The People's Temple began in 1954 as the Community Unity Church, a multiracial Pentecostal-style congregation in Indianapolis, Indiana. The church was founded by a twenty-three-year-old white preacher, Jim Jones (1931-1978), who had made a name for himself in Pentecostal circles throughout the United States as a healer and prophet. By 1955, Jones's ministry had been renamed the People's Temple Full Gospel Church and was attracting large crowds for Sunday faith-healing services. Jones later insisted that the healing dramas of his early ministry were conducted mainly to draw people who could then be taught his more important messages of apostolic social justice and equality. The young preacher's efforts to promote interracial harmony were heralded by the Indianapolis Recorder, a weekly Black newspaper, and earned Jones the position of director of the Indianapolis Human Rights Commission in 1961. During the early 1960s the People's Temple set up soup kitchens, distributed free groceries and clothing, and organised other community programs. Jones was ordained as a minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in 1964. http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Articles/Who Was Jim Jones.html
why is Bush discussing foreign policy with a 70s Swedish pop group? Waterloo - I was defeated, you won the war Waterloo - Promise to love you for ever more
Most of the world's leaders will make religious references. That doesn't make them comparable to Osama or Jim Jones.
FB, I just wanted to mention that a good friend of mine with diabetes (I can't remember if it's type 1 or type 2. He's about fifty, if that helps. i should know this, and feel stupid that i can't remember) went on the Adkins diet, the very low carb diet you've heard about, to lose weight. It was recommended by his doctor. (we have the same one... he suggested I do it for high cholesterol... this was a few years back... it worked) To cut to the chase, a side-affect was that it "cured" his diabetes. He was taking injections of insulin, and had for years, and no longer has to. Seriously. From what I remember, insulin is used to process carbs... remove enough carbs and it leaves insulin to do whatever it does to prevent diabetes. Obviously, this disease is not one I know a lot about, but the story I told you is true. You should look into it, guys.
Empirically, Adkins diet is not a "substainable" diet. BTW, I am very sure your friend was told by his doctor to eliminate refined sugar (and carbs in general) from his diet. I also bet your friend was told to keep his calorie count down. For most people, these are very hard things to do. BTW2, not everyone can control their diabetes through diet.
Yes, actually, it is. If you've read what the 'diet' is, then you'd know that you merely drastically restrict carbs in the beginning (first 10 days) and then incrementally increase your carbs until you understand how many carbs you can intake before your body stops using it and starts storing it as fat. The whole point is to replaced bad carbs with good ones and to understand what balance in your 'diet' your body actually needs.
He's my doctor as well. He told (suggested would be a better word) my friend to try the diet to lose weight, that he had read some interesting research about it, and it was worth trying. It was not for the reason of "curing" his diabetes. I'm sure what entered into "our" doctor's mind, was that it wouldn't hurt it. He was as surprised by the results as anyone. This was after I had been on the diet myself, with excellent results, for a different problem. (see below) As far as sustainable, you don't maintain a strict regimen after you have been on it for awhile. I'm not on it at all, any longer, but it helped get my cholesterol under control while we found the med (40mg. of Lipitor) that works for me, without serious side affects. (aside from me not being able to drink beer, etc., as I would like to) Hey, I'm alive and my cholesterol, which was 650 when it was first measured after about 20 years of not having that done, is now 165. My triglycerides went from 1250 to 200. That's where I'm at today. (I have an inherited genetic problem... thanks, Dad. ) As an aside, I lost 20 lbs when I was on the diet, that I didn't know I had to lose. (I'm not a big guy) Almost all of it has stayed off, even though I'm not on the diet, or have that great a diet at all. I think the Lipitor has helped with that, but I really don't know. Just a guess.
More than likely, he's type 2. Type 2 means that one still produces insulin, but that the body has become "resistant" to it. Type 2 usually occurs for the first time in older, overweight people. It can sometimes be controlled or avoided altogether by diet. A diabetic's body does not see a lot of difference between carbohydrates and sugars, so the Adkin's diet side-effect that you mention makes sense. Type 1 diabetes means that one produces no insulin at all. The pancreas has basically taken a permanent vacation. People with type 1 are usually diabetic from childhood, or (in my case) slowly become fully diabetic (despite otherwise good health) as they grow older. Some are diabetic for years (also in my case) without realizing it (one just gets adjusted to feeling awful). In this case, the Adkins diet may help, but there's no way it could work on its own. Human bodies produce their own sugar, so even if you eat nothing at all, you'll still have high glucose levels if you have diabetes. The biggest difference maker (other than insulin injections) in my experience has been regular exercise. My glucose levels when I exercise regularly are always much, much lower than when I'm just being a computer jockey. All that being said - I'd rather that stem cell research could cure me. Going blind, losing a limb, etc., would really suck. Edit: Changed "Atkin" to "Adkin"
Since I am currently on the Adkins diet, I think I might have some idea what the diet is about and its substainability. Limiting the bad carbs (refined sugar, refined flour, potatoes, rice) is hard to substain. I am not saying that a low carb lifestyle is impossible, just damn hard work. Empirically, dieters once they reach their goal weight have a hard time to restricting the bad carbs. The Adkins Diet by far has been the easiest diet I have ever been on. I am almost never hungry viz-a-viz the eat-less-exercise-more diet that I have previously used. I strongly suspect that frequent dieters are of the same opinion. It will be interesting to see what permanent if any dietic changes are made by dieters who have been through the Atkins Diet several times.
