Stupid diet tricks

[JoeWras]

Well, I was drifting up... You know, getting lazy. That food addict brain kicks in: "Just this one doughnut, just this one Snickers, just this one <insert crap here>".

Found myself up 15 pounds. DW and I were both off the wagon, so we embarked on Phase 1 South Beach first time in 2 years. It is just two weeks. Going to shock the system and then get back to just good balanced healthy eating. Got to nip this in the bud. Although I'm up 15 from my good weight, I'm still down from my all time high by 35, so better to stop now that get back in that range.

The thing I like about Ph1 SB is it gives you a mental boost (even if it is water, or whatever), but it really, really kills those snickers cravings.

As for statins... Well, everyone on my mom's side either died from a heart attack or survived one. Everyone on my dad's side had "high chol", but never had heart disease. So what did I inherit? Not sure, but I'm taking a low dose of one of the classic (generic) statins for now. I go back and forth on this all the time because my triglycerides are naturally low, and my CRP (that inflammation thing) is very good.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras [...]The thing I like about Ph1 SB is it gives you a mental boost (even if it is water, or whatever), but it really, really kills those snickers cravings.

I loved snickers as a child, but due to my ever-present need to lose weight, haven't had one for probably 50 years. That's another way to kill the snickers cravings - - no snickers cravings left at all after a half century.

[Tyro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha I reviewed the research, and given that I have no evidence of harm from taking statins and I have a large number of risk factors for heart disease, I take the statins and hope they provide some protection.

All medications involve the equation of benefit vs. risk, and since we're all different, and respond differently to each & every medication, it has to be an individual case by case basis and choice. You have overriding factors that could be life/death. Many people are perfectly healthy with low risk, are prescribed statins on a "blanket" basis, and experience longterm or permanent side effects whose risk out weighs the any potential benefit.

Reviewing the research, assessing individual risk, and side effects seem to be the major criteria for patients to make this choice with their doctor's assistance (expertise). Unfortunately many doctors' expertise is what is spoon-fed them by Big Pharma.

[JoeWras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R I loved snickers as a child, but due to my ever-present need to lose weight, haven't had one for probably 50 years. That's another way to kill the snickers cravings - - no snickers cravings left at all after a half century.

It is a classic. Maybe looked something like this when you last ate one.


Gotta say, I grew up in Chicago and as a child we occasionally drove by the factory. Aroma memories are strong!

[RonBoyd]

Diabetes Study Ends Early With a Surprising Result

Quote:

A large federal study of whether diet and weight loss can prevent heart attacks and strokes in overweight and obese people with Type 2 diabetes has ended two years ahead of schedule because the intensive program did not help. The study randomly assigned 5,145 overweight or obese people with Type 2 diabetes to either a rigorous diet and exercise regimen or to sessions in which they got general health information. The diet involved 1,200 to 1,500 calories a day for those weighing less than 250 pounds and 1,500 to 1,800 calories a day for those weighing more. The exercise program was at least 175 minutes a week of moderate exercise. But 11 years after the study began, researchers concluded it was futile to continue — the two groups had nearly identical rates of heart attacks, strokes and cardiovascular deaths.

See also: Big Diet and Exercise Study Fails to Find Benefit

Quote:

If researchers understood what causes major health problems, they would be able to invent treatments with big benefits. That the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is given year after year to work that makes no progress on major health problems is another sign of the lack of understanding reflected in the failure of this study.

[haha]

This may be because of biological reality, one would have to see the specifics from the paper. (Was there even a paper?)

But the details of what was done, how it was done, and who were the subjects might tell a very different story.

Here is more information, from one of the principle investigators.

Medscape: Medscape Access

Ha

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha (Was there even a paper?)

Good question. I guess I will have to wait a week or so for some more people to weigh in... or to be vetted further from vested interests other than those already mentioned in the article

[HFWR]

Guess it's time to post this again...

Progenitorivox (The Drugs I Need) - YouTube

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Guess it's time to post this again...

Where's that "thumbs up" Smiley when I need it.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd See also: Big Diet and Exercise Study Fails to Find Benefit

I wonder if you are familiar with that Seth Roberts site? I ran across this statement, which I would like to get more information about, but I can't seem to find a search function, or to find a further mention of olive oil in this context using Google.

"The “fat” breakfast in this study was 25% soybean oil (high in omega-6), 25% palm oil (high in saturated fats) and 50% cream (high in saturated fats). I have not compared omega-6 to nothing but I suspect it would produce worse results, given that olive oil appears worse than nothing. "

This intrigues me, but I am coming up empty.

