Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

the original low carber

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
TC - 26 Jul 2006 20:29 GMT
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html

TC
Pez D Spencer - 26 Jul 2006 22:36 GMT
> http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
>
> TC

not true.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the famed arctic explorer, did the original
research on this type of diet using himself as a guinea pig.
Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent quite a while with Inuit eskimos eating
nothing but their usual diet of fresh meat.

why does sci.med.nutrition need a resident shill for the weston price
foundation?
David Harmon - 26 Jul 2006 23:52 GMT
On 26 Jul 2006 14:36:12 -0700 in sci.med.nutrition, "Pez D Spencer"
<colecoadam@gmail.com> wrote,

>> http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent quite a while with Inuit eskimos eating
>nothing but their usual diet of fresh meat.

What part is not true?  Banting published in 1863.  Stefansson was
born in 1879.
Pez D Spencer - 27 Jul 2006 00:42 GMT
> On 26 Jul 2006 14:36:12 -0700 in sci.med.nutrition, "Pez D Spencer"
> <colecoadam@gmail.com> wrote,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> What part is not true?  Banting published in 1863.  Stefansson was
> born in 1879.

my bad, i read the dates wrong.

you don't have to worry about me posting again.
David Harmon - 27 Jul 2006 05:39 GMT
On 26 Jul 2006 16:42:53 -0700 in sci.med.nutrition, "Pez D Spencer"
<colecoadam@gmail.com> wrote,
>> What part is not true?  Banting published in 1863.  Stefansson was
>> born in 1879.
>
>my bad, i read the dates wrong.
>you don't have to worry about me posting again.

Where would usenet be if people stopped posting after one mistake?
Vilhjalmur Stefansson appears to be an important part of the early
history of low-carb study.  I like the article at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson
TC - 27 Jul 2006 03:46 GMT
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> why does sci.med.nutrition need a resident shill for the weston price
> foundation?

Shill implies selling something profit. I nor the Weston Price
foundation is selling anything for profit.

TC
Mr. Natural-Health - 27 Jul 2006 10:09 GMT
> > > http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Shill implies selling something profit. I nor the Weston Price
> foundation is selling anything for profit.

Meet their board of directors ...

http://www.westonaprice.org/board.html
"Geoffrey Morrell , ND, JP, (Secretary), is a practicing naturopath,
specializing in the past 20 years in the field commonly called
magnetic, intuitive, spiritual or psychic healing. He has developed his
own unique Clendinning Technique. He had a grass-based dairy farm in
New Zealand for over 30 years."

magnetic, intuitive, spiritual or psychic healing?

Proving once again, that dumb people will believe almost anything.
Further, the guy is directly in the meat business.  Ergo, the Weston
Price Foundation is in fact a form of advertising for the Grass Feed
Cattle business.  Why else would people pay extra for nothing, if
nobody was promoting this business?

Furthermore, all not-for-profit organizations ultimately exist for the
benefit of their upper level employees who are always paid very well
for doing next to nothing.

Who says so?  I do. :)

Just thought that you might want to know that you are fooling nobody.
TC - 27 Jul 2006 15:19 GMT
> > > > http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> magnetic, intuitive, spiritual or psychic healing?

To each their own, the guy is a naturopath. And more importantly, I
don't see anything on the WP site that pushes any of these concepts, so
I don't see any direct or indirect conflicts of interests, do you?

> Proving once again, that dumb people will believe almost anything.

Hence your pre-occupation with the greatest american quack of all
times..... Kellogg.... who was selling stuff and seeking profits and
playimg with peoples bums.

> Further, the guy is directly in the meat business.  Ergo, the Weston
> Price Foundation is in fact a form of advertising for the Grass Feed
> Cattle business.  Why else would people pay extra for nothing, if
> nobody was promoting this business?

yep, my guess is that he will be a bazillionaire in a few months.....

Is it surprising that those who believe in WPs concepts would actually
practice them?

> Furthermore, all not-for-profit organizations ultimately exist for the
> benefit of their upper level employees who are always paid very well
> for doing next to nothing.

you really are stretching, sounds kinda flimsy

> Who says so?  I do. :)
>
> Just thought that you might want to know that you are fooling nobody.

This is hilarious. Nice try though. I think you are mistaking this
not-for-profit for those not-for-profits that were set up by
for-profits to push their agendas.

