|
pbjosh
Sep 2, 2004, 6:18 PM
Post #201 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
This week a steady diet of corndogs, burritos and beer have been on my training table. Climbing harder than ever. :)
Actually I do watch what I eat and eat a pretty well balanced, low in saturated fats high in fiber, protein and fresh fruits/veggies diet. Bean burritos and veggie corn dogs are about the worst things I eat in actuality.
There's a big difference between losing weight and already being active and fit. Look at my mom vs. me, she's losing weight with a calorie restricted diet, the first time she's ever been disciplined about it, and it's working very well for her. I eat a healthy but large diet and exercise a ton.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 2, 2004, 6:38 PM
Post #202 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Thanks Also I have one other question for jt512 1) Have you heard of a new health book called 'eating for your blood type'. Or something to that affect. If so, what do you think of it. The basic concept seems good if their base information is legit.
It's called Eat Right 4 Your Type. What do I think of it? I think it is nonsensical and based on pseudoscience.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
tonithegreat
Sep 2, 2004, 8:20 PM
Post #203 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 51
|
Back to that Hg in tuna thing:
Department of Health here in Florida recommends that women of child-bearing age only have one "mercury risky" seafood based meal every month, and that includes canned tuna and tuna steaks. And this is coming from a state that wants us all to buy seafood. I think two seafood based meals per two weeks are supposed to be okay for guys and older women, or women who don't plan on having kids.
Apparently the el cheapo canned tuna is actually less likely to carry mercury and metals than light canned tuna or tuna steaks, which surprised me. Most seafood that I like is in the "mercury risky" category though, including most big fishes and oysters and clams.
Here's what my agency has to say about mercury in seafood:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/mercury/docs/fhapre.htm
I hope the metals risks aren't really that severe, because I certainly eat more seafood than recommended.
Toni
|
|
|
|
|
gritstonegal
Sep 14, 2004, 2:40 PM
Post #204 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 11
|
Had a quick read of this
sounds like great advice so cheers in advance!
J :D
|
|
|
|
|
hyongx
Sep 17, 2004, 4:56 AM
Post #205 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 209
|
I've read this entire thread...It took hours, maybe.
However, all it deals with is weigt regulation through diet. And I ask, what about genetics? Technically speaking, shouldn't everyone's "metabolism" be the same, i.e., the number of calories they burn should be directly related solely to age, level of physical activity, and weight?
I find this interesting, because there is so much variation between people in the world. For example, my age group. I'm 17. I have quite a few friends who are skinny, or at least average weight. Some of them have wretched American diets; soda, candy, fast food, the likes. I have other friends who are grossly overweight, or far more overweight than the above mentioned people, and they may or may not have equivalently bad diets. I have known these people most my life and spent a lot of time with them, etc. We seem to all get the same rough amounts of physical exercise: some of the skinny kids do not work out or train for sports, yet remain skinny on bad diets. Most of the fat kids do not work out or train for sports.
What I'm saying is, according to the policies and theories outlined in this thread, this shouldn't really be happening. The only way it could happen is from direct situational differences: the fat kids, when at home, eat more food and get less exercise than the skinny kids? The skinny kids eat less and exercise more? I find this hard to believe, as sometimes it seems that they are eating the same amounts and exercising the same amounts.
Cooincidentally, the fat kids have fat parents, and the skinny kids have skinny parents.
No where in this thread is genetics stated as a factor of weight. What kind of scientific research has been done on this sort of thing? Is the truth that there is not fat gene, only a tendancy within a family to eat worse than a skinny family?
I have tried to be concise and explain what I mean exactly. If there is any haziness, notify me and allow me to clarify.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 17, 2004, 5:11 PM
Post #206 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: However, all it deals with is weigt regulation through diet. And I ask, what about genetics? Technically speaking, shouldn't everyone's "metabolism" be the same, i.e., the number of calories they burn should be directly related solely to age, level of physical activity, and weight?
People differ in their ability to adjust their "metabolism" to their caloric intake. The ability to do so is called "adaptive thermogenesis" (AT). When some people increase their caloric intake, they burn off the extra calories as heat, via AT. Other people do not do this as effectively, and so they gain weight easier.
