Emergency Room Bank Buster vs Doctors Office
Anonymous
My choices are go to emergency room and take pot luck on the surgeon at a hospital not exactly known for it's excellence OR go to doctors office and probably have them ask me for a deposit before they will do anything. My guess is emergency room will result in big overcharges that they will want me to pay only I am judgement proof-they cannot get blood from a turnip, OR go to private surgeon; my guess is he will say, you need to deposit XX dollars before I will do it. Anyone here been in a similar situation that can offer helpful advice or information? Thanks much!
Goomba38
> Have to have hernia surgery; only have Medicare.
>
> My choices are go to emergency room and take pot luck on the surgeon at a hospital not exactly known for it's excellence OR go to doctors office and probably have them ask me for a deposit before they will do anything. My guess is emergency room will result in big overcharges that they will want me to pay only I am judgement proof-they cannot get blood from a turnip, OR go to private surgeon; my guess is he will say, you need to deposit XX dollars before I will do it. Anyone here been in a similar situation that can offer helpful advice or information? Thanks much!
>
incarceration (and you'd probably know this and it would be an
emergency!) you don't belong in an emergency room for this.
Since you know about it in advance you have time to find a doctor who
accepts Medicare and can arrange to find one that uses the hospital you
prefer.
hubbahubba
news:JKadndKFjJdASYrV...@comcast.com:
Haha, Goomba must be a Cheney disciple, or a relative of the "soup
Nazi"! What an ass! He's in the right group though, extremely CHEAP,
even with his advice.
To O.P. just go to the emergency and fuck them when they send u the
bill.
webs...@cox.net
> Goomba38 <Goomb...@comcast.net> wrote innews:JKadndKFjJdASYrV...@comcast.com:
>
>
>
> > Anonymous wrote:
> >> Have to have hernia surgery; only have Medicare.
>
> >> My choices are go to emergency room and take pot luck on the surgeon
> >> at a hospital not exactly known for it's excellence OR go to doctors
> >> office and probably have them ask me for a deposit before they will
> >> do anything. My guess is emergency room will result in big
> >> overcharges that they will want me to pay only I am judgement
> >> proof-they cannot get blood from a turnip, OR go to private surgeon;
> >> my guess is he will say, you need to deposit XX dollars before I will
> >> do it. Anyone here been in a similar situation that can offer helpful
> >> advice or information? Thanks much!
>
> > Emergency rooms are for emergencies. If you're not having bowel
> > incarceration (and you'd probably know this and it would be an
> > emergency!) you don't belong in an emergency room for this.
> > Since you know about it in advance you have time to find a doctor who
> > accepts Medicare and can arrange to find one that uses the hospital
> > you prefer.
>
best care in the world, if you can afford it.
To the OP: please use your doctor. Your use of emergency rooms for
non-emergencies is one of the reasons things are so expensive. Many
uninsured or underinsured pull this stunt, even to the point of using
an ambulance to get prescriptions. It's a thoroughly disgusting waste
of limited resources.
> Haha, Goomba must be a Cheney disciple, or a relative of the "soup
> Nazi"! What an ass! He's in the right group though, extremely CHEAP,
> even with his advice.
>
> To O.P. just go to the emergency and fuck them when they send u the
> bill.
To hubbahubba: Your political knowledge, attitude, and language put
you at the bottom rung of literate humanity.
Denise Stillwagon
Just a recently experienced opinion here.
I am uninsured. (I couldn't afford the $500-$600 a month) I ended up in the
ER this past Oct. to find out I needed gallbladder surgery. That visit cost
me $6,000.00. Only $345.00 went to the Dr., the rest went to the hospital.
After staying on a low-fat to no-fat diet and loosing 30, it still wasn't
enough to prevent surgery, I was terribly sick.
The Surgeon AND Hospital made me prepay for my surgery to have it done.
I had to apply for a credit card, and between 2 cards, covered the
$10,000.00 they wanted. (I was NEVER in debt before.....I'm over my head
now)
The surgery was done Feb. 27th with the grand total of a little over
$13,000.00
To my great surprise....The surgeon and Anesthesiologist each got about $1,
300.00 THE REST WAS THE HOSPITAL CHARGES. The Surgeon and Anesth. are
the ones who take all the risk and pay astronomical insurance
costs.......the hospital supplies me with ice water for the less than 24
hours I was there and gets rich.
Go figure.
So, you can see where the REAL crooks lie.
Have a great day all.
