If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. Few are willing to do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what actually causes their problems. So they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. or they eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will get the same benefit. Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. It should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be counterproductive to one's health. Paleolithic plans use rules that if anyone is intolerant of a food it's to be avoided. The list of foods that remain is large. Each paleolithic plan has slightly different rules resulting in slightly different lists but the result is the same. Atkins starts with a list of allowed foods. On that list are eggs and dairy which are a major loophole to the principle of starting with foods that have extremely low chance of having intolerance reactions. Starting from the list of allowed foods for Induction ingredients are supposed to be added one by one and tested in the eliminate-and-challenge style. Few follow that part of the directions but it does appear in the directions. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The Nitrate and Nitrite Myth: Another Reason not to Fear Bacon
On Oct 9, 12:28*pm, Dogman wrote:
Look, moron, everyone *should* want to have his or her lipids tested, especially those of us who eat low-carb. [Conventional doctors are just not attuned to this way of eating, or the effect it has on our lipids. The only problem is that no matter how you try to spin it now, your comments were specific to testing for Carbquik, not about lipid testing in general: dogman: "I'd be more interested in how wheat (which, let us not forget, is what CarbQuik is made from) affected my LDL particle levels, etc., which can be easily measured. " Trader4: "Carbquik, which, like so many others here, I've been using for years, in moderation. Now I'm supposed to figure out how it effects not only my blood glucose, but now also my "LDL particles, etc". dogman: Only if you're smart! Notice that I didn't say cholesterol.] Notice that I didn't say you said cholesterol either. And why are you always shilling for Carbquik? And drugs? I've never been shilling for either. Of course you are! In the same way that I'm "shilling" for Wheat Belly. Carbquik only came up in the discussion Just like Wheat Belly came up. Do you see me making post after post with links to a Carbquik website? You really are easily fascinated, aren't you? Yes, it might, if you test yourself properly. That's precisely why diabetics HAVE to do it. But if more people (non-diabetics) would do this testing from time to time, they'd never become a diabetic, etc., and would also protect themselves from CAD, heart attacks, stroke, etc. That sounds like a pretty good idea to me. *How 'bout you? Which is a completely seperate issue from testing specific to Carbquik. You want it both ways. First you say we should test to find out the BG response to those few Carbquik pancakes a week. And we should test for lipid response to those Carbquik pancakes too. Then when Doug suggests trial elimination of foods to see if you have a sensitivity, you say no such thing is required. Then it's back to testing for Carbquik. So, which is it today? And it's obviously pretty dumb to expect a lipid test to show anything significant with regard to a few Carbquik pancakes compared to the 99.9% of everything else that one eats and which varies. As James pointed out, you'd have to do this test MANY TIMES, to try to draw any meaningful conclusion. And while doing it, you'd have to keep everything else in your diet steady for weeks. Otherwise, how would you know that your lipid test wasn't effected by the 6 alcoholic drinks you had Sat, but didn't the last time you tested? In short, it's one hell of a dumb idea. Especially from one who preaches to us about "the scientific method". Moron. AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs Absolutely! But it's to be expected from the guy who has come to some other remarkable conclusions, like the above. nuff said..... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
REC: Low Carb, Nitrate-Free Bacon | Reg | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | June 2nd, 2004 06:33 PM |
no nitrate bacon | TasTyMorsL | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 12 | April 14th, 2004 09:32 PM |
Nitrate-free Bacon?? | GarciaGM | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | January 28th, 2004 05:08 AM |
Nitrite/nitrate free stuff | Bob M | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 9 | October 26th, 2003 02:03 AM |
Nitrate free bacon?? | PJ DiSanti | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 11 | October 1st, 2003 05:30 PM |