A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 22nd, 2012, 07:51 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes



http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...id=1&Itemid=17

* There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence
with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or
total body fat

* Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being
obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes
and diabetes, researchers found.

Visceral fat = "wheat belly"

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #2  
Old September 23rd, 2012, 04:12 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

On Sep 22, 2:52*pm, Dogman wrote:
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...ontent&view=ar....

* There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence
with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or
total body fat

* Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being
obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes
and diabetes, researchers found.

Visceral fat = "wheat belly"

--



I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is
specific
to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from
sources other than wheat.

As for insulin resistance being correlated with pre-diabetes and
diabetes, wow, this is news?
  #3  
Old September 23rd, 2012, 05:55 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 22, 2:52*pm, Dogman wrote:
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...ontent&view=ar...

* There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence
with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or
total body fat

* Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being
obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes
and diabetes, researchers found.

Visceral fat = "wheat belly"


I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is
specific
to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from
sources other than wheat.


Read the book.

Or keep eating all those pancakes, etc.

I couldn't care less.

As for insulin resistance being correlated with pre-diabetes and
diabetes, wow, this is news?


It's a reminder for interested parties. Take your complaints to

And whatever you do, don't test your BG levels until after your doctor
tells you that you already have diabetes.

And never, ever check your cholesterol, and what effect wheat has on
LDL particle size and number.

That way, you'll eventually (if you survive that long) get to take
even more drugs, and we know how you love your drugs, EH?

Moron.

Nota bene: How you ever ended up on a low-carb newsgroup is still a
mystery to me. Wouldn't you feel more at home over at
alt.support.diet.rx or alt.drugs?

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #4  
Old September 24th, 2012, 08:07 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

On Sep 23, 12:56*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2012 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 22, 2:52 pm, Dogman wrote:
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...ontent&view=ar...


* There were no associations between prediabetes or diabetes incidence
with general markers of obesity, such as body mass index (BMI) or
total body fat


* Having excess visceral fat and insulin resistance, but not being
obese in and of itself, puts heavier patients at risk for prediabetes
and diabetes, researchers found.


Visceral fat = "wheat belly"

I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is
specific
to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from
sources other than wheat.


Read the book.


As usual, you have no studies.
  #5  
Old September 24th, 2012, 08:50 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Visceral fat = "wheat belly"
I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is
specific
to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from
sources other than wheat.


Read the book.


As usual, you have no studies.


As usual, you expect others to do the work for you.

Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words,
not mine), but wheat causes visceral fat (the worst kind). Two slices
of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar,
a can of Coke, etc. Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet
would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two
slices of bread, escapes me.

You claim that you eat/ate low-carb "just to lose a few pounds"
(hopefully, you've lost them by now and can go someplace else?) but
most people eat low-carb to lose more than just a few pounds, to avoid
or cure diabetes, to avoid or cure metabolic syndrome, to get off of
medicines, to improve their overall health markers, etc, so my posts
aren't aimed at you. They're aimed at them.

You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL.

So...

......................./´¯/)
.....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\...

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #6  
Old September 25th, 2012, 02:00 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

On Sep 24, 3:52*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Visceral fat = "wheat belly"
I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is
specific
to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from
sources other than wheat.


Read the book.

As usual, you have no studies.


As usual, you expect others to do the work for you.

Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words,
not mine),



Must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard
that typed this:

"Visceral fat = "wheat belly"


And when I questioned if there was a study that showed
visceral fat was specific to wheat as opposed to say refined
carbs in general, must have been someone else sitting at
your keyboard that replied that I should read the Wheat Belly book.



but wheat causes visceral fat (the worst kind). Two slices
of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar,
a can of Coke, etc.


Let's look at the facts:

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

I'm not a fan on Dr Mendosa, but he has a good list of the
glycemic load of various foods. On it we find:

Wonder Bread 30g GL 10
Snickers 60g GL 15 to 23
Coke 250ml GL 16

Those are per the serving size listed and they seem
reasonable to me.


