Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ATKINS ALERT
THE DAILY RECORD ^ | Aug 13 2003 | Keith Mcleod

Posted on 08/12/2003 9:55:31 PM PDT by carlo3b

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-374 last
Comment #361 Removed by Moderator

To: taxodium distichum
Since April, I've gone from 249 to 190 lbs (I'm 5' 10"), my cholesterol has risen from 212 to 248 - getting a 'lipid panel test' done this week - and I'm feeling g-r-e-a-t!

GREAT... take a bow, YOU DA MAN!!!!!!

362 posted on 08/17/2003 7:21:23 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

Comment #363 Removed by Moderator

To: theophilusscribe
Actually there are people who really don't lose on controlled carb plans. There are also some people who don't really get lower colesterol numbers either. It's like everything else, it may be for you or not, you just don't know til you give it a try. There are always exceptions to the rule.
364 posted on 08/17/2003 9:35:59 PM PDT by tickles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: taxodium distichum
I'll let FR.com, and you know, when I get there. I'm all tingly with excitement, about getting there.

We'll be pullin for ya!!! Good luck.. :)

365 posted on 08/17/2003 10:24:11 PM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: Johnbalaya
Michalob ultra (I think) i thought it was ok, but since i'm not a big beer drinker it all tastes about the same to me.
366 posted on 08/17/2003 10:29:24 PM PDT by tickles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
Water is the drink of choice for any diet, containing 0... and with iced tea... 1 carb. The wise dieter should drink plenty of water (8 to 10 glasses per day).
>>>>>

water consumption has been discussed alot on a mailing list I'm on. someone dug up some report that says 64 oz. per day plus an additional 8 oz. for every 25 lbs over your ideal weight.
367 posted on 08/17/2003 10:33:06 PM PDT by tickles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: tickles
64 oz. per day plus an additional 8 oz. for every 25 lbs over your ideal weight.

Geeeze, You could get webbed feet, messing with all that water.. Frankly, if you drank all of that water, it wouldn't matter which diet you were on, you'd lose weight.
The filling aspect would discourage eating, and the bulking of the stomach, would overcome the natural hunger. That is just elementry.. Are you following a diet with those requirements?

368 posted on 08/18/2003 5:01:12 AM PDT by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: BibChr; nmh
First, I read the responses and must state explicitly that I am NOT a physician. I didn't mean to imply that in my post. I have close friendships outside of medicine with many physicians.

NMH, again, you make some valid points; my point was the same as BibChr--the points get lost in the generalizations. Some of those generalizations and accusations are simply wrong. Physicians prescribing what the insurance company will pay for does not imply that a patient does not get a drug or that a patient gets an inferior drug.

Here is just one example of many in that area: you have seen the commercials for the "purple pill." That purple pill is extremely expensive. Three other drugs that are no less efficacious and have no more side effects are very expensive; however, one of those drugs can be obtained, if it is the sole source drug for that category, for TEN PERCENT ($ 0.34 per capsule, rather than $ 3.60 per capsule) of its usual cost.

Now, it would be silly and irresponsible to not take advantage of this--the patient is not harmed and the money saved can be used for other purposes. Everyone gripes about the cost of medical care, and this is a serious effort to contain those costs. Believe me, before these things are decided, a lot of study, work, and consensus go into the decision.

To me, to argue with that process--as your statement implies--is to argue for care being more and more rationed. And it IS happening. As we place the system under more and more regulatory constraints; as cost pressure continually builds; and as more and more non-payers have access to the system, this process will become more critical.

But that addresses just one simplistic statement you make--others include statements that EVERY DRUG adversely affects the liver and kidneys, which is ridiculous. Another is your attaching dark motives to all physicians, which is just preposterous. That statement reminds me of the Laetrile controversy in the 1970's where people made the same generalization: evil physicians were keeping this "life-saving" drug from people. What none of the complainers then--and you now--don't consider is that physicians and their families also use the system. Why would they put something over on themselves?

So, here is the upshot: I told you in a friendly way that your good points were subsumed by your rash generalizations. Your responses reinforce that. You may reply, but no response will be forthcoming--you can continue to undercut your own arguments with my blessing.

369 posted on 08/18/2003 5:01:59 AM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
"To me, low-carb is cutting your carb consumption to 100g a day or less."

I just started a low carb diet last week. Friends said I should limit my carbs to no more than 20/day. Meat and cheese got old the first day do I've added certain vegtables and am staying around 50-75 grams per day.

5 days into this and I can feel a difference. The biggest adjustment has been de-toxing from sugar, that stuff is addictive and I used to consume a lot of sweets.