In reply to: Cooincidentally, the fat kids have fat parents, and the skinny kids have skinny parents.
There is a genetic component to body weight to be sure, but also a lifestyle component, and both are likely responsible for the similarity in body fatness between parents and their children. In other words, the parents and children are probably similar in both their genetics and their eating habits.
In reply to: No where in this thread is genetics stated as a factor of weight.
Right. Because this thread isn't attempting to explain differences in body weight among people. Rather, its purpose is to provide guidance about what an individual can do to lose weight. You have no control over your genetics. You should have picked better parents! What you do have control over is your diet and exercise. So, even if you are genetically pre-disposed to being heavy, you can still affect your body weight, within your own genetic limitations, by altering your diet and exercise habits.
In reply to: What kind of scientific research has been done on this sort of thing? Is the truth that there is not fat gene, only a tendancy within a family to eat worse than a skinny family?
There are certainly genes that affect body fatness, and this is an active area of research.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
gds
Sep 17, 2004, 5:37 PM
Post #207 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 8, 2004
Posts: 710
|
In reply to: I find this interesting, because there is so much variation between people in the world. For example, my age group. I'm 17. I have quite a few friends who are skinny, or at least average weight. Some of them have wretched American diets; soda, candy, fast food, the likes. I have other friends who are grossly overweight, or far more overweight than the above mentioned people, and they may or may not have equivalently bad diets. I have known these people most my life and spent a lot of time with them, etc. We seem to all get the same rough amounts of physical exercise: some of the skinny kids do not work out or train for sports, yet remain skinny on bad diets. Most of the fat kids do not work out or train for sports. Cooincidentally, the fat kids have fat parents, and the skinny kids have skinny parents. No where in this thread is genetics stated as a factor of weight. What kind of scientific research has been done on this sort of thing? Is the truth that there is not fat gene, only a tendancy within a family to eat worse than a skinny family? .
I think you are confusing body type (genetics) with being overweight (or not). Sure there are people with small, medium and large frames and they will (in good shape) weigh different amounts. But they may or may not be overweight. For example ther are pro basketball and foot ball players with very large frames that weigh ~300 lbs yet have relatively low body fat.
And marathon runners will have low body fat and weigh perhaps 135 lbs.
Being "fat" is a relative term and can only be applied to what one
"should" be.
Genetics certainly does impact greatly what you "should" be but behaviour- eating and exersize are more important in determining what you actually are.
And while junk food may be bad in the broader health context it may or may not be the issue in terms of being fat. If the calories consumed- junk or not- are = to calories burned you will not gain weight. You may develop scurvy but you won't gain weight.
|
|
|
|
|
craghag
Sep 17, 2004, 6:14 PM
Post #208 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2004
Posts: 55
|
Great post(s) Jay. One of my client's has struggled with weight loss most of her life, and I had one heck of a time getting her to track her eating habits. She started using software at a free web site (she tried fitday.com & another interactive eating index....USDA maybe?) and finally started to see results.
While I don't think that there is a one size fits all diet, at least if people are tracking what they're eating, they can make the correlation as to what works/doesn't work for them! :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
hyongx
Sep 17, 2004, 8:38 PM
Post #209 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 209
|
Thanks for the great job answering my question concerning genes. It answered my questions.
Now, however, I have another question about "high fructose corn syrup". I heard once that it should be especially avoided, because it was first metabolized in the liver, and so did nothing to make the person eating it less hungry. I guess this corresponds with the page http://www.runningplanet.com/articles/article_detail.asp?article_id=430
that lists fructose at the bottom, with a glycemic index of 28.
However, I have noticed that some of the reasons why it has been stated that sodas and cookies and general junk are particularly bad for you is that their abundance of simple carbohydrates causes a spike in blood sugar, then a consequent crash.
However, I have noticed that the first ingredient (other than water, etc) in a lot of those bad foods, sodas, candy bars, etc, is high fructose corn syrup. I guess its a common sweetener. But if it is actually fructose, then wouldn't it have a low glycemic index, and thus a more gradual impact on your blood sugar?