So, it's hard for me to get my shorts up in a knot that
wheat is somehow uniquely bad and worse than
drinking coke or eating a snickers bar. Even if you
double the bread serving, it's still in the GL range of
the snickers bar. And IMO, it's a lot easier to swill
down several cokes than it is to eat six slices of bread.


Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet
would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two
slices of bread, escapes me.


Maybe because once in a while they feel like it
and they aren't an extremist. I'm not saying everyone
should do it, but if it works for some, it doesn't bother
me.





You claim that you eat/ate low-carb "just to lose a few pounds"


I never said any such thing.


(hopefully, you've lost them by now and can go someplace else?)


I've been here a lot longer than you.





but
most people eat low-carb to lose more than just a few pounds, to avoid
or cure diabetes, to avoid or cure metabolic syndrome, to get off of
medicines, to improve their overall health markers, etc, so my posts
aren't aimed at you. They're aimed at them.

You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL.


And you're the poster who claims:

HIV isn't the cause of AIDS
HIV is harmless
Diet and lack of sleep cause AIDS
No virus can cause cancer
HPV isn't a cause of cervical cancer.

Folks can evaluate the quality of your scientific knowledge
and then decide who's the ignorant one.
  #7  
Old September 25th, 2012, 10:24 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

On Sep 25, 2:12*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:00:57 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]





Visceral fat = "wheat belly"
I would love to see the studies that show that visceral fat is
specific
to wheat, as opposed to other causes, including refined carbs from
sources other than wheat.


Read the book.
As usual, you have no studies.


As usual, you expect others to do the work for you.


Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words,
not mine),

Must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard
that typed this:


"Visceral fat = "wheat belly"


Exactly! But being equal to something is not the same thing as being
specific to something!

Man = homo sapien

and

Woman = homo sapien


Equal to in my world means they are the same thing.
And in your above example, while both a man
and a woman are homosapiens, a man or woman is not equivalent
to the term homosapian. An apple is a fruit.
A peach is a fruit. That doesn't mean an apple is a peach.
With visceral fat = wheat belly, you've effectively said that an
apple is a peach. .



of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar,
a can of Coke, etc.


Let's look at the facts:


http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm


I'm not a fan on Dr Mendosa,


Nor am I, so why refer to him?


I only used a convenient table he has that shows the
glycemic load of various foods. You can find similar
tables of glycemic load from various sources that show
bread doesn't have any significantly worse impact than
coke or a snickers bar.
As usual, you completely edited that whole part out.
Let me put it back in for you:


Wonder Bread 30g GL 10
Snickers 60g GL 15 to 23
Coke 250ml GL 16






http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2011/...nhealthy-Whole...

"People are usually shocked when I tell them that whole wheat bread
increases blood sugar to a higher level than sucrose.1 Aside from some
extra fiber, eating two slices of whole wheat bread is really little
different, and often worse, than drinking a can of sugar-sweetened
soda or eating a sugary candy bar.

"This information is not new. A 1981 University of Toronto study
launched the concept of the glycemic index, i.e., the comparative
blood sugar effects of carbohydrates: the higher the blood sugar after
consuming a specific food compared to glucose, the higher the glycemic
index (GI). The original study showed that the GI of white bread was
69, while the GI of whole grain bread was 72 and Shredded Wheat cereal
was 67, while that of sucrose (table sugar) was 59.2 Yes, the GI of
whole grain bread is higher than that of sucrose. Incidentally, the GI
of a Mars Bar nougat, chocolate, sugar, caramel, and all�is 68.


That�s
better than whole grain bread. The GI of a Snickers bar is 41�far
better than whole grain bread.


And accoriing to other sources, the GI of that snickers bar is
43 to 68. I find the 41 number to be highly suspect. And the 68 is
probably closer to the truth. But the 41 is a good hook to rope in
the dopes by those writing sensationalist books. Good message.
Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better.
The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant
impact
on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc. I think to
be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books.
But if you have some studies that shows wheat is unique on it's
impact on BG, I'd be happy to see them.




