|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ironjustice@aol.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
"Health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, including ..
potatoes"
Medical News Article on Weight Loss
Two Studies Cast Further Doubt on the Effectiveness of Low GI/GL Diets
for Weight Loss
2008 FEB 25 -- A study published in the September 2007 issue of the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition provides further evidence that
the glycemic index (GI) of a diet is not important; when it comes to
weight loss it is calories that count. This study adds to the growing
body of evidence supporting the health benefits of a diet rich in
fruits and vegetables, including potatoes, according to the United
States Potato Board.
Researchers from Harvard and the State University of Rio de Janeiro in
Brazil who worked independently from any food industry sponsors,
sought to determine if a low GI diet would be more effective than a
high GI diet for long-term weight...
http://www.ajcn.org/misc/release2.shtml#wolever
Evidence Does Not Support Usefulness of Glycemic Index in Type 2
Diabetes
Background Although a healthy, well-balanced diet is critical to both
prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes, there is considerable
debate about the most favorable dietary macronutrient composition.
Many health organizations promote consumption of a diet rich in low-
glycemic index (GI) and low-glycemic load (GL) foods. GI is a numeric
value reflecting the body's glycemic response to a specific amount of
a food, whereas GL takes into account both a food's GI and
carbohydrate content. Consumption of foods with high GIs and GLs may
lead to more rapid and/or prolonged elevation of blood glucose.
Nonetheless, there is considerable controversy as to whether low-GI
and/or low-GL diets can prevent type 2 diabetes and its complications.
The January 2008 edition of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
reports the results of 2 prospective clinical trials concerning this
important issue. Wolever and colleagues compared the effects of low-
GI, high-GI, and low-carbohydrate, high-monounsaturated-fat diets in
subjects who already had type 2 diabetes. Sahyoun et al examined
whether consumption of diets differing in GI and GL is associated with
risk of developing type 2 diabetes in older adults without the
disease. In corresponding perspectives, Miles and Pi-Sunyer provide
additional insight regarding the importance of these studies on the
advice given to individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Study Designs 1) Wolever et al conducted a randomized intervention
study in which they recruited subjects aged 35-75 y who had type 2
diabetes that was being managed by diet alone. Subjects (n = 156) were
educated to consume 1 of 3 experimental diets for 12 mo. Diets were
designed to be high GI, low GI, or low carbohydrate, high
monounsaturated fat. Fasting blood samples were collected, and oral-
glucose-tolerance tests were administered at baseline and throughout
the study. Samples were analyzed for glucose, insulin, glycated
hemoglobin (HbA1c, a measure of long-term glycemic control), lipids,
lipoproteins, and C-reactive protein (CRP, a marker of chronic
inflammation).
2) Sahyoun and colleagues studied a cohort of relatively healthy,
older adults (n = 1898) between 70 and 79 y of age who had not been
diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes. Subjects were followed for 6 y;
dietary intake was assessed at baseline by using a food-frequency
questionnaire, and dietary GI and GL were calculated. In addition,
information was collected concerning whether subjects were diagnosed
as having type 2 diabetes, reported using insulin or oral hypoglycemic
medication, or had elevated fasting blood glucose concentrations
during the study.
Results Results from Wolever and colleagues showed that HbA1c, a
sensitive biological marker for blood glucose control, was not
influenced by dietary GI or GL, which suggests that low-GI or low-GL
diets are not, by themselves, beneficial in the treatment of people
with established type 2 diabetes. Moreover, consumption of the low-GI
diet resulted in elevated fasting glucose and lower glucose
concentrations 2 h after the oral-glucose-tolerance test. Compared
with the low-carbohydrate, high-monounsaturated-fat diet, the low-GI
diet elevated circulating triacylglycerol and lowered HDL cholesterol
early in the study; these effects disappeared by 6 mo. CRP values were
30% lower in the low-GI group than in the high-GI group. Sahyoun et al
did not find a relation between dietary GI or GL and incidence of type
2 diabetes in their study population.
