Dear Minutus folks,
May I suggest that all of you who are recommending low carb diets (and everyone else) check out resistant starch and all of its ramifications:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-defi ... z3qZHOVJKU
You may think that you know enough to make an informed judgement about it, but I assure you that you probably don't since those who are studying it and advocating it know that they are not even close to understanding all of the ramifications. This is a major break through in health. The health of the gut microbiota is just beginning to be understood and appreciated.
Notice that I am NOT telling you to stop recommending low carb diets. I am suggesting that you study resistant starch. It is likely that the need for low carb diets is based upon inadequate and ill gut microbiota in the colon (or lower intestine).
Sincerely,
Roger Bird
low carb dieters and everyone else
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: low carb dieters and everyone else
Roger,
It is a pity that the writer (presumably Mark Sisson who blogs other pages there though this page is unsigned)
has no training in science, and as a result he is adding facts and aassumptions together to come up with false conclusions.
For example he adds the fact that some starches resist digestion, to the assumption that gut bacteria will ferment them into butyrate, to conclude that resisrtance starch is beneficial.
There is no way.
Resistant starch has not been stiudued to find whather any form of it is acceptable to human gut flora as a substrated for fermentation products of short chain faty acids such as butyrate, propionate and acetate.
Further he makes assumptions about what starches are digestible, that are invalid. He says cellupse plant cell walls are indigestivel. Not so. Hmans have celluase figestive enzyme for just such purpose as to break down cellulos.
In addition cellulose is known to be nonfermentable by beneficial gut flors.
SO his whole story - and its references in the medical jhouranls - are invalid.
For example he referencexz a study which he claims shows benefits of resistant starch.
They fed resistant starch to some and regular digestible starch to others. Big deal. Those who digested starch clearly had worse glucose control.
That is no proof of any benefits of resistant starch - only proof that low carbohydrate diets are good.
The study was false in its claims.
It is important to now how to read scientfic studies in the original, to understand what was really discovered, and not to assume that the conclusions made from the study (in this case by Mark Sisson presumed writer) are valid.
Even the conclusions made by those doing the study are often wrong.
For example the 1991 research by Hills Science Diet is still used by endocriinologists today to advocate low protein diets to people with kidney disease - and worse to advocate plant protein - when if you read the actual study - it found that the more PLANT protein is eaten, the more the kidneys are damaged. They did not stufy animal protien whch has the o pposite effect - the more ANIMAL protein you eat, the more your kidneys will heal themsleves.
(Sorry vegetarians - humans are designed by whoever created them, as OMNIVORES - and eating plants only, will make you unhealthy.)
So a low carbohydrate diet is BEST for diabetics, becasue every carb digested is advser to the disease.
Trying to eat startches rhar are not digested, will clog your insides with no benefits in nutrition, so why eat them.
Rather eat delicious things like mushrooms, eggs, shrimp, fish, asparagus, peppers, greens etc. THOSE wil improve your health, ulike indigestible junk that passes through without benefit.
We are back to the FACT hat there is no eviodence that gut bacteria will ferment undigested starches into butyrate, propionate and acetate (the short chain fatty acids that support body organs and fuctions icouding immune system).
It is separate research that is needed to test fermentability of prebiotics, to determoine which ones work in huamns.
This research has been done in cats for 21 different fibers, and the best pre-biotics for cats are well cooked pumpkin (cats cannot digest plants but some plant material is needed as prebiotics), rice bran and beet fiber.
Cats have a very different gut environment to humsn, and the research is NOT automatically transferable to humans.
Cats run at a higher temperature and a lower pH than humans - so their ideal gut bacteria are different and have different optimal environment than ours.
This is just to make the point that there is a separate issue about what is undigested and wehat is usable as a prebiotic.
One issue is that the beneficial gut bacteria have different requirements from the non-beneficial ones. It is THOSE features that need to be taken into account. Good change resistant strach is liked by the wrong gut bacteria - the salmonella, shiugells and E coli types.
The beneficial ones have requirements for nutrients like lactose, not found in resistact starch.
That in fact is why they are named Lactobacillus - eg lactbacillus acidophilus.
There are many other errors in this article.
I strongly recomend avoidance of articles whose authors have no proper ttraining in the area they are spouting off about.
It is easy to think up all sorts of false stories and assumptionns and add them to make false conclusions that sound plausible to Joe Public.
Resistant starch at best is fake junk to swallow that just goes through, hopefully doing no harm.
Or it may also do harm - there is no research oin that yet either.
There is some indication that it is better than digested starch for one's glucose after a meal. But that is hardly Rocket Science to figure out:-)
Diabetics are poisoned by carbohydrates that reach the bloodstream.