"This has important implications for body weight, since glucose is
unavoidably accompanied by insulin, the hormone that allows entry of
glucose into the cells of the body, converting the glucose to fat. The
higher the blood glucose after consumption of food, the greater the
insulin level, the more fat is deposited. This is why, say, eating a
three-egg omelet that triggers no increase in glucose does not add to
body fat, while two slices of whole wheat bread increases blood
glucose to high levels, triggering insulin and growth of fat,
particularly abdominal or deep visceral fat."

Moreover, these numbers are rough estimates. The only way to determine
what these foods actually do to YOUR OWN blood sugar levels is to TEST
them! *But since you have no interest in finding out what these foods
are doing to YOU, it seems a bit strange that you would even enter
this conversation. *Besides being an ankle-biting TROLL, that is.


You do all the testing on yourself that you want. I don't recall
a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing. And somehow
we've all been living fine without you and your required methods.





Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet
would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two
slices of bread, escapes me.


Maybe because once in a while they feel like it
and they aren't an extremist.


But maybe they should be more extreme and less...wishy-washy?


Why, just because you say so? Who put you in charge? If LC is
working for folks and once in a while they want to eat a snickers
bar or have a desert made with sugar because they are dining out
at a fancy restaurant, I say fine.





I'm not saying everyone
should do it, but if it works for some, it doesn't bother
me.


You have no idea whether it's bothering you or not, because you don't
believe in testing.


Yes, I know. We're all supposed to be conducting constant
BG monitoring. That's a good message to get more people to
do LC. Make it 10X harder than it has to be just because you
say so. Are you as sure about the need for that as you are that
HIV is harmless? That AIDS is caused by diet?




I never said any such thing.


Yes you did. You said you only wanted to "lose a few pounds."

You can look it up.


You're the one making the claim. I say you're a liar. Now, go
ahead, make my day. Show everyone where I said it. Of course,
just like your studies, that won't be forthcoming, because it doesn't
exist.



You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL.

And you're the poster who claims:
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs


Absolutely!

  #8  
Old September 26th, 2012, 12:09 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes


On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:24:43 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Note: Visceral fat isn't *specific* to wheat (those are your words,
not mine),
Must have been someone else sitting at your keyboard
that typed this:


"Visceral fat = "wheat belly"


Exactly! But being equal to something is not the same thing as being
specific to something!

Man = homo sapien

and

Woman = homo sapien


Equal to in my world means they are the same thing.


In your bizarro world, anything goes, eh?

diabetes = illness

cancer = illness

Diabetes is not the same thing as cancer!

And in your above example, while both a man
and a woman are homosapiens, a man or woman is not equivalent
to the term homosapian.


Again, those are your words (and yet another straw man!).

I didn't say they were equivalent {just like I didn't say visceral fat
was specific to wheat belly).

visceral fat = wheat belly

This should not suggest that other things can't also be "=" to wheat
belly!

An apple is a fruit.
A peach is a fruit.


Exactly!

And it's irrelevant.

That doesn't mean an apple is a peach.
With visceral fat = wheat belly, you've effectively said that an
apple is a peach.


No I haven't. I said that visceral fat = wheat belly.

In the same way that diabetes = illness and cancer = illness.

Think about it, it'll sink in eventually.

of bread will raise your blood sugars more than a Snickers candy bar,
a can of Coke, etc.


Let's look at the facts:


http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm


I'm not a fan on Dr Mendosa,


Nor am I, so why refer to him?


I only used a convenient table he has that shows the
glycemic load of various foods.


So what?

I used GI.

Pick your poison.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2011/...nhealthy-Whole...

"People are usually shocked when I tell them that whole wheat bread
increases blood sugar to a higher level than sucrose.1 Aside from some
extra fiber, eating two slices of whole wheat bread is really little
different, and often worse, than drinking a can of sugar-sweetened
soda or eating a sugary candy bar.

"This information is not new. A 1981 University of Toronto study
launched the concept of the glycemic index, i.e., the comparative
blood sugar effects of carbohydrates: the higher the blood sugar after
consuming a specific food compared to glucose, the higher the glycemic
index (GI). The original study showed that the GI of white bread was
69, while the GI of whole grain bread was 72 and Shredded Wheat cereal
was 67, while that of sucrose (table sugar) was 59.2 Yes, the GI of
whole grain bread is higher than that of sucrose. Incidentally, the GI
of a Mars Bar nougat, chocolate, sugar, caramel, and all�is 68.