Denise
"assholexterminator" <assholeex...@noplace.org> wrote in message
news:fvq95k$cf6$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
> webs...@cox.net wrote in
> news:75c6b0e2-89aa-4574...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> ROTFLMAO, No it is Bush and all the rich fuck doctors, insurance
> companies and other assholes that are at the bottom of the rung. It is
> assholes like you that will bring this Kountry down. Like the Doctor
> Seuss story of the poor turtle (was it) everyone piling on his back
> until the whole stack collapses, that is what will happen to this shit
> Kountry with all you fucking greedy bastards out there, including many
> of the doctors that are ripping people off with their sham medical
> services. Let's give health care execs another fucking bonus, I think
> the poor slobs using substandard so called "emergency" room services are
> getting too much of a free ride. Go fuck yourself. Rest assured there is
> no end in site to the pursuit of greed at others' expense in this
> Kountry on the horizon with the next wave of cookie cutter prez.
> Kandidates. More of the same, ad infinitum....Stay tuned while China
> becomes the next superpower and the USA is relegated to a third world
> Kountry with commensurate divisions between the classes. Maybe we will
> get luck and Al Quieda or similar will put us out of our misery sooner
> rather than later.
Lionel
<still...@windstream.net> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Just a recently experienced opinion here.
>
>I am uninsured. (I couldn't afford the $500-$600 a month) I ended up in the
>ER this past Oct. to find out I needed gallbladder surgery. That visit cost
>me $6,000.00. Only $345.00 went to the Dr., the rest went to the hospital.
>After staying on a low-fat to no-fat diet and loosing 30, it still wasn't
>enough to prevent surgery, I was terribly sick.
>The Surgeon AND Hospital made me prepay for my surgery to have it done.
>I had to apply for a credit card, and between 2 cards, covered the
>$10,000.00 they wanted. (I was NEVER in debt before.....I'm over my head
>now)
>The surgery was done Feb. 27th with the grand total of a little over
>$13,000.00
>To my great surprise....The surgeon and Anesthesiologist each got about $1,
>300.00 THE REST WAS THE HOSPITAL CHARGES. The Surgeon and Anesth. are
>the ones who take all the risk and pay astronomical insurance
>costs.......the hospital supplies me with ice water for the less than 24
>hours I was there and gets rich.
In America, its real simple: "pony up the money, or die like a dog".
Yeah it sucks, but so do most American's, IMO.
Thankfully, this farce wont last much longer.
Rod Speed
Nope, not with real emergencys like car crashes etc.
> Yeah it sucks, but so do most American's, IMO.
> Thankfully, this farce wont last much longer.
We'll see...
The Real Bev
> The surgery was done Feb. 27th with the grand total of a little over
> $13,000.00
> To my great surprise....The surgeon and Anesthesiologist each got about $1,
> 300.00 THE REST WAS THE HOSPITAL CHARGES. The Surgeon and Anesth. are
> the ones who take all the risk and pay astronomical insurance
> costs.......the hospital supplies me with ice water for the less than 24
> hours I was there and gets rich.
> Go figure.
> So, you can see where the REAL crooks lie.
Did you talk to the hospital ombudsperson about a price reduction
because -- to them -- you were paying cash? When I actually WAS paying
cash for an emergency admission the hospital settled for the deposit I
made on admission.
OTOH, I'm refusing to deal with a hospital who insists we owe ~$200 in
unpaid Medicare/Blue Cross charges. I told them to tell me what the
money is for or to sue me. So far they just send a bill every once in a
while. Screw 'em.
--
Cheers, Bev
===============================================
Jesus saves. Buddha makes incremental backups.
Denise Stillwagon
The one bill I AM going to fight when they finally send it is the original
E.R. visit in Oct. when they diagnosed Gallstones. I was looped on
painkillers when they sent me for testing and didn't bother to ask
questions. They gave me a CT scan to detect gall bladder trouble when,
according to my DR.....they could have and should have determined the
problem with a simple ultrsound. My DR. was irate. I'll pay a few thousand
for something that should have been a few hundred.
But they won't see it. I'm going to see if I can get them to settle for
2,000.00
Denise
"The Real Bev" <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nhpUj.429$cx7...@newsfe02.lga...
Gene S. Berkowitz
still...@windstream.net says...
> Hi all,
>
> Just a recently experienced opinion here.
>
> I am uninsured. (I couldn't afford the $500-$600 a month) I ended up in the
> ER this past Oct. to find out I needed gallbladder surgery. That visit cost
> me $6,000.00. Only $345.00 went to the Dr., the rest went to the hospital.
