'Put fat children on Atkins diet'

But how shall I have the fat children? Broiled? Baked? Fried? Boiled
(shudder)

Mack wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Seems to me, one of the most egregious problems from the "low-carb"
advocates is their lack of distinction between simple carbs, i.e.
sugars,
and complex carbs, i.e. fruits and vegetables.

Unless you deal with ...
paying attention to the endless discussion of experienced low carbers
teaching naive new low carbers

I meant the individuals who constantly post here and on other
boards who do not seem to make very much if any distinction

In other words all of the newbies who get constant pressure from folks
to read the books and follow the directions. Advocates is a poor word
for newbies.

I suspect that I am
significantly better-read than you, just based on the observation that you
do not sound here like the type who would be much of a reader.

I don't suggest folks read books I haven't myself. My current lack -
I've skimmed SBD but not gone through it in detail. My meter-wide low
carb section needs to have parts of it donated again to make room.

I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.

"Dawn Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:36:39 +0800, "Moosh"
announced in front of God and everybody:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:50:07 -0800, Dawn Taylor
posted:

Honey, however, offers such little nutritive benefit that
it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-spoonful, from white sugar.

Apparently not, as you can see by looking up the nutrition tables.
It should be used sparingly like all energy dense foods, but a little
of what you like.....

Honey contains two simple sugars, glucose and fructose. Table sugar
has the same two sugars, bound together to form a double sugar called
sucrose. In your body, they end up in exactly the same way. Once
sucrose reaches your intestine, it's broken back down into glucose and
fructose. So your body metabolizes honey and sugar in exactly the same
way.

A tablespoon of white sugar has 64 calories and a tablespoon of honey
contains water, so that it has only 46. But you add sweeteners by
taste, so you end up eating the same number of calories to obtain the
same sweetness using either sugar or honey.

And yes, honey has some minerals that sugar does not. But let's be
real -- to get, say, your RDA of iron, you'd have to eat 10 cups of
honey a day -- 40 cups for your RDA of calcium. The amount of
nutrients in a tablespoon of honey are so scant as to be
inconsequential.

Dawn

Do you drink tap water?

In s.com,
Pizza Girl stated
| I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
|

Yes I do but detest the taste of chlorimine there too. I filter it for taste
and try to let it sit out for a bit too.

Unfortunately the chloramine does not evaporate as easily as the earlier
forms of chlorination.

"FOB" wrote in message
y.com...
Do you drink tap water?

In s.com,
Pizza Girl stated
| I prefer not to eat the chlorine bleach used in sugar.
|

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:22:03 -0800, Dawn Taylor
posted:

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 00:36:39 +0800, "Moosh"
announced in front of God and everybody:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 07:50:07 -0800, Dawn Taylor
posted:

Honey, however, offers such little nutritive benefit that
it's essentially no different, spoonful-to-spoonful, from white sugar.

Apparently not, as you can see by looking up the nutrition tables.
It should be used sparingly like all energy dense foods, but a little
of what you like.....

Honey contains two simple sugars, glucose and fructose. Table sugar
has the same two sugars, bound together to form a double sugar called
sucrose. In your body, they end up in exactly the same way. Once
sucrose reaches your intestine, it's broken back down into glucose and
fructose. So your body metabolizes honey and sugar in exactly the same
way.

And the same with fruit juices. You have said nothing new here. Honey
also contains micronutrients which sucrose doesn't.

A tablespoon of white sugar has 64 calories and a tablespoon of honey
contains water, so that it has only 46. But you add sweeteners by
taste, so you end up eating the same number of calories to obtain the
same sweetness using either sugar or honey.

Your point? Fruits? High fructose honeys and fruit juices are sweeter
than sucrose, gram for gram.

And yes, honey has some minerals that sugar does not.

That's my point. Other micronutrients as well? Like fruit juices.

But let's be
real -- to get, say, your RDA of iron, you'd have to eat 10 cups of
honey a day -- 40 cups for your RDA of calcium.

And you are silly enough to want these RDAs from one food?
How much sugar from say oranges would you need to do this silly trick
you allude to?

The amount of
nutrients in a tablespoon of honey are so scant as to be
inconsequential.