Hilarious that you would ascribe kellogg-style corruption-on-all-fronts
to the WP foundation. The WP foundation is probably the Mother Teresa
of all non-profits. And Kellogg is probably the worst example of junk
science, food faddism, food cultism, unabashed greed,
crap-processed-food-destruction and blatantly dishonest business
practices in the world. And you come down on the side of Kellogg and
you try to trash WP. That actually says a lot about you.

It is frikkin' amazing that you toothless, brain-damaged old goof ball
with the worst health around would be trying to convince us, relatively
healthy, fairly intelligent people that you know better than us. You
can barely understand what you read and most certainly can't put down
in writing one single solitary thought in any sensible way that others
can understand. And you, gohdiot, think you know better than Weston
Price? Absolutely frikkin' hilarious.

TC
Mr. Natural-Health - 28 Jul 2006 01:03 GMT
> > > > > http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
> > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> To each their own, the guy is a naturopath.

Correction!  The guy is a certified Kook. :)

> And more importantly, I
> don't see anything on the WP site that pushes any of these concepts, so
> I don't see any direct or indirect conflicts of interests, do you?

Hey, Bozo!  Try reading my last post.  I have absolutely not intentions
of repeating myself, Idiot!

> > Proving once again, that dumb people will believe almost anything.
>
> Hence your pre-occupation with the greatest american quack of all
> times..... Kellogg.... who was selling stuff and seeking profits and
> playimg with peoples bums.

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/weston-price.html
"Was Weston Price a genius for suggesting that the state of a person's
dentition was a direct result of their diet? Or, was he just a Quack
promoting dentition as a form of phrenology to be used only to justify
the consumption of lots of red meat, fat, coconut oil and raw milk?"

He was a Quack!!!

> > Further, the guy is directly in the meat business.  Ergo, the Weston
> > Price Foundation is in fact a form of advertising for the Grass Feed
> > Cattle business.  Why else would people pay extra for nothing, if
> > nobody was promoting this business?
>
> yep, my guess is that he will be a bazillionaire in a few months.....

Hey, Bozo!  You just directly contradicted yourself.

> Is it surprising that those who believe in WPs concepts would actually
> practice them?

It is called Advertising, and a direct conflick of interest, A-Hole.

> > Furthermore, all not-for-profit organizations ultimately exist for the
> > benefit of their upper level employees who are always paid very well
> > for doing next to nothing.
>
> you really are stretching, sounds kinda flimsy

Your are an Arse,  And, I do NOT mind saying so. :)

> > Who says so?  I do. :)
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> not-for-profit for those not-for-profits that were set up by
> for-profits to push their agendas.

Seems, that I picked up that pharse from a very successful national FM
morning radio show.

I like it. :)

> Hilarious that you would ascribe kellogg-style corruption-on-all-fronts
> to the WP foundation. The WP foundation is probably the Mother Teresa
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> can understand. And you, gohdiot, think you know better than Weston
> Price? Absolutely frikkin' hilarious.

I am getting tired of replying to a f.cking Moron.

Eat sh.t and die, Kook.  And, I do NOT mind saying so.

Cheers ...
TC - 28 Jul 2006 18:06 GMT
> > > > > > http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
> > > > > >
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
>  Correction!  The guy is a certified Kook. :)

and you are what.... a genius?...... hah aha aha ahahahahahahahaha

> > And more importantly, I
> > don't see anything on the WP site that pushes any of these concepts, so
> > I don't see any direct or indirect conflicts of interests, do you?
>
> Hey, Bozo!  Try reading my last post.  I have absolutely not intentions
> of repeating myself, Idiot!

that is all you ever do, like a broken record from the dark ages

> > > Proving once again, that dumb people will believe almost anything.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> He was a Quack!!!

Coming from you we see that as the highest compliment. why? becasue you
are an abject idiot, mentally unstable with very poor personal health.
You have lost all your teeth from your own poor idea of what
constitutes nutrition, ergo anything that contradicts your beliefs is
probably closer to the truth.

> > > Further, the guy is directly in the meat business.  Ergo, the Weston
> > > Price Foundation is in fact a form of advertising for the Grass Feed
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Hey, Bozo!  You just directly contradicted yourself.

yep, he's goona be the Bill Gates of beef.

> > Is it surprising that those who believe in WPs concepts would actually
> > practice them?
>
> It is called Advertising, and a direct conflick of interest, A-Hole.

oh, I guess if I keep chickens then that is a conflict with my beliefs.
you are such a moron. how can you live with such stupidity.