That�s
better than whole grain bread. The GI of a Snickers bar is 41�far
better than whole grain bread.


And accoriing to other sources, the GI of that snickers bar is
43 to 68. I find the 41 number to be highly suspect.


Yes, but you find anything "suspect" that doesn't comport with your
preconceived notions!

Good message.
Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better.


If that's what you think the message is, you're beyond stupid, you're
somewhere between moron and imbecile.

The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant
impact
on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc.


Exactly! They're virtually the same. But they affect different people
differently. And you have no way to determine how it might be
affecting YOU unless you TEST.

I think to
be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books.


No, it's about informing people of the DANGERS associated with wheat!

The vast majority of people think wheat is actually good for them!
That it's healthy, etc. Well, it's NOT! And the poor dumb schmucks
like yourself, who listen to the ADA push wheat on people who already
have diabetes(!) and say nothing about it are part of the ****ing
problem!

Asshole.

"This has important implications for body weight, since glucose is
unavoidably accompanied by insulin, the hormone that allows entry of
glucose into the cells of the body, converting the glucose to fat. The
higher the blood glucose after consumption of food, the greater the
insulin level, the more fat is deposited. This is why, say, eating a
three-egg omelet that triggers no increase in glucose does not add to
body fat, while two slices of whole wheat bread increases blood
glucose to high levels, triggering insulin and growth of fat,
particularly abdominal or deep visceral fat."

Moreover, these numbers are rough estimates. The only way to determine
what these foods actually do to YOUR OWN blood sugar levels is to TEST
them! *But since you have no interest in finding out what these foods
are doing to YOU, it seems a bit strange that you would even enter
this conversation. *Besides being an ankle-biting TROLL, that is.


You do all the testing on yourself that you want.


I do!

I don't recall
a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing.


And that's a problem!

And that's precisely why many diabetics don't know even that they're
diabetic!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-diabetes.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124269507804132831.html

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/304...lications.html

They've essentially unscrewed their engine warning light.

How smart is that?

And somehow
we've all been living fine without you and your required methods.


Everyone lives fine, until they get sick, or keel over and die.

Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet
would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two
slices of bread, escapes me.


Maybe because once in a while they feel like it
and they aren't an extremist.


But maybe they should be more extreme and less...wishy-washy?


Why, just because you say so?


No, because many wise scientists and doctors say so. Common sense says
so.

See: preventive medicine

Who put you in charge?


I'm not in charge of anything. But you don't get to tell me what I can
and cannot say here, you little prick! Got that?

I make posts here that I think might help others with various
diet-related problems. Yes, you're welcome to critique them, that's
what newsgroups are all about.

But you're not in charge here, and for as long as you want to
incessantly follow me around and gnaw on my ankles (rather than have
an honest discussion), I'm going to keep kicking you in the teeth.

If LC is
working for folks and once in a while they want to eat a snickers
bar or have a desert made with sugar because they are dining out
at a fancy restaurant, I say fine.


I say fine, too. But they should at least know what that may be doing
to their health markers when they do it. If they don't care, they
don't care.

And if they don't care, I don't care.

C'est la vie.

Nota bene: But this is exactly the kind of attitude that accounts for
so many diet failures. Not to mention obesity, diabetes, poor general
health and pre-mature death. "Once in a while" can quickly become
"once a week" which can quickly become "everyday."

See: any 12-step addiction program.

I'm not saying everyone
should do it, but if it works for some, it doesn't bother
me.


You have no idea whether it's bothering you or not, because you don't
believe in testing.


Yes, I know. We're all supposed to be conducting constant
BG monitoring.


Yet another straw man!

Really, if you didn't have straw men to argue with, you'd be one
lonely SOB, wouldn't you?

I recommended *periodic* testing. Period. It's cheap, and pretty
accurate.

Once you know the numbers for your standard diet, there's no reason to
keep testing just for the hell of it. But if you change something in
your diet (like adding wheat), you'd be wise to want to know how that
particular change affects you (everything you eat affects you).

