> Popular books certainly give that impression. But nothing could be
> further from the truth. I started eating a low-carbohydrate diet in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> -- A diet that causes you to lose weight doesn't necessarily = a
> healthy diet.
> Fortunately for us today, Banting was quite a remarkable man. It is for
> this reason alone that we can know today what this miraculous diet was.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> eating butter and drinking milk and beer. C'mon, what sort of proof is
> this whacked-out story?
> 1. Pork was not allowed as it was thought then that it contained
> starch.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> exercising. Beautiful, now I have justification to not change anything
> or get off my butt. I love it!
> -- And too bad this guy still isn't around. He'd be perfect to pitch
> one of those late-night diet plan infomercials.
> Later, Dr. Harvey had a problem too. He had an effective treatment for
> obesity but not a convincing theory to explain it. As he was a medical
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> -- First, it's miraculous, now it's "enshrined in history". LOL
> -- Again, "slimming diets" does not mean healthy diets.
> Banting's descriptions of the diet are quite clear, however. Other than
> the prohibition against butter and pork, nowhere is there any
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> his health. But I guess it depends on whoever is interpeting the
> "data"/story.
> > When one thinks of low-carbohydrate diets today, one tends to think
> > that they are "new" or "revolutionary" in some way.
> > -- Like the "King of Con", Adkins.
> your posting is confusing as to what is being quoted from a prvious
> post and what you are adding. But I will try to respond without
> confusing things further.
> Atkins, et al., actually provided a diet, although not perfect, did in
> fact lead to weight loss in most people who undertands the diet and
> applies it as described. Which is a great deal more than can be said
> for the con that is the low-cal diet which has been PROVEN to fail in
> more than 95% of cases.
The Adkins diet is nutritionally imbalanced. You don't follow an
imbalanced "weight-loss" diet to lose weight. You adopt a diet that
supplies all the necessary nutrients and increase your physical
activity to the point where you're burning slightly more calories than
you're taking in.
And yes, low-calorie is stupid too.
> > Popular books certainly give that impression. But nothing could be
> > further from the truth. I started eating a low-carbohydrate diet in
> > 1962 when a doctor advised me that this was the best way to lose
> > weight.
> > -- A diet that causes you to lose weight doesn't necessarily = a
> > healthy diet.
> Much healthier than the alternative high grain diet that has LED US to
> record obesity and chronic disease.
You forgot to state "enriched" grain, tons of refined sugar, low-grade
meat products (WHY do you keep forgetting to mention Kentucky Fried
Chicken, Big Mac hamburgers, Burger King Whoppers, Long John Silver's
"fish", etc.?) and a total lack of exercise.
> > <snip>
> > Being overweight has affected a small proportion of the population for
> > centuries but clinical obesity was relatively rare until the 20th
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> > percent of the population over just one decade despite the fact that
> > Americans spend a massive $33 billion a year on "slimming."
> > -- And it continues to rise despite low-carb.
> It would come to a screeching halt if the USDA revised its pyramid and
> the sugar and refined carb consumption were recognozed by the
> maunstream for what it does.
Do you really think all these fat people are following the USDA food
pyramid?
And please tell us what your revised pyramid would look like.
> > It may be hard to believe, but this has occurred in the face of
> > increasing knowledge, awareness and education about obesity, nutrition
> > and exercise. It has happened despite the fact that calorie intake has
> > gone down by twenty percent over the past ten years and exercise clubs
> > have mushroomed.
> > -- The bullshit meter just went off.
> > -- How has calorie intake gone down when every damn thing now days is
> > "supersized"?
> less high calorie fat consumption and more lower calorie fat
> consumption has indeed resulted in a lower overall calorie intake......
> and we still got fatter.
What?!? I never heard of low-calorie fat. The only fat I know has 9
calories per gram.
Have you noticed the size of a "medium" soft-drink these days?
Or the size of hamburgers at fast food places?
Or the numbers of people who go to these buffet-style restaurants?
Or the numbers of people being feed by fast food restaurants?
> > -- LOL 'Exercise clubs are a factor in the obesity epidemic' Now THAT
> > is a good one!!!
> Nope, what is being said is that the suggested solution of more
> exercise has been taken to heart by a large number of people and yet
> they still remain overweight. They are being sold a bill of goods that
> has failed them. yet again.
Exercise never fails. It will always improve your health. And it
can/will help you lose weight. But it's only half of the equation, a
healthy diet being the other part. Put both together and you will
become fit.
