Considering the thousands of diets, and weight loss programs

[shraby]

that people try one after the other, if any of them worked, most people would be at an "ideal" weight. Not too many people WANT to be overweight, but after dieting almost all of their adult lives, very few have achieved their goal and stayed there.
The only ones who are actually successful are the ones who concoct the diet/weight loss programs. It's time for science/doctors to go back to the drawing board and really find out why some people gain weight and can't keep it off for any period of time and others have no weight problems whatsoever no matter what or how much they eat.
I watched my grandmother, my mother and various relatives and friends diet all their lives and were pretty much the same when they died as when they started. Not early deaths, either, both Mom and G'ma were in their 80's.

[JonQ]

1. Temporary fad diets don't work

at least not in the long term.

Permanent changes to your lifestyle do. But those are more difficult and don't offer the "quick fix then I can go back to doing whatever made me fat in the first place" solution that people want.

[shraby]

4. I saw my grandmother and mother diet all their lives

not fad diets, but permanent "watch what they ate" type dieting. Never worked. The weight just wouldn't stay off. Both were very active people..Mom farmed, canned, had animals to take care of besides me and my brothers and worked a job besides.
My Grandmother helped run a grocery store they owned, when they left that, she helped run a farm, animals, garden, canning, the whole ball of wax until my Grandfather died then she sold the farm, moved to town and went got a job. Both were smart enough to know fad diets weren't successful for the long term.

[JonQ]

22. Without knowing the details I can't really comment

but it is a fact that if caloric intake is less than expended you will lose weight. It's possible they weren't watching their weight as well as they thought or were less active than they appeared, or ate things they considered healthy but weren't.


It's well established that in countries with a different, healthier diet than here where people are generally more active obesity is not much of an issue. Which would suggest diet and lifestyle are the most important, and changeable factors.

[hypocrisyandlies]

6. "Permanent changes to your lifestyle do."

Exactly! It always makes me laugh when I see a diet commercial claiming that people can eat whatever they want and still lose weight or that they don't even have to exercise. Even if by some miracle they did lose weight that way, the weight won't stay away once they stop the program.

[alfredo]

44. So true. You really have to change your relationship with food. That is a

major change in your life.

[imdjh]

59. Well you can eat WHATever you want and lose weight, as long as it isn't much of whatever you want.

You can lose weight eating rum balls, as long as you eat 1000 calories a day of rum balls, and weight more than 100 pounds.

[New Dawn]

158. Bingo!

[CreekDog]

334. although i think small long term changes are actually easier

If overweight folks lost just 2 pounds per month, that would be almost 50 pounds over two years. A reduction of just 240 calories per day, all things being equal, is equal to 7200 calories per month, which is equal to 2 pounds of fat or to add exercise that burns 7200 calories per month --or some combination.

Could you add 120 calories of exercise to your regimen each day and eat 120 calories less?

And unlike typical diets, this lifestyle change is probably not enough to jar your system into protecting itself from starvation by slowing your metabolism.

And come up with your own system, tailor made for you:

for example:

weigh yourself every day so that you start out each day knowing what you weigh and can inform your decisions on what you eat and do throughout. you will never blissfully put on 10 pounds in two weeks if you do that each day --you'll know at pound 3 that perhaps you are undoing your fitness level.

learn how to deal with cravings. if you are hungry, have protein, like a hard boiled egg. a couple will stay with you quite a while. if the salad just won't fill you completely and you're in a hurry for dinner, go ahead and get that burger but take off the bun and just eat the meat. offset your splurge by being more careful the next day.

and about those cravings: watch those carbs! they have a nasty way of making you hungry. when you get into a cycle when you just can't eat enough, replace carbs with protein to a large extent and things should get easier so that you can make it through that period without putting on pounds.

learn how to count calories. keep a mental tally in your head --don't go over 2000 calories in a day, in general, if you can avoid it. ideally, 1500 calories if you are not active is probably more realistic. remember, you want to run a caloric deficit of 7200 calories per month, one way or another!

planning to eat out later? know thyself. be responsible throughout the day so that you don't blow the calorie count at dinner. sometimes it's just plain impossible to resist gorging yourself on fajitas --give yourself room to do that if you know you can't fight the temptation.

planning to eat out later or be with friends later even though you did the same last night? avoid the temptation. if you go out, eat just the soup (those restaurant salads can be trouble). if you're worried about being hungry, you can have a bowl of cereal when you get home --just whatever you do, don't eat two 1000+ calorie dinners two nights in a row! sometimes when faced with this situation, i find out where my friends are going after dinner and i meet them there, or i've shown up in the middle and not ordered.

don't take home restaurant leftovers! eating out can be fun, but between the salt and the calorie content, your scale will nudge up in the days following after just one extravagant meal --don't compound it by eating leftovers of the same meal the next day!

you make little choices everyday and they add up. the little choices gave you the weight you are at today, just a few each day can reduce your calorie load enough to lose 2 pounds per month.

[janx]

386. Hard boiled eggs are the best! n/t

[bobbolink]

2. My mother solved the problem.

I finally realized that she is anorexic.

:shrug:

[imdjh]

60. I have done the Medifast diet. After a while of not eating, you feel superior.

You really do. You lose the urge to eat. Because you aren't eating any grease at all, the smell, taste, or touch of grease becomes revolting. Because you have stopped eating solid food you only take a dump about once a week. You really do start to imagine that you might simply be an evolutionary life form, advancing beyond eating.

[pink-o]

377. Yeah, that happened to me as well. Your brain chemistry goes whacko.

There were times when I almost felt like I could fly, and as I was working in food service at the time, I used to serve lunches, then watch smugly as "lesser life forms" devoured them. Of course, fasting is like holding your breath--you can only do it for so long, then once you cave, you're gasping for air. (or shoveling food down your throat.) It's scary how your seratonin and endorphins fake you out when you're not getting proper nutrients.

I've finally gotten it together, at age 54 I'm my right weight and exercise because I love it. All the drama and body-image issues are in my past--albeit, the vestiges remain. I'm never hungry, I have to eat at the same times every day or I will not bother. And the first sign of anxiety or stress, I immediately stop eating. It's a constant vigilance.

