Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-11-2015, 02:34 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
imoldernu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Peru
Posts: 4,616
Comes a time when the body has leveled off, all systems working well, weight stabilized, the nourishment regimen comfortable, and the blood testing the same for many years... that eating becomes a matter of taste and choice... less so counting calories, balancing food class intake and recommended daily requirements.

So far, so good except for idiopathic hand neuropathy and mild arthritis, and moderate obesity. (hasn't changed a single pound since the day I retired 26 years ago).

And so, moderately high cholesterol and triglycerides on same medication for 20 years... year to year results the same. BP 120 over 75 and holding.

Yup... won't live to 100, but so far so good. Expect AD long before that, but plan to enjoy every minute between now and then.
__________________

__________________
imoldernu is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-11-2015, 03:43 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,450
I friend of mine gave me a DVD Fed Up, which basically calls for eliminating all process sugar and most process food from your diet. The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in. The DVD claims that sugar triggers the body to make fat cells, and the all the sugar tricks the brain into thinking we are still hungry.

I am thinking of doing the their 2 weeks with no sugar challenge next month when I return from the mainland. Now I doubt that cutting sugar from my diet will hurt, but will it help? I'd be interested in the opinion of doctors/nutritionist others is there some validity to this approach or is sugar just this years, fat, cholesterol fad ?
__________________

__________________
clifp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 03:49 PM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,633
I don't think there is any disagreement that large amounts of sugar are bad just disagreement about how much you can have without harm. There would also be no disagreement on the fact that cutting sugar out entirely will be good - just questions as to whether it is better than small amounts
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 04:00 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ls99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 4,792
Eh, just another data point in the"settled science" rubrik.
__________________
There must be moderation in everything, including moderation.
ls99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 04:17 PM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DFW_M5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 4,980
Will this lead to the medical community easing up on blood cholesterol levels?
__________________
Doing things today that others won't, to do things tomorrow that others can't. Of course I'm referring to workouts, not robbing banks.
DFW_M5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 04:19 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
Will this lead to the medical community easing up on blood cholesterol levels?
No. This applies to dietary cholesterol - eggs and shrimp. They are still hell bent on reducing LDL in the blood.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 04:31 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
I friend of mine gave me a DVD Fed Up, which basically calls for eliminating all process sugar and most process food from your diet. The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in. The DVD claims that sugar triggers the body to make fat cells, and the all the sugar tricks the brain into thinking we are still hungry.

I am thinking of doing the their 2 weeks with no sugar challenge next month when I return from the mainland. Now I doubt that cutting sugar from my diet will hurt, but will it help? I'd be interested in the opinion of doctors/nutritionist others is there some validity to this approach or is sugar just this years, fat, cholesterol fad ?
(It seems like I have been preaching for six years now and nobody is listening, O woe is me. <chuckle>)

Calories don't count. Yes, that is counterintuitive but if rephrased as "It is the type of calories in that count," it becomes more meaningful.

Sugar is a "name" that has no meaning. You need to know the real name(s). You can start with everything that ends in "ose" -- glucose, lactose, fructose, etc. -- and I do mean everything. Only then can you discover there are few 'sugars" that are "friendly" -- raw honey, class B maple syrup, for example, are a couple of the very few.

And, yes, it does take a minimum of two weeks for your (everyone's) body to make the adjustment to a diet change -- good change or bad.
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 05:03 PM   #28
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by athena53 View Post
Remember the movie "Sleeper" with Woody Allen? The main character, who was owner of the Happy Carrot Health Food Store, wakes up after many years in a coma and is told that the things people used to believe were healthy are not, and vice versa. I remember when nuts were bad. Now I have a snack of 1 oz. of mixed nuts (no peanuts) every day.



A coworker in her 20s has familial high cholesterol; she's active and thin as a rail and watched her diet but it's just high. She told me she once tried to eat a cholesterol-free diet. She was miserable, of course, and it lowered her levels by a lousy 10 points.

Moderation in all things.

