a high doughy, starchy, sugary diet. Any glucose your body
needs it can synthesize via gluconeogenesis. The lowest sugar veggies are
always the highest in nutrients, therefore there is no reason to eat
"enriched" flours or "enriched" rices to obtain them as they invariably
contain relatively little nutrients (other than from the man-made
foritification... which, by the way, is the same thing as downing a bowl of
sugar and chasing it with a multivitamin!)

4) food intake and insulin release.
Yes, all foods stimulate insulin release. The difference is that fats and
proteins do not over-stimulate insulin release because they are digested via
pathways that the body was designed to use primarily. Fat and protein
releases energy into the body only as *required* as these foods are digested
slowly.
Carbohydrates, on the other hand, are broken down so quickly that they flood
the body with an excessive amount of energy. Your body was not meant to eat
a high mono/disaccharide diet. The excessive flood of insulin is
*reactionary* to the excessive glycemic (glycemia literally means "blood
sugar") flood. Your body has no choice but to raise the insulin to get rid
of all that energy - first it goes to the muscles, then to the liver to be
turned into glycogen, and whatever is left goes off to the fat cells.
Insulin's job is to STORE energy. An unnatural hyperinsulinemic (elevated
blood insulin) environment promotes weight gain. Plus, the same environment
which causes the overproduction of insulin also eventually causes IRS which
has its own set of problems. How readily one develops IRS is a matter of
genetics, however, which is why not all cultures and individuals readily
become IRS on the same diet which would be very unhealthy, for example,
someone like me.

Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
always happen every bit helps.

Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise
causes
sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can
either
be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine
or
poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort
and joy.

Exercise certainly helps, since exercise improves sugar metabolism. However,
to really see improvement one *must* lower total glycemic load in their
diet. Unless they limit the sugar they are assualting their body with, all
the exercise in the world won't matter. The energy intake is the action,
energy use is a reaction. Exercise without controlling for diet is not an
optimal way to improve metabolic disorder.


One more note about that era: people didn't stay thin
on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and
flour and
other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.
Oh BS man.

You and I both know that simple sugar consumption is through the roof
compared to the past, and likewise percentage of calories from fat very much
lower. Back then people ate with vigor fats like cheeses, milk and other
dairy, eggs, bacon & lard, etc. These foods were believed to be healthy,
hearty, and they were right.

Likewise, dissachride (starch) consumption was way less. You didn't have
animal rights nutjobs (i.e. ornish, neal barnard) promoting the health
virtue of bowls of sugar (rice, pasta, bread), while laying guilt trips on
people for eating fat & animal products. Though people did include breads,
corn, potatoes and other starches in the diet, it wasn't as much as today.
Look at the food pyramid... 5 servings of starch a day! Good lord! The
government must think we are marathon runners.

Also, simple sugar consumption was much, much lower. The way we eat
monosacchrides today was unheard of back then. A serving of cola (raw
fructose & glucose) was much smaller (6 oz) than the 64 ounce supersized
monstrocity peddled by MCDs, and it was an infrequent part of ones diet.

Your emotional bias against an omnivorous lifestyle prevents you from seeing
that it's not about MEAT. It's about protein, fat, and carbs and keeping
them in a good health promoting balance. If you are physically inactive you
should not be eating foods that flood your body with energy (like
mono/disacchrides). Nor should you be eating these foods as a staple if you
show any hint of IRS. Bottom line. If one so wishes it is entirely possible
to do LC on a vegetarian diet.. it's actually very easy. Just eat a lot of
nuts and dairy .

Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex carbs".
It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the term
and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

A simple sugar is a monosacchride - the base form of sugar energy which can
readily be assimilated by the body (glucose, fructose, or galactose).
A dissacchride is a structure comprised of 2 monosacchrides. Slightly more
complex than a monosacchride, but not by much (sucrose, HFCS which are both
roughly 50/50 glucose/fructose mixes). Your body converts dissachrides into
monosacchrides and uses them as appropriate.
A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat. Poly sacchride basically
means "many sugars". Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
eventually converted to them. The fact that the body has to work a little
harder to turn polysacchrides into useable energy (monosacchrides) makes
them, gram for gram, slightly better than eating monosacchrides or
disacchrides directly. 1 gram of glucose spikes blood sugar more readily
than 1 gram of starch. 1 gram of fructose also assualts the liver andis
converted to fat more readily than that same gram of starch. So, the little
extra processing required of your body does tend to "time release" the sugar
some what.

However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor... total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars. All speed does is mitigate the energy crashes and highs
associated with simple sugars. This may or may not even be of benefit,
because people tend to eat HUGE servings of starch. If you eat 40 grams of
pasta and think you are doing yourself a favor because youre avoiding 10
grams of HFCS you really aren't. The 30 extra carbs will contribute to
unstable energy more than the complexity of their molecular nature doesn't.

Generally speaking, if you do elect to consume a high glycemic load diet, it
is wise to make most of your calories come from complex carbs instead of
simple sugars as mono or disacchrides. This I agree with. HOWEVER, electing
to consume a high glycemic load diet is not something most people should be
doing in the first place. If you are a marathon runner and need the energy -
knock yourself out, by all means eat sugar. You need quick energy if you are
using energy quickly, of course.

However, if you are grabbing a bagel, coffee, and sitting on your bum at
your desk - do yourself a favor and replace the bagel with some eggs,
berries, and nuts. Your body will thank you.



"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Ralph DuBose wrote:
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.

Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin
release"
(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and
insulin
resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people
aren't
getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring
examples of
the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever
devised to
help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one*
list of
GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in
each
list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a
better tool,
but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight
control
(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).

2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.

This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the b
ogeyman
of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary
lifestyle.
Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and
cholesterol from
becoming problematic than diet alone will.

Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.

It's a bull**** measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable
for
healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates -- especially
complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them.
I am
NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance
should go
hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to
restrict
carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).

Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for
normal
people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road,
when the
body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities
can
occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that
applies
to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for
normal
people. Everything in moderation.

Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
always happen every bit helps.

Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise
causes
sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can
either
be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine
or
poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort
and joy.

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness
of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue
insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.

http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
muscle groups as possible.

This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise
has many
wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.

4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.

I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun
all
carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and
simple
carbs, and avoid the latter.

5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training --
one can
eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.

IOW, two simple rules:
1. Exercise regularly.
2. Eat a well-balanced diet.

That's all.

Consider the Amish.

No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and
those still

My information about them might be out of date or even some what
flawed.

Very flawed.

However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.

I don't know where you got that example (I seem to recall it either from
Barry
Sears or Atkins), but it's a flawed one from the start. The Amish haven't
fallen
behind; they were never in front of the pack.

It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.

Issues worthy of consideration for that: most people food they cooked at
home
from scratch, instead of fast food and over-processed junk foods; portion
sizes
were much smaller than they are now; restaurants did not supersize for a
marginal sum, nor was there a proliferation of all you can eat buffets;
that
time period includes the Depression, and many people knew what it felt
like to
go to bed hungry (waistlines began increasing following the Depression, as
incomes rose and employment rebounded, and exploded as our society
prospered
into the '60s and '70s). One more note about that era: people didn't stay
thin
on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and
flour and
other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.

stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from
which
statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to
have
higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke,
they don't
drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general
population.
Those all play a role in their health data.

They all move about constantly.

No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to
describe
themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.

They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.

Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely
on horses
rather than walking.

They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.

According to whom?

They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.

Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.

They
cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.

Bull****ing****! I could base this on my own observations (see below),
but I'm
aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can
point to
them instead:

Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.

I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times
(each) and
seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging
where
the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or
apple-shaped as
the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of
the labor,
but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!

Source for Amish healthy study data:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
...

aurora wrote:
...
I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,

Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER* embraced
animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong exception
to me. Asshole!

but please be aware that
your subjective emotional biases simply do not hold up to objective reality.