On the plus side since i'm going to be eating a lot of meat I bought a 3 rack wood smoker and have been using it everyday beef-chicken-pork. As soon as salmon goes on sale I'll try some of that. This week I'm gonna put a few bricks of chedder in the smoker and see how they turn out.
370 posted on 08/18/2003 5:40:08 AM PDT by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b
well for me that came out to about 100 ounces/day at my highest, the problem for me was the constant trips to the bathroom. LOL it's really not that much, at this time going by that I'd require, around 72 ounces, no more then 80, I'm kinda inbetween, my problem is I perfer to drink my diet pepsi. I actually lose much better drinking all that water.....just don't really perfer the taste.
371 posted on 08/18/2003 9:01:11 AM PDT by tickles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: jammer
"Physicians prescribing what the insurance company will pay for does not imply that a patient does not get a drug or that a patient gets an inferior drug."

Don't you realize what you just said? "Physicians prescribing what the insurance company will pay for ..." is NOT always in the patients best interest. It is the PATIENT that is to be prescribed for REGARDLESS of what the insurance company has planned. A trained monkey could prescribe to a pre existing contract. Get it?

"Here is just one example of many in that area: you have seen the commercials for the "purple pill." That purple pill is extremely expensive. Three other drugs that are no less efficacious and have no more side effects are very expensive; however, one of those drugs can be obtained, if it is the sole source drug for that category, for TEN PERCENT ($ 0.34 per capsule, rather than $ 3.60 per capsule) of its usual cost."

You totally miss my point. I'm NOT talking about substituting a generic for a name brand. I'm talking about the APPROACH of a ALLOPATHIC doctor as compared to say, something like and Natropathic or a Osteapath. Do you know what they are? If you don't then you won't see what I am talking about.

"To me, to argue with that process--as your statement implies--is to argue for care being more and more rationed. And it IS happening. As we place the system under more and more regulatory constraints; as cost pressure continually builds; and as more and more non-payers have access to the system, this process will become more critical."

We are NOT at all on the same page. The above has NOTHING to do with my complaint. For starters look up what an allopathic is. Compare that to a Ostepath or a Naturopath. These are not allopathic doctors. Also they are VERY cost effecive and do NOT typically recommend either over priced generic or brand name kidney/liver damaging drugs as the doctors you talk about are. However they are typically NOT covered by insurance contracts but ARE more effective then them.

"But that addresses just one simplistic statement you make--others include statements that EVERY DRUG adversely affects the liver and kidneys, which is ridiculous. "

No it's not ridiculous. It is true. If you were a doctor of any stripe you'd know that. It's common knowledge.

"Another is your attaching dark motives to all physicians, which is just preposterous. That statement reminds me of the Laetrile controversy in the 1970's where people made the same generalization: evil physicians were keeping this "life-saving" drug from people."

Really? Want a specific on that one? A drug that exists NOW that puts 90% of those who have NonHodgkins Lymphoma is remission even if they are on their death bed? This is quite common to have a drug tied up in court or with the FDA while people die. It's all about MONEY.

"What none of the complainers then--and you now--don't consider is that physicians and their families also use the system. Why would they put something over on themselves?"

Sure they "use" the system but my complaint is the APPROACH used. Yes, often a married spouse will divorce but TOO OFTEN they remarry the same ABUSIVE counterpart. So, what's your point?

"So, here is the upshot: I told you in a friendly way that your good points were subsumed by your rash generalizations. Your responses reinforce that. You may reply, but no response will be forthcoming--you can continue to undercut your own arguments with my blessing."

I've told you numerous times that you refuse to get my point. You've thrown in all kinds of irrelevant information that doesn't address what my complaint is. For starters, know what I am talking about first, such as look up what a Naturopath is. Look up an Osteopath is and compare it to an allopath. When you know the differences in their approaches then and ONLY then will you get my point and understand what I am saying.

As for this Biblican Dan fellow, he's let his emotions get the better of him. According to him, nice people are always good people. Or nice people should be defended no matter what. Simple but ridiculous.

372 posted on 08/18/2003 9:42:18 AM PDT by nmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: nmh
Okay. Your ideas are fixed; I listened to you and learned something. I made a suggestion. And, yes, I DO get it. I don't think you do, but your credibility on this forum is your business, not mine. I apologize for replying to you.
373 posted on 08/18/2003 8:16:13 PM PDT by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: BibChr
pecans and macadamia nuts are even less...

374 posted on 09/02/2003 6:18:31 PM PDT by SeaDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360361-374 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson