If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In pursuit of sweetness
In pursuit of sweetness: http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/ "There are several good choices but navigating among them is often confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..." -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In pursuit of sweetness
On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Dogman wrote:
In pursuit of sweetness:http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/ "There are several good choices but navigating among them is often confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..." -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman How much more "wheatbelly" crap are you going to post? Is your tuner broken so that's the only place you can dial in to? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In pursuit of sweetness
On Oct 6, 10:42*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Dogman wrote: In pursuit of sweetness:http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/ "There are several good choices but navigating among them is often confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..." How much more "wheatbelly" crap are you going to post? Truthfully? *As much as I want to post! *And as often as I want to post! And the best part about it is, you can't don't **** about it! Except to point out to folks that these posts are coming to you from the guy who claims to be a champion of "the scientific method". And through which he claims: HIV is harmless HIV is not the cause of AIDS AIDS is caused by diet and lack of sleep No virus can cause cancer HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer. Anything else you'd like to add to your list of ignorance today? And then to top it off, while claiming to use the "scientific method" he posts anecdotal crap right and left. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In pursuit of sweetness
On Oct 7, 12:23*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 07:30:25 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Oct 6, 10:42*pm, Dogman wrote: On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:48:39 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Oct 6, 1:08*pm, Dogman wrote: In pursuit of sweetness:http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2012/1...-of-sweetness/ "There are several good choices but navigating among them is often confusing. Be aware that non-nutritive sweeteners, due to their sweetness, have the potential to increase appetite. Use these sweeteners sparingly, adding only enough to make your recipe slightly and pleasantly sweet. Thankfully, the majority of people who are wheat-free experience heightened sensitivity to sweetness and the need for sweeteners of any sort diminishes over time..." How much more "wheatbelly" crap are you going to post? Truthfully? *As much as I want to post! *And as often as I want to post! And the best part about it is, you can't don't **** about it! Except to point out to folks that these posts are coming to you from You do realize how childish that sounds to most people, right? To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science, solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics? You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission? With whoever wrote it attributing diabetes remission in one girl to a gluten-free diet without ever mentioning that the diet was also low glycemic? That kind of article? As I said, that would be like putting someone on LC and then writing an article about how eliminating potatoes from the diet produced the results. See the problem? And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else you consider sound science, so they can figure you out for the ignoramus that you are. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In pursuit of sweetness
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science, solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics? You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission? Gluten-free was only part of it, if you'd taken the time to read the entire study. They were trying to prove that a gluten-free diet wasn't harmful to a NON-Celiac. Sheesh. That kind of article? It wasn't an article. It was a study. To this day, you don't seem to know the difference. That's because there's no there there. And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else you consider sound science, so they can figure you out for the ignoramus that you are. I'm not the one who relies on summaries, doesn't know what antibodies are, thinks children as young as 12 years old should be given Gardasil, thinks AZT is harmless, thinks everyone should avoid salt, believes in Al Gore's version of "global warming," and thinks everyone should just wait around for a "study" before doing anything. You're not only an ignoramus, you're freakin' dangerous! -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In pursuit of sweetness