They MUST eat a low carb diet.
As to resistant strach as a fake way to avoid carbs getting to the blood, by all means eat co;ld salad if y9 crave potatoes, but it is a waste of time and potential healing opportunity when beneficial food can be used instead, to provide anti-inflammatory or other benefits.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
It is a pity that the writer (presumably Mark Sisson who blogs other pages there though this page is unsigned)
has no training in science, and as a result he is adding facts and aassumptions together to come up with false conclusions.
For example he adds the fact that some starches resist digestion, to the assumption that gut bacteria will ferment them into butyrate, to conclude that resisrtance starch is beneficial.
There is no way.
Resistant starch has not been stiudued to find whather any form of it is acceptable to human gut flora as a substrated for fermentation products of short chain faty acids such as butyrate, propionate and acetate.
Further he makes assumptions about what starches are digestible, that are invalid. He says cellupse plant cell walls are indigestivel. Not so. Hmans have celluase figestive enzyme for just such purpose as to break down cellulos.
In addition cellulose is known to be nonfermentable by beneficial gut flors.
SO his whole story - and its references in the medical jhouranls - are invalid.
For example he referencexz a study which he claims shows benefits of resistant starch.
They fed resistant starch to some and regular digestible starch to others. Big deal. Those who digested starch clearly had worse glucose control.
That is no proof of any benefits of resistant starch - only proof that low carbohydrate diets are good.
The study was false in its claims.
It is important to now how to read scientfic studies in the original, to understand what was really discovered, and not to assume that the conclusions made from the study (in this case by Mark Sisson presumed writer) are valid.
Even the conclusions made by those doing the study are often wrong.
For example the 1991 research by Hills Science Diet is still used by endocriinologists today to advocate low protein diets to people with kidney disease - and worse to advocate plant protein - when if you read the actual study - it found that the more PLANT protein is eaten, the more the kidneys are damaged. They did not stufy animal protien whch has the o pposite effect - the more ANIMAL protein you eat, the more your kidneys will heal themsleves.
(Sorry vegetarians - humans are designed by whoever created them, as OMNIVORES - and eating plants only, will make you unhealthy.)
So a low carbohydrate diet is BEST for diabetics, becasue every carb digested is advser to the disease.
Trying to eat startches rhar are not digested, will clog your insides with no benefits in nutrition, so why eat them.
Rather eat delicious things like mushrooms, eggs, shrimp, fish, asparagus, peppers, greens etc. THOSE wil improve your health, ulike indigestible junk that passes through without benefit.
We are back to the FACT hat there is no eviodence that gut bacteria will ferment undigested starches into butyrate, propionate and acetate (the short chain fatty acids that support body organs and fuctions icouding immune system).
It is separate research that is needed to test fermentability of prebiotics, to determoine which ones work in huamns.
This research has been done in cats for 21 different fibers, and the best pre-biotics for cats are well cooked pumpkin (cats cannot digest plants but some plant material is needed as prebiotics), rice bran and beet fiber.
Cats have a very different gut environment to humsn, and the research is NOT automatically transferable to humans.
Cats run at a higher temperature and a lower pH than humans - so their ideal gut bacteria are different and have different optimal environment than ours.
This is just to make the point that there is a separate issue about what is undigested and wehat is usable as a prebiotic.
One issue is that the beneficial gut bacteria have different requirements from the non-beneficial ones. It is THOSE features that need to be taken into account. Good change resistant strach is liked by the wrong gut bacteria - the salmonella, shiugells and E coli types.
The beneficial ones have requirements for nutrients like lactose, not found in resistact starch.
That in fact is why they are named Lactobacillus - eg lactbacillus acidophilus.
There are many other errors in this article.
I strongly recomend avoidance of articles whose authors have no proper ttraining in the area they are spouting off about.
It is easy to think up all sorts of false stories and assumptionns and add them to make false conclusions that sound plausible to Joe Public.
Resistant starch at best is fake junk to swallow that just goes through, hopefully doing no harm.
Or it may also do harm - there is no research oin that yet either.
There is some indication that it is better than digested starch for one's glucose after a meal. But that is hardly Rocket Science to figure out:-)
Diabetics are poisoned by carbohydrates that reach the bloodstream.
They MUST eat a low carb diet.
As to resistant strach as a fake way to avoid carbs getting to the blood, by all means eat co;ld salad if y9 crave potatoes, but it is a waste of time and potential healing opportunity when beneficial food can be used instead, to provide anti-inflammatory or other benefits.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Re: low carb dieters and everyone else
With me it is not a need but a necessity in order to keep away from diabetic medications!! And it works!!