> > More people are cutting calories now than ever before in their history
> > yet more of them are becoming overweight.
> > -- LOL Sure they are. Yeah, they're really cutting calories.
> > Stuffing themselves at buffet tables, pigging down larger and larger
> > portion sizes, constant snacking on junk food, guzzling soda and
> > "sports drinks" like they're a replacement for water. Yeah, they're
> > cutting calories alright.
> Many millions of people have tried their darndest to cut fat calories,
> yet they still failed to lose weight. Many people are virtually
> starving themselves on rice cakes and low-fat pasta dishes and
> butterless bread and they still gain weight. It is not just those
> over-indulginmg in junk food that can't control their weight.
And many people are starving themselves on hotdogs, hamburgers and
deep-fried meat products and are fat slobs. The point here is
bad/refined carbs aren't the only problem. Again, why do you keep
forgetting to mention foods like Meat Lovers Pizzas, Wienerschnitzel
hotdogs and Wendy's Big Bacon Classic? Hmmmmm...
> > There is now a pandemic of increasing weight across the industrialized
> > world.
> > -- Note "industrialized world". With more and more machinery people
> > have to do less and less manual labor. People drive everywhere instead
> > of walk, real manual labor jobs are shrinking and the ones that remain
> > are given to migrant workers (because no one wants to do them) etc...
> > hell, who doesn't have a remote on their TV? Can't do without one of
> > those... don't want to get my fat a.s off the couch to turn a channel.
> That is one factor of course. But eating enough carbs for a world class
> athlete is not helping, is it?
Of course not. Your calorie intake must match the amount you're
burning up.
> 55% of calories as carbs is the OFFICIAL recomendation. Try that without eating high
> carb refined grains.
Been doing that, without refined carbs, for 20 years. And you already
know my specs.
> > None of Banting's family on either parent's side had any tendency to
> > obesity. However, when he was in his thirties, William started to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > him, however, was to give him a prodigious appetite. He put on weight
> > and was advised to stop. So much for exercise!
> > -- Oh, stop it... what this this a comedy bit? Yeah, bad 'ol exercise
> > causes you to get fat. Please tell me no one believes this crap?!
> Nope, what is being said is that he tried diligently to lose weight by
> adding exercise to his daily regimen and the change still failed to
> help him lose weight. So much for the magic bullet of exercise.
Anyone who tells you to stop exercising is a quack. Plenty of exercise
is key to good health. This fact can not be disputed.
Perhaps, our subject was packing on muscle and that is why his weight
went up -- because as you should know, muscle weighs more than fat.
> You really need to understand what od being said before you go off
> half-cocked arguing about points that are not being made. You are
> putting words in the mouths of others and twisting around what is
> actually being said.
What's wrong with you? This article is some whacked-out testimonial,
and on top of that it demeans exercise. And you're defending it.
It states..."all this [exercise] did for him, however, was to give
him a prodigious appetite. He put on weight and was advised to stop. So
much for exercise!"
How is this not demeaning exercise?
Then, after I rip the article up, you defend it by hitting exercise
harder with the line "so much for the magic bullet of exercise."
Try to tell me you're not trivializing exercise.
> > He was then advised that he could remedy his obesity by "moderate and
> > light food" but wasn't really told what was intended by this. He says
> > he brought his system into a low, impoverished state without reducing
> > his weight, which caused many obnoxious boils to appear and two rather
> > formidable carbuncles. He went into hospital and was ably operated
> > upon-but also fed into increased obesity.
> > Banting went into hospital twenty times in as many years for weight
> > reduction. He tried swimming, walking, riding and taking the sea air.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > for a year but lost only six pounds in all that time, and had less and
> > less energy.
> > -- Nice touch. Linking low-calorie with starvation. And again,
> > demonizing exercise. Yeah, let's foster the notion that it's good to
> > be a slug and avoid ever getting any sweat on your brow... un-freaking
> > believeable!
> low calorie is, by definition, starving yourself of food and energy.
> D'uh.
Thanks for the correction. I saw/read lower calorie and saw/read
starvation diets as two entries.
> One ought to demonize a suggested method of weight loss if it fails to
> achieve it goals.
Agreed, as long as it supplies adequate nutrition. Following an
imbalanced diet just to lose a certain number of pounds is stupid.