Your coworker is the classic case for cholesterol lowering drugs. Those with untreated familial high cholesterol that's not controlled in their youth are very likely to develop heart disease in their 50s and 60s and sometimes earlier.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Letj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 05:18 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 2,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
I friend of mine gave me a DVD Fed Up, which basically calls for eliminating all process sugar and most process food from your diet. The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in. The DVD claims that sugar triggers the body to make fat cells, and the all the sugar tricks the brain into thinking we are still hungry.

I am thinking of doing the their 2 weeks with no sugar challenge next month when I return from the mainland. Now I doubt that cutting sugar from my diet will hurt, but will it help? I'd be interested in the opinion of doctors/nutritionist others is there some validity to this approach or is sugar just this years, fat, cholesterol fad ?
Fructose is the bad guy here. It basically doesn't trigger satiety in your system one tends to overeat more easily. Not sure about making fat cells thing though - first time I heard about that and frankly biologically speaking doesn't make sense to me.

Watch this lecture :

It's long but well worth watching in my opinion.

I've cut sugar almost completely and feel much healthier. Takes a week to adjust though, you'll get cravings. After that: more energy, less dips, weight loss. Don't really miss it now, unless I start eating it again.

Recently went to go low on carbs as well (so high fat, mid protein and fiber). Gave me another boost, and have to watch myself to make sure I eat enough even though I am trying to lose weight (!)
__________________
Totoro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 05:29 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFW_M5 View Post
Will this lead to the medical community easing up on blood cholesterol levels?
This is the second part of the diet heart hypothesis is, unfortunately still alive and kicking.

Finally they admit that dietary cholesterol doesn't cause atherosclerosis. Big deal. They still advise that lowering LDL is paramount. That's wrong. If you are older, higher blood lipids are protective of longevity! All the big money going to the studies sponsored by statin makers and still that fact emerges. Why is mortality data not reported? Because people don't live longer on a statin. Yes, there are exceptions, like people that already have heart disease and familial hypercholesterolemia. But if one removes those populations, statins do not aid people to live longer. Women would be nuts to take a statin if they got the facts straight. Older men too. Younger men, it's not as obvious since it appears they don't die of heart disease quite as often, but their mortality risk is not enhanced through statin use. And the fact that the mechanism of action of a statin, in the rare case they reduce cardiovascular events, is to reduce inflamation (not through lowering concentrations of any lipids in the blood) one must wonder why thought leaders have not come forth. I'll tell ya why. They get money and enhanced careers for doing what the drug pushers want!

I found a book called The Great Cholesterol Con (www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Kendrick.pdf) and read it a few days ago. Using a bunch of references to studies, it lays out why both parts of the diet heart hypothesis are wrong, explains why they persist, and suggests an alternate idea surrounding cortisol. Not that I buy into the cortisol idea, but it's better than the debunked lipid theory.
__________________
sengsational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 07:37 PM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,194
I find it so encouraging that the government is finally getting the message, at least in part. I think the other errors will fall in the next ten years. Here's the order I see:

Past
All fats are bad, all grains are good, cholesterol is bad.
Don't worry too much about sugar.



A Little Later
No wait, unsaturated fats are good, saturated fats are bad.


Present
Cholesterol is not bad, but saturated fat is bad.
Refined grains are bad, but whole grains are good.
Sugar is a little bad.

Future (in this order)
2017? Sugar is really, really bad
2021? All grains are bad
2022? Saturated fat is not bad
2025? Saturated fat is good.

And here's TromboneAl's MyPlate:

__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 08:01 PM   #32
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonBoyd View Post
Calories don't count. Yes, that is counterintuitive but if rephrased as "It is the type of calories in that count," it becomes more meaningful.
Really? I expect these links to be dismissed here, but check out the Twinkie diet and the McDonald's diet.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com
Man loses 56 pounds after eating only McDonald&#39;s for six months - Health - TODAY.com
__________________
jimbee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 08:33 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,194
Quote:
The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in.
Here's my standard response to the calories in/out thing:

You say that it's just "calories in/calories out," and you're 100% right. But I'm going to give you an example that I think will make you realize, that while true, that law is actually irrelevant to weight loss, and that all calories are not equivalent.

