The trouble as I see it

is that, when a new visitor arrives, they will see all these worthless,
predatory ads, regurgitated from the bowels of Mordor, and think that is
what alt.support.diet.low-carb is about.
I know this grates on some of you "old timers", but I think it is
necessary to keep a light in the window to let new visitors know
that support is available, if they will just ignore the dark that seeps
into the newsgroups, and post their question(s).
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Billy" wrote in message
...
is that, when a new visitor arrives, they will see all these worthless,
predatory ads, regurgitated from the bowels of Mordor, and think that is
what alt.support.diet.low-carb is about.
I know this grates on some of you "old timers", but I think it is
necessary to keep a light in the window to let new visitors know
that support is available, if they will just ignore the dark that seeps
into the newsgroups, and post their question(s).
--

- Billy

I notice that when someone posts a relevant post, they get an answer.
Unfortunately, there are very few of those posts going on these past few
months. Doug F, Susan, and some others are real good about answering legit
questions. I do miss the days when this newsgroup was active and
informative, before the "idjits" stumbled in. :-)

Cheri

Cheri

In article ,
"Cheri" wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
is that, when a new visitor arrives, they will see all these worthless,
predatory ads, regurgitated from the bowels of Mordor, and think that is
what alt.support.diet.low-carb is about.
I know this grates on some of you "old timers", but I think it is
necessary to keep a light in the window to let new visitors know
that support is available, if they will just ignore the dark that seeps
into the newsgroups, and post their question(s).
--

- Billy

I notice that when someone posts a relevant post, they get an answer.
Unfortunately, there are very few of those posts going on these past few
months. Doug F, Susan, and some others are real good about answering legit
questions. I do miss the days when this newsgroup was active and
informative, before the "idjits" stumbled in. :-)

Cheri

Cheri

I just want drop-ins to know the site is active, and not just an empty
lot full of junk and thread bare tires.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://green-house.tv/video/the-spring-garden-tour
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:18:56 -0700, "Cheri"
wrote:

"Billy" wrote in message
...
is that, when a new visitor arrives, they will see all these worthless,
predatory ads, regurgitated from the bowels of Mordor, and think that is
what alt.support.diet.low-carb is about.
I know this grates on some of you "old timers", but I think it is
necessary to keep a light in the window to let new visitors know
that support is available, if they will just ignore the dark that seeps
into the newsgroups, and post their question(s).
--

- Billy

I notice that when someone posts a relevant post, they get an answer.
Unfortunately, there are very few of those posts going on these past few
months. Doug F, Susan, and some others are real good about answering legit
questions. I do miss the days when this newsgroup was active and
informative, before the "idjits" stumbled in. :-)

Cheri


Same here, Cheri. I still lurk occasionally, but usually the only
thing I see is the plethora of spam and trolls. I also miss the days
(years, actually) when ASDLC was vibrant and helpful to a lot of
people.

Marengo wrote:

... . *I also miss the days
(years, actually) *when ASDLC *was vibrant and helpful to a lot of
people.

I'm also on a web forum that sees low traffic. Every so often
I consider moving to one of the active ones.

"Marengo" wrote in message
...

Same here, Cheri. I still lurk occasionally, but usually the only
thing I see is the plethora of spam and trolls. I also miss the days
(years, actually) when ASDLC was vibrant and helpful to a lot of
people.

Can it be that low-carb diets aren't as popular as they once were?
--
Kelly..........
If you're a past or present resident of
NYC and want to share past experiences
and current events with others from NYC,
check out this free message Board:
http://members6.boardhost.com/QueensNYer/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:39:59 -0400, Susan wrote:
Kelly Greene wrote:

Can it be that low-carb diets aren't as popular as they once were?

Traffic is way down in all sorts of usenet groups, not just this one. A
lot of ISPs have stopped carrying usenet.

That AND... low-carb diets aren't as "popular" as they once were.

Not that they don't work, mind, but the huddled masses have moved on
to... well, I don't really know what they've moved on to, as I don't
keep track of that sort of thing.

Low-carb keeps my blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar in
line. That's all I need to know.

--
"My initial thought was, "Who is this Dick Cheeny guy and why should I
give a flying purple goddamn what he thinks?" Do people believe he's
important? Because he sounds like someone who lives on the subway and
wears origami sailor hats made out of Soldier of Fortune magazines."
David Rees, Huffington Post, May 21, 2009

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:14:58 -0700, Billy
wrote:

I know this grates on some of you "old timers", but I think it is
necessary to keep a light in the window to let new visitors know
that support is available, if they will just ignore the dark that seeps
into the newsgroups, and post their question(s).