> > > Furthermore, all not-for-profit organizations ultimately exist for the
> > > benefit of their upper level employees who are always paid very well
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Your are an Arse,  And, I do NOT mind saying so. :)

and you are what, a prInce? IDIOT

> > > Who says so?  I do. :)
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> I like it. :)

You like the word "fool", makes sense because you are the biggest fool
I have ever seen, bar none. You make Bush look like a frikkin' genius.

> > Hilarious that you would ascribe kellogg-style corruption-on-all-fronts
> > to the WP foundation. The WP foundation is probably the Mother Teresa
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I am getting tired of replying to a f.cking Moron.

Then quit talking to yourself,

> Eat sh.t and die, Kook.  And, I do NOT mind saying so.
>
> Cheers ...

Hey, you are the pathetic little idiot that is constantly having to
make silly little derogatory comments in response to my posts. So quit
it. FOAD. f.ck off. Get lost. Hit the road. Go f.ck yourself.

TC
David Harmon - 27 Jul 2006 07:24 GMT
On 26 Jul 2006 14:36:12 -0700 in sci.med.nutrition, "Pez D Spencer"
<colecoadam@gmail.com> wrote,
>Vilhjalmur Stefansson, the famed arctic explorer, did the original
>research on this type of diet using himself as a guinea pig.
>Vilhjalmur Stefansson spent quite a while with Inuit eskimos eating
>nothing but their usual diet of fresh meat.

See also:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Stefansson&as_sitesearch=www.westonaprice.org
NoOption5L@aol.com - 27 Jul 2006 16:49 GMT
> http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html

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.

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.

<snip>

Being overweight has affected a small proportion of the population for
centuries but clinical obesity was relatively rare until the 20th
century. Indeed obesity remained at a fairly stable low level until
about 1980. Then its incidence began to increase dramatically. By 1992
one in every ten people in Britain was overweight; a mere five years
later that figure had almost doubled. In the USA it is even worse: by
1991 one in three adults was overweight. That was an increase of eight
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 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"?

-- LOL  'Exercise clubs are a factor in the obesity epidemic'  Now THAT
is a good one!!!

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.

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.

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
become overweight and he consulted an eminent surgeon, a kind personal
friend, who recommended increased "bodily exertion before any ordinary
daily labours began." Banting had a heavy boat and lived near the river
so he took up rowing the boat for two hours a day. All this did for
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?!

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.
He drank "gallons of physic and liquor potassae," took the spa waters
at Leamington, Cheltenham and Harrogate, and tried low-calorie,
starvation diets; he took Turkish baths at a rate of up to three a week
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!

<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.
William Harvey. It was an historic meeting. Dr. Harvey had recently
returned from a symposium in Paris where he had heard Dr. Claude
Bernard, a renowned physiologist, talk of a new theory about the part
the liver played in the disease of diabetes. Bernard believed that the
liver, as well as secreting bile, also secreted a sugar-like substance
that it made from elements of the blood passing through it. This
started Harvey's thinking about the roles of the various food elements
in diabetes and he began a major course of research into the whole
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
matter tending to create fat and were to be avoided altogether. When
told what he could not eat Banting thought that he had very little left
to live on. His kind friend soon showed him that really there was ample
and Banting was only too happy to give the plan a fair trial. Within a
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...

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
much more vitality and he had lost 46 pounds in weight and 12 1/4
inches off his waist. He suffered no inconvenience whatsoever from the
new diet, was able to come downstairs forward naturally with perfect
ease, go upstairs and take exercise freely without the slightest
inconvenience, could perform every necessary office for himself, the
umbilical rupture was greatly ameliorated and gave him no anxiety, his
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?

Banting's Diet Prior to 1862
BREAKFAST: Bread and milk, or a pint of tea with plenty of milk and
sugar, buttered toast.
DINNER: meat, beer, much bread (of which he had always been fond) and
pastry.
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
cold meat of any kind except pork,1 a large cup of tea (without milk or
sugar), a little biscuit or one ounce of dry toast.
DINNER: 5-6 ounces of any fish except salmon, any meat except pork, any
vegetable except potato, one ounce of dry toast, fruit of any pudding,2
any kind of poultry or game, and 2-3 glasses of good claret, sherry or
Madeira (champagne, port, beer were forbidden).
TEA: 2-3 ounces fruit, a rusk or two and a cup of tea without milk or
sugar.
SUPPER: 3-4 ounces of meat or fish, similar to dinner, with a glass or
two of claret.
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...

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!

<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".

-- And too bad this guy still isn't around.  He'd be perfect to pitch
one of those late-night diet plan infomercials.