Bottom line: young people, don't ever starve yourself. You're better off with a few extra pounds, or losing them slowly so your metabolism can adapt. Especially since once you start eating after a "fast", you gain more weight than you ever lost. So regardless of the dramatic results, please be sensible about losing weight. Your body will thank you when you're my age!

[XemaSab]

3. I think it's more of a cultural issue than anything

If it's up to me, I can eat a low-carb diet and lose weight.

My friends and my family, however, do not support me in this. :(

[bobbolink]

15. And then you get the crap from those who want you to keep meat out of your diet.

Just can't win.

:wtf:

[XemaSab]

16. I'm mostly veggie

:P

[bobbolink]

19. I don't see how you can do that and be high protein, but whatever works.

I'm just tired of people judging and telling others what to do.

Especially for those of us who are poor and have very few choices.

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. It is possible but you need to be very careful in how you mix and match

grains to get the basic elements that make a full protein

The best known combo if this is corn and beans, which is the basis of the Traditional Mexican Diet.

It goes beyond that of course, but it can be done.

Of course vegie based proteins make keeping your nutrition very interesting, but people do.

I am only concerned if somebody becomes pregnant, because then it becomes hard. But there are cultures that do this regularly. Now strict vegetarians are the ones who have the hardest time. Those who will eat eggs and cheese, and other milk products, (or even soy) will have an easier time.

[bobbolink]

114. Thank you for recognizing that it's difficult. So many vegetarians scoff at this.

Being both hypoglycemic and homeless, there is NO WAY I could keep myself healthy on a vegetarian diet.

And, I fully expect to be flamed for saying that by the DU vegetarian police.

x(

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. HUgs and take care

and to the vegetarian police, well a healthy you know what...

You eat what you can get your paws on. And more than once we have bought food for homeless people. We buy the same stuff I buy for myself... but that is me.

[bobbolink]

131. Thanks.

"And more than once we have bought food for homeless people."

~~holding hand out~~

:rofl:

Thanks for caring for those of us who have been ignored by this society!

[Kalyke]

283. Beans, skim milk, cheese, low or no sugar peanut butter, spinach,

soybeans and whole grains.

And that's just off the top of my head.

All vegetarian and high in protein.

(Unless, you're vegan and then you can scratch out the dairy).

[left is right]

20. I don't understand this low-carb thing

Some of the skinniest nations on earth or rice eaters. Rice is so high in carbs that I, as a diabetic, avoid it like the plague. So why do carbs make Americans fat? And yes, I am overweight

[XemaSab]

21. I can't explain that

:shrug:

Actually, on edit, my explanation is that people who go low carb cut our HFCS and empty calories, so all the stuff they eat is real food.

If you or I were to eat what the average Japanese person eats, we'd probably lose weight. Sadly, I am a Euro-mutt, so I don't really have one traditional food culture.

[bobbolink]

113. If you wer to eat what the average Japanese person eats, you'd be more likely to get stomach cancer.

Their refined rice leads to higher rates of stomach cancer.

So, there you have it.

[sense]

26. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories

In most countries where rice is a staple most people also eat very low calorie due to economics and other reasons. There are other factors that explain the skinnier populations in many countries. It's not carbs that make us fat. We've been mislead and the studies hidden about what we really should be eating. White rice is one of the worst things, especially if you're diabetic or insulin resistant. I know this will sound radical.....due to our being mislead, but it's much healthier for us to eat a high fat, low refined-carb diet.

Here's a link:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258253364&sr=8-1


I'm 3/4 of the way through the book and it's very enlightening (no pun intended) and stunning the way we've been fed the wrong information for so many years and all to protect someone's hypothesis or some other ridiculous reason.

[sense]

45. oops

I meant to say that it's not FATS that make us fat, it's too much refined carbs and starches. Sorry, too late to edit the other post.

[sense]

46. delete.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. If you look at what Japanese and Chinese people actually eat

they don't eat piles and piles of rice at one meal unless they're young guys. Traditional cuisine is a wide variety of foods at each meal, but in small quantities. I once bought a box lunch on the train, and it had 18 different items, each amounting to a couple of tablespoons of vegetables or seafood. When I was in China, we'd typically get platters of six or more different dishes for our group of eight.

[imdjh]

62. but then you have the Eskimos and Laplanders who reported are slim until stores come along

and then blow up like balloons.

The bottom line for me is that if I ate nothing but turkey the weight would melt off. This would happen because turkey is a low calorie food, and because I would not experience the carb craving that I do when I eat starches.

Here's an example. I can eat breakfast and lunch, and then go to a birthday party where I eat cake and ice cream. After eating cake and ice cream, I am ravenous, but not just hungry I am craving grease, as if I had a hangover.

[sense]

99. You're right about

The eskimos and laplanders who used to subsist almost entirely on fat and protein. We then introduced them to our crappy over-processed "civilized", western diet and now the majority are obese. Fats have been vilified, instead of overly processed foods like white rice, flour, sugar and HFCS.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. I actually can explain this

You had a huge spike in insulin... try to get that ice-cream OR cake only after you do some protein. That MAY help.

[sense]

119. Exactly!

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Being a diabetic you learn this

never, ever eat carbs without protein... whch remind me get a slice of cheese for my snack

[sense]

137. Protein or fat, either one works to help

control blood sugar.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Oh yeah,

hell I learned that lovely trick as a medic.

:-)

Oh lordly.

[bobbolink]

168. What about cinnamon to help stabilize blood sugar?

It sounds like it helps some... either hypo- or hyper.

?

[nadinbrzezinski]

181. Traditional remedy of India

and some initial research is being done. I think it works for me

[Arugula Latte]

122. A side issue, though:

What about a chance in lifestyle? Did they gain weight solely because of a change in diet or because of a combination of a change in diet and a change in their traditional high-calorie burning lifestyle?

[imdjh]

134. From what I have read, it's believed to be directly related to the introduction of starches.

But while we are on the subject of diet, we cannot ignore health. If life expectancy is a measure of health, then while the Eskimos might have been thin, they were not to my knowledge known for longevity. I would be surprised to be told that they were thin when first encountered. It would seem odd to me, that in a climate where just about every mammal puts on significant weight at some time of the year, strives to put on weight, the Eskimos would be thin.

[sense]

138. Oddly enough, the didn't actually have a high calorie burning lifestyle as has been assumed.

Their diet is the biggest change.