What I stated was not based on subjectivity or emotion. Your asinine remark
calling me a vegan/AR propagandists [sic] shows your own emotive reaction to the
truth I espoused.

1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE
of the insulin resistence epidemic.

Bull****. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting will
work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave as
much, etc.).

It is not as uncommon as you assume.

Commonality depends on actual statistics. Most people are NOT morbidly obese,
nor are most people insulin resistant. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath
and get the right perspective on the issue.

Insulin resistence also causes diabetes and CHD, which, unsurprisingly, have
also elevated through the roof.

CHD is also related to the sedentary lifestyle.

The "war against obesity" is pathetic
blunder of symptom-based medicine... obesity does not cause these diseases,
IRS does.

Ipse dixit. They're all related to a sedentary lifestyle. See elsewhere for
citations.

There is a much stronger association between IRS and diabetes/chd
than between obesity and diabetes/chd.

They're all related, you ninny. And should it surprise anyone that

...
2) Total glycemic load of your diet is *absolutely related* to propensity to
develop IRS.

You're blowing it out your ass, fatso. See the following link.

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9566.html


Since we have already established that the diabesity/CHD epidemic is a
direct response to the IRS epidemic,

You have not established that.

and since the IRS epidemic is a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE of our countries foolish decision to lower fat, animal products,
and increase total carbohydrate intake (especially in the form of simple
sugars),

That is a culprit, but it's bogus to impugn complex carbs right along with
simple ones. They're NOT the same, the body doesn't absorb them the same, etc.
When low-fat dieting was recommended, the guidelines DID recommend eating whole
grains and other complex carbs like potatoes and pasta. The guidelines did NOT
say to eat a load of Snackwell and other sugary foods. People who did that were
not following the recommendations at all.

it would be wise for many people to elect a lower glycemic load
diet. If you are someone with severe IRS - the morbidly obese, the diabetic,
hypoglycemic, or those women with reproductive disturbances caused by PCOS -

I know plenty of women with PCOS. Some of them are morbidly obese, some just
obese. They're all sedentary and they've all eaten more than their fair shares
of sugary foods. It's no wonder they have problems. They were not interested in
low-fat dieting, they're really not interested in giving up their chocolates,
ice cream, french fries, pizza, or cookies. The first thing they could do to
help themselves is to exercise. The second thing they could do is to eat a
well-balanced diet.

Atkins-levels may be required (and, by the way, are completely HEALTH
PROMOTING if one structures their diet properly).

I disagree with you. Restricting calories is one thing; restricting a
macronutrient is another. That goes for fat or carbs. I've no problem with
advising people to restrict SIMPLE carbs, but advising anyone to restrict
complex carbs is foolish. The way the body responds to deprivation of nutrients
(micro or macro) and to subsequent consumption of those deprived nutrients can
be more detrimental than the original health issue (especially if it's simply
weight-loss -- AND TO BE FAIR TO ME, YOU IDIOT, MY CLAIMS WERE MADE ABOUT
*NORMAL* PEOPLE, NOT BIG FAT WOMEN WITH POLYCYSTIC OVARIAN SYNDROME!).

3) Your body has ZERO requirement for dietary carbohydrate.

Bull****. Prove this claim.

Your body has a requirement for glucose,

Which is primarily derived from carbohydrates, not ketosis (which is a catabolic
state, after all, not a healthy state).

and a requirement for certain vitamins, but this
does not PRECLUDE a high doughy, starchy, sugary diet.

Who has advised a sugary diet in this discussion? I said everything in
moderation, causing you to stupidly take offense and call me an animal rights
activist.

...
therefore there is no reason to eat
"enriched" flours or "enriched" rices

What a completely ridiculous strawman! Find a post when I, usual suspect, have
EVER recommended anyone eat a diet of refined foods. You fat ****, I *never*
have advised the use of white flour or sugar -- quite the opposite.

...
Your emotional bias against an omnivorous lifestyle prevents you from seeing
that it's not about MEAT.