Or are fructose and high frucose corn syrup completely different things?
Also: Are those "chewy, moist, etc" granola bars, such as Nature Valley's "Fruit and Nut" bars or Chewy's granola bars even remotely healthy, or are they just essentially candy dressed up with nuts and granola, so people think they're healthy?
Just curious, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 17, 2004, 11:15 PM
Post #210 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Now, however, I have another question about "high fructose corn syrup". I heard once that it should be especially avoided, because it was first metabolized in the liver, and so did nothing to make the person eating it less hungry.
Fructose is a simple sugar that is metabolized in the liver. It has a low glycemic index (GI), and hence does not cause an insulin spike and subsequent crash that some people get from consuming higher-GI carbohydrates, such as starch. Some athletes, noting the low GI of fructose, believe it to be superior to higher-GI carbs, and therefore seek out sports drinks and bars sweetened with fructose. Unfortunately, at least one study showed that consumption of fructose during exercise actually harms athletic performance relative to sucrose, glucose, and plain water. That is not surprising because ifructose is metabolized in the liver, and therefore, probably doesn't do much to fuel muscles. Fructose also tends to stay in the gut longer than other carbohydrates, and can, therefore, cause cramping.
High-fructose corn syrup is a mixture of sugars that is high in fructose, and basically has the same drawbacks as fructose itself.
In reply to: Also: Are those "chewy, moist, etc" granola bars, such as Nature Valley's "Fruit and Nut" bars or Chewy's granola bars even remotely healthy, or are they just essentially candy dressed up with nuts and granola, so people think they're healthy?
I think you now have enough information to look at the ingredients lists on the packaging and make that decision for yourself.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
uitdoorqi
Sep 21, 2004, 12:52 AM
Post #211 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 9, 2004
Posts: 112
|
How about working out hard, eating things that haven't been processed or cooked too much (fruit, veggies, nice red steak) , Cliff Bars, and having a couple beers when you're done? It all evens out in the end :D
|
|
|
|
|
stoverstan
Sep 23, 2004, 12:26 AM
Post #212 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: In reply to: Wow, thanks Jay that helps me too. One question, maybe I read this wrong, but why eat fruit in moderation? Too many carbs? Thanks! :) Fruit has very little protein, so if you consume a lot of fruit on this diet, you'll have trouble getting enough protein. -Jay
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/soyinfo/a/soy.htm
Soy is toxic
Study Shows That Too Much Tofu Induces Brain Aging
From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin
"A Hawaii study shows a significant statistical relationship between two or more servings of tofu a week and 'accelerated brain aging' and even an association with Alzheimer's disease, says Dr. Lon White. "...these are not nutrients. They are drugs. They will have some benefits and some negative things.
-----------------------------------------------
America's Foremost Alternative Doctor Warns Re: Soy
America's leading alternative doctor, Dr. Andrew Weil, has said about soy, at his Ask Dr. Weil website
"…you're unlikely to get too many isoflavones as a result of adding soy foods to your diet -- but you probably will take in too much if you take soy supplements in pill form. At this point, I can only recommend that you avoid soy supplements entirely."
--------------------------------------------------
David Zava, Ph.D., a biochemist and an experienced breast cancer researcher stated in an interview:
"In studying the literature on soy I found there are about five types of plant chemicals in the soybean that can be toxic to humans if they are not removed by special processing… the fifth antinutrient in soybeans is called a goitrogen. This is a chemical that latches on to iodine, preventing it from absorbing into the body from the gastrointestinal tract. Iodine is needed to make thyroid hormone. Low thyroid function has been associated with poor brain development. Anyone who has been deficient in thyroid hormone understands quite well what impact this can have on normal brain function, especially at a time in life as we grow older and "fuzzy thinking" creeps into our vocabulary."
-----------------------------------------------------
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/soyinfo/a/soy.htm
|
|
|
|
|
stoverstan
Sep 23, 2004, 12:45 AM
Post #213 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: JT512 wrote: The challenge in this diet is keeping the protein intake high and the fat intake low. Therefore, you need to look for foods that are very low in fat and high in protein.