Ha

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I wonder if you are familiar with that Seth Roberts site? I ran across this statement, which I would like to get more information about, but I can't seem to find a search function, or to find a further mention of olive oil in this context using Google. "The “fat” breakfast in this study was 25% soybean oil (high in omega-6), 25% palm oil (high in saturated fats) and 50% cream (high in saturated fats). I have not compared omega-6 to nothing but I suspect it would produce worse results, given that olive oil appears worse than nothing. " This intrigues me, but I am coming up empty. Ha

I am unsure of the question. I have followed Seth Roberts for at least 6/7 years -- I purchased his book "The Shangi-La Diet," read it and decided it was hog-wash. (At the same time, I decided the same thing about "Good Calories, Bad Calories.") However, I eventually came around and realized that the hogwash didn't come from this direction but from those speaking the loudest -- health organizations, the US government, the medical community, and the food industry.

I believe that Olive Oil is one of only two vegetable oils that are safe. The other being from the Palm/Coconut plant. There are some nut oils that may be acceptable but I cannot be sure. Certainly Soy, in any of it's varieties should be avoided -- except those that are fermented (Soy Sause, Tofu, Miso, etc.). I would even be forward enough to consider it a poisonous element in the human diet.

Well... I did ramble a bit there. What is the question again?

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd I am unsure of the question. <> What is the question again?

Only that Seth throws this out with reference to olive oil: " given that olive oil appears worse than nothing. "

So assuming this is based on something, I would like to know what. But I can't find a search functon, or any mention of olive oil in his listing of topics

I just wondered if you might know how to proceed.

Ha

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I just wondered if you might know how to proceed.

Oh! I apologize. It was an optical illusion... or old age. I was so used to seeing quotes in their own block that I misread the statement as being your own. I couldn't comprehend because it was (to me) so out of context. Anyway, I found your reference and it still didn't make sense -- I am with you on this point. Anyway, I simply asked Seth to clarify. We will wait and see what he has to say.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd Oh! I apologize. It was an optical illusion... or old age. I was so used to seeing quotes in their own block that I misread the statement as being your own. I couldn't comprehend because it was (to me) so out of context. Anyway, I found your reference and it still didn't make sense -- I am with you on this point. Anyway, I simply asked Seth to clarify. We will wait and see what he has to say.

Thanks much. Be sure to let me know his answer.

BTW, I edited my original post commenting on this study. Did you see the link to one of the study's principal investigators?

Ha

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha BTW, I edited my original post commenting on this study. Did you see the link to one of the study's principal investigators?

No. Was it the one to Palm Oil? Yeah, that was a typo on my part. I know that Palm & Coconut oils are not the same thing... other than the similar chemical makeup. BTW, Avocado Oil would also fit in that group.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd No. Was it the one to Palm Oil? Yeah, that was a typo on my part. I know that Palm & Coconut oils are not the same thing... other than the similar chemical makeup. BTW, Avocado Oil would also fit in that group.

No, I really know nothing about oils that is not hearsay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Here is more information, from one of the principal investigators. Medscape: Medscape Access Ha

[RAE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd Diabetes Study Ends Early With a Surprising Result

I suspect that the reason they got poor results is the diet they chose for the participants. Sure, they restricted calories, but as we have discussed before, calories from different sources are treated very differently once they enter the human body. From an article I just read describing the study:

" The recommended diet is based on guidelines of the ADA and National Cholesterol Education program and includes a maximum of 30% of total calories from total fat, a maximum of 10% of total calories from saturated fat, and a minimum of 15% of total calories from protein."

This means that at least 55% (and probably more) of the diet came from carbs, which is way too high for optimum health for most people, based on a lot of the latest research. To eat that many carbs, you're likely consuming a lot of bread, pasta, baked goods, crackers, etc (highly processed grain-based products). Alternatively, eating a diet of mostly "real food" (meat, fish, veggies, healthy fats.......avoiding most grain-based products and all things that come in a box) would result in consuming a mix closer to 35-40% fat, 35-40% protein, 20-25% carbs.

Had they put the participants on that type of diet, I suspect the results would have been a lot different.

[JoeWras]

RAE, it is going to take a lot of UNlearning for many of us to see what you are saying.

I've been spending the last few years unlearning that eating a few boxes of "Snackwells" is not healthy heating. "Look Ma, no fat! I can have all I want!"

All you have to do is look around and see what this white carb teaching from our govt. has done to America's waistlines.

A few weeks ago we were in a casual tourist area as a "base camp" for a hike in the mountains. It honestly scared me to see the people walking the streets. America is a disastrously unhealthy. Seemed like everyone had a cigarette in hand, and were barely able to walk across the street.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAE ... would result in consuming a mix closer to 35-40% fat, 35-40% protein, 20-25% carbs. Had they put the participants on that type of diet, I suspect the results would have been a lot different.

I completely agree. However, I would adjust the ratios a bit -- that is still too many Carbs and the Protein should be adjusted downward quite a bit. (Due to the lack of Carbs, the body will convert Protein to Glucose -- sugar -- to compensate. That's why a thigh of the chicken is better for you than the breast.) This would leave the Fat % around 80% or so -- just what the body needs to be healthy.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras RAE, it is going to take a lot of UNlearning for many of us to see what you are saying. ... All you have to do is look around and see what this white carb teaching from our govt. has done to America's waistlines.

And even after "unlearning," it took me quite awhile to trust my conclusions.