You irrational, uneducated, emotive, fat ****ing **IDIOT**!!! Why don't you ask
the other posters at AAEV/AFV if I oppose the eating of meat. I hunt. I advocate
hunting. I have no bias against meat. I have no bias against people who eat
meat. I called for "moderation in everything." What part of that do you not
comprehend?

...

aurora stupidly wrote a follow-up:
Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex carbs".

Why?

It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the term

I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.

and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and everyone
else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a thing or
two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry"). FWIW,
macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
objective and unconcerned with fads.

...
A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat.

Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. It's not a glorified term, it's an
accepted nutritional and scientific nomenclature predating the late Dr Atkins
and the whole fad dieting craze he spawned.

"Plant fat"? What the **** does that mean?

Polysaccharides are complex bonds of sugar groups. They don't contain a lipid
group, so I don't know what the **** you mean. I suspect you don't, either.

Poly sacchride basically means "many sugars".

Too bad Pulitzer doesn't give awards for usenet posts, because I am sure you
would win one for clearing up this matter.

/sarcasm

Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
eventually converted to them.

Not fully. That's the problem with your pseudoscience. The body doesn't break
them down completely, nor does the body absorb them fully.

snip of misinformation
However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor...

Actually, it's a pretty important factor. The longer food remains in your body,
the more nutrients are digested. A diet with sufficient fiber (gee, like that
found in foods rich in complex carbs) passes through faster than one without
sufficient fiber (the late Dr Atkins found only one point of agreement in a
discussion with Dr McDougall on Dr Mc's show: that Dr Atkins' diet causes
constipation).

total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars.

Bull****. Prove this claim.

snip rest of bull****

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
aurora wrote:
...
I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,

Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER*
embraced
animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong
exception
to me. Asshole!

My mistake... I had assumed you were supporting a pro-AR stance since I
thought I saw some of your postings in an AR NG. I appologize.

1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE
of the insulin resistence epidemic.

Bull****. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting
will
work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave
as
much, etc.).

I think this is hysterical, because I speak from the persepctive of someone
who isn't making excuses, but someone who has first hand experience. So your
hypothetical argument about the validity of a high glycemic load diet
amounts to crap in my eyes.

I went from 275 lbs to 135 lbs (size 8/9)
I went from never experience eating satisfaction to being satisfied with
small quantities of food.
I went from expressing numerous symptoms of IRS to expressing virtually
none.
As for my PCOS (very mature by the way to insult me for that), before I was
plagued with acne, compltely absent menses, facial hair, and erratic moods.
Within a week of removing the majority of dietary carbohydrate all of my
acne cleared up. My moods were balanced. My menses are much more regular.
The facial and body hair has thinned to the point where it is almost peach
fuzz.

All of these changes I brought about by changing nothing other than total
glycemic load. I went from eating a very high carb diet (maybe 70%) to
eating about 15% of calories from carbs. I went from needing to snack all
day just to avoid the "shakiness" and irritability of hypoglycemia, to being
able to (and enjoying) eating very infrequently and very small amounts of
food should I desire to, or be in a situation which requires such.

So, like I said, I kind of don't buy your BS. The only thing I changed about
my lifestyle was diet - carbohydrate content, and it brought a complete
recovery. It's sad you are so stubborn that you refuse to accept the
*scientifically valid fact* that genes largely determine a persons ability
in handling a high glycemic load diet. Native americans tend to have poor
sugar metabolisms, whereas asians tend to have better ones, etc. Individuals
likewise vary widely.

The rest of your post amounts to no more than gross misinformation, refusing
to read what I've written (i.e. insisting the body needs to derive glucose
from carbohydrate when I had already explained the body can make its own
glucose via the synthesis of amino acids using the gluconeogenesis pathway)
and pathetically blunted personal attacks calling me a "stupid fat ****"
(despite the fact I am not overweight) or attacking me for having PCOS
(which I control through diet alone).
Sorry, but just admit you are an ignoramous. You are probably a young male
who has never lost weight, never had to think about weight, and thinks he
knows it all. You bash fat people to make yourself feel better. You are the
sort of person who would be calling for the "lynching of n*ggers" if it were
still socially in favor. You are a lemming. You are the sort of person who
has a hard time thinking for himself (hense your email address) and
therefore is highly suspicious of new information that has not yet been
accepted as self-evident by mainstream society, despite the growing body of
evidence in favor (which, by the way, you ignore like a stubborn mule as you
did my argument against the dietary necessity of carbohydrate dense food).
What a waste of time it was trying to converse with you. Originally I
mistook you for a vegan - who, by the way, are usually quite intelligent and
open to debate - which is why I initiated conversation. If I knew you were
some radical right-wing joiner yesman non-thinking trog I would have avoided
you right from the start.

Have fun drooling on yourself and attacking sick people, you pathetic loser.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
aurora stupidly wrote a follow-up:
Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex
carbs".

Why?

It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the
term

I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.

and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and
everyone
else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a
thing or
two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry").
FWIW,
macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
objective and unconcerned with fads.

Yes, I totally believe you are the sort of person who is swayed by logic and
not emotion. That is why you insist on calling me a "fat ****", carry your
arguments by trying to deface the other poster, and have repeatedly
demonstrated a resistence to information if it does not suit your emotional
preconception. You didn't learn what you know about nutrition from the back
of a cereal box (OMG SEE, I'M GETTING ALL MY SERVINGS!), or from what you
heard from your best friend who's mom is a nurse and knows about these
things. No, not at all. LOL.


...
A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat.

Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. It's not a glorified term, it's
an
accepted nutritional and scientific nomenclature predating the late Dr
Atkins
and the whole fad dieting craze he spawned.
Oh please shut up. People hear the word "complex carbohydrate" and
subconsciously they think "oh, see, it's COMPLEX! It isn't SIMPLE, therefore
it's GOOD FOR ME". This simplistic thinking fueled the anti-fat movement.
"OH how can eating FAT be good for me, FAT is made of FAT!"

You've repeatedly demonstrated to be the sort of fool who would draw such
emotional group-think conconclusions.

"Plant fat"? What the **** does that mean?

Polysaccharides are complex bonds of sugar groups. They don't contain a
lipid
group, so I don't know what the **** you mean. I suspect you don't,
either.

Way to demonstrate your ignorance. A polysacchride is an energy storage
vessel for plants (i.e. it serves the same physiological purpose that FAT
does in humans, which is why complex carbohydrates tend to be - but not
always - very dense in carbohydrate/energy)

Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
eventually converted to them.

Not fully. That's the problem with your pseudoscience. The body doesn't
break
them down completely, nor does the body absorb them fully.

This is complete garbage. *Some* are very hard for your body to use into
energy, namely cellulose. Cellulose produces small amounts of energy as SCFA
via bacterial fermentation. It is almost calorie free. A high fiber diet
with lots of green leafies is very healthy. Your body can not only not use
these complex carbs, but grean leafies contain lots of nutrition.

However, these exceptions are not the rule. By far the majority of complex
carbohydrates consumed by people - rices, cereals, grains, tubers - are
converted to energy readily, easily, and entirely. They also contain very
little nutrition compared to the total calories and carbs.

You'll never hear me argue against the GOOD complex carbs - the kinds high
in fiber and low in starch.

snip of misinformation
How convenient

However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor...

Actually, it's a pretty important factor. The longer food remains in your
body,
the more nutrients are digested. A diet with sufficient fiber (gee, like
that
found in foods rich in complex carbs) passes through faster than one
without
sufficient fiber (the late Dr Atkins found only one point of agreement in
a
discussion with Dr McDougall on Dr Mc's show: that Dr Atkins' diet causes
constipation).

Hahahaha what a fool!
The atkins diet is extremely high in fiber. I easily eat 4 cups of leafy
greens a day, as well as other fiberous complex carbs like peppers,
eggplant, broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, etc.

total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars.

