posted on July 25, 2002 01:44:05 PM new
stusi - Do you know of anyone who died from eating just proteins and fats for 12 weeks? I don't. But the reason I suggested gravid be careful is because the very overweight friend I spoke of [up above] was being closely monitored by our doctor while on this diet. And after being on it for ??? [not sure how long] our doctor told him he'd needed to stop. One of his lab counts was changing and the doctor told him it was, in part, because older kidneys and livers can't handle all the protein. Not sure if that was what snowy was referring to or not. ????
posted on July 25, 2002 01:56:13 PM new
Thank you Stu
gravid - My second cousin had her stomach stapled first. Worked at first, but she still was either eating too much or the wrong foods. Years later she had the by-pass done. She said if she were trying to decide again, knowing what's she's been through, she wouldn't do it again. Big decision. I'd suggest before making your decision, you speak with others who are about 1-2 years down the road from their surgery.
posted on July 25, 2002 01:59:59 PM new
A person with "older kidneys and liver(s?) should possibly not be on this diet to begin with, although it is usually the liquid protein diets that are a problem.
posted on July 25, 2002 02:02:48 PM new
Our school is very interesting. Once a week we have Nacho day. The kids get a bag of corn chips and a cup of nacho cheese, a piece of fruit, and a bag (?) of milk. I went to the "nutritionist" to ask about this. The corn in the chips is a vegitable, the cheese and milk are high in protein, the fruit has fiber... so on. I told her that serving this to kids on a government meal program because they do not have enough money to buy 3 meals a day is a crime against humanity. She did not seem to like the comment too much...
posted on July 25, 2002 02:14:14 PM new
Sounds like a great lunch to me. Much better than burger & fries. Nutritionists like a slice or 2 of Pizza for lunch also. I would have looked at you "funny" also.
posted on July 25, 2002 03:23:10 PM new
While the suit seems frivilious at first blush, when you look at the standards for liability for other products, it may not be so frivilious.
I think that eating fast food, like smoking, is something that takes time to have its effect. For this reason many people invoke the "choice" defence for placing things that are unhealthy in the product stream.
However, if a company produced an inexpensive automobile that exploded when rear-ended, would it be OK to sell the car because people had a "choice" not to buy and/or drive it ? Courts and juries have said no to products that injure, regardless of choice.
I think the obstacle to these kinds of suits is not that it is a matter of choice, but a matter of the amount of time between using the product and suffering the ill effects from it. People generally assume that if there is such a time lag, that a well reasoned choice occured. The principles of liability in the fast food suit are no different than what courts and juries have found for in the past. If you're putting a product that injures people into the product stream, consumer choice is not a defence.
posted on July 25, 2002 03:25:11 PM new
They say the starch is just the same as sugar to the body but they do encourage you to eat the whole grains when you start adding carbs because they are digested slower and have so many extra nutrients. Yeah when you drink sweet fluids they are absorbed so fast you really get a spike of insulin in your blood.
I can't drink that Nutrasweet because it gives me headaches. But that new Splendra seems to have a good taste and no headaches so far. Sorry to say nobody sells any soda with it.
posted on July 25, 2002 05:07:30 PM new
I'm going to the baseball game, but
The caveman, or first people supposedly only ate meat, meat and more meat (sure they ate some roots too ) and they lived, thats the only way they survived, they didn't have the food pyramid to go by either
posted on July 25, 2002 06:08:35 PM new
For sure personal responsibility is a big issue. But it is not the only issue.
When I worked as a cook at UCSC, we served institutional food and the corporation's standing claim was that "carbohydrates are good for you." Menu usually consisted of several kinds of starch, along with bland, overcooked vegetables and some kind of fried mystery meat. Students had a limited number of choices, most of which were designed to fill them up quickly.
Some time later, I worked on a newspaper at a local college. I did a series on the attempt by fast food chains to move into our college cafeteria. The corporation offered the school all kinds of perks and payments, but there was almost no consideration given to the nutritional content of the meals. Local restaraunts and healthy alternative foods weren't even given a second thought. In the end, the fast food chain won.
So in that case, it's not a matter of choice so much as the fact that college kids (and many of us) will eat whatever is put in front of us. Or else whatever is served up at the nearby drive-thru window.
The food served in fast food restaraunts should be healthy, and not dangerous.
posted on July 25, 2002 06:39:14 PM new
Although I am not a proponent, FYI a recent Duke University study published in the American Journal of Medicine has concluded that the Atkins Diet works. 51 participants lost an average of 20 pounds in six months. Starting at less than 25 grams of carbs, they went to 50 grams after 40% of the weight loss goal was reached. In almost every case, LDL cholesterol decreased and HDL increased. The study was praised by a Harvard weight loss expert. The long -term effects of a high fat diet are still being debated.