-- <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
that it set up a howl of protest among members of the medical
profession. The "Banting Diet" became the center of a bitter
controversy and Banting's papers and book were ridiculed and distorted.
No one could deny that the diet worked, but as a layman had published
it-and medical men were anxious that their position in society should
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.

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
man, and so easier for the other members of his profession to attack,
he came in for a great deal of ridicule until, in the end, his practice
began to suffer.

However, the public was impressed. Many desperate overweight people
tried the diet and found that it worked. Like it or not, the medical
profession could not ignore it. Its obvious success meant that the
Banting Diet had to be explained somehow.

To the rescue from Stuttgart came a Dr. Felix Niemeyer. He managed to
make the new diet acceptable with a total shift in its philosophy. At
that time, the theory was that carbohydrates and fat burned together in
the lungs to produce heat. The two were called "respiratory foods."
After examining Banting's paper, Niemeyer came up with an answer to the
doctors' problem. All doctors knew that protein was not fattening, only
the respiratory foods-fats and carbohydrates.

-- LOL.  What a quack!

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

-- 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
instruction to remove the fat from meat and there is no restriction on
the way food was cooked or on the total quantity of food which may be
taken. Only carbohydrate-sugars and starches-are restricted. The
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 interpeting the
"data"/story.

-- <Snipped the propeganda>

But it was not to be. Dieticians just couldn't seem to get their heads
round the concept that eating what looked like a high-calorie diet
could possibly be effective for weight loss. Or, perhaps they were
afraid to lose face by admitting that they had been wrong. So they
continued, myopically, to recommend that if you were overweight, it was
your own fault -you were eating too much or not taking enough
exercise, or both.

-- Yeah, it can't be that stuffing your face and being a lazy slob
would have any effect.  I mean it can't be MY fault.

That made life very easy for the dietician while it ruined the life of
the patient. By the late 1970s fat was getting a bad name as a cause of
heart disease (quite incorrectly as we now know).

-- What is this guy smoking?

Now fat was banned for other health reasons and carbohydrates were
advocated even more strongly. Which is why, at the start of the 21st
Century, at a time when most of us are dieting, are eating fewer
calories and less fat, and taking more exercise than ever before in our
history, we are getting fatter than ever before in our history.

-- "Diet plans" galore (including low-carb), supersizing, calling a
walk through WalMart exercise, and we're getting fatter than ever
before in our history.  Go figure.

It is no coincidence that obesity is sky-rocketing today-healthy
eating advises a high-carbohydrate, lowfat diet. The exact opposite of
Banting's diet.

-- Healthy eating advises a wide variety of whole grains, fresh fruits
& vegetables, lean meats & dairy, nuts & seeds, spices and plenty of
water.

-- 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.  

Patrick
TC - 27 Jul 2006 17:56 GMT
> > http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/banting.html
>
> 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.

> 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.

Much healthier than the alternative high grain diet that has LED US to
record obesity and chronic disease.

> <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> -- 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.

> It may be hard to believe, but this has occurred in the face of
> increasing knowledge, awareness and education about obesity, nutrition
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> -- 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.

> -- 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.

> More people are cutting calories now than ever before in their history
> yet more of them are becoming overweight.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "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.

> There is now a pandemic of increasing weight across the industrialized
> world.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> 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? 55% of calories as carbs is the OFFICIAL
recomendation. Try that without eating high carb refined grains.

> 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 - 7 lines]
> -- 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.

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.

> 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
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> 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.

One ought to demonize a suggested method of weight loss if it fails to
achieve it goals.

> <snipped the bad news about exercise and the sob story about his
> medical condition>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> -- 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.

> 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?

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.

> Banting's Diet Prior to 1862
> BREAKFAST: Bread and milk, or a pint of tea with plenty of milk and
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> -- 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.

> 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!

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.

> <snipped more happy stuff>
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> -- 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.

> -- 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>
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> -- 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?

> 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

It is enshined in history. You are reading it now as history.

> -- 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.

Veganism is often advertized as slimming, that does not make it healthy
either.

> 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.

And you are still an idiot who ignores what doesn't match your bigotted
beliefs.

> -- <Snipped the propeganda>
>
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Patrick

Those are interesting non-fat/low-calorie/pro-vegan colored glases you
are wearing. You ought to take them off and look around and see what
you've missed.

TC
NoOption5L@aol.com - 29 Jul 2006 05:03 GMT
> > 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
Mr. Natural-Health - 28 Jul 2006 22:05 GMT
TC complains and whines as usual:

> Blah, Blah, Blah ...

No need ever to read something from TC.  All he ever does is whine like
a stuck pig. :(
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.