Rochelle
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 06 November 2015 02:15
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] low carb dieters and everyone else
Dear Minutus folks,
May I suggest that all of you who are recommending low carb diets (and everyone else) check out resistant starch and all of its ramifications:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-defi ... z3qZHOVJKU
You may think that you know enough to make an informed judgement about it, but I assure you that you probably don't since those who are studying it and advocating it know that they are not even close to understanding all of the ramifications. This is a major break through in health. The health of the gut microbiota is just beginning to be understood and appreciated.
Notice that I am NOT telling you to stop recommending low carb diets. I am suggesting that you study resistant starch. It is likely that the need for low carb diets is based upon inadequate and ill gut microbiota in the colon (or lower intestine).
Sincerely,
Roger Bird
Rochelle
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 06 November 2015 02:15
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] low carb dieters and everyone else
Dear Minutus folks,
May I suggest that all of you who are recommending low carb diets (and everyone else) check out resistant starch and all of its ramifications:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-defi ... z3qZHOVJKU
You may think that you know enough to make an informed judgement about it, but I assure you that you probably don't since those who are studying it and advocating it know that they are not even close to understanding all of the ramifications. This is a major break through in health. The health of the gut microbiota is just beginning to be understood and appreciated.
Notice that I am NOT telling you to stop recommending low carb diets. I am suggesting that you study resistant starch. It is likely that the need for low carb diets is based upon inadequate and ill gut microbiota in the colon (or lower intestine).
Sincerely,
Roger Bird
Re: low carb dieters and everyone else
Actually, Irene, since I have tried it, I can confirm much of it. It follows naturally that prosperous people are going to avoid the unripe fruit and prefer the ripe fruit, so it makes perfect sense that such a subtle change in our diets would have consequences. And you are ignoring the hundreds of people who are jumping up and down with good results. The fact that there are people complaining that it did not help just goes to show that it is a very difficult puzzle. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Frankly, Irene, I found most of what you said very grinchy and I wonder why you can't look at the evidence and realize that there is something of value there.
Roger Bird
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Irene de Villiers furryboots@icehouse.net [minutus]
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 1:09 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] low carb dieters and everyone else
Roger,
It is a pity that the writer (presumably Mark Sisson who blogs other pages there though this page is unsigned)
has no training in science, and as a result he is adding facts and aassumptions together to come up with false conclusions.
For example he adds the fact that some starches resist digestion, to the assumption that gut bacteria will ferment them into butyrate, to conclude that resisrtance starch is beneficial.
There is no way.
Resistant starch has not been stiudued to find whather any form of it is acceptable to human gut flora as a substrated for fermentation products of short chain faty acids such as butyrate, propionate and acetate.
Further he makes assumptions about what starches are digestible, that are invalid. He says cellupse plant cell walls are indigestivel. Not so. Hmans have celluase figestive enzyme for just such purpose as to break down cellulos.
In addition cellulose is known to be nonfermentable by beneficial gut flors.
SO his whole story - and its references in the medical jhouranls - are invalid.
For example he referencexz a study which he claims shows benefits of resistant starch.
They fed resistant starch to some and regular digestible starch to others. Big deal. Those who digested starch clearly had worse glucose control.
That is no proof of any benefits of resistant starch - only proof that low carbohydrate diets are good.
The study was false in its claims.
It is important to now how to read scientfic studies in the original, to understand what was really discovered, and not to assume that the conclusions made from the study (in this case by Mark Sisson presumed writer) are valid.
Even the conclusions made by those doing the study are often wrong.
For example the 1991 research by Hills Science Diet is still used by endocriinologists today to advocate low protein diets to people with kidney disease - and worse to advocate plant protein - when if you read the actual study - it found that the more PLANT protein is eaten, the more the kidneys are damaged. They did not stufy animal protien whch has the o pposite effect - the more ANIMAL protein you eat, the more your kidneys will heal themsleves.
(Sorry vegetarians - humans are designed by whoever created them, as OMNIVORES - and eating plants only, will make you unhealthy.)
So a low carbohydrate diet is BEST for diabetics, becasue every carb digested is advser to the disease.
Trying to eat startches rhar are not digested, will clog your insides with no benefits in nutrition, so why eat them.
Rather eat delicious things like mushrooms, eggs, shrimp, fish, asparagus, peppers, greens etc. THOSE wil improve your health, ulike indigestible junk that passes through without benefit.