Conclusions Neither of these prospective human trials provides
support for the hypothesis that consumption of low-GI and/or low-GL
foods independently prevents or treats type 2 diabetes. Although data
from Wolever et al suggest that a low-GI diet may lower CRP, Pi-Sunyer
points out that the low-GI group started the study with lower
concentrations. Additional research on the effect of GI on
inflammatory markers will clearly be required. Miles concluded that
results of these studies "will be disappointing to some advocates of
low-GI diets." Disappointing or not, data from these carefully
conducted clinical trials suggest that GI and GL are not good measures
of optimal diets for individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google Sponsor

|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
The Canadian Trial of Carbohydrates article, by Wolever et al, is
here. (The AJCN is great! They carry some of the most interesting
studies and they make their content free right away.)
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/114?lookupType=volpage&vol=87&fp=114&view=short
The design of this study is screwy. From the RESULTS:
The high-GI, low-GI, and low-CHO diets contained, respectively, 47%,
52%, and 39% of energy as carbohydrate
What(?) So the low-GI diet had 5% MORE carb than the high GI diet.
And the so-called 'low carb' diet had only 8% less carb than the high
GI diet? And they think that it's significant that they didn't find
any difference?
Looking at all their outcome graphs, you see a sharp improvement in
all three groups in the first 2 months, then deteriorating control for
the rest of the year. Which suggests to me that they were having some
compliance problems. They seem to say that, since they got a
continuing trend in the CRP and the food-diaries looked ok. Therefore
they weren't having compliance problems; I'm still suspicious.
Adam Becker Sr |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cubit Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
<sphynx.red@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fefceb10-b54c-4d4c-81f0-2e02a6e1384f@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | The Canadian Trial of Carbohydrates article, by Wolever et al, is
here. (The AJCN is great! They carry some of the most interesting
studies and they make their content free right away.)
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/114?lookupType=volpage&vol=87&fp=114&view=short
The design of this study is screwy. From the RESULTS:
The high-GI, low-GI, and low-CHO diets contained, respectively, 47%,
52%, and 39% of energy as carbohydrate
What(?) So the low-GI diet had 5% MORE carb than the high GI diet.
And the so-called 'low carb' diet had only 8% less carb than the high
GI diet? And they think that it's significant that they didn't find
any difference?
Looking at all their outcome graphs, you see a sharp improvement in
all three groups in the first 2 months, then deteriorating control for
the rest of the year. Which suggests to me that they were having some
compliance problems. They seem to say that, since they got a
continuing trend in the CRP and the food-diaries looked ok. Therefore
they weren't having compliance problems; I'm still suspicious.
Adam Becker Sr
|
Thanks for breaking out the key info. All three groups were eating high
carbohydrate diets. 5% carbs is a low carb diet.
Anecdotally, my personal experience was that the total carbohydrates
combined with actual significant body fat loss were the key to controlling
type 2, as measured by A1c. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
On Mar 3, 11:00 am, "Cubit" <n...@not.not> wrote:
| Quote: |
Thanks for breaking out the key info. All three groups were eating high
carbohydrate diets. 5% carbs is a low carb diet.
|
Was this study incompetent by accident or design? It was funded by
THE POTATO BOARD. Do you think they WANTED to find out if potatoes in
the diet increase HbA1c?
Adam Becker Sr |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jefferson Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
Hi Adam:
| Quote: | On Mar 3, 11:00 am, "Cubit" <n...@not.not> wrote:
Thanks for breaking out the key info. All three groups were eating high
carbohydrate diets. 5% carbs is a low carb diet.
Was this study incompetent by accident or design? It was funded by
THE POTATO BOARD. Do you think they WANTED to find out if potatoes in
the diet increase HbA1c?
|
I don't know about the other people, but Thomas MS Wolever
(http://tinyurl.com/23nqtk) is a long time research on glycemic index
and co-authored The New Glucose Revolution with JENNIE BRAND-MILLER.
Others at the University of Toronto, Toronto such as Donald Drucker
(http://www.glucagon.com/) and PL Brubaker (http://tinyurl.com/yuosf5)
are cutting edge researchers.