[imdjh]

64. Can you actually name a country where everyone is thin?

Or can you name a country where the poor people are thin, or the rich people are thin?

I remember something a few years ago in a magazine about the "myth of the thin French". Forever, Americans had been told about how the French at greasy food, sumptuous deserts, and drank wine and yet stayed thin. Well according to the article it's a lie. Wealthy and stylish french people are thin for the same reason they are here- they starve themselves. Poor French people are as fat as Americans. By the same token, all those scrawny Chinese people we see in the crowd scenes- but what is our picture of Mao? What are the pictures of Buddha (I realize he's not Chinese)? What about all the depictions of East Asian royalty? They are all chubby.

[bobbolink]

109. That makes us even, because I don't understand the whole avoiding meat thing.

I keep hearing how cruel it is to animals, yet the most respectful people I know.. towards either people or animals or any other part of creation, are Indians, and they laugh at the idea of going without meat.

Then, there is also that whole "vegetarians are much more peaceful" thing. Well, one of the more peaceful cultures on earth were the tradtional Inuit, and they HAD no vegetables, at least most of the year. They ate almost exclusively meat. So, there goes another theory, shot to hell.

[undeterred]

5. Its got to be something internal.

I think there will be a medical cure on the level of regulating appetite someday soon.

I've always resisted the idea that you have to PAY to lose weight or exercise. Most of the things one needs to learn and do are not that hard. We know which foods are fattening and how much is too much. The things that help are dieting in a group, moderate exercise, and a permanent change in eating habits.

[SoCalDem]

56. Everyone's body has its "optimal" weight, and once the dieting ends,

the body returns to its own internal "normal"...but decades of yoyo dieting does tend to ratchet UP that optimal weight, because the brain figures out that occasionally you are trying to "starve" , so metabolism only starts to be more "efficient" at storing fat..

The human body is a pretty complex thing..no matter how hard you try you cannot grow taller...no matter how much you want to, so why would you think you can re-engineer your innate metabolism?

[scrinmaster]

67. Do you really think that the average American's genetics have changed that much in the past 100 yrs?

I do think that you're right, do a degree, in that each of us has a natural weight, but it's probably much lower than most people's actual weight. If people ate healthier and exercised more often, they'd lose weight.

[SoCalDem]

70. With a proper diet..(like people used to eat) probably so

Since WWII, we have been bombarded with additives & a lot of chemicals that may have interacted with people's metabolisms, AND we drive everywhere now, and PE is mostly out of our schools, kids are not playing outside as much..

We changed our lifestyles, & our food, and our genes have not caught up..

Even as recently as the 1950's, people ate heartier foods, with lots of butter, gravy & probably salt too, BUT people had active jobs, & kids were outside more than they were inside.

Soda pop, candy, pastries, cookies etc were SPECIAL TREAT food.. not an every day/all day thing.

People were active without really trying to be. My mother hanged her wash out to dry, lugging wet wash in baskets up the stairs, and out to the yard,,bending & stooping & reaching.. then she ironed the clothes.

we did not have tv until I was a teenager, and we did not have A/C, so there was NO reason to hang around indoors..

we walked to school, and had daily PE with softball, field hockey, dodgeball, jumprope etc.

by the time school was over and we walked home, we had had a workout for the day.

a trip to a restaurant was different too, the serving sizes were about half the size of today's, and there were no salad bars..We drove for over an hour to a Swedish Smorgasborg,,and we though we were eating exotic food:)

We eat too much, and the foods we eat are not all that nutritious, so we never really get "full"..

[phasma ex machina]

97. Too much grazing.

People go on a cruise. And eat. People go to a meeting. And eat. People go shopping. And eat. People go to a movie. And eat. People go to a play. And eat. People go on a road trip. And eat. People stay at home. And eat. People exercise. And eat. People vegetate. And eat. People go to church. And eat. People go to a political rally. And eat. People go to the hospital. And eat. People go to Walmart. And eat. People go to Home Depot. And eat. It even turns out that some people go to sleep. (Sleep walk.) And eat.

[Kalyke]

293. Actually, grazing is good for you - but it has to be the right foods.

Keeping your sugar down and protein up helps you lose weight. I have acid reflux and tend to graze. I just have to be careful that I'm not grazing on pre-processed foods, foods with HFCS or fatty foods.

Grazing on whole grains, vegetables, small amounts of cheese, etc. is fantastic for one's body.

[imdjh]

71. The climate can change but people can't?

[sense]

7. Everyone should

read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. All is explained there. http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258250480&sr=8-1 The title of the book makes it sound like a quick little read....re-hashing the usual dogma, but it's very different than that. We've been lead astray and studies have been ignored, in some instances for more than a century. The low fat, high carb band wagon has kept Americans from attaining better health in many areas, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. After so many years of declarations by the AHA and other organizations about what we should be eating, it'll be extremely tough, maybe impossible, for them to admit the enormous errors they've made and the myths they've perpetuated that have lead to the poor qualities of life and the early deaths of so many.

[elocs]

8. I'm overweight but have the same waist size as 40 years ago when I weighed 150.

Now I weigh 190 and I can't figure out what happened. I've got to admit that I don't really worry about my weight anymore. I could work real hard and change my diet and lose weight but I know I will not really get much heavier than I am now.

[Hestia]

9. I personally think it is in the drinking of any soda's. I am the oldest worker

and do not drink any type of soda's, maybe once a quarter if that much, I only drink coffee, and I weigh the less. I've always been around 120, started climbing to 135-137 after 50. I don't pig out when I eat. All the other women are on constant diets, slurrping gallons of diet soda, and they gain weight. They are younger than I and they have constant joint pain from all the extra weight they carry.

I was reading somewhere, if we went back to the snack recipes in the 1970s & 1980s, people would lose weight. It's all the HFCS and soy based oil products that are making people obese.

[tonysam]

13. I drank tons of soda, and it had no impact at all

Demonizing so-called "junk food" is a crock of shit.

It's the attitude of society towards people who are different that's the problem.

[FormerDittoHead]

10. It isn't complicated. It's the availability of bad food and the lack of availablity of good food.

Let's get this the fuck out of the way: BAD FOOD TASTES GOOD. If you "hate" the taste of CAKE, don't "understand" why people like ice cream - DON'T BOTHER CHIMING IN.