> After staying on a low-fat to no-fat diet and loosing 30, it still wasn't
> enough to prevent surgery, I was terribly sick.
> The Surgeon AND Hospital made me prepay for my surgery to have it done.
> I had to apply for a credit card, and between 2 cards, covered the
> $10,000.00 they wanted. (I was NEVER in debt before.....I'm over my head
> now)
> The surgery was done Feb. 27th with the grand total of a little over
> $13,000.00
> To my great surprise....The surgeon and Anesthesiologist each got about $1,
> 300.00 THE REST WAS THE HOSPITAL CHARGES. The Surgeon and Anesth. are
> the ones who take all the risk and pay astronomical insurance
> costs.......the hospital supplies me with ice water for the less than 24
> hours I was there and gets rich.
They also supplied you with a sterile operating room and surgical
instruments. All of which must be re-sterilized or replaced after your
procedure, requiring yet more staff (to perform the cleaning and
sterilization) and equipment, such as a steam autoclave to sterilize the
scalpel the surgeon used.
Your surgeon likely performed laproscopic surgery to remove your
gallbladder, resulting in you having three tiny incisions rather than a
gut-splitting gash across your abdomen. That little trick only took
about a decade of research to figure out, and a year of training for the
surgeon, plus a laparoscope that runs about $10,000. And needs to be
sterilized, repaired, and replaced occasionally.
Now, you could have had all this done on your kitchen table, with
whatever was handy, with a little dish soap or iodine to keep things
clean, and it's possible you might not even die from the secondary
infections, assuming you survived the operation.
--Gene
PaPaPeng
<still...@windstream.net> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Just a recently experienced opinion here.
>
>I am uninsured. (I couldn't afford the $500-$600 a month) I ended up in the
>ER this past Oct. to find out I needed gallbladder surgery. That visit cost
>me $6,000.00. Only $345.00 went to the Dr., the rest went to the hospital.
>After staying on a low-fat to no-fat diet and loosing 30, it still wasn't
>enough to prevent surgery, I was terribly sick.
>The Surgeon AND Hospital made me prepay for my surgery to have it done.
>I had to apply for a credit card, and between 2 cards, covered the
>$10,000.00 they wanted. (I was NEVER in debt before.....I'm over my head
>now)
>The surgery was done Feb. 27th with the grand total of a little over
>$13,000.00
>To my great surprise....The surgeon and Anesthesiologist each got about $1,
>300.00 THE REST WAS THE HOSPITAL CHARGES. The Surgeon and Anesth. are
>the ones who take all the risk and pay astronomical insurance
>costs.......the hospital supplies me with ice water for the less than 24
>hours I was there and gets rich.
>Go figure.
>So, you can see where the REAL crooks lie.
>
>Have a great day all.
>
>Denise
This is where medical tourism (India, Thailand, Philippines) would
probably be an excellent alternative. All inclusive airfare, hotel,
medical procedure, etc. would have cost less and given you a great
holiday at the same time. Gallbladder surgery is a simple procedure.
h
> <still...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>Just a recently experienced opinion here.
>>
>>I am uninsured. (I couldn't afford the $500-$600 a month) I ended up in
>>the
>>ER this past Oct. to find out I needed gallbladder surgery. That visit
>>cost
>>me $6,000.00. Only $345.00 went to the Dr., the rest went to the hospital.
>>After staying on a low-fat to no-fat diet and loosing 30, it still wasn't
>>enough to prevent surgery, I was terribly sick.
Yes, you were still very sick because, unfortunately, the medical profession
knows nothing about healthy nutrition. If you had cut out all carbs instead
of all fats, you would have lost even more weight and your gallbladder would
have been fine. Doctors don't cure disease, they just treat symptoms.
Goomba38
> Yes, you were still very sick because, unfortunately, the medical profession
> knows nothing about healthy nutrition. If you had cut out all carbs instead
> of all fats, you would have lost even more weight and your gallbladder would
> have been fine. Doctors don't cure disease, they just treat symptoms.
>
Many perfectly skinny people have gallstones. And hormones (such as
during pregnancy) cause some to act up.
IMO, a low to no carb diet is unrealistic, unpleasant and not terribly
healthy.
2345
Pig ignorant lie. Vaccination cures disease. So does clean
drinking water. So do antibiotics and even just basic
rehydration with some diseases which fix themselves eventually.