> > <snipped the bad news about exercise and the sob story about his
> > medical condition>
> > Eventually, in August of 1862 Banting consulted a noted Fellow of the
> > Royal College of Surgeons: an ear, nose and throat specialist. Dr.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> > question of the way in which fats, sugars and starches affected the
> > body.
> > When Dr. Harvey met Banting, he was interested as much by Banting's
> > obesity as by his deafness, for he recognised that the one was the
> > cause of the other. So Harvey put Banting on a diet. By Christmas,
> > Banting was down to 184 pounds and, by the following August, 156
> > pounds.
> > He had, he says, "little comfort and far less sound sleep."
> > Harvey's advice to him was to give up bread, butter, milk, sugar, beer
> > and potatoes. These, he was told, contained starch and saccharine
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > very few days, he says, he derived immense benefit from it. The plan
> > led to an excellent night's rest with 6 to 8 hours' sleep per night.
> > -- 6-8 hours is a little light on sleep, but whatever...
> On a high grain diet he got much less than that. I imagine it was a
> godsend for him to get even that much. That is the sentiment he is
> expressing.
Why are you assuming grains had anything to do with his lack of sleep?
It's not like this was a controlled study.
> > Fortunately for us today, Banting was quite a remarkable man. It is for
> > this reason alone that we can know today what this miraculous diet was.
> > In May 1863, at his own expense, Banting published the first edition of
> > his now famous Letter on Corpulence in which he tells us of Harvey's
> > diet plan (see below).
> > On this diet Banting lost nearly 1 pound per week from August 1862 to
> > August 1863. In his own words he said: "I can confidently state that
> > quantity of diet may safely be left to the natural appetite; and that
> > it is quality only which is essential to abate and cure corpulence."
> > He went on: "These important desiderata have been attained by the most
> > easy and comfortable means. . . by a system of diet, that formerly I
> > should have thought dangerously generous."
> > After 38 weeks. Banting felt better than he had for the past 20 years.
> > By the end of the year, not only had his hearing been restored, he had
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > sight was restored, his other bodily ailments were ameliorated and
> > passed into the matter of history.
> > -- And I conclude his improved health was the result of no longer
> > eating butter and drinking milk and beer. C'mon, what sort of proof is
> > this whacked-out story?
> you are an idiot if you honestly believe that from this story. goes to
> show just how far you are willing to go to cherry pick little bits of
> data to support silly ideas while ignoring the rest of the massive
> amounts of information lad out in front of you.
Again, this wasn't a controlled study. Maybe his dairy was coming
from an unclean source, perhaps his drinking was affecting his health,
maybe he smoked from time to time, maybe the neighbor's dog barked at
night for a while and that kept him awake, maybe he had added stress
for a while from a bad relationship, etc... who knows. All we really
know is that it's just a testimonial and stupid one at that.
> > Banting's Diet Prior to 1862
> > BREAKFAST: Bread and milk, or a pint of tea with plenty of milk and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > TEA: a meal similar to breakfast.
> > SUPPER: generally a fruit tart or bread and milk.
> > Harvey's Diet Plan
> > BREAKFAST: 4-5 ounces beef, mutton, kidneys, broiled fish, bacon or
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> > NIGHTCAP:Tumbler of grog: gin, whisky or brandy (without sugar) or a
> > glass or two of claret or sherry.
> > -- What a diet! You'll feel better because you'll be drunk half the
> > day.
> > -- And bad ol' potatos... demonized like eggs were in the 80s...
> it's not the potatoes, it is the amount of overall carbs that the
> potatoes adds to. and restricting potatoes is not restricting anything
> that you can't get from better sources.
That can be said of any food. Besides, potatoes are very nutritious.
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=48
> > 1. Pork was not allowed as it was thought then that it contained
> > starch.
> > 2. Banting was not allowed the pastry.
> > Banting was delighted. He would have gone through hell to achieve all
> > this but it had not been necessary. Indeed the diet allowed so much
> > food, and it was so easy to maintain, that Banting said of it: "I can
> > conscientiously assert I never lived so well as under the new plan of
> > dietary, which I should have formerly thought a dangerous, extravagant
> > trespass upon health."
> > -- The happy ending. Alcohol, fatty foods, and lying around all day
> > wins out over the dreaded eating of a variety of healthy foods and
> > exercising. Beautiful, now I have justification to not change anything
> > or get off my butt. I love it!
