'Put fat children on Atkins diet'

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:49:18 GMT, "Mike V"
posted:


"Ignoramus21819" wrote in message
...
This is funny as this seems to be a dialog of people where both of

In article , Diarmid
Logan wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3509792.stm

'Put fat children on Atkins diet'


Recent research has made it very clear.
We are almost all living on a STATIN deficient diet.
Your kids should "eat their 'LIPITIES' " if they want to grow up healthy,
and be sports heroes.

Eat up your lipities kiddy winkies!

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

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)

Another objects by saying essentially nothing meaningful at all.

Sounds like this forum

On 15 Mar 2004 11:19:52 -0800, (tcomeau) posted:

(Diarmid Logan) wrote in message . com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3509792.stm

'Put fat children on Atkins diet'

Fat children should be put on Atkins-style diets to lose weight and
prevent illness, a cancer specialist has said.

Professor Julian Peto, of the Institute of Cancer Research, said
high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets could suppress appetites and keep
children slim.

Obesity "is now overtaking smoking as the number one killer and I am
very concerned that we need to tackle it early," he told BBC Radio 5
Live.

He said dietary advice for children was not working and needed a
"rethink".

He added that children should be weighed regularly in school.

The problem of obesity is soaring among children in the UK.

In 1998, 9% of two to four-year-olds were considered obese - almost
double the figure in 1989.

The World Health Organisation says being overweight causes diabetes,
heart disease and some forms of cancer.

Professor Peto said the Atkins diet, which involves eating lots of
meat and other high protein foods, while restricting carbohydrates,
worked because proteins suppressed the appetite and people did not eat
as much.

"I am sure the Atkins wasn't developed on this basis but that is why
it works," he said.

"The levels of salt and fat are anything but healthy but the basis of
the diet - which is low carbohydrate and high protein - is ideal for
losing weight."

Opponents of Atkins-style diets claim that, over the long term, they
can cause kidney damage, thin bones and constipation, raise
cholesterol levels and increase the risk of diabetes and an early
heart attack.

But some British doctors are already putting obese children on
Atkins-style diets.

Dr Dee Dawson, medical director at Rhodes Farm Clinic, a residential
home for treatment of children with eating disorders, says the diet is
good for children.

"The children who come here are not just overweight, they are ill, and
in danger of dying. Some of them can't breathe and some of them can't
lie down.

"I do think the basis of Atkins - low carbohydrate and high protein -
is a good diet for children and the priority is for these children to
get weight off."

But nutritionist Dr Toni Steer, of the Medical Research Council,
warned that there is not enough research into the long-term health
effects of being on the diet.

"We realise obesity is a major problem which we need to tackle as a
matter of urgency but I would be very concerned about advising
children to follow diets like Atkins."

Great example of good doctors learning the true basis of weight
management in spite of the nonsense propounded by industry shills.

So what are these guys' industry affiliations? Bit selective, Terry?
Did you read carefully what was said?

Dr Toni Steer is a colleague of the flour queen Dr. Susan jebb:

http://www.fabflour.co.uk/News_weightloss.asp

"The Flour Advisory Bureau (FAB) and the Grain Information Service
(GIS) today launch a new review showing that overweight people who
adopt a range of proven health strategies can lose weight and cut the
risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Tackling the
Weight of the Nation, a peer-reviewed report produced by Dr Susan Jebb
and Dr Toni Steer of MRC Human Nutrition Research in Cambridge,
highlights that without urgent and effective action, 3 out of 10
adults in the UK will be obese by the end of the decade."

.....

"Alex Waugh, Director General of the Grain Information Service said,
"This independent report pulls together the very extensive research in
relation to low-fat, high carbohydrate diets and shows conclusively
that an effective, realistic and achievable strategy for long-term
weight management with clear health benefits does exist."

Of course Dr Toni Steer suggests that we restrict fat and increase
carbs to lose weight.

Along with a hypocaloric diet, of course. Much better for you.