Low fat diet, that is so 80's man where you've been? Look Fat is not evil it is not your enemy it is your body's preferred fuel source. The world record distance running record holder, has written books and swears by using fat as a fuel source instead of carbs and carb loading and that. I have experimented with increasing my health fat intake while reducing my carb intake and I was very stocked at the results. I actually lost more weight while eating lots of nuts, and avocados etc. What I've found is that carbs turn into fat much quicker then fat turns into fat on your body. There are a number of reasons for this, first your body stores calories in the form of fat when you've eaten and your body has an excess amount of calories, more accurately when your blood sugar rises above a certain point. Fats digest very slowly and provide your body with a nice steady flow of energy all day long, carbs by themselves can put your blood sugar levels in a tail spin and everytime your blood sugar goes up and down your body stores those extra calories when your blood sugar peaks.
Also, it has been discovered that your body will put fat on when you have a food allergy.
Water retention, or edema, is particularly common among food allergic individuals and is an important contributing factor to obesity. The removal of an offending food will often result in a rapid water loss of five to ten pounds within a week’s time, all without the use of a diuretic.
http://www.springboard4health.com/..._food_addiction.html
It makes sense, your body would store carbs on your body instead of fat if it thought carbs where the best fuel source.
Fats from animal and vegetable sources provide a concentrated source of energy in the diet; they also provide the building blocks for cell membranes and a variety of hormones and hormonelike substances. Fats as part of a meal slow down absorption so that we can go longer without feeling hungry. In addition, they act as carriers for important fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E and K. Dietary fats are needed for the conversion of carotene to vitamin A, for mineral absorption and for a host of other processes.
http://www.westonaprice.org/...our_fats/skinny.html
Take what the "experts" say with a grain of salt, in the end it is up to you to experiment and find out what is right for you.
|
|
|
|
|
stoverstan
Sep 23, 2004, 12:55 AM
Post #214 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: JT512 wrote: Try not to add fat to anything. Throw away your mayonnaise, margarine, butter, and cooking oils. Pure oils such as these contain 120 calories per tablespoon. It is all too easy to turn a healthy, low-calorie salad into an abomination by adding excessive dressing. Instead of mayonnaise on sandwiches, substitute mustard (which is virtually calorie free), or just go without.
DIETARY FAT IS GOOD
JT512's information is wrong, and potentially harmful.
The cause and treatment of heart disease
The cause of heart disease is not animal fats and cholesterol but rather a number of factors inherent in modern diets, including excess consumption of vegetables oils and hydrogenated fats; excess consumption of refined carbohydrates in the form of sugar and white flour; mineral deficiencies, particularly low levels of protective magnesium and iodine; deficiencies of vitamins, particularly of vitamin C, needed for the integrity of the blood vessel walls, and of antioxidants like selenium and vitamin E, which protect us from free radicals; and, finally, the disappearance of antimicrobial fats from the food supply, namely, animal fats and tropical oils.52 These once protected us against the kinds of viruses and bacteria that have been associated with the onset of pathogenic plaque leading to heart disease.
While serum cholesterol levels provide an inaccurate indication of future heart disease, a high level of a substance called homocysteine in the blood has been positively correlated with pathological buildup of plaque in the arteries and the tendency to form clots—a deadly combination. Folic acid, vitamin B6, vitamin B12 and choline are nutrients that lower serum homocysteine levels.53 These nutrients are found mostly in animal foods.
The best way to treat heart disease, then, is not to focus on lowering cholesterol—either by drugs or diet—but to consume a diet that provides animal foods rich in vitamins B6 and B12; to bolster thyroid function by daily use of natural sea salt, a good source of usable iodine; to avoid vitamin and mineral deficiencies that make the artery walls more prone to ruptures and the buildup of plaque; to include the antimicrobial fats in the diet; and to eliminate processed foods containing refined carbohydrates, oxidized cholesterol and free-radical-containing vegetable oils that cause the body to need constant
http://www.westonaprice.org/...our_fats/skinny.html
|
|
|
|
|
nostalgia
Sep 23, 2004, 1:24 AM
Post #215 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2004
Posts: 793
|
Ok, you say that this information:
In reply to: Try not to add fat to anything. Throw away your mayonnaise, margarine, butter, and cooking oils. Pure oils such as these contain 120 calories per tablespoon. It is all too easy to turn a healthy, low-calorie salad into an abomination by adding excessive dressing. Instead of mayonnaise on sandwiches, substitute mustard (which is virtually calorie free), or just go without.
is:
In reply to: wrong, and potentially harmful.
