About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

x-no-arachive: yes

On 5/4/2012 3:07 PM, James Warren wrote:

I don't recall seeing Atkins on his list. Atkins was vindicated but
at the time he didn't have a lot of evidence for his ideas.

That's not so. It's been out there in the literature for many more years
than Atkins was advocating LC.

Susan

On 2012-05-04 12:00:06 -0500, Dogman said:

On Thu, 3 May 2012 18:24:02 -0500, Bill O'Meally
wrote:

On 2012-05-03 11:58:57 -0500, Dogman said:


IMO: There is no such thing as a good cereal, if that cereal is made
from GRAINS.

See: Wheat Belly, by Dr. Wm. Davis. http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

I do plan to read it in that I've heard so much about the book. I guess
I'm just a bit reluctant in that I'm not sure I want to be completely
turned off of grains yet (little that I still use).

Why? My guess is, you're just used to eating them. It's quite easy,
though, to get used to not eating them, too.

Also, I am a
homebrewer and that is my one guilty pleasures that I don't think I'll
ever give up. Even then I don't drink nearly as much beer as I used to.

I used to drink a LOT of beer. But I don't miss it at all now.

And I sure don't miss the beer belly!

Lord, make me grain-free. But not yet.

(with apologies to St Augustine)
--
Bill
"Wise Fool" -- Gandalf, _The Two Towers_
(The Wise will remove 'se' to reach me. The Foolish will not)

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 10:38:50 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/3/2012 6:53 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2012 17:18:33 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I haven't yet read the study but I can say that Mercola is listed
as a quack on quackwatch.

Are you sure you want to offer Quackwatch as a reliable source?

http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html
http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html
http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/QuackWatchWatch.htm
http://www.quackpo****ch.org/quackpo...ts/barrett.htm

There are a great many true quack listed on quackwatch.

Even a blind dog can find a bone once in a while.

It is possible
that Barrett is sometimes a little over eager in declaring a quack and
he no doubt has made a few mistakes. One has to think for oneself using
whatever evidence one can find.

Barrett meets the very definition of the word quack.

Regarding aspartame: I think it can probably be safely used by most
people, but only in small quantities.
http://waroninsulin.com/nutrition/wh...f-aspartame-st
evia-and-other-sugar-substitutes

There will always be a few out of the many millions who use any mass
produced food product that react badly to it. But if the harm were
large enough to reliably detect in sample sizes of millions it surely
would have been found by now.

True. On the other hand, and considering that there are far safer
alternatives available to us today, why chance it?

As an aside, it is not possible for a
human to consume the quantities fed to rats.

Personally, I avoid it, along with most of the artificial sweeteners,
with stevia and xylitol being two of those exceptions. I've managed to
lose about 85% of my sweet tooth over the years, but I'll probably
never eliminate it completely.


I don't avoid them. I drink diet beverages in moderation.

Define "moderation."

Moderation is what the moderators on moderated USENET groups do.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:09:05 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/4/2012 3:59 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:33:44 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
He might well be overzealous and have strict evidence requirements
for claims. But isn't this a good thing?

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon.

To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that
diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet.

That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer.

If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA.

The American Heat Association too. They give a blessing to Chocolate
Covered Sugar Bombs. I won't even mention the USDA. Oops.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article ,
James Warren wrote:

On 5/4/2012 4:33 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:09:05 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 5/4/2012 3:59 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:33:44 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
He might well be overzealous and have strict evidence requirements
for claims. But isn't this a good thing?

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The
randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine.


Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon.

To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that
diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet.

They do. It is what I was taught in diabetes school 18 years ago.


That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer.

If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA.


Maybe someday they will be!

I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds
and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled.
However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote. I would like
to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits
and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good
evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful
effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the
entrenched establishment.

If the low carb diet has not been tested, then necessarily the high
carb diet has not been tested either, but the establishment has no
qualms about recommending this untested diet.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Actually an obesity rate of around 10% has been with us for centuries
maybe even millennia. Somewhere after the invention of argiculture 10K
plus years ago it was probably worse but selective evolutionary pressure
has been working on us ever since to make us okay with non-refined
grains as a part of our diet. The process never did run to completion
before the invention of refined grain and refined sugar other than
honey.

And in populations recently introduced (recently -- a few hundred
years) to the Western diet, the problem is more acute than in peoples
of Eurasia and Northern Africa. Of curse, in America we had bad
problems with pellagra[1] with populations which could only be cured
by eating something other than corn, and in Asia beri beri due to
refined rice.

[1] It was frequently considered a mental illness.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 4 May 2012 21:11:43 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Dogman wrote:

What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply
that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack?

Any doctor who defies the mainstream of the medical community is a
quack, at first whether they are right or wrong.

That's pretty much true, Doug. And it applies to all of science, not
just the medical community.

Which reminds me of an old saying, “The pioneers take the arrows, the
settlers take the land.”

[...]

"We had the land and the missionaries had the Bible, then the
missionaries had the land and we had the Bible."

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article ,
Susan wrote:

You may not have recognized that we are on exactly the same side of this
argument.

This is generally stated as "We seem to be in violent agreement.".

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:59:00 -0400, Walter Bushell
wrote:

In article ,
Susan wrote:

You may not have recognized that we are on exactly the same side of this
argument.

This is generally stated as "We seem to be in violent agreement.".

Not exactly, Walter.

Susan said "Oh, they do" prevent heart attacks.

And I said there is no randomized, double-blind study that proves that
they do.

Quite a distinction, I think.

--
Dogman

On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:42:42 -0400, Walter Bushell
wrote:

[...]
I don't avoid them. I drink diet beverages in moderation.

Define "moderation."

Moderation is what the moderators on moderated USENET groups do.

Say what?

--
Dogman