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
For this reason, it remains smarter to weigh meals to count ounces, in
order to eat less, down to the right amount:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/BeSmart
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthy
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword
ironjustice@aol.com wrote:
| Quote: | "Health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, including ..
potatoes"
Medical News Article on Weight Loss
Two Studies Cast Further Doubt on the Effectiveness of Low GI/GL Diets
for Weight Loss
2008 FEB 25 -- A study published in the September 2007 issue of the
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition provides further evidence that
the glycemic index (GI) of a diet is not important; when it comes to
weight loss it is calories that count. This study adds to the growing
body of evidence supporting the health benefits of a diet rich in
fruits and vegetables, including potatoes, according to the United
States Potato Board.
Researchers from Harvard and the State University of Rio de Janeiro in
Brazil who worked independently from any food industry sponsors,
sought to determine if a low GI diet would be more effective than a
high GI diet for long-term weight...
http://www.ajcn.org/misc/release2.shtml#wolever
Evidence Does Not Support Usefulness of Glycemic Index in Type 2
Diabetes
Background Although a healthy, well-balanced diet is critical to both
prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes, there is considerable
debate about the most favorable dietary macronutrient composition.
Many health organizations promote consumption of a diet rich in low-
glycemic index (GI) and low-glycemic load (GL) foods. GI is a numeric
value reflecting the body's glycemic response to a specific amount of
a food, whereas GL takes into account both a food's GI and
carbohydrate content. Consumption of foods with high GIs and GLs may
lead to more rapid and/or prolonged elevation of blood glucose.
Nonetheless, there is considerable controversy as to whether low-GI
and/or low-GL diets can prevent type 2 diabetes and its complications.
The January 2008 edition of The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
reports the results of 2 prospective clinical trials concerning this
important issue. Wolever and colleagues compared the effects of low-
GI, high-GI, and low-carbohydrate, high-monounsaturated-fat diets in
subjects who already had type 2 diabetes. Sahyoun et al examined
whether consumption of diets differing in GI and GL is associated with
risk of developing type 2 diabetes in older adults without the
disease. In corresponding perspectives, Miles and Pi-Sunyer provide
additional insight regarding the importance of these studies on the
advice given to individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Study Designs 1) Wolever et al conducted a randomized intervention
study in which they recruited subjects aged 35-75 y who had type 2
diabetes that was being managed by diet alone. Subjects (n = 156) were
educated to consume 1 of 3 experimental diets for 12 mo. Diets were
designed to be high GI, low GI, or low carbohydrate, high
monounsaturated fat. Fasting blood samples were collected, and oral-
glucose-tolerance tests were administered at baseline and throughout
the study. Samples were analyzed for glucose, insulin, glycated
hemoglobin (HbA1c, a measure of long-term glycemic control), lipids,
lipoproteins, and C-reactive protein (CRP, a marker of chronic
inflammation).
2) Sahyoun and colleagues studied a cohort of relatively healthy,
older adults (n = 1898) between 70 and 79 y of age who had not been
diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes. Subjects were followed for 6 y;
dietary intake was assessed at baseline by using a food-frequency
questionnaire, and dietary GI and GL were calculated. In addition,
information was collected concerning whether subjects were diagnosed
as having type 2 diabetes, reported using insulin or oral hypoglycemic
medication, or had elevated fasting blood glucose concentrations
during the study.
Results Results from Wolever and colleagues showed that HbA1c, a
sensitive biological marker for blood glucose control, was not
influenced by dietary GI or GL, which suggests that low-GI or low-GL
diets are not, by themselves, beneficial in the treatment of people
with established type 2 diabetes. Moreover, consumption of the low-GI
diet resulted in elevated fasting glucose and lower glucose
concentrations 2 h after the oral-glucose-tolerance test. Compared
with the low-carbohydrate, high-monounsaturated-fat diet, the low-GI
diet elevated circulating triacylglycerol and lowered HDL cholesterol
early in the study; these effects disappeared by 6 mo. CRP values were
30% lower in the low-GI group than in the high-GI group. Sahyoun et al
did not find a relation between dietary GI or GL and incidence of type
2 diabetes in their study population.