But your quote goes on to say:
In reply to: The cause of heart disease is not animal fats and cholesterol but rather a number of factors inherent in modern diets, including excess consumption of vegetables oils and hydrogenated fats;
So, since your quote validates what Jay posted, how is his information wrong and potentially harmful?
Just curious,
-Joe
|
|
|
|
|
alpiner
Sep 23, 2004, 1:29 AM
Post #216 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 210
|
Ahhh, the troll is expanding his range to other threads. This dweeb will disappear before long. Don't bother replying to his idiotic statements, it'll just drag out his ultimate demise.
|
|
|
|
|
sleeper
Sep 23, 2004, 2:46 AM
Post #217 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 11
|
Jay,
You've characterized the body as a calorimeter...
dietary calories => energy +/- body fat
In reply to: Huh? Unless you have an abnormal metabolism, your body converts very little glucose to fat. The body responds to high carbohydrate intake by enhanced burning of carbohydrate, not by converting it to fat. [Rest of gross misunderstanding of metabolism snipped.] -Jay
Extra carbs are just burned? Is this a function of metabolism? It seems you've "waved your hands" at the mechanism by which the excess calories (whether in the form of dietary carbs, fat or protien) are converted to/from body fat. Can you explain this?
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Sep 23, 2004, 3:22 AM
Post #218 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Jay, You've characterized the body as a calorimeter... dietary calories => energy +/- body fat
The body follows the First Law of Thermodynamics. If calories consumd exceed calories burned, the remainder can't just disappear. They are strored (primarily) as body fat. Unfortunately, if calories consumed are less than calories burned, the deficit will not necessarily come entirely from body fat. The body tends to draw from both fat stores and muscle to make up the difference. However, muscle can be spared by a properly chosen diet and exercise, which is the topic of the thread.
In reply to: In reply to: Huh? Unless you have an abnormal metabolism, your body converts very little glucose to fat. The body responds to high carbohydrate intake by enhanced burning of carbohydrate, not by converting it to fat. [Rest of gross misunderstanding of metabolism snipped.] -Jay Extra carbs are just burned? Is this a function of metabolism?
I don't know what you mean by "extra" carbs. If total caloric intake does not exceed total caloric expenditures, then almost all the carbohydrate that is consumed is burned. If you increase the proportion of calories in the diet that come from carbohydrate, the body responds by shifting metabolism from fat to carbohydrate, rather than by converting some of the carbohydrate to fat. So there is really no such thing as "extra" carbs (or fat or protein, for that matter). The body will adjust metabolism to the macronutrient mix of the diet. There's only extra total calories: if total caloric intake exceeds total caloric expenditure, body fat will be gained.
In reply to: It seems you've "waved your hands" at the mechanism by which the excess calories (whether in the form of dietary carbs, fat or protien) are converted to/from body fat. Can you explain this?
To a good first approximation, you burn amounts of carbohydrate and protein equal to the amounts you consume. The difference between your total caloric expenditures and the amount of carb and protein burned comes from fat. If the amount of fat in the diet exceeds this amount, body fat is accrued; if the amount of fat in the diet is less than this amount, body fat is lost. So, actually, there is little net conversion among the three macronutrients. The exception is apparently in people with certain hyperlipidemias, who have a genetic propensity to convert carbohydrate to fat.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
stoverstan
Sep 23, 2004, 1:31 PM
Post #219 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: Ok, you say that this information: In reply to: Try not to add fat to anything. Throw away your mayonnaise, margarine, butter, and cooking oils. Pure oils such as these contain 120 calories per tablespoon. It is all too easy to turn a healthy, low-calorie salad into an abomination by adding excessive dressing. Instead of mayonnaise on sandwiches, substitute mustard (which is virtually calorie free), or just go without. is: In reply to: wrong, and potentially harmful. But your quote goes on to say: In reply to: The cause of heart disease is not animal fats and cholesterol but rather a number of factors inherent in modern diets, including excess consumption of vegetables oils and hydrogenated fats; So, since your quote validates what Jay posted, how is his information wrong and potentially harmful? Just curious, -Joe
Hi Joe !