Got it now, you freakin' idiot?

That's a good message to get more people to do LC.


If losing weight (and keeping it off), improving key health markers,
avoiding or curing diabetes, etc., aren't attractive enough messages,
they're doomed to failure anyway.

Are you as sure about the need for that as you are that
HIV is harmless? That AIDS is caused by diet?


HIV is mostly harmless. Yes.

AIDS can be caused by diet (malnutrition), because without proper
nutrition, the immune system will gradually weaken, and even collapse.
Yes.

Even someone as dumb as you are probably knows what happens when your
immune system collapses, eh?

In Africa, it's known as "wasting."

Go ahead and **** with your immune system and very bad things will
happen to you.

I never said any such thing.


Yes you did. You said you only wanted to "lose a few pounds."

You can look it up.


You're the one making the claim. I say you're a liar.


I'm not doing your work for you. You know you said it, and I know you
said it.

You're just an ignorant, ankle-biting asshole -- and a TROLL.
And you're the poster who claims:
AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs



Absolutely!

http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POISON.PDF

And one more message, just for you:

......................./´¯/)
.....................,/¯../
..................../..../
............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
.........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
.........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
..........\.................'...../
...........''...\.......... _.·´
.............\..............(
...............\.............\...

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #9  
Old September 26th, 2012, 02:26 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

On Sep 25, 7:11*pm, Dogman wrote:

I only used a convenient table he has that shows the
glycemic load of various foods.


So what?

I used GI.

Pick your poison.


I believe GL is more accepted today as a meaure of the
real BG impact. And again you chose to edit out the real
issue which is that bread is not all that much different
that a snickers or a coke, despite your attempts to make
it so:


Wonder Bread 30g GL 10
Snickers 60g GL 15 to 23
Coke 250ml GL 16


Take two slices of bread if you like and it's still in the
range of that Snickers or Coke, not significantly worse.




Yes, but you find anything "suspect" that doesn't comport with your
preconceived notions!


You're the AIDS denialist that spins everything in a desperate attempt
to deny what everyone knows, which is that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
And I'm supposed to be the one with preconceived notions?




Good message.
Bread is bad, but snickers bars and cokes are better.


If that's what you think the message is, you're beyond stupid, you're
somewhere between moron and imbecile.



I think the "Wheat Belly" message is just to sell books to make a
profit. The fact that you can't provide a link to studies that
show that wheat is uniquely bad as a refined carb as compared
to other similar carbs, eg corn, rice, etc. tends to support that.
I say that if people substitute corn, rice, potato chips, etc for
wheat, they will likely have similar weight problems, blood sugar
problems, visceral fat etc. I say similar refined carbs are just
about as bad as wheat, unless you happen to be one of the
minority of people who have problems with gluten. If you
have studies that say otherwise, I'm sure we'd all like to see
them.





The simple truth is that almost all refined carbs have a significant
impact
on BG levels, be that wheat, snickers, coke, rice, etc.


Exactly! *They're virtually the same. But they affect different people
differently. And you have no way to determine how it might be
affecting YOU unless you TEST.


Back to the nonsense that everyone has to test BG
response with everything they eat. Good grief. I thought
this was a LC support group, not a group to drive people
away from LC.





I think to
be focusing on one versus the others is more about selling books.


No, it's about informing people of the DANGERS associated with wheat!


Yes and when you have the studies to back up that wheat is
significantly more dangerous than corn, rice, potato chips, soda,
sugar, etc, let us know.





The vast majority of people think wheat is actually good for them!
That it's healthy, etc. *Well, it's NOT! *And the poor dumb schmucks
like yourself, who listen to the ADA push wheat on people who already
have diabetes(!) and say nothing about it are part of the ****ing
problem!

Asshole.


Which of course is a lie. It was clear in another recent
thread where this was discussed that I think the ADA is
wrong. Remember? It was the thread where you were
blaming Sam's Club because they had some dietary
recommendations that were similar. As if Sam's Club
originated the advice. It's not Sams', and I think it was
Susan that pointed out it was similar to ADA. That
apparently was a surprise to you, but not to me.