Conclusions Neither of these prospective human trials provides
support for the hypothesis that consumption of low-GI and/or low-GL
foods independently prevents or treats type 2 diabetes. Although data
from Wolever et al suggest that a low-GI diet may lower CRP, Pi-Sunyer
points out that the low-GI group started the study with lower
concentrations. Additional research on the effect of GI on
inflammatory markers will clearly be required. Miles concluded that
results of these studies "will be disappointing to some advocates of
low-GI diets." Disappointing or not, data from these carefully
conducted clinical trials suggest that GI and GL are not good measures
of optimal diets for individuals with type 2 diabetes.
Who loves ya.
Tom
Jesus Was A Vegetarian!
http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com
Man Is A Herbivore!
http://tinyurl.com/a3cc3
DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://tinyurl.com/zk9fk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cary Kittrell Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
In article <26aef4f7-c660-4f10-98e7-4e180dc51358@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc20@emorycardiology.com> writes:
| Quote: | Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
|
And it is not only typical, but legally required, that packaged
foods have the caloric contents printed on the package.
Caloric values of individual ingredients have long since been
measured, and standards traceable back to the NIST are available
for calibration. Any math required is of an eighth-grade level.
I lost 35 pounds in nine weeks by keeping my intake at, or
less than, 1200 calories a day. And this often included
a dinner salad which all by itself weighed in excess of
two pounds.
"It is typically not possible to to measure the calories in food
that is actually about to be eaten" is a statement on a par
with "It is typically not possible to to measure the octane
value of the gas you about to be put into your car" or
It is typically not possible to to measure the BTU
rating of the oil you are about to put into your furnace".
-- cary |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly:
Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
And it is not only typical, but legally required, that packaged
foods have the caloric contents printed on the package.
|
Actually, the only thing measured for packaged foods is weight.
Simply check out an 8 oz box of cereal and read:
"Some settling may have occurred because contents have been packaged
by weight and not volume so that this box may appear only partially
full."
You may certainly put the 8 ounces of cereal in a bomb calorimeter to
discover that there is not the exact 600 calories as printed on the
box for 8 ounces because it is extremely rare for caloric density to
have such round numbers like 150 calories per serving.
Bottom line:
You remain pathologically untruthful.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CaryKittrell
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May we, who are Jesus' brethren, continue to pray for your perishing
soul:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForCary
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cary Kittrell Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
In article <89f38f9e-4b30-43ba-bcf9-e1a709eda111@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc20@emorycardiology.com> writes:
| Quote: | convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly:
Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
And it is not only typical, but legally required, that packaged
foods have the caloric contents printed on the package.
Actually, the only thing measured for packaged foods is weight.
|
Information on calories per servings and servings per container
are provided. By law.
Bottom line: you remain virulently disingenuous.
| Quote: |
Simply check out an 8 oz box of cereal and read:
"Some settling may have occurred because contents have been packaged
by weight and not volume so that this box may appear only partially
full."
You may certainly put the 8 ounces of cereal in a bomb calorimeter to
discover that there is not the exact 600 calories as printed on the
box for 8 ounces because it is extremely rare for caloric density to
have such round numbers like 150 calories per serving.
|
Those of us in science who understand the concept of
"significant figures" do not suffer from your bewilderment
regarding rounded numbers. If the caloric values provided
by the label are accurate to within 10 or 15 percent, this
is more than adequate for purposes of diet.
Bottom line: you remain viruently disingenuous.
-- cay
Bottom line:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly:
Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
And it is not only typical, but legally required, that packaged
foods have the caloric contents printed on the package.
Actually, the only thing measured for packaged foods is weight.
Information on calories per servings and servings per container
are provided. By law.
|
A true scientist would not avoid measuring quantities.