It might be a good idea to make the thread actually refer to something
low-carb, however, so your post doesn't get mistaken for one from The
Dark Side.

--
"My initial thought was, "Who is this Dick Cheeny guy and why should I
give a flying purple goddamn what he thinks?" Do people believe he's
important? Because he sounds like someone who lives on the subway and
wears origami sailor hats made out of Soldier of Fortune magazines."
David Rees, Huffington Post, May 21, 2009

In article ,
Patricia Martin Steward wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:14:58 -0700, Billy
wrote:

I know this grates on some of you "old timers", but I think it is
necessary to keep a light in the window to let new visitors know
that support is available, if they will just ignore the dark that seeps
into the newsgroups, and post their question(s).

It might be a good idea to make the thread actually refer to something
low-carb, however, so your post doesn't get mistaken for one from The
Dark Side.

"You can't judge an apple by looking at a tree
You can't judge honey by looking at the bee
You can't judge a daughter by looking at the mother
You can't judge a book by looking at the cover"
- Bo Diddley
-----

I don't know if I went to sleep or what, but Susan posted this
somewhere, and I picked it up as a re-post. I don't remember seeing it
here, so I'll take the chance that it wasn't, and post it anyway, since
it relates to low carb and diet.

"This is association, not established causation."

- Susan

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704432

ENDO 2009: Use of Artificial Sweeteners Linked to 2-Fold Increase in
Diabetes
Crina Frincu-Mallos, PhD

June 15, 2009 (Washington, DC) -- People who use artificial sweeteners
are heavier, more likely to have diabetes, and more likely to be
insulin-resistant compared with nonusers, according to data presented
here during ENDO 2009, the 91st annual meeting of The Endocrine Society.
Results show an inverse association between obesity and diabetes, on one
side, and daily total caloric, carbohydrate, and fat intake, on the
other side, when comparing artificial sweetener users and control
subjects.

First author Kristofer S. Gravenstein, a postbaccalaureate researcher
with the Clinical Research Branch at the National Institute of Aging
(NIA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), said the association may
reflect the increased use of artificial sweeteners by obese and/or
diabetic study participants. "This is a cross-section study," Mr.
Gravenstein told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology, "so there are
limitations -- we cannot say that artificial sweetener use causes
obesity, we can say it is associated with it."

Increased Use vs Increased Glucose Absorption

Artificial sweeteners activate sweet taste receptors in enteroendocrine
cells, leading to the release of incretin, which is known to contribute
to glucose absorption. Recent epidemiologic studies in Circulation
(2008;117:754-761) and Obesity (2008;16:1894-1900) showed an association
between diet soda consumption and the development of obesity and
metabolic syndrome.

This report tested whether participants in the Baltimore Longitudinal
Study of Aging (BLSA), which began in 1958, differ in anthropometric
measures, daily caloric intake, and glucose status, separating them into
3 different groups: artificial sweetener users, artificial sweetener
nonusers, or controls.

A total of 1257 participants, with a mean age of 64.8 years (range, 21 -
96 years), had data on self-reported 7-day dietary intake, 2-hour oral
glucose tolerance test (OGTT), and anthropometric measures. The major
artificial sweetener consumed was aspartame, preferred by 66% of BLSA
participants, followed by saccharin (13%), sucralose (1.0%), and
combinations of the three (21%).

"In our study, we were actually able to isolate what type of sweetener
was used at a certain point in time, as we used food diaries, and not
food questionnaires," Mr. Gravenstein pointed out.

"When we first did this analysis, we found that people ate more fat
before 1983, which is the year [of] a big increase in artificial
sweetener consumption in the American population -- it was actually when
aspartame was approved and diet Coke was introduced," he explained.
As a result, the study further analyzed data from a subset of
participants, starting in 1983. Compared with 550 people who did not use
artificial sweeteners, the 443 people who did were younger, heavier, and
had a higher body mass index (BMI), yet they did not consume more
calories from people who did not use artificial sweeteners. Fat,
carbohydrate, protein, and total caloric intake were not different
between the 2 groups (users vs nonusers).