Bull****. Prove this claim.

I guess all those people who fall into a hyperglycemic slumber after a big
baked potato are lying. I guess their glucose meters are lying too.

I am convinced starch is worse than simple sugars, since when one eats
starch they usually eat a large quantity of it. They also are more inclined
to think it is good for them.

I know I promised not to respond to you anymore, but your twisting of my
words (pretending to believe I was attacking low-starch/sugar fiberous
complex carbs rather than the grains) had to be clarified for the NG.

aurora wrote:
...

I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,

Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER*
embraced
animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong
exception
to me. Asshole!

My mistake... I had assumed you were supporting a pro-AR stance since I
thought I saw some of your postings in an AR NG. I appologize.

Your apology would be more meaningful if you'd just left it at that.

1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE
of the insulin resistence epidemic.

Bull****. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting
will
work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave
as
much, etc.).

I think this is hysterical,

There was no hysteria involved in my post. My claim is based upon sound research
and medical opinion, not propaganda from proponents of a specific diet. I posted
some links previously in this thread. Ah, here we go...

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

because I speak from the persepctive of someone
who isn't making excuses, but someone who has first hand experience.

Anecdote, not science.

So your
hypothetical argument about the validity of a high glycemic load diet
amounts to crap in my eyes.

Where the **** did I *ever* recommend a *HIGH GL DIET*? I said GL was more
useful as a tool than just GI. I also said that restrictive diets should be used
only for those with genuine metabolic disorders rather than healthy people who
just need to shed a few pounds. Stop taking me out of context.

snip testimonials
As for my PCOS (very mature by the way to insult me for that),

Consider yourself lucky. I usually tear a new one in people who blatantly
misstate what I actually wrote.

before I was
plagued with acne, compltely absent menses, facial hair, and erratic moods.
Within a week of removing the majority of dietary carbohydrate all of my
acne cleared up. My moods were balanced. My menses are much more regular.
The facial and body hair has thinned to the point where it is almost peach
fuzz.

You still shave?

snip more testilying prattle
The rest of your post amounts to no more than gross misinformation,

Prove it.

refusing to read what I've written

WTF do you think you did to my post, idiot? I read your post. I addressed its
flawed points. Not everyone has PCOS (I sure as hell don't; my body came with
testicles instead of ovaries -- go figure). Not everyone is IR; some of us work
out and eat right. Not everyone has diabetes. Normal people are *not* advised to
eat a diet for people with such conditions as some kind of prophylactic; normal
people who do that for those reasons have an eating disorder. Stop making
distorted generalizations for the rest of society based on your peculiar
circumstances and misunderstandings of nutritional science.

and pathetically blunted personal attacks calling me a "stupid fat ****"
(despite the fact I am not overweight)

One can be a fat **** and be skinny as a rail.

or attacking me for having PCOS

I didn't attack you.

...
Sorry, but just admit you are an ignoramous. You are probably a young male
who has never lost weight,

I lost a few pounds after my last triathlon. Not to worry, it usually happens.

never had to think about weight, and thinks he
knows it all. You bash fat people to make yourself feel better.

I haven't bashed you, dummy.

You are the
sort of person who would be calling for the "lynching of n*ggers" if it were
still socially in favor.

I *seriously* doubt that, especially given the number of times people like you
have called me one.

You are a lemming. You are the sort of person who
has a hard time thinking for himself (hense your email address)

One thing in my favor: I can spell "hence."

and
therefore is highly suspicious of new information that has not yet been
accepted as self-evident by mainstream society, despite the growing body of
evidence in favor (which, by the way, you ignore like a stubborn mule as you
did my argument against the dietary necessity of carbohydrate dense food).

"Self-evident" is not science, you quack. Science is founded on proofs. The
"growing body" is insufficient for me to recommend that HEALTHY people adopt a
restrictive diet. Why is it insufficient? Because the studies on safety are all
over very short terms. We already know enough about long-term consumption of
saturated fats and CHD (just as we know enough about long-term consumption of
excess simple carbohydrates and diabetes).