Bottom line:
You remain pathologically untruthful.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CaryKittrell
This simply shows repeatedly that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right
to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May we, who have stopped sinning though we remain sinners, continue to
pray for your perishing soul:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForCary
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Mordant Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
On Mar 3, 1:37 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
| Quote: | convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly:
Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
And it is not only typical, but legally required, that packaged
foods have the caloric contents printed on the package.
Actually, the only thing measured for packaged foods is weight.
Information on calories per servings and servings per container
are provided. By law.
A true scientist would not avoid measuring quantities.
Bottom line:
You remain pathologically untruthful.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CaryKittrell
This simply shows repeatedly that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right
to convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May we, who have stopped sinning though we remain sinners, continue to
pray for your perishing soul:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForCary
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward ofhttp://EmoryCardiology.com
Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords.http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword
|
Dissembling  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cary Kittrell Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
In article <e4205e57-648f-47b1-823f-f67939d59c36@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc13@emorycardiology.com> writes:
| Quote: | convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly:
Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
And it is not only typical, but legally required, that packaged
foods have the caloric contents printed on the package.
Actually, the only thing measured for packaged foods is weight.
Information on calories per servings and servings per container
are provided. By law.
A true scientist would not avoid measuring quantities.
|
I take it then that when you buy a pair of shoes, you
whip out a tape measure and a copy of ISO 9407 and verify
for yourself that they are sized correctly?
You pump gas into a graduated cylinder 500 ccs at a time
before pouring it into your car?
You get out your magnifying glass and verify the thread
count before buying sheets?
Sounds tedious to me.
-- cary
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
randy@val.com Guest
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
Frank Wrote:
| Quote: | I don't know about the other people, but Thomas MS Wolever
(http://tinyurl.com/23nqtk) is a long time research on glycemic index
and co-authored The New Glucose Revolution with JENNIE BRAND-MILLER.
Others at the University of Toronto, Toronto such as Donald Drucker
(http://www.glucagon.com/) and PL Brubaker (http://tinyurl.com/yuosf5)
are cutting edge researchers.
Frank
|
Thanks for the info Frank.
I've been amazed at how quickly some here are willing to discard on
non technical merits on flimsy assumptions of nefarious motivations
I have not been amazed at how these same folks don't apply the same
scrutiny when the study confirms their beliefs.
Regards
Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Guest
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor Cary Kittrell wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly:
Actually, only what is measurable can be counted. It is typically not
possible to measure the calories in food that is actually about to be
eaten.
And it is not only typical, but legally required, that packaged
foods have the caloric contents printed on the package.
Actually, the only thing measured for packaged foods is weight.
Information on calories per servings and servings per container
are provided. By law.
A true scientist would not avoid measuring quantities.
I take it then that when you buy a pair of shoes, you
whip out a tape measure and a copy of ISO 9407 and verify
for yourself that they are sized correctly?
You pump gas into a graduated cylinder 500 ccs at a time
before pouring it into your car?
You get out your magnifying glass and verify the thread
count before buying sheets?
Sounds tedious to me.
|
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly provide a description of yourself.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
May we, who are Jesus' brethren, continue to pray for your perishing
soul:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForCary
Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com
Swordbearer for the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Sword |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: Calories That Count In Weight Loss |
|
|
On Mar 3, 12:31 pm, Jefferson <fw...@adelphia.netexopheno> wrote:
| Quote: | I don't know about the other people, but Thomas MS Wolever
(http://tinyurl.com/23nqtk) is a long time research on glycemic index
and co-authored The New Glucose Revolution with JENNIE BRAND-MILLER.
Others at the University of Toronto, Toronto such as Donald Drucker
(http://www.glucagon.com/) and PL Brubaker (http://tinyurl.com/yuosf5)
are cutting edge researchers.
|
Frank,
Thanks for that. I apologize. I assumed poor motives by people I'd
not met nor checked out. Nor, to be honest, had I read the article
closely enough to make the kind of harsh judgement I did. I
appreciate your gentle reminder.
Adam Becker Sr |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|