There were fat people hundreds of years ago - but most people were thin because bad food wasn't AVAILABLE to them...

Now, consider I can get into my car, drive less than one mile IN EITHER OF TWO DIRECTIONS and without getting out of my car, and for $5, get a tasty (and fuck you if you don't think McDonald's tastes good, blaw, blaw, blaw.) meal that requires no cooking in a minute flat.

Or, you could go FARTHER, park the car, walk into the store, go into the back past all of the snacks and soda, go to where the fruits and veggies are, wait in line practically forever, walk back to the car, and for that same $5 buy about FOUR ORANGES (and those aren't the "organic" ones, either).

GET THIS: if I could go to some drive through and buy a tasty wholesome meal, high in fiber low in fat, etc., for $5.00, don't you think I'd do THAT?

BUT THAT'S NOT OUT THERE. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

[travelingtypist]

63. This.

The food that's good for you is too expensive, period. The statistics about low income people versus higher income people and weight back this up 100%.

[paulsby]

11. rubbish

the reason why diets fail (and i say this as a competitive athlete who has to make weight sevreral times a year and as a former personal trainer who helped a lot of people lose fat, or gain muscle etc.) is because PEOPLE fail.

it is not rocket science for people to lose bodyfat.

but it is difficult, uncomfortable, and takes discipline and suffering.

that's the simple reality.

last time i competed, i had to lose 12 lbs in 5 days. that was a lot of fun

there are a very small %age of people who can't lose weight conventionally due to a medical condition. they are the outliers. most fat people are fat because they eat like fat people. i don't care if that's offensive - it's true.

there is an old saying in the strength training biz "a mediocre exercise program with exceptional effort is better than a great exercise program with mediocre effort"

the same holds true with diets.

[tonysam]

14. Hogwash back.

The diet industry is just that--an industry. Diets aren't supposed to work or this industry would go extinct.

People come in different sizes and different shapes. We have a bigotry problem in this country, not a "weight" problem.

[paulsby]

18. you have a science problem

the laws of thermodynamics don't dissapear because you fear saying something that would offend people

biological reality is biological reality.

people gain or lose weight, primarily based on what they eat, and their level of activity. are there other confounding factors? sure. the hormonal milieu plays a part, for instance.

but in general, and i had over 200 clients over the years PEOPLE fail, diets don't.

it's that frigging simple. are there some fad diets that are unhealthy and dangerous? sure.

most diets though, don't work because people have no discipline and don't like to suffer.

i come from a culture of athletes where suffering is expected. the other day, one of our old skool russian trainees responded to somebody who was complaining about some injuries and various pain locations "this is not chess. you are supposed to hurt". truer words were never spoken

i have NEVER seen a person who stuck to a decent diet plan fail to lose fat. in one case, one of my clients were not getting the right results and i told her to get a blood test and it turned out she had a thyroid condition. supplemental thyroid hormone solved their problem. that's one out of 200.

science matters. this is a matter of biology, chemistry and thermodynamics. it's not fricking rocket science.

you don't see a lot of fat people in some countries where THEY CAN'T GET ENOUGH FOOD and that's an obvious example.

if you want to lose fat (not weight, but fat) you need to eat less. period.

and./or raise your exercise levels and lower your caloric intake (more effective, more quickly)

for most clients, i recommend not reducing their calories by more than 20%, at least for the first few weeks.

[sense]

50. Sounds like you're the one with a science problem....

Read the studies and see how the conclusions have been manipulated to make sure the dogma stays intact.

[paulsby]

78. i have read the studies

and unless you put somebody in a controlled environment and surveil them 24/7, you have the problem of reporting errors. iow, people SAY they are doing X, but they are actually doing Y.

most diet "studies" do not do this.

the science is there, and the evidence is there. you choose to ignore it because it might offend fragile sensibilities, thus being firmly in the creationist camp

[sense]

80. Your answer is to call me a creationist?

Nice. If you read the studies analytically, not the conclusions that have been manipulated, you'd know that you're mistaken. I chose not to ignore the real evidence of deception that's been perpetrated on the American people. Read the book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. Not an easy read, but worth it if you really want to make sense of what we've been told. Too many egos getting in the way.

I'm not remotely creationist. Science is my thing.

[paulsby]

82. if science is your thing

you aren't showing it.

and of course not all calories are biologically equivalent. that's been conceded from the beginning, from the first experiments with a bomb calorimeter.

they are an approximation

unlike weight, for instance (a lb of feathers being just as heavy as a lb of lead), 10,000 calories of sucrose will not have the same metabolic effects as 10,000 calories of a better mixture of complex carbs, fiber, EFAs, EAA's, proteins (to include slow bolus forming proteins like casein), etc.

but back to the diet issue. that doesn't negate the fact that diets generally fail because people don't have the discipline or fortitude to take the suffering.

[sense]

90. I disagree.

Diets don't fail because people have no discipline. That's been proven entirely false. Our bodies adjust to more or lesser calories, each in their own way, due to differences in genetics, hormones, enzymes and I'm sure many other factors that have not been investigated because it's easier to make what is a chemical reaction all about character. It's bigoted and short sighted, but it continues despite all evidence to the contrary.

[paulsby]

91. of course bodies adjust

duh. that's what i said. the body fights disrupting homeostasis.

see also: leptin levels.

none of this doscounts the fact that fat people generally succeed or fail based on their discipline and willingness to change behavior and suffer.

sufffering sucks

[sense]

96. You're starting from a premise

that has repeatedly been proven false. Obesity is not a character flaw or evidence of one. Everyone you accuse of being defective in character, due to your ignorance and inability to see or learn about the science is suffering, that's correct.

[paulsby]

105. you are starting from a premise

that i am saying obesity is a character flaw or evidence of one

that's yer strawman. i never said that.

i have learned about the science, and not just reading the studies on pubmed, but LIVING the science by working with elite athletes (including olympians) and literally scores of people who have wanted to lose fat and have done so successfully.

there are threads in common, and when you have a million points of data and the science, it's damn compelling.

iow, the ultimate test is the real world test - what WORKS.

when you stop inventing strawmen, maybe you can look at science... and the real world.