We are back to the FACT hat there is no eviodence that gut bacteria will ferment undigested starches into butyrate, propionate and acetate (the short chain fatty acids that support body organs and fuctions icouding immune system).
It is separate research that is needed to test fermentability of prebiotics, to determoine which ones work in huamns.
This research has been done in cats for 21 different fibers, and the best pre-biotics for cats are well cooked pumpkin (cats cannot digest plants but some plant material is needed as prebiotics), rice bran and beet fiber.
Cats have a very different gut environment to humsn, and the research is NOT automatically transferable to humans.
Cats run at a higher temperature and a lower pH than humans - so their ideal gut bacteria are different and have different optimal environment than ours.
This is just to make the point that there is a separate issue about what is undigested and wehat is usable as a prebiotic.
One issue is that the beneficial gut bacteria have different requirements from the non-beneficial ones. It is THOSE features that need to be taken into account. Good change resistant strach is liked by the wrong gut bacteria - the salmonella, shiugells and E coli types.
The beneficial ones have requirements for nutrients like lactose, not found in resistact starch.
That in fact is why they are named Lactobacillus - eg lactbacillus acidophilus.
There are many other errors in this article.
I strongly recomend avoidance of articles whose authors have no proper ttraining in the area they are spouting off about.
It is easy to think up all sorts of false stories and assumptionns and add them to make false conclusions that sound plausible to Joe Public.
Resistant starch at best is fake junk to swallow that just goes through, hopefully doing no harm.
Or it may also do harm - there is no research oin that yet either.
There is some indication that it is better than digested starch for one's glucose after a meal. But that is hardly Rocket Science to figure out:-)
Diabetics are poisoned by carbohydrates that reach the bloodstream.
They MUST eat a low carb diet.
As to resistant strach as a fake way to avoid carbs getting to the blood, by all means eat co;ld salad if y9 crave potatoes, but it is a waste of time and potential healing opportunity when beneficial food can be used instead, to provide anti-inflammatory or other benefits.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Frankly, Irene, I found most of what you said very grinchy and I wonder why you can't look at the evidence and realize that there is something of value there.
Roger Bird
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Irene de Villiers furryboots@icehouse.net [minutus]
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 1:09 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] low carb dieters and everyone else
Roger,
It is a pity that the writer (presumably Mark Sisson who blogs other pages there though this page is unsigned)
has no training in science, and as a result he is adding facts and aassumptions together to come up with false conclusions.
For example he adds the fact that some starches resist digestion, to the assumption that gut bacteria will ferment them into butyrate, to conclude that resisrtance starch is beneficial.
There is no way.
Resistant starch has not been stiudued to find whather any form of it is acceptable to human gut flora as a substrated for fermentation products of short chain faty acids such as butyrate, propionate and acetate.
Further he makes assumptions about what starches are digestible, that are invalid. He says cellupse plant cell walls are indigestivel. Not so. Hmans have celluase figestive enzyme for just such purpose as to break down cellulos.
In addition cellulose is known to be nonfermentable by beneficial gut flors.
SO his whole story - and its references in the medical jhouranls - are invalid.
For example he referencexz a study which he claims shows benefits of resistant starch.
They fed resistant starch to some and regular digestible starch to others. Big deal. Those who digested starch clearly had worse glucose control.
That is no proof of any benefits of resistant starch - only proof that low carbohydrate diets are good.
The study was false in its claims.
It is important to now how to read scientfic studies in the original, to understand what was really discovered, and not to assume that the conclusions made from the study (in this case by Mark Sisson presumed writer) are valid.
Even the conclusions made by those doing the study are often wrong.
For example the 1991 research by Hills Science Diet is still used by endocriinologists today to advocate low protein diets to people with kidney disease - and worse to advocate plant protein - when if you read the actual study - it found that the more PLANT protein is eaten, the more the kidneys are damaged. They did not stufy animal protien whch has the o pposite effect - the more ANIMAL protein you eat, the more your kidneys will heal themsleves.
(Sorry vegetarians - humans are designed by whoever created them, as OMNIVORES - and eating plants only, will make you unhealthy.)
So a low carbohydrate diet is BEST for diabetics, becasue every carb digested is advser to the disease.
Trying to eat startches rhar are not digested, will clog your insides with no benefits in nutrition, so why eat them.
Rather eat delicious things like mushrooms, eggs, shrimp, fish, asparagus, peppers, greens etc. THOSE wil improve your health, ulike indigestible junk that passes through without benefit.
We are back to the FACT hat there is no eviodence that gut bacteria will ferment undigested starches into butyrate, propionate and acetate (the short chain fatty acids that support body organs and fuctions icouding immune system).