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that

What a waste of time it was trying to converse with you. Originally I
mistook you for a vegan - who, by the way, are usually quite intelligent and
open to debate -

Really? I've found them to be just the opposite -- more like you. The focus is
on the agenda, and anything deviating from the agenda is rank heresy. Too bad
you couldn't just call me a heretic, you engaged in calling me names. Wow, I am
underwhelmed.

which is why I initiated conversation. If I knew you were
some radical right-wing joiner yesman non-thinking trog I would have avoided
you right from the start.

Are you even capable of addressing people as unique individuals or does negative
stereotyping help you cope with others who disagree with you?

Have fun drooling on yourself and attacking sick people, you pathetic loser.

Another difference between us: I *always* have fun. :-)

aurora wrote:
...
Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex
carbs".

Why?

Answer the question.

It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the
term
I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.
and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and
everyone
else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a
thing or
two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry").
FWIW,
macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
objective and unconcerned with fads.

Yes, I totally believe you are the sort of person who is swayed by logic and
not emotion.

Logic isn't necessarily science, though science uses it. It's a branch of
philosophy. Science is empirical. Your posts are not.

That is why you insist on calling me a "fat ****",

It's very fitting.

carry your
arguments by trying to deface the other poster,

Not entirely. You wouldn't know that with your poor reading comprehension, would
you.

and have repeatedly
demonstrated a resistence to information if it does not suit your emotional
preconception.

I don't harbor "preconceptions," and my resistance to your disinformation is
based on science rather than propaganda. I honestly don't understand your
dietary zealotry. Too bad you sat on your fat ass and ate a lot of sweets and
got PCOS and grew hair all over your body. That's not my problem, it's yours.
Most women won't ever get diabetes, insulin resistance, or PCOS. For those who
do, I've no objection to promoting a restrictive diet for them. But what's good
for your self-inflicted malady isn't good for all of society. The one thing you
have in common with vegans is your irrational zeal in demanding all people eat
just like you. You're as authoritarian about diet as vegans are. Your diet has
become your religion, and your Satan is any simple carbohydrate; his demons are
complex carbs.

You didn't learn what you know about nutrition from the back
of a cereal box (OMG SEE, I'M GETTING ALL MY SERVINGS!), or from what you
heard from your best friend who's

whose... if you're going to mock me and do exactly what you accused me of doing,
then PLEASE, for crying out loud, learn to spell.

mom is a nurse and knows about these
things. No, not at all. LOL.

My education and work experience go far beyond cereal boxes and getting things
third-hand.

...
Oh please shut up. People hear the word "complex carbohydrate" and
subconsciously

Can you *prove* that there's any such subconscious connection? Or are you just
blowing a bunch of smoke out of your ass based on your superiority complex which
leads you to argue that everyone -- healthy or not -- should eat YOUR diet
instead of a well-balanced one?

...
total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars.

Bull****. Prove this claim.

I guess all those people who fall into a hyperglycemic slumber after a big
baked potato are lying. I guess their glucose meters are lying too.

Anecdotal evidence isn't proof. I don't fall into a slumber after eating baked
potatoes (or pasta, or anything else). There's another anecdote for your
collection, stupid.

I am convinced starch is worse than simple sugars, since when one eats
starch they usually eat a large quantity of it.

If they lack discipline like you do.

They also are more inclined to think it is good for them.

It is.

I know I promised not to respond to you anymore,

You will again. You can't resist it, and you wholly lack discipline. That's why
you got so fat that your ovaries went haywire. You've replaced one eating
disorder for another, and you're on a mission to defend your "faith" in it. I'll
still be here advocating sensible diets and exercise for HEALTHY people when you
jump on the next bandwagon.

but your twisting of my
words (pretending to believe I was attacking low-starch/sugar fiberous
complex carbs rather than the grains) had to be clarified for the NG.

I'm sure everyone else really appreciates your defense of your low-carb religion.