Don Klipstein
You're right about that! The liver can convert all forms of calories to
triglycerides, which are what body fat is made of. Some forms of calories
are not as easily converted to blood sugar, though most carbs readily
become blood sugar. That is what muscle and other tissues burn most
readily. Deprivation of carbs will slow down metabolism by most body
tissues.
I did a bunch of web searching, and found that the risk of gallstones
increases with:
Obesity
High cholesterol
Rapid weight loss dieting (losing over 3 pounds a week or consuming
near/under 800 calories a day)
Diet extremely low in fat
Going long periods without eating, even skipping breakfast
Repeatedly losing and regaining weight
Most gallstones are made mostly of cholesterol.
More than anything else, I hear that the best diet to prevent gallstones
is a diet low but not extremely low in fat, especially low on saturated
fat, and rich in fiber, especially whole grains, beans, fruits and
vegetables.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
Easy to claim that last, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate
that claim with proper peer reviewed rigorous scientific evidence.
Logan Shaw
> Yes, you were still very sick because, unfortunately, the medical profession
> knows nothing about healthy nutrition. If you had cut out all carbs instead
> of all fats, you would have lost even more weight and your gallbladder would
> have been fine. Doctors don't cure disease, they just treat symptoms.
Speaking of symptoms, if you have to cut out most carbs in order to lose weight,
that's a symptom that something else is wrong. Taken care of properly, the
human body can tolerate carbs in the diet quite well; in fact, it needs them.
What do marathon runners traditionally eat the night before the race? A big
pasta dinner. And why? Because they are trying to load up on as many carbs as
possible. Because they need them. Because they are active. Like the human
body is meant to be.
- Logan
Rod Speed
It was never 'meant to be' THAT active.
Logan Shaw
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Speaking of symptoms, if you have to cut out most carbs in order to
>> lose weight, that's a symptom that something else is wrong. Taken
>> care of properly, the human body can tolerate carbs in the diet quite
>> well; in fact, it needs them. What do marathon runners traditionally
>> eat the night before the race? A big pasta dinner. And why? Because they are trying to load up on as many carbs as
>> possible. Because they need them. Because they are active. Like the human
>> body is meant to be.
>
> It was never 'meant to be' THAT active.
Well sure, marathons are somewhat extreme (though not as extreme as the
100 mile runs and stuff like that). The point, though, is that when you're
active, you need carbs, because you need energy. You will not need as
many as a marathon runner, but you need them. If you never need carbs,
it's probably because you're not active, and I will go so far as to say
that being active is a non-optional part of a healthy lifestyle.
- Logan
Rod Speed
>>> Speaking of symptoms, if you have to cut out most carbs in order to lose weight, that's a symptom that something
>>> else is wrong. Taken care of properly, the human body can tolerate carbs in the diet quite well; in fact, it needs
>>> them. What do marathon runners traditionally eat the night before the race? A big pasta dinner. And why? Because
>>> they are trying to load up on as many carbs as possible. Because they need them. Because they are active. Like the
>>> human body is meant to be.
>> It was never 'meant to be' THAT active.
> Well sure, marathons are somewhat extreme (though not as extreme as the 100 mile runs and stuff like that). The
> point, though, is that
> when you're active, you need carbs, because you need energy.
The real point is that what works for marathon runners
doesnt say a damned thing about what works best for
those that dont do anything like that much exercise.
> You will not need as many as a marathon runner, but you need them.
Nope, the human body is quite capable of doing fine on diets like the Atkins.
And other much more extreme diets like those crazy
africans that eat nothing but meat and blood, quite literally.
> If you never need carbs, it's probably because you're not active,
Nope, because the human body has evolved over
time to do well even with no carb intake at all.
> and I will go so far as to say that being active is a non-optional part of a healthy lifestyle.
You're just plain wrong on that and cant substantiate that
claim with any rigorous peer reviewed scientific study.
And it aint as if it hasnt been extensively studied either, most obviously with the Atkins Diet.
Logan Shaw
> Logan Shaw <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote
>> and I will go so far as to say that being active is a
>> non-optional part of a healthy lifestyle.
> You're just plain wrong on that and cant substantiate that
> claim with any rigorous peer reviewed scientific study.
Feel free to check out scientific studies on any of the following
points:
1. Heart disease is one of the most common causes of death. Lack
of exercise is a risk factor for heart attacks.
2. Of those who do have a heart attack, those who get regular
exercise have better chances of surviving afterwards.
3. High blood pressure is a risk factor for a lot of things,
from heart attack and stroke to glaucoma. Regular
cardiovascular exercise works against high blood pressure.