But she admits that refined carbs are no good:

As does every credible nutritionist.

http://www.diet-i.com/low-carb-diets-nutrition.htm

quote *************
Unrefined Carbs Best

She recommends choosing foods that are as unrefined as possible, such
as whole oats, pasta, whole grain bread, and long grain rice, rather
than sweetened cereal or pastry. Foods such as yoghurt should ideally
be sweetened naturally with fruit rather than sugar.

And carbohydrates do not just provide energy. According to Dr Jebb's
colleague, nutritionist Dr Toni Steer, they also contain vital
nutrients.

"They have essential B vitamins like thiamine and folates. A lot of
these vitamins have a role in energy metabolism in the body.
************ endquote

Refined carbs do not contain these vitamins. They are removed in the
refining process.

Not always, but then you couldn't lie straight in bed.
Above it clearly states: "She recommends choosing foods that are as
unrefined as possible..."

Here she shows her true colors:

http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/_donotinde...0823_news3.pdf

Without any long term evidence to back up her claims ahe says that
low-carb is dangerous. So much for scientific integrity.

No such thing. I suggest you read it again.

But we all know what they are up to:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...835015,00.html

Just another industry shill earning her keep by selling out on her
professional integrity.

Which is what you say about anyone showing your nonsense for what it
is. When you find someone who agrees with you, it is generally because
you have misread them.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:54:05 GMT, "Mack"
posted:


"Ignoramus21819" wrote

I am not at all sure what is the benefit of fake soy milk as opposed
to cow milk.

I don't want to drift off into a cow's milk argument here. I suggest you
put "What's wrong with cow's milk?" into Google. You will get all the
arguments on both sides and, believe me, there are plenty of them.

I drank huge amounts of cow's milk when I was kid and, sure enough, I was a
fat kid. But as my children were growing up, we seldom had it in the house
because I had stopped drinking it long before and one of my sons could not
drink even a swallow of the stuff because it caused his sinuses, throat and
chest to start pumping out large quantities of mucus. (Not unusual, I
understand.) I have just long taken the position that cow's milk has
evolved specifically to make more cows. Seems to me that milk is baby food,
and baby humans need to drink human milk and adult humans, no milk at all.
But others may and do differ.

That mucous/milk thing was debunked years ago I thought.

Look, milk of animals is a fine food. Steak is really for cows to walk
about with. Eggs are for feeding new chickens. This "not natural"
argument doesn't hold water. If walnuts upset you, don't eat them, but
it is surely ridiculous to advocate they are a bad food.

From between your ears?

--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little.

Becky P.

"Moosh" wrote in message
...
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?

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:49:34 GMT, "Pizza Girl" wrote:

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.

get a small air pump from the local hobby store with a airstone. put the stone
and hose in your water jug and run it overnight. that will get the clorine out
and add oxygen and make the water taste better.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

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".

really? I find it far easier to cut calories when I eat fat because I am never
hungry. fat and protein fill you up better then anything else.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.

Well, actually I admit this approach is even better. But I am just a
human

I understand where you are coming from, but we are creatures of habit
and
habits can be changed with the application of will and a workable
strategy.
Personally, I don't want to just openly surrender to any known bad
habit.
The sweet habit is one that you could probably change by weaning
yourself
off it, over time.

Well, the question is, is it worth it? I do not think that several mgs
of aspartame daily cause me any problems, and I am actually afraid that
I would start to crave candy without it. Now, with my "chocolate" each
day, my sweet taste is completely satisfied and in a way that has only a
little impact on my health/weight.

Mirek

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

Same with fruits. What is your point?

Use fruits only in moderation.

Mirek

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:31:34 +0800, "Moosh"
announced in front of God and everybody:

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.

But not enough to make a whit of difference.

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.

Yep.

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

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

But again -- not enough to make any real nutritional difference.

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?

"Silly trick?" I;m responding to the statement that homey os somehow
better for you than white sugar because of its nutritional value. It's
not, and I was illustrating that point. Do the math.

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

Same with fruits. What is your point?

Fruit has fiber, at least. Eating whole fruits are a far better
nutritional value than eating white sugar or honey (which are
essentially the same thing to your body) or drinking fruit juice
(which is barely different from drinking sugar water.)

I think my point is clear. That you're having so much difficulty
grasping it is the mystery.

Dawn