[sense]

110. Your evidence is anecdotal and you work

with olympic level athletes... proof that your knowledge is enormously skewed. Pubmed? What's that? You are not living the science, you're living an infinitesimally small existence, interacting with one type of person and calling your observations science. Very impressive. Not at all scientific.

Your statement that people are fat because they can't or won't do the hard things... is a statement that fat people are flawed in their very character. Plain and simple. Argue all you want, but you can't make that argument valid.

[paulsby]

115. i work with all levels of athletes

as a personal trainer, i never once worked with an olympian or anyone near that. i got numerous people to meet their goals. one for instane was a female cop who ended up passing her dept's SWAT test. NO female had EVER passed that test. it's difficult most guys can't pass it without a fair amount of training.

but yes, i NOW train with many athletes who are at an elite level, but we ALSO have numerous newbies come into our training facility who are beginners and far from elite.

but i will make this very clear

MOST fat people are fat because of their chosen behavior

if you doubt this, then answer this: there were FAR fewer fat people (even accounting for differences in racial/ethnic demographics) 100 yrs ago than there are now

that;'s indisputable

what has changed in the last 100 yrs. genetics? no

BEHAVIOR

there are a very small # of fat people who have serious medical issues that prevent them from achieving their goals. i already acknowledged that. one of my trainees greatly benefited from thyroid hormones. if yer thyroid aint working right, that's a serious biological impediment

quite simply, i would be fat if i just ate whatever i wanted. that's in my genetics. same with my dad (he just ran a marathon and has worked to keep fat off all his life).

i'm not fat because i choose to do the things (often uncomfortable) that prevent me from getting fat.

it really is that simple

[sense]

118. "MOST fat people are fat because of their chosen behavior"

There you go again. Not remotely supportable with science. Quit repeating your own prejudice. It's not simple, or we'd have solved the problem long ago. Science is evolving, you should try it.

[paulsby]

123. it's absolutely suppotable with science and you ignored the question

i'll repeat it

a few genberations ago we had realtively low incidence of obesity in the US

now, we have relatively high levels

genetics have not changed. what HAS?

there are only two factors...

1) what people eat
2) how much activity they get

both are entirely within the individual's control

thus, both are the responsibility of individuals

only the individual can choose to forego the big mac, and eat the healthy meal.

and in the aggregate, choices have results in the real world.

if you dispute this, then tell me what other factors have resulted in high obesity incidence, if NOT food choices and activity levels.

and yes, of course, the fast food industry, etc. makes it hard(er) for people to choose NOT to eat crap. great. but the choice still rests with the individual

[sense]

128. Each body is different, I repeat, we are all individuals.....

We've been told that a high carb, low-fat diet is best for all of us. Not true. There is no science to support that. None. I agree that people need to make better choices. We've been given incorrect information for so many years that people, like you, believe it. I've already acceded that we need to eat whole foods and stay away from starches, sugars and processed foods... However, that's not the whole story and without the information that's been withheld and with the studies that have been misinterpreted and manipulated presented as truth, people can't make the best choices.

[paulsby]

132. who told us that?

nobody told me that high carb low fat was best. but then i don't listen to such idiots.

we both agree that people need to make better choices.

it's not rocket science to eat minimally processed food, food that is not laden with chemicals, and just common sense good eating.

there is WAY more good information out there, and easily accessible than there was 100 yrs ago.

here's one critical difference.

100 yrs ago FAR more people at far more meals cooked from scratch and far less overprocessed fat food and crap.

we can still choose to eat healthily, but it's difficult

[sense]

140. That is the recommendation of the AHA and the ADA,

as well as many others. If you haven't heard of it, you're the only one. It's been repeated endlessly over and over... as if if were proven by science, when in fact, it has not.

[rd_kent]

314. You keep talking about studies and science, but you fail to provide a link to this stuff.

Without it, you are pissing into the wind.

[sense]

323. No pissing for me.

I've repeatedly said there is a great book that cites studies dating back to the 1800's. You can easily find the studies it cites and make your own conclusions. It's not the only book, by a long shot, but it's very well organized and there's really no fluff in there. It's presented in a very readable manner. Good Calories, Bad Calories. The title is idiotic... makes it sound fluffy and like one of the diet fads, but it's full of science.

[AtheistCrusader]

289. Excuse me.

Some people are more susceptible to various forms of addiction. Some can walk away from a heroin habit, some can walk away from cigarettes cold turkey and never look back. And some cannot.

What Paulsby is describing is not an insult. It happens.

To throw another anecdote on the fire, I skipped my dad's drinking and smoking habits, and went to food. I've been pretty fat for the last 10 years. I've melted about half of the useless weight off, but as I approach my recommended weight, it is becoming exponentially harder to 'push through'. My current lack of progress is entirely my own fault. I am not putting up the level of effort required to progress, because, as was mentioned earlier, suffering sucks.

Recognizing that doesn't make me a lesser person, or anything like that. Knowing why I am failing gives me the best chance to overcome it.

Edit: Gender honorific removed, I should not assume you are male.

[sense]

320. Paulsby is living in another

century. Every person's biology is different. Our bodies are an extremely complicated balancing act to keep us alive and functioning. To think that weight loss/gain is easily explained by any one thing is silly.

It's an insult for Paulsby to be citing moral issues when this is an issue of science.

I'm happy that your regimen is working. I think that's great! You're an individual, as we all are. We have to find what works for us and all I'm saying, repeatedly, is that the ADA and AHA, plus the majority of doctors push a low fat, high carb diet that's failed miserably to keep the weight off because there are hormonal and other factors that won't allow it to work for almost all of us. We can lose weight, keeping it off for any period of time, with the diet that being pushed by so many isn't happening because of internal factors that are not being allowed into the equation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. what has changed in the last 100 years

1.-We are using things to keep pests off our plants. We know them as insecticides. There is plenty of emerging science that these insecticides are playing havoc with the hormonal system of the human body. The first canary in the mine were DDT and eggs, and birds... you MIGHT remember that. Unless you buy organic, which is EXPENSIVE, you are going to consume them, no matter what.

2.- BPA in plastic containers, no matter the claims of the plastics industry we have emerging science that BPA has played havoc with the hormonal system in the human body. These are even harder to avoid than insecticides as most food storage containers have them.

3.- Medicines that we know have a very nasty effect with the human body (and are needed for other reasons) that did not exist 100 years ago.