Excellent question.
The answer is that not all fats are the same in fact one category of fats are very good and absolutely necessary for you body to function and is your bodies favorite form of fuel, the other is a form of fats (polyunsaturated oils) modern vegetable oils can cause disease.
It's a little complicated I highly recommend reading the following article
http://www.westonaprice.org/...our_fats/skinny.html
|
|
|
|
|
feanor007
Sep 23, 2004, 3:01 PM
Post #221 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Posts: 377
|
run, 20 min a day 3-5 days a week, increase 5 minutes every 2-3 weeks, when you get to an hour a day, thart thinking about milage, try to cover more distance each day. i'f you do that and don't overeat, you'll lose weight. I'm no scientist, i just ran xc for four years and thats how i cut weight and keep it off. plus after running you get a runner's high, after running, nothing will get you mad, your just real chilled out. add in an ab workout, even if just a few crunchs on you off days and you will burn calories faster b/c muscle burns calories faster even if your just sitting on your but and between running and abs, your building core strength, that combined with weight reduction will make you fly. jt's eating sounds great, and i'm sure it would work, i've just never been able to stick to a spicific plan for any prolonged period of time. that's my two cents
|
|
|
|
|
stoverstan
Sep 23, 2004, 3:05 PM
Post #222 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 82
|
In reply to: In reply to: The answer is that not all fats are the same in fact one category of fats are very good and absolutely necessary for you body to function and is your bodies favorite form of fuel, the other is a form of fats (polyunsaturated oils) modern vegetable oils can cause disease. I knew I'd have to explain my post to you using smaller words. Try this: Jay mentioned specificially mayonnaise and dressings. Your "argument" against what Jay said states vegetable oils and hydrogenated fats are bad. Mayonnaise and dressings are vegetable oils and hydrogenated fats. See where I'm going with this? I really liked Jay's analogy to religious zealotry. We can talk all the logic and sound science we want. You'd come up with some bizarre counter argument. So, while it's been fun and exciting, I'm going to bow out of this conversation and continue my current diet. -Joe
Hi Joe,
Sorry, I'm not sure if I follow you?
I've been saying the same thing the whole time, you want to stay away from vegetable oils and hydrogenated fats and try to get your fats from healthy natural unprocessed sources like beef, fish, flax seed, cod liver, nuts. FAT is good, your body needs it to function properly,
also carbs turn into fat on your body faster then dietary fat turns into body fat; strange yes I know. The exact opposite of what we've been told for years. Try it yourself you'll be amazed at the results, cut out all the sugar, and flour and sports drinks etc out of your diet and make up for the difference in calories with good fats, like nuts, avocados, flax, etc. and watch the fat burn off your body.
I was shocked too when I first learned this, and couldn't believe it either.
This is also why the Atkins diet works, but I don't recommend the Atkins diet since good fats and grains are much cleaner source of fuel, you can damage your kidneys eating so much meat if you aren't careful and don't drink enough water etc. Plus is your not eating organic meat on the Atkins diet you getting mega doses of harmful antibiotics and pesticides into your system as well.