It is separate research that is needed to test fermentability of prebiotics, to determoine which ones work in huamns.
This research has been done in cats for 21 different fibers, and the best pre-biotics for cats are well cooked pumpkin (cats cannot digest plants but some plant material is needed as prebiotics), rice bran and beet fiber.
Cats have a very different gut environment to humsn, and the research is NOT automatically transferable to humans.
Cats run at a higher temperature and a lower pH than humans - so their ideal gut bacteria are different and have different optimal environment than ours.
This is just to make the point that there is a separate issue about what is undigested and wehat is usable as a prebiotic.
One issue is that the beneficial gut bacteria have different requirements from the non-beneficial ones. It is THOSE features that need to be taken into account. Good change resistant strach is liked by the wrong gut bacteria - the salmonella, shiugells and E coli types.
The beneficial ones have requirements for nutrients like lactose, not found in resistact starch.
That in fact is why they are named Lactobacillus - eg lactbacillus acidophilus.
There are many other errors in this article.
I strongly recomend avoidance of articles whose authors have no proper ttraining in the area they are spouting off about.
It is easy to think up all sorts of false stories and assumptionns and add them to make false conclusions that sound plausible to Joe Public.
Resistant starch at best is fake junk to swallow that just goes through, hopefully doing no harm.
Or it may also do harm - there is no research oin that yet either.
There is some indication that it is better than digested starch for one's glucose after a meal. But that is hardly Rocket Science to figure out:-)
Diabetics are poisoned by carbohydrates that reach the bloodstream.
They MUST eat a low carb diet.
As to resistant strach as a fake way to avoid carbs getting to the blood, by all means eat co;ld salad if y9 crave potatoes, but it is a waste of time and potential healing opportunity when beneficial food can be used instead, to provide anti-inflammatory or other benefits.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: low carb dieters and everyone else
I do the same - as you say - it works.
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: low carb dieters and everyone else
It is my field of expertise and what you call evidence has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Read my answer more carefully and the refs as well, and you will see it.
...Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Read my answer more carefully and the refs as well, and you will see it.
...Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Re: low carb dieters and everyone else
This is not a debate, Irene. I made it perfectly clear that I was not being confrontational. I am being exploratory. So why the aggressive and antagonistic attitude. We get that a lot from you, Irene. I will be avoiding reading your comments on this issue in the future since you insist upon making this a battle.
For everyone else, my insurance agent just offered me my absolutely favorite fun food: chocolate chip cookies. I had not eaten for 9.5 hours when he did this disservice. I was able to resist the temptation because eating 2 tablespoons of unmodified potato starch (80% resistant starch) damps my appetites greatly and noticeably. This gives me room to lose weight. It is now 10.5 hours without eating, and I still don't feel hungry. (:->) I get this way when I eat resistant starch.
Roger Bird
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Irene de Villiers furryboots@icehouse.net [minutus]
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 9:13 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] low carb dieters and everyone else
It is my field of expertise and what you call evidence has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Read my answer more carefully and the refs as well, and you will see it.
...Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
For everyone else, my insurance agent just offered me my absolutely favorite fun food: chocolate chip cookies. I had not eaten for 9.5 hours when he did this disservice. I was able to resist the temptation because eating 2 tablespoons of unmodified potato starch (80% resistant starch) damps my appetites greatly and noticeably. This gives me room to lose weight. It is now 10.5 hours without eating, and I still don't feel hungry. (:->) I get this way when I eat resistant starch.
Roger Bird
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Irene de Villiers furryboots@icehouse.net [minutus]
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2015 9:13 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] low carb dieters and everyone else
It is my field of expertise and what you call evidence has more holes than Swiss cheese.
Read my answer more carefully and the refs as well, and you will see it.
...Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: low carb dieters and everyone else
Only in your imagination. Did you get out of bed on the wrong side before you read what I wrote?
Or are you being defensive becasue someone did not agree with you.
As to whether this is a debate. A discussion does have elements of debate, especially when the "evidence" you point to for illustrating a point, is invalid.
Seems like if your theory has holes in it, you choose to assume you were personally attacked.
That is not a good way to enter a DISCUSSION.
If what you propose is incorrect, you should be able to take it when that is pointed out, without getting personal.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Or are you being defensive becasue someone did not agree with you.
As to whether this is a debate. A discussion does have elements of debate, especially when the "evidence" you point to for illustrating a point, is invalid.
Seems like if your theory has holes in it, you choose to assume you were personally attacked.
That is not a good way to enter a DISCUSSION.
If what you propose is incorrect, you should be able to take it when that is pointed out, without getting personal.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."