4.- Things like HCFS and other additives.

That is what has changed... it is not just behavior. And if you read pubmed, as you claim, YOU KNOW this is the EMERGING SCIENCE. Behavior is one element, and SCIENTISTS know that it is NOT as critical an element as it used to be believed even ten years ago. You are that behind the power curve.

I may recommend you also read the Journal of Endocrinology and Nature as in the top of the list.

[paulsby]

129. for example

4 is still behavior

you can choose or not choose to eat HFCS.

like i said, nowhere is there more personal choice than in what we eat

2) i agree with. i tend to avoid them in general. environmental estrogens suck

1) the science here is not CLOSE to conclusive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. You can chose not to eat them... sure you can

if you happen to be on the edge IT IS IN THE BREAD YOU BUY. Buying bread without is is EXPENSIVE... and most people are not going to bake.

Go to the store and start readying labels...

And the science is getting increasingly into yes, it has screwed up the environment and our hormonal systems. Again canary in mine, birds and thin egg shells...

Read the Journals. Behavior, as much as you scream otherwise, is not as determinant as it used to be believed to be.

You asked what changed, and now you are telling us how superior you are to the rest...

By the way I also do the organic, prepare at home shtick and I know just how LUCKY I AM TO HAVE THE LUXURY TO HAVE THE TIME TO DO THIS.

I am not superior to others, just LUCKY.

Now you were told what has changed... and it is hardly genetics or will power or moral superiority, and it is a crisis...

By the way, no matter how much you try to convince me to the contrary there are also set points and they go up, and medicines have had a major effect in this. You have a clue how many medicines your non elite athletes take have weight gain as a side effect? Hell, even some diabetes medications have that lovely gift.

Of course I forgot to add JP-5 in the water table and the silent epidemic of hypothyroidism. Yes, it is real, read the Journal... of endocrinology.

[paulsby]

143. "most people are not going to bake"

and again this brings me back to the main point

guess what? that's behavior

heck, most commercial bread, HCFS or not is CRAP.

junk.

fwiw, i don't do organic. you can choose to. i choose not to BUY organic, although i grow organic.

and you are totally right about set points. this goes back to the homeostasis thang i have already addressed.

upsetting homeostasis is difficult and uncomfortable

[nadinbrzezinski]

147. ok in your world people should bake at 12 at night after a full day of work

and taking care of the kids?

Yeah right.

Here is where we have a problem with your sense of morality... and you know what, that does not work in the real world.

HFCS should be removed from the food chain... and so on.

And that would go a long way to solving the problem.

Free clue, most people, even in older times, did not bake at home. THat is why bakeries were for. Ever done any baking?

[sense]

152. Have any children? Know anything about genetics, really?

[sense]

153. Oops.. meant to respond to the other guy, not you. Just

agreeing with you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

155. no problem

[paulsby]

227. yes and yes hth nt

[paulsby]

226. i don't bake either

fwiw. i also eat very little bread, since it's mostly empty calories, at least most commercial breads, and is very calorically dense, but not the kind of nutrients i am looking for . i have a friend who bakes bread and buys spelt by the sack. it's pretty frigging good.

i make a lot of staples into foods (cabbage and bok choy into kimchi), i pickle tons of vegetables from my garden so i can have them in the winter, cook a lot of thai food and vietnamese food, etc.

s friend of mine who fishes provides me with salmon that makes AWESOME gravlax.

i also eat about 6-10 eggs on some days

my major issue with food is trying to get 150 gms + of protein a day without going insane.

but i don't bake.

i'm not a pastry chef, kind of like all the chefs on top chef who freak out when they have to bake

and it's still about choices. you CAN eat bread and still remain thin. but for every extra empty calorie you get out of (for example) wonder bread, that's a missed opportunity to eat something healthy.

[AtheistCrusader]

290. There is a reason HFCS is in the food chain.

Now we're getting into economics.

You will sentence everyone to pay more for food if you wave a magic wand and do that.
Is that a bad thing? Maybe not. Especially if medical costs associated with Obesity come down.
But HFCS is in food because it's cheap, and allows us to make cheaper food. Doing something to make food more expensive, will impact the poor the most. Just a side thought.

[sense]

321. Economics has no business trumping the health

of the entire population! It's not that much cheaper to make food w/o toxins. It's a choice and we didn't make it, big corporations did. It's all about money. We lose health so that the very few can profit.

[AtheistCrusader]

340. Of course we made the choice.

We bought the cheap shit. Everyone does. Very, very few people will pay a premium for quality food components. We voted with our wallets. Period.

[nadinbrzezinski]

350. Actually you didn't...

the decision to replace HFSC was made at high corporate levels.

And our government also made the decision to keep sugar artificially high when compared to other markets. This was done to protect our corn monoculture...

Right now corporations are removing the HCSF from product because we consumers are refusing to buy the shit

[sense]

351. We were never given the choice or the

information for at least 30 years so that we could make good choices. Just like with so many other things..... without info, you can't make the best choices.

[sense]

149. Upsetting homeostasis is not only difficult,

it's not permanent. Not baking bread is the norm in our society. Most people don't have the time and the starch is just not good for you. I get the impression that you've been fortunate in life and somehow believe that it's all through force of will. Hilarious. And false. Not that we cannot have an affect, but you cannot rule out that are the favored gender and you inherited completely unique genes, as we all did. Every single choice we have is predetermined by so many other factors.....and other choices. You are not superior.

[paulsby]

229. that is somewhat true

it's as much a matter of habit, as it is of physiology, in regards to upsetting homeostasis and resetting set points.

i WAS lucky. both my grandmother and my mother taught me good eating habits from a young age. sometimes they went overboard (oy, the wheat germ phase), but in general, they were a huge positive influence.

families matter. and families SHOULD pass down healthy eating and good cooking from generation to generation.

as for my genes, like i said. if i just ate what i wanted, i would fat as hell. i started gaining fat in my late 20's even though i was a marathoner, 5k runner, and avid surfer. i just had to stop eating like i ate when i was younger, and moderate my calories more.

even i rationalized away the fat gain for a while (did i put thesepants in the dryer too long?)

but i decided i wanted to be healthy, be a better athlete, etc. so i did what i had to.

i never said i was superior. you are the one who is infantilizing poor people, thinking it's not their fault, it's society and the one armed man

that's crap. people have the choices to make and they benefit or suffer from them

[sense]

234. Still refusing to learn.

Really, the research in this century refutes the whole choices thing and much more... you really shouldn't continue to rely on things that have been proven false. It's just silly.