4. Lack of exercise is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
5. Regular cardiovascular exercise increases your HDL ("good
cholesterol") and decreases your LDL ("bad cholesterol").
6. Weight training and other weight-bearing exercise increases
your bone density.
7. Exercise helps you get better sleep.
If you think this stuff isn't important for good health, then I
guess regular exercise isn't necessary. Or if you think the
above are not actually benefits of exercise, then regular
exercise isn't necessary in that case either.
- Logan
Rod Speed
>>> and I will go so far as to say that being active is a non-optional part of a healthy lifestyle.
>> You're just plain wrong on that and cant substantiate that
>> claim with any rigorous peer reviewed scientific study.
> Feel free to check out scientific studies on any of the following points:
> 1. Heart disease is one of the most common causes of death.
Nothing to do with your claim.
> Lack of exercise is a risk factor for heart attacks.
Lack of exercise aint the same thing as being active.
> 2. Of those who do have a heart attack, those who get regular
> exercise have better chances of surviving afterwards.
Different matter entirely to your claim.
> 3. High blood pressure is a risk factor for a lot of things,
> from heart attack and stroke to glaucoma. Regular
> cardiovascular exercise works against high blood pressure.
That hasnt been established with the worst blood pressures seen.
> 4. Lack of exercise is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.
Lack of exercise aint the same thing as being active.
And JUST lack of exercise and no other risk factors for type
2 diabetes doesnt see an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
> 5. Regular cardiovascular exercise increases your HDL ("good
> cholesterol") and decreases your LDL ("bad cholesterol").
Wrong when those are in the acceptable range already.
> 6. Weight training and other weight-bearing exercise increases your bone density.
Nothing like your claim.
> 7. Exercise helps you get better sleep.
Not if you sleep fine without the exercise it doesnt.
> If you think this stuff isn't important for good health,
What I think wasnt what was being discussed. What was being
discussed was what can be established with rigorous science.
> then I guess regular exercise isn't necessary.
Regular exercise aint the same thing as being active.
> Or if you think the above are not actually benefits of exercise, then regular exercise isn't necessary in that case
> either.
What I think wasnt what was being discussed. What was being
discussed was what can be established with rigorous science.
There's plenty of people who are very healthy without bothering with the sort of exercise you list above.
h
"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48277a36$0$31747$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
You don't "have" to cut them out, you're just so much healthier if you do.
Carbs are sugar, and your body can make all the sugar it needs from protein
and fat. The reason that people eat lots of carbs prior to heavy exercise is
that they've trained their bodies to burn sugar instead of fat. If you feed
your body mostly sugar (carbs), then you will never be a fat burning
machine. You'll always get that sugar crash, or feel the need to load up on
carbs instead of protein and fat. I was a ballet dancer for years, and I was
VERY active for 5-6 hours a day, every day. I never ate more than 30 grams
of carbs a day and never needed them. These days, I'm only able to find the
time for about 1 hour of vigorous exercise, but I still haven't gained any
weight from my ballet days of 30 years ago.
And as far as low-carb not being healthy, that's the exact opposite of the
truth. If you actually tried it for 30 days (for real, not cheating) you
would feel SO MUCH BETTER than you do now and have so much more energy than
you thought possible, that you'd never go back to eating carbs. Carbs are
what food eats.
Cindy Hamilton
I think a good Paleolithic hunt might have stretched to marathon
length,
depending on the quarry. Just spitballing here, of course.
Cindy Hamilton
Don Klipstein
>
>"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:48277a36$0$31747$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> weight, that's a symptom that something else is wrong. Taken care of
>> properly, the human body can tolerate carbs in the diet quite well; in
>> fact, it needs them. What do marathon runners traditionally eat the
>> night before the race? A big pasta dinner. And why? Because they are
>> trying to load up on as many carbs as possible. Because they need
>> them. Because they are active. Like the human body is meant to be.
>
>You don't "have" to cut them out, you're just so much healthier if you do.
>Carbs are sugar, and your body can make all the sugar it needs from protein
>and fat.
Eat more than some certain amount of protein, and that is unhealthy.
Metabolism of protein produces ammonia and urea, and more of that means
more strain on the kidneys.
> The reason that people eat lots of carbs prior to heavy exercise is
>that they've trained their bodies to burn sugar instead of fat.
Training or not, sugar is what muscles burn most readily, and the liver
can only make it out of other things at a limited rate.