> Alcohol, healthy fats, and not having to work out like a marathon
> runner sounds good to me. In fact it sounds like the kind of diet that
> anyone could easily adhere to for life.
Alcohol, fatty foods and sedentary lifestyle. Just what the doctor
ordered, Dr. Kevorkian that is. I can NOT believe you advocate this
diet and lifestyle.
Folks, TC's waist is 35" and from the sounds of it he's so out of
shape he couldn't run a mile to save his life.
> > <snipped more happy stuff>
> > "It is simply miraculous and I am thankful to Almighty Providence for
> > directing me through an extraordinary chance to the care of a man who
> > worked such a change in so short a time." It is quite obvious from
> > these comments that Banting didn't need the strength of willpower that
> > today's slimmer needs; that he found his weight-loss diet very easy to
> > maintain.
> > -- It is "miraculous"... love that term. That word should remind you
> > to remember 'if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is".
> It was miraculous then as it is miraculous now for a medical person to
> see and understand that obesity is not a problem caused by healthy fats
> but by refined carbs.
Agreed on the refined carbs, but healthy fats don't include greasy
hamburgers, hotdogs, sausages, bacon, lard and beef tallow. All meat
should be lean, just like wild animals are naturally lean.
> > -- And too bad this guy still isn't around. He'd be perfect to pitch
> > one of those late-night diet plan infomercials.
> Did you notice that he printed the pamphlets at his own costs and
> handed them out for free? But, of course you did, You just chose to
> conveniently ignore that and throw in a glib accusation against his
> character. Nice of you and oh so fair.
> > -- <snipped about how nice a person he was>
> > When Banting's booklet, in which he described the diet and its amazing
> > results, was published, it was so contrary to the established doctrine
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> > not be undermined-they felt bound to attack it. Banting's paper was
> > criticized solely on the grounds that it was "unscientific."
> > -- Yep, science is bad, too. It's much better to believe testimonials.
> What was it they said about Atkins et al? Oh yeah, not scientific and
> contrary to the Laws of Thermo. Byt they must be right, right? They are
> scientists aren't they?
They said Akins was a quack. And they were right. He sold people on a
nutritionally imbalanced diet.
<snip>
> > He, therefore, interpreted "meat" to mean only lean meat with the fat
> > trimmed off and this subtle change solved the problem. The Banting Diet
> > became a high protein diet with both carbohydrate and fat restricted.
> > This altered diet became enshrined in history and still forms the basis
> > of slimming diets today.
> > -- First, it's miraculous, now it's "enshrined in history". LOL
> It is enshined in history. You are reading it now as history.
Yep, it can be found in the Hall of Shame.
> > -- Again, "slimming diets" does not mean healthy diets.
> No but healthy diets mean slimming diets. And low carb is slimming, and
> helps the lipid profile, and helps metabolic syndrome, and helps,
> diabetes, and helps all kinds of things.
Low carb sucks if your try to do any sort of sustained
exercise/activity, and you're better off getting plenty of exercise
than spending your time counting carbs.
> Veganism is often advertized as slimming, that does not make it healthy
> either.
I'm not a vegan. However, I'd advocate vegetarian WAY before
low-carb or high fat.
> > Banting's descriptions of the diet are quite clear, however. Other than
> > the prohibition against butter and pork, nowhere is there any
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> > reason that butter and pork were denied him was that it was thought at
> > this time that they too contained starch.
> > -- Hey, I still say is was the lack of butter and pork that improved
> > his health. But I guess it depends on whoever is interpreting the
> > "data"/story.
> And you are still an idiot who ignores what doesn't match your bigotted
> beliefs.
That's so funny coming from you, the extremist preaching all the diet
restrictions, and assuming people who don't follow your diet have all
sorts of medical problems. You are a trip!
<snip>
> > -- What a fairy tale story... about as believeable as the Snow White
> > and Seven Dwarfs. C'mon people, follow the science and stay away from
> > these kooky stories.
> Those are interesting non-fat/low-calorie/pro-vegan colored glasses you
> are wearing. You ought to take them off and look around and see what
> you've missed.
You need to take your blinders off so that you can read that I'm not
low-fat, low calorie (how could I be, I workout 10 hours a week and my
weight is stable?) or pro-vegan (I eat meat, eggs and I drink milk).
And you need to put your tennis shoes on and start trimming down that
chunky 35" inch waist of yours because abdominal fat is a serious
health risk.
Patrick