Same with fruits. What is your point?

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
posted:

Honey: In Walford's "Beyond" book, glycemic index chart table 9.3, he lists
honey in the "80-90%" (2nd highest) area. (Glucose = 100%.) Same category
as cornflakes, baked (white) potato, watermelon and white bread. I would
avoid honey as an extremely high-glycemic food. But to each his own.

If you refer to:
http://diabetes.about.com/library/me...i/ngilists.htm
You will find that honey is low GI and low GL.

But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Obviously, "sweet" is a subjective term. I do not avoid most fruit, if
that's what you mean.

OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you did when you
said "and get used to the taste of food without the sweet taste,"

And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat nothing sweetened"


"Moosh" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:23:17 GMT, "Mack"
posted:

No, it definitely does not "put the kybosh" on fruit. I only avoid the
particularly high-glycemic fruits, like watermelon, ripe bananas,
pineapples, raisins. It does put it on honey. Two very different
things.
Honey is an extremely high-glycemic food, like sugar.

Nope, neither are high. Fructose is quite low AAMOF.

Sugared and
artifically-sweetened food tastes -- at least to me -- dramatically
sweeter
than any fruit I eat.

You really must overdo the sweetener. I find a drop or two of
saccharine in a cup of tea to be fine. Just sweet.

But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Apples and pears are quite low GI but extremely sweet. It's all that
fructose or fruit sugar. Very sweet, but very low GI.


mack
austin

"Moosh" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Mar 2004 03:34:54 GMT, Ignoramus21235
posted:

In article , Mack wrote:
You have to do what you have to do. But it has been my experience
that
making the transition from sweets to artificial sweets to no sweets
eventually kills or greatly lessens the sweet cravings. If you
could
wean
yourself off the artificial sweeteners and get used to the taste of
food
without the sweet taste, eventually, you would not want the candy.
In
theory, at least. That might not work for you; I don't know.

Works for me. No more candy cravings. I eat nothing sweetened. My
theory is that good food does not need sweetening.

Sure puts the kybosh on fruit and honey and so on. Fine foods in
moderation.

On 20 Mar 2004 04:42:23 GMT, Ignoramus3239
posted:

In article , Moosh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 19:36:58 GMT, "Mack"
posted:

Honey: In Walford's "Beyond" book, glycemic index chart table 9.3, he lists
honey in the "80-90%" (2nd highest) area. (Glucose = 100%.) Same category
as cornflakes, baked (white) potato, watermelon and white bread. I would
avoid honey as an extremely high-glycemic food. But to each his own.

If you refer to:
http://diabetes.about.com/library/me...i/ngilists.htm
You will find that honey is low GI and low GL.

But I thought you avoided EVERYTHING sweet.

Obviously, "sweet" is a subjective term. I do not avoid most fruit, if
that's what you mean.

OK. So you don't avoid everything sweet. I thought you did when you
said "and get used to the taste of food without the sweet taste,"

And Ignoramous, who I was responding to said "I eat nothing sweetened"

I do eat naturally sweet things, such as apples, but not all and in
moderation. One apple per day is about all sweetness that I get.

OK, but I thought the thrust of the messages was to avoid ALL
sweetness in order to accustom yourself to not craving sweetness.
Apparently it's about no such thing.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:11:28 GMT, (Jayjay) posted:

On 15 Mar 2004 15:59:39 GMT, Ignoramus21819
wrote:

This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people where both of
them have no clue as to what they are talking about.

One says that kids should be put on Atkins, which works becaus eit is
"high protein". (bull****, as atkins is a high fat diet)

BULL**** to you too, atkins is not high fat either. In the true sense
of the way the program works, it should not be either high fat or high
protein. One should not consume excess of either.

The true reality of atkins is that the calorie depletion used to make
the weight loss effect is by means of cutting out the carbohydrate
calories. But not by increasing fat or protein. All else remains
the same.


So it's just another calorie controlled diet? No wonder it mostly
fails. What's wrong with a balanced, varied, wholefood diet?
Cutting calories is much easier if you cut fat. Much more "bang for
the buck".

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:52:03 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
posted:

It's not a high fat diet either, in an absolute sense.

Then where are the calories coming from?