> If you feed
>your body mostly sugar (carbs), then you will never be a fat burning
>machine. You'll always get that sugar crash, or feel the need to load up on
>carbs instead of protein and fat.
The crash only occurs if insulin overshoots. Unless one is diabetic, in
poor shape or consumes some big load of sugar or too used to eating mainly
other than carbs, the pancreas secretes the proper amount of insulin to
keep blood sugar at a good level.
> I was a ballet dancer for years, and I was
>VERY active for 5-6 hours a day, every day. I never ate more than 30 grams
>of carbs a day and never needed them. These days, I'm only able to find the
>time for about 1 hour of vigorous exercise, but I still haven't gained any
>weight from my ballet days of 30 years ago.
>
>And as far as low-carb not being healthy, that's the exact opposite of the
>truth. If you actually tried it for 30 days (for real, not cheating) you
>would feel SO MUCH BETTER than you do now and have so much more energy than
>you thought possible, that you'd never go back to eating carbs. Carbs are
>what food eats.
You also said before that if the calories are mostly carbs, most people
will gain weight on 1,000 calories a day, even if they exercise. You
said that on April 26 2008 in article
<48133cb9$0$9551$4c36...@roadrunner.com>.
I think you lost some credibility when you said that.
Rod Speed
Nope. You can see what they got up to from what some like the
Masai were doing even with lions when the white man showed up.
It was always about effective weapons with a human
brain behind them. Humans can never outrun animals.
There was some use of long distance runners as messengers,
but that was LONG after the bulk of the evolution had happened.
> Just spitballing here, of course.
Yep, thats all you are doing.
Rod Speed
>>> Speaking of symptoms, if you have to cut out most carbs in order
>>> to lose weight, that's a symptom that something else is wrong.
>>> Taken care of properly, the human body can tolerate carbs in
>>> the diet quite well; in fact, it needs them. What do marathon
>>> runners traditionally eat the night before the race? A big pasta
>>> dinner. And why? Because they are trying to load up on as
>>> many carbs as possible. Because they need them. Because
>>> they are active. Like the human body is meant to be.
>> You don't "have" to cut them out, you're just so much
>> healthier if you do. Carbs are sugar, and your body
>> can make all the sugar it needs from protein and fat.
> Eat more than some certain amount of protein, and that is unhealthy.
You cant substantiate that claim with rigorous science.
> Metabolism of protein produces ammonia and urea,
> and more of that means more strain on the kidneys.
But we do know that some societys have managed to do
surprisingly well on an almost exclusively protien based diet.
So the human body must be much more adaptable than you claim.
>> The reason that people eat lots of carbs prior to heavy exercise
>> is that they've trained their bodies to burn sugar instead of fat.
> Training or not, sugar is what muscles burn most readily, and
> the liver can only make it out of other things at a limited rate.
And what works best for high energy demands like marathon running says
nothing useful about what works best when you dont do stuff like that.
>> If you feed your body mostly sugar (carbs), then you will never
>> be a fat burning machine. You'll always get that sugar crash,
>> or feel the need to load up on carbs instead of protein and fat.
> The crash only occurs if insulin overshoots. Unless one is diabetic,
> in poor shape or consumes some big load of sugar or too used to
> eating mainly other than carbs, the pancreas secretes the proper
> amount of insulin to keep blood sugar at a good level.
And some native populations have clearly evolved to work well
with very high protein diets, most obviously those that hunt in
very arid environments where there is little to gather and their
descendents dont do very well on high sugar diets diabetes wise.
Presumably what works well with high protein diets has real
downsides when they move on to high sugar diets in modern times.
>> I was a ballet dancer for years, and I was VERY active for 5-6
>> hours a day, every day. I never ate more than 30 grams of carbs
>> a day and never needed them. These days, I'm only able to find
>> the time for about 1 hour of vigorous exercise, but I still haven't
>> gained any weight from my ballet days of 30 years ago.
>> And as far as low-carb not being healthy, that's the exact opposite
>> of the truth. If you actually tried it for 30 days (for real, not cheating)
>> you would feel SO MUCH BETTER than you do now and have so
>> much more energy than you thought possible, that you'd never go
>> back to eating carbs. Carbs are what food eats.
> You also said before that if the calories are mostly carbs,
> most people will gain weight on 1,000 calories a day, even
> if they exercise. You said that on April 26 2008 in article
> <48133cb9$0$9551$4c36...@roadrunner.com>.
> I think you lost some credibility when you said that.
She never had any even before that.