[paulsby]

236. it has been proven true

that behavioral choices are the primary influence , and amongst those - food choices and exercise choices.

that's the cold hard reality.
heck, the CDC estimates over 60% of chronic disease is the result of these choices.

i believe people can (and many do) make the choices to improve their bf levels.

it's that simple

you want to blame all the external factors, and what you are doing is diminishing their strength and worth as free individuals

i don't

it IS within grasp. but it aint easy

[sense]

242. It has not been proven!

You can't make it so by repeating it over and over. It's incredibly clear that you're living in another century if you believe what you're espousing.... it's hell to get old.... but old dogs really can learn new tricks... but it's hard, really, really hard.........

[sense]

142. Most people don't understand

the danger of HFCS, nor are they able to recognize it in all it's different forms on the nutritional info. If you're poor, you don't have choices.

[sense]

144. Most people don't understand

the danger of HFCS, nor are they able to recognize it in all it's different forms on the nutrition label. If you're poor, your choices are severely limited.

[paulsby]

146. if you are poor,

you have plenty of choices. i've been poor.

it's not an unknown situation to me.

you can infantilize the poor and treat them as victims. i don't. i give them more respect than that.

like i said, i have been poor, and i have lived (and shopped) in the hood. i see the way poor people often shop. and in general, the obese tend to purchase crap. i can see it sitting right there in their carts. the thinner people tend to shop more healthily

they also tend to frequent the very reasonably priced farmner's market type store about a block from the grocery store and buy raw staples. and buy the big 50 lb bags of brown rice (incredibly cost effective) etc.

choices are made, and people benefit or suffer because of them.

how many people walk into the 7-11 and buy a super big gulp of coke (not even diet) and two corn dogs?

they stream in and out all day long

behavior -> consequences

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. We get it you are morally superior

Feel better?

[paulsby]

224. i never mentioned morality. it's yours

and other's strawman.

you keep inventing it, because you can't respond to facts.

this is not a MORAL issue (imo, feeding your KIDS crap is a moral issue. what you choose to do with your own body isn't).

[nadinbrzezinski]

228. NO that is the gist of your post

it is the pull yourself by your bootstraps of the American rugged individualist.

It does not work well in economics, and for god sakes it does not work well in science either.

CAPICHE?

[paulsby]

232. i respect people

you apparently don't.

in fact, it is you who is not crediting the obese , and especially the obese who happen to be poor with the means to better themselves. it's society's fault, it's the one armed man, it's evil monsanto and their HFCS bla bla bla

that's incredibly paternalistic and insulting. and it is YOU that is the moral superiorist, not me

i believe that the vast majority of obese people (the small %age of obese who have clinical issues like hypothyroidism aside) CAN lower their bf by behavioral change. it is within their reach, and unlike you, i don't explain it away and infantilize them like some superior school marm patting the class dunce on the head.

the science is there.

the laws of thermodynamics and biology don't cease to exist because you belittle the poor and the obese.

[sense]

237. You're just so wrong... and bizarrely unable to learn....

Where's your evidence? All you've got is opinion, not facts. I know its more difficult to learn the older we get, but do you have some sort of medical problem that keeps you from recognizing the need to keep learning if you want to stay current in science? You've got prejudice and your whatever you "believe" isn't relevant. Science is relevant.

[paulsby]

244. staying current in science

means reading pubmed and often reading the studies (not just the abstracts as most do).

i've done for many many years. and the science still says that obesity is largely the result of behavioral choices.

are there other factors?

sure.

fwiw, this is the first time in recorded history that the poor are significantly more obese than the rich, and that the #1 health problem amongst the poor is (in america)- wait for it-- obesity.

there is not some kind of weird logans run type genetic lottery where poor people are all given the fat gene, and the rich are favored with skinny genes.

it has to do with behavior. the rich were once significantly fatter than the poor. in fact, it was a sign of power ... "a man with a belly" was synonymous with saying a "powerful man".

gout was referred to as a rich man's disease. people got it in large part by eating tons of very rich food (no pun intended) while the poor actually ate more healthy, if not always able to get sufficient amount of calories.

look at the high incidence of diabetes and obesity in native americans (who adopt a western style diet).

their ancestors had different behavior, and thus better bodyfat levels.

look at the mediterranean diet and how successful it is (and how much more healthy even the poor are who eat a diet high in the right types of fats, lots of greens, etc.)

choices...

[sense]

248. Now you're proving you haven't read the current science. That

is not the current science you're talking about and you're throwing in all this extraneous crap to cover. I know it will be really, really hard...and maybe you just can't do it...but reading is the only way.

[rd_kent]

319. What is this "new" science you keep referring to? Please provide a link!

[sense]

324. There are an enormous amount studies cited in the book I recommended.

The author's name is Gary Taubes. Use the google. :-) You can find the studies he refers to online and many more. The biggest point is that it's not so simple as calories in/calories out. That's been proven false endlessly, yet people have quit reading and are just blindly following "experts" in so many different areas. Our bodies are very complicated and we're still learning so much. Eating the ADA and ABA recommended diet will not make you healthier or less obese. We've been mislead by the very people who're supposed to be helping us stay healthy. We've been mislead about so many other things.... why is it difficult to understand that this is just one more?

[nadinbrzezinski]

271. So all the fucking science means nothing?

Oh wait, there is no global warming either, never mind we may have the stoppage of the Atlantic Conveyor belt.

:sarcasm:

This is why THIS IS EMERGING SCIENCE and it is being met with the same kind of almost religious denial by certain members of the US, as global warming was and still is denied by certain members of the society.

[sense]

235. Really, you still don't get it?

You are the one who's not responded with any current scientific research or facts. You continue to insist that people choose to be fat....