Let's say I gave you a pill to eat every morning. This pill contained only four calories. However, this pill affects your hormonal balance, and it makes you ravenously hungry all the time, and also quite lethargic. Perhaps it's related to your thyroid, but that doesn't matter for this example. What matters is that it makes you hungry and sedentary.

As a result, you are going to gain weight. The pill is only a few calories, but you have gained weight because it has made you to eat a lot more food and move around less.

Has your "calories in/calories out" thermodynamic law been violated? No, because, as a result of your extra eating, you have taken in a lot more calories, and expended fewer. But because of the nature of these calories that you've eaten, namely those four calories in the pill that affects your metabolism, you have gained weight. If you were to stop taking that four-calorie pill, you'd lose weight.

In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

By the way, in a similar way, eating lots of carbohydrates can force your body to store energy in fat cells, which in turn forces you to eat more and expend less.

----------------------

Another simpler argument is this: If it's just as simple as calories in/calories out, why not just stop eating entirely until you reach your goal weight?
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 09:08 PM   #34
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,815
Quote:
And here's TromboneAl's MyPlate:
No high glycemic index crap, oops, I mean "crop" grains? How will the grain producers stay in business? All the world must be addicted to the insulin roller coaster and so consume more calories than they expend!
__________________
sengsational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 09:09 PM   #35
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodi View Post
Glad to hear I have something to discuss with DH about. He's held fast to the "too many eggs will raise your cholesteral" meme... I eat eggs 4-5 days a week - and have low cholesteral.
Would it be too personal to ask what is your low cholesterol? The actual number. I'm curious because another article I read today along with the comments someone said they had low cholesterol but provided no numbers.

In fact I'd be curious, what defines low cholesterol? What reason do we give to call it "low cholesterol" and what do we compare it with to call it low cholesterol?
__________________
Elbata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 09:54 PM   #36
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,564
Quote:
In fact I'd be curious, what defines low cholesterol?
Profit margins
__________________
razztazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 10:22 PM   #37
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,815
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
Profit margins
Sad, but true!
__________________
sengsational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 10:32 PM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,315
Calories-in/calories-out reminds me of a guy who walks into a restaurant that is packed with people and has a 90 minute wait for a table. "Why are there so many people in here?",he asks. The answer is "because more people have entered than left in the last hour."

Well...... Duh!!!!!!! True, but not very useful.

What we really need to know is why so many people are seeking out this restaurant. A more meaningful answer might be, "it's their 10 year anniversary and every item on the menu is half price." Now you have some useful information.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 10:57 PM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbee View Post
Really? I expect these links to be dismissed here, but check out the Twinkie diet and the McDonald's diet.
That was a mistype... let me revise:

"It is the type of calories that count," (the "in" should not have been there)

Oops
__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 04:31 PM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RonBoyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 5,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Go easy?
Am I coming on too strong?

Well let me add this then:

7 Common Calorie Myths We Should All Stop Believing
and
9 More Calorie Myths We Should All Stop Believing

Oh! I thought you were waving a Red Flag. Bacon! Yum!
__________________

__________________
"It's tough to make predictions, especially when it involves the future." ~Attributed to many
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." ~(perhaps by) Yogi Berra
"Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge."~ Lau tzu
RonBoyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dietary supplements? FinallyRetired Health and Early Retirement 4 04-21-2009 06:03 PM
BIO terror~reversed? mickeyd Other topics 6 01-19-2009 01:30 PM
2 full Years after ER 32 years to go dex Young Dreamers 10 07-28-2008 07:20 PM
Cholesterol drugs in the elderly ferco Health and Early Retirement 36 06-07-2007 10:56 AM
After you are gone ! Any concerns ? frayne Life after FIRE 32 12-16-2005 10:12 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.