You do all the testing on yourself that you want.


I do!

I don't recall
a single non-diabetic here in the group doing BG testing.


And that's a problem!


Only according to you. Let's see, who should I believe?
Dr. Atkins or the guy who says HIV is harmless?




Why anyone who purports to be on a low-carb diet
would ever eat a Snickers candy bar, drink a can of Coke, or eat two
slices of bread, escapes me.


Maybe because once in a while they feel like it
and they aren't an extremist.


But maybe they should be more extreme and less...wishy-washy?


Why, just because you say so?


No, because many wise scientists and doctors say so. Common sense says
so.


Who exacty are these wise scientists and doctors who say
eating a dessert with sugar or a snickers bar once in a while
for most of us doing LC is going to result in something bad?
I've seen lots of people here over the years doing exactly that.
It works for them. It works for me. If it brings on cravings for
some and leads them to binge, then they shouldn't do it.
Of course we know the kinds of folks you think are wise
scientists. You cherish completely discredited AIDS denialists
who are not even qualified in virology, who never treated an
AIDS patient, etc.






See: preventive medicine

Who put you in charge?


I'm not in charge of anything. But you don't get to tell me what I can
and cannot say here, you little prick! Got that?


I would never want to stop you from saying things here. Look
where it's gotten you. Now for example everyone knows that you're an
AIDS
denialist and that you claim that no virus can cause cancer. I want
you to expand your list of ignorance for all to see.



  #10  
Old September 26th, 2012, 04:24 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Visceral Fat And Insulin Resistance Not Obesity Increases Risk of Diabetes

wrote:

I think the "Wheat Belly" message is just to sell books to make a
profit.


I'm more generous about it. Removing wheat tends to push most people
lower in carbs and to me that's enough for a lot of people who are in
the overweight range who've never been obese. For anyone who's ever
been obese or fatter it's a forst step in the right direction.

Low carb got a bad reputation when it was hit with a fad and flooded
with extremists. Milder approaches are appropriate.

Low carb also gets hit by vegan extremists. Rather than returning their
hysterical fire with hysterical fire there's sense in counting them by
pointing out their preferred foods are damaging.

The fact that you can't provide a link to studies that
show that wheat is uniquely bad as a refined carb as compared
to other similar carbs, eg corn, rice, etc. tends to support that.
I say that if people substitute corn, rice, potato chips, etc for
wheat, they will likely have similar weight problems, blood sugar
problems, visceral fat etc.


Right. Potato belly anyone? Those are nightshades after all. Both
corn and rice have been subject to similar genetic manipulation as
wheat.

I say similar refined carbs are just
about as bad as wheat, unless you happen to be one of the
minority of people who have problems with gluten. If you
have studies that say otherwise, I'm sure we'd all like to see
them.


Being one of the mildly wheat intolerant ones I regularly see people who
have some type of intolerance to some type of grain where I can see and
point out their symptoms but they deny them. There are a lot more who
have such problems than know it. But I am dubious that it's as widely
prevalent as Wheat Belly claims. Studies comparing wheat against other
high carb sources like rice, corn and potatoes would be instructive.

But consider the studies that compare HFCS against sucrose. Even though
they show that the amount of sugar consumed dominates they also show
that calorie for calorie HFCS is worse than sucrose. The two effects
have different orders of magnitude. I would not be surprised to learn
that going low carb has a 10X benefit while switching from wheat to
potatoes on a low fat plan has a 1X benefit. Wheat is not a beneficial
source of starch nor is any other cereal grain but what to compare it
against and why? I don't want one of those studies that compares
frosted flakes with oatmeal to conclude that whole grains are beneficial.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Insulin resistance Martin Barrett Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 May 30th, 2008 10:07 PM
Fat causes insulin resistance? Bob M Low Carbohydrate Diets 13 March 26th, 2005 10:31 PM
15 Year Study - Fast Food , Obesity and Insulin Resistance jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 29 January 9th, 2005 04:04 PM
15 Year Study - Fast Food , Obesity and Insulin Resistance MU General Discussion 0 January 6th, 2005 12:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.