On Oct 7, 7:26*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science, solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics? You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission? Gluten-free was only part of it, if you'd taken the time to read the entire study. One should not have to read an entire study to learn that the diet they are talking about is not only gluten free, but also LOW GLYCEMIC. Is that how the "scientifc method" in your world works? That in the summary you just talk about gluten? And as for reading the entire study, I may be wrong, but I believe you have to pay to access it. They were trying to prove that a gluten-free diet wasn't harmful to a NON-Celiac. Sheesh. That kind of article? It wasn't an article. It was a study. To this day, you don't seem to know the difference. I don't know the difference? See here is another fine example of your total inability to comprehend "the scientific method". Here is the link you posted, which you found via Dr. WheatBelly's website, which seems to form the sole center of your attention. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729336 That is NOT a study. It's a case report on ONE PATIENT. The fact that you think it is a study speaks volumes. And it also explains how you come to so many bizarre conclusions. You don't even understand the difference between a study and a case report on one patient. Let me help you out. If they did a study with 100 similar diabetic patients, divided them into two groups, removed only gluten from the diet of 50, replaced the gluten products with similar refined carbs and then measured the results, THAT would be a study of the effect of a gluten-free diet. That's because there's no there there. And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else you consider sound science, so they can figure you out for the ignoramus that you are. I'm not the one who relies on summaries, doesn't know what antibodies are, thinks children as young as 12 years old should be given Gardasil, thinks AZT is harmless, thinks everyone should avoid salt, believes in Al Gore's version of "global warming," and thinks everyone should just wait around for a "study" before doing anything. You're not only an ignoramus, you're freakin' dangerous! -- The above list of lies comes to you from the guy that is an AIDS denialist and tells people HIV is harmless. That AIDS is really caused by diet and lack of sleep. Everyone can figure out who the one giving out dangerous advice here really is. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In pursuit of sweetness
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 07:11:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Oct 7, 7:26*pm, Dogman wrote: On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] To ignore articles and information that I provide here, backed by recognized authorities in the field, not to mention sound science, solely because I hold contrarian views on other topics? You mean like the scientific tour de force you just posted about a gluten free diet causing diabetes remission? Gluten-free was only part of it, if you'd taken the time to read the entire study. One should not have to read an entire study to learn That *exactly* what a person needs to do, first, if he or she wants to see if the study conforms to the scientific method, and wants to actually LEARN something besides the typical boilerplate. Of course, this leaves you out, because you're too lazy to do your own due diligence, and prefer to rely on PR releases and propaganda. You probably only read the Forewards of books, too. Idiot! They were trying to prove that a gluten-free diet wasn't harmful to a NON-Celiac. Sheesh. That kind of article? It wasn't an article. It was a study. To this day, you don't seem to know the difference. I don't know the difference? No, you do NOT. See here is another fine example of your total inability to comprehend "the scientific method". Here is the link you posted, which you found via Dr. WheatBelly's website, which seems to form the sole center of your attention. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22729336 That is NOT a study. It's a case report on ONE PATIENT. Yes, that is a study! They were STUDYING the effects of a gluten-free diet on a NON-Celiac with Type 1 diabetes! And they STUDIED him for many months, carefully controlled his diet, measured his blood glucose, performed other tests, reported the results, etc. They PROVED that even for a NON-Celiac it was possible to safely go gluten-free, etc. All of which you would have known had you actually read the STUDY. What a maroon. That's because there's no there there. And yes, I think it's valid for people to know what else you consider sound science, so they can figure you out for the ignoramus that you are. I'm not the one who relies on summaries, doesn't know what antibodies are, thinks children as young as 12 years old should be given Gardasil, thinks AZT is harmless, thinks everyone should avoid salt, believes in Al Gore's version of "global warming," and thinks everyone should just wait around for a "study" before doing anything. You're not only an ignoramus, you're freakin' dangerous! The above list of lies comes to you from the guy that is an AIDS denialist and tells people HIV is harmless. Those aren't lies, and anyone can see for themselves by checking the archives. That AIDS is really caused by diet and lack of sleep. Now you're lying again. It's become a habit for you now, hasn't it? AIDS *can* be caused by diet (i.e., chronic malnutrition), as it does in Africa, when it accompanies poor hygiene, a lack of clean drinking water, parasitical infestation, etc. It's called "wasting" or "slim" disease, and is indistinguishable from "AIDS." A lack of sleep, when accompanied by chronic recreational drug abuse, chronic heavy drinking, routinely inhaling poppers, taking antibiotics prophylactically (almost round the clock, for months at a time), having multiple STDs, having hundreds of male-to male sexual encounters a month, and essentially "burning the candle at both ends", over time, will eventually DESTROY YOUR IMMUNE SYTEM (i.e., AIDS). And when your immune system is gone, it's gone. And so are you. Don't believe me? Update your insurance policy and give it a try. It's the ultimate n=1 experiment. Everyone can figure out who the one giving out dangerous advice here really is. I sure hope so. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
sweetness | Will McGugan | General Discussion | 1 | August 1st, 2005 09:52 PM |
Splenda, Sweetness and variances | Preesi | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 13 | December 18th, 2003 01:12 PM |