That's true of any dietary change, which is why we're so obese as a nation. Its hard to give up donuts and chips and french fries. But that isn't unique to atkins. I've would say I've formerly been on atkins but my point is that once you know where the balance has to be struck, you're not really eating lo carb anymore, hence there is an natural evolution in your diet from 'induction' out of the 'atkins diet,' but not really out of it since the point is to get to the balance. I've gained some weight back, for instance, but that's mainly because i've slacked in my exercise. i still don't pig out on sweets (cokes, pastries, candy) which i removed from my 'diet' when i first went on atkins. i don't really eat potatoes although i'll have some fries once in awhile (pretty much cut out chips altogether). i drink much more water. all of those are lingering principles of atkins.
Thanks for the education, thadeus. I have no doubt that my friend must have Type 2. He fits the profile you described perfectly. At least those with Type 2 now have a possible alternative to insulin injections. I'm sure results differ with the individual. Damn, Type 1 sounds really bad. Wow. I'm sure I must have read about it at some point, but there are too many things bouncing around in my noggin, I guess. I was for stem cell research already, but I'm that much more for it now. Isn't Type 1 the diabetes that strikes children with such viciousness?
I think the daily "requirement" for carbs is ~300g. Low carb lifestyle maintanence is likely somehwere between 50g to 100g. Eating a bowl cereal in the morning will likely put you over 50g for the day Atkins (versus South Beach iirc) allows for higher fat consumption. This is another factor in Aktins unsustainability. I never had this much fat consumption in my entire life. This in itself may be problematic if maintained for a long time, though there is some debate otherwise.
Nah. I eat kellog's about twice a week. They've got a low carb (9 grams i think) brand now. I eat fruit and that's perfectly ok following atkins (at the last stages and beyond). On atkins, for example, you can have for dinner - grilled fish steak, asparagus a nice salad and a glass of white wine or two. almost any 'diet' would find that ok. And remember that the intuitive assumption you're making about fat is the same reason medical doctors have derided the 'diet' for so long, and they're increasing being proven wrong - about fat and cholesterol for example. Although I agree with you that some people's version of the atkins, like a triple decker bacon cheeseburger four times a day, is probably not sustainable. When i first did atkins i went and had two large double bacon cheeseburgers without the bread and was literally ill! too much!
Well, I have been eating a bowl of cereal for breakfast my entire life. On Atkins, I had to switch to eggs and/or sauage. I have having a tough time eating that much fat in the morning; it is hard on my stomach. But I will admit that I can make it to lunch without a snack. South Beach pimps itself as substainable versus Atkins, which they claim does not put the proper emphasis on good/bad carbs/fat. SB judges fats with the usual metrics, while they judge carbs by a "Glycemic Index". The GI is the measure of the rise in the level of glucose that occurs in your bloodstream, after that food is ingested. Food with lower GI are absorbed more slowly and importantly your body will not get a sugar spike and its associated insulin spike. SB in maintenance allows for more grams of carbs, as long as they are the good carbs. But it is hard to avoid the high GI bad carbs: sugar, flour, rice, potatos.
There's a good series of books called Sugar Busters, that helped me figure out the GI in foodstuffs so I could be more informed about it, if that helps.
Thanks, Deckard. I don't have too much to what Thadeus said, but I have changed my diet a lot but I'm not totally on Adkins. I don't eat that many carbs since finding out that I have adult onset type1 my diet has changed. It's just that if I changed more and miscalculated my insulin, I'd need some carbs quickly to keep from going too low with my blood glucose level. So I think I'd have to start over on the first 10 days part of the program. I have managed to one time to keep my 3 month blood glucose level at the normal range, and most of the time it's fairly close to normal with periods of high glucose level. I'm really hoping that stem cell research or any other kind of research will able to help find a cure.
I have always been absolutely against this low carb, high fat/protein diet that is so popular now. A few studies were published about 5-6 months ago that compared low fat diets to low carb diets showing equal results between both study populations. The bottom line is that usually when a person diets, he/she consumes a smaller amount of calories because he is aware and concerned with amount of food intake per meal. Thus, weight is lost because basic metabolic function burns more calories than the amount of calories ingested. With all that said, a new study in the journal Diabetes showed that a low carb/low calorie diet may be more beneficial to Type II diabetics than a low fat/low cal diet. The reasoning is that the basal amount of blood glucose may be lower with a low carb diet (make sense!). This is important to diabetics (type 1 and 2), but much less so for those that are not diabetic. Just something to think about. Here is the literature reference: Diabetes. 2004 Sep;53(9):2375-82.