It's a myth that red meat etc cause heart disease. Please take the time and read the article I referenced in my pervious post, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
jshan
Sep 24, 2004, 3:56 PM
Post #223 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2004
Posts: 22
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Wow, thanks Jay that helps me too. One question, maybe I read this wrong, but why eat fruit in moderation? Too many carbs? Thanks! :) Fruit has very little protein, so if you consume a lot of fruit on this diet, you'll have trouble getting enough protein. -Jay Study Shows That Too Much Tofu Induces Brain Aging From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin "A Hawaii study shows a significant statistical relationship between two or more servings of tofu a week and 'accelerated brain aging' and even an association with Alzheimer's disease, says Dr. Lon White. "...these are not nutrients. They are drugs. They will have some benefits and some negative things. ----------------------------------------------- America's Foremost Alternative Doctor Warns Re: Soy America's leading alternative doctor, Dr. Andrew Weil, has said about soy, at his Ask Dr. Weil website "…you're unlikely to get too many isoflavones as a result of adding soy foods to your diet -- but you probably will take in too much if you take soy supplements in pill form. At this point, I can only recommend that you avoid soy supplements entirely." -------------------------------------------------- David Zava, Ph.D., a biochemist and an experienced breast cancer researcher stated in an interview: "In studying the literature on soy I found there are about five types of plant chemicals in the soybean that can be toxic to humans if they are not removed by special processing… the fifth antinutrient in soybeans is called a goitrogen. This is a chemical that latches on to iodine, preventing it from absorbing into the body from the gastrointestinal tract. Iodine is needed to make thyroid hormone. Low thyroid function has been associated with poor brain development. Anyone who has been deficient in thyroid hormone understands quite well what impact this can have on normal brain function, especially at a time in life as we grow older and "fuzzy thinking" creeps into our vocabulary." ----------------------------------------------------- http://thyroid.about.com/cs/soyinfo/a/soy.htm
I agree stoverstan you are correct I no longer tell my patients to eat soy extra in their diet but it is still ok to use small amount of soy sause instead of salt on food, very good this way.
|
|
|
|
|
hyongx
Sep 25, 2004, 9:08 PM
Post #224 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 17, 2004
Posts: 209
|
In the past four months or so, I've lost about ten pounds and I am down to a pretty lean profile. I was wondering at what point weigt gain due to increase in muscle mass becomes apparent.
Essentially, my question is how much protein and use by the body results in a "putting on" of one pound of muscle mass?
I remember reading an article in a magazine where the interviewed climber (who was maybe 18, male, intense into competition climbing ) said he climbed 3-6 hours a day and that, upon adding into his climbing wall a 45 degree or so overhanging bouldering wall, he built about "20 pounds of back muscle in two or three months"
I was wondering if that was realistice, or if the guy was probably exagerating, or what your take on the statement is.
thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
chalked4dyno
Sep 25, 2004, 11:40 PM
Post #225 of 417
(90704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 150
|
Also, it has been discovered that your body will put fat on when you have a food allergy.
Water retention, or edema, is particularly common among food allergic individuals and is an important contributing factor to obesity. The removal of an offending food will often result in a rapid water loss of five to ten pounds within a week’s time, all without the use of a diuretic.
http://www.springboard4health.com/..._food_addiction.html
EDIT: The above is a quote, which I seem to have screwed up.
My life story.
I'm alergic to most good sources of protein:
fish,egg whites,beans (soy included!),nuts,milk.
I'm also alergic to pork, leaving me with red meats and poultry.
I'm also alergic to:
Lettuce, strawberries, sesamme, sunflour, flax, yeast, mushrooms, mustard, apples, pears, pectin (which is in pretty much all fruit..I think..).
The only fat I have on my body is on my stomach. I have some decent sized abs underneath, but their coated in a solid 2 hand-fulls of fat!
I can't blame this totally on my alergies, but I'm sure it plays a good part.
My uncle lost 20 pounds an a few inces off his waist within a month or two of cutting out the stuff he's alergic to.
It's REALLY hard to go through a day without eating something I'm alergic to. They throw soy and modified milk ingredients in everything these days, and I don't have time to cook everything from scratch.
When I do try to eat 'heathy' I end up feeling tired and hungry... After reading this, I have a better Idea of what eating healthy is.
Another thing is aerobic excersise. I have bad knees and was told by my doctor not to run. (not that I ever really did.. it just hurts too much!). Biking is ok, but I could buy a whole trad rack for the cost of a bike, so that's not gonna happen!
Any suggestions on cardio that's easy on the knees or advice on dealing with my totally screwed up dietary requirements would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