Furthermore, Mr. Gravenstein noted that people who used artificial
sweeteners "were less likely to have a normal OGTT, or they were less
likely to be diagnosed as having a normal glucose homeostasis."
In terms of glucose status, the impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and/or
impaired fasting glucose (IFG), the data show that artificial sweetener
users "were not different than the prediabetics, ie, they had the same
prevalence of prediabetes," he said, adding that "in our population,
people who used artificial sweeteners were twice as likely to have
diabetes, 8.8% compared to 4.4% for controls."

Analyzing the data further, the investigators focused on a
subpopulation, in which fasting insulin values were available from 374
nonusers and 311 artificial sweetener users. The users had a higher
fasting glucose levels, higher fasting insulin levels, and a higher
measure of insulin resistance, as measured by the homeostasis model
assessment, but glycosylated hemoglobin A1C levels were similar between
the 2 groups.

Alternative Hypothesis and Clinicians' Role

The researchers suggest an alternative hypothesis, that artificial
sweeteners modulate the metabolic rate through enteroendocrine cells,
therefore contributing to the development of diabetes and/or obesity.
However, this hypothesis needs further testing in longitudinal analysis
and intervention studies, said the investigators.

"Also, it could be that artificial sweeteners are causing diabetes, or
it could be that there is a higher use of them because a lot of
physicians actually recommend people to use artificial sweeteners to
prevent diabetes...." Mr. Gravenstein said. The researchers are planning
to address this question with a prospective analysis.

"This is a very interesting study," Rachel C. Edelen, MD, a pediatric
endocrinology practitioner at the Aspen Centre in Rapid City, South
Dakota, told Medscape Diabetes & Endocrinology in an interview. "I diet
screen all my patients, and they are not drinking enough milk. Usually,
they replace the milk with something else, sweetened tea, Gatorade, etc,
not just water. With my type 1 diabetics, the information they were
getting from the hospital was to drink diet pop. But who even goes into
the hospital and drinks pop?" she wondered.

Support for this study was provided by the Intramural Research Program
of the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Edelen and Mr. Gravenstein have disclosed no relevant financial
relationships.

ENDO 2009: The Annual Meeting of the Endocrine Society: Abstract P2-478.
Presented June 11, 2009.
--

- Billy

There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves.
Will Rogers

http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm
http://www.tomdispatch.com/p/zinn

"Kelly Greene" wrote:

Can it be that low-carb diets aren't as popular as they once were?

Low carb diets were a fad for a while. That's sad because before
that fad they were popular in a way that wasn't trendy so the
group saw good traffic because folks coming in wanted to try it
for real for non-trendy realistic results. There was discussion of
how to do it the right way, how to deal with problems, how to deal
with the tiny assortment of products that were available, why the
"right way" is not a single way but several differing approaches,
etc.

But then low carb became a fad popular enough to draw a lot of
junk food products. These products included some very good
ones like ketchup made without sugar. They also included
products that just plain lied on their labels or products that
played definition games like not counting glycerine as carbs in
spite of the fact that the body converts glycerine to glucose at a
nearly 100% efficiency rate so these ones were "slow carb"
marketed as "low carb" with a magic wand erasing one letter's
worth of honesty.

And now after the fad is gone there's the memory that the
masses, who never actually tried it for real using honest foods,
failed at it. Well duh, they never actually tried it for real so no
wonder they failed. Like everything else of worth in the world
there's no free success. You have to actually do the right
things to succeed. Not that there is *or can be* agreement on
what "the right thing" is as the right thing contains a range of
options that need effort and experimentation to decide upon
individually.

Before the fad, good traffic at a reasonable level. Growing bodies
of knowledge and posters gradually developing deep expertese.

During the fad the folks here before the fad trying to argue with
the growing wave of posters who just didn't care about real
expertese who just wanted extremism. The result was many
very expert folks giving up and leaving. Often permanently.

After the fad the few folks who remain are some true believers.
Who don't agree among themselves because the real right
thing to do isn't simple enough for agreement to happen. But
having few old timers left it's very easy to see the disagreements
and miss the far greater agreements underneath the surface
agreements.

Since it was a fad at one point there are plenty of former
products around with spammers trying to dump them. And
since the group once had a very active history it remains a
target for spam because it is likely to still have lots of
subscribers.

There are some abusive posters. Billy only looks at the recent
history and his reaction is abusive. I have no idea if he'll grow
out of that phase but while he's responding to spammers and
throwing insults he's definitely a part of the problem not a part
of the solution.