[paulsby]

238. that's rhetoric

people don't choose to be fat (in most cases)

people make food and activity choices.

those choices, in the aggregate and over time RESULT in them being fat (or not fat as the case may be)

there are some people who can eat whatever they want as much as they want and not be fat

bully for them

for the rest of us, we make choices that are good, or we suffer the consequences.

part of the problem is this is a society where people are conditioned (and short attention spanned) to wanting instant gratification (note also our abysmal savings rate as another ramification of this tendency. it's sadly apparenty even for people who make six figures or more that many people want more more more now now now).

it is difficult to over and over again consciously forego pleasure and in many cases, endure suffering, when the result is not immediately apparent.

the result takes time.

[sense]

243. Apparently you haven't taken the time

to read the current research. It's enlightening... but you can't learn about it without the proper effort.

[paulsby]

247. i have read the research

and the "it's not my fault" crowd, and i can remember the epic flamefests in usenet with SSFA (soc.support.fat.acceptance) all those years ago... ah memories, people are always glomming on to the latest excuse for obesity, when

over and over and over again, obese people who make the effort and make the changes lose weight. i saw it literally SCORES of times JUST among my own clients.

these were people who were generally pretty motivated, but no genetically different or environmentally stressed than other obese people

one group of people are ALWAYS looking for some external bogeyman. it's easier than taking responsibility for oneself

others say, screw that whinging. let's get busy.

bully for them.

[sense]

249. Your experience with your specific clientele isn't

relevant. Science is relevant. Get busy reading.

[paulsby]

254. you do realize that theory

without real world experience is lacking

let me give you one example from the strength training world

literally for DECADES after the first steroids were introduced, the scientific community (in the US and elsewhere) insisted that steroids either didn't work, or they worked solely by placebo

seriously. research that if you don't believe me

the soviets and eastern bloc countries especially were making phenomenal gains while the "experts" were claiming with STUDY AFTER STUDY that they didn't work.

lol

to this day, for example, there are tons of records in olympic weightlifting from the "steroid era" (before mandated and/or sophisticated testing) that still have not been broken. decades old records. very few sports can say this. look at all the new records in swimming and lots of other sports, for example.

weightlifting had to change the weightclasses (several times) so that new "records" could be established

it wasn't until relatively recently (as compared to when they first started being used), that the "medical community" finally admitted they work.

the medical community has been similarly myopic about nutrition. the idea of "good fats" was trumpeted by udo erasmus et al Loooooooooooong before the US medical community would even admit that multivitamins could have a positive influence, let alone "good fats"

what i have (unlike you) is a combination of 20+ years as an athlete and experience with working with literally hundreds of people (elite and non-elite) who were involved in dieting, and also personal experience working with our team nutritionist, etc.

you, otoh, as a person who disrespects both poor and obese people just care about any excuse you can find so that obesity is always somebody else's fault.

[sense]

257. Wow! All that talking and nothing to say.

You're not fooling anyone.

[Missy Vixen]

268. This explains it all

First of all, I was amused by your insistence upthread that you don't judge people and you respect everyone. I think my favorite part was your calling the fat "losers". After all, I know I call everyone I respect a loser. :eyes:

>i can remember the epic flamefests in usenet with SSFA (soc.support.fat.acceptance) all those years ago... ah memories, people are always glomming on to the latest excuse for obesity, when<

So, you're a former SSFA troll, huh? Color me less than surprised. The Internet is a small place, and I seem to remember some of your handiwork there. It's not anything to be proud of, but I'm sure you are. After all, you told those fatties to FOAD, didn't you?

Again, I have grave misgivings about someone with your attitudes in law enforcement, especially in my hometown.

:eyes:

[Gwendolyn]

264. Nowhere in Good Calories, Bad Calories does it advocate for obese people to give up and be fat.

It's clear that you either can't absorb the literature you're reading, or you have an obvious agenda in posting here.

Good Calories, Bad Calories simply advises people on the TYPE of CALORIES IN, CALORIES OUT are preferable. It also raises awareness of other external factors that make weight loss difficult. But NOWHERE in the book does it imply that eating less and exercising more is futile. Your posts here are filled with ignorance and arrogance. Perhaps you get something out of discouraging people from making positive changes in their lives and one wonders what that is. Misery loves company, perhaps?

[sense]

Nowhere in any of my posts have I said

anything of the sort! You accuse me of being ignorant and arrogant, but you haven't apparently read anything I've said? I'm not the one discouraging people. My only agenda is waking people up the idea that weight loss the ADA and AHA way is not going to work in the long run and they should be advocating what does. Your post reveals that you're just piling on..... have fun with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

276. Just one slight correction, it does work for some folks

proving we are not all the same!!!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

294. Kind of like losing weight eh?

'Proper effort'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

305. What part of some are you missing

it is a minority.

That minority is 5%. You happy with those numbers?

I am sure CDC is not, why NIH is funding all that research as to why this does NOT work with 95% of the population... spare me the moral argument ok. Science ain't your friend when making a moral argument.

[AtheistCrusader]

309. What?

Neither of us have put forward a 'moral argument'.

[nadinbrzezinski]

318. This words of yours imply moral argument and superiority

'Proper effort'.

The implication is clear. Perhaps you do not mean it that way, but it is. And when we have a 95% failure rate, proper effort has little to do with it.

[sense]

328. You absolutely have.

The arguement that fat people are fat because they refuse to diet the way you think is appropriate is moral. It goes to character. Weight loss or gain has nothing to do with character. It's about science and you've clearly not kept up with that and are desperately clinging to your superiority, based on old assumptions, not science.

[AtheistCrusader]

338. I don't think you read anything I posted.

How can I cling to 'superiority', when I already acknowleged I have not met my target weight, and that it is harder to do so, as I get closer?

[sense]

352. Not physical superiority, which is irrelevant.

You're arguing that moral weakness is why obese people fail in their pursuit of weight loss/health. That's been proven false and has nothing to do with science, just bigotry and superiority.

[sense]

326. As I keep saying....

Proper effort without the proper diet fails. I've never advocated we not pay attention to diet and exercise, only that you have to pay attention to the current and actually historical evidence that's been ignored. Almost everyone can lose weight, but cannot keep it off on the diet currently prescribed by the vast majority of medical organizations and doctors. We've been mislead. The more who know about that, the better. Proper effort put forth in a way that takes advantage of the newest testing available and thinking outside the conservative box (diet wise) are necessary.

[rd_kent]

316. What is morally superior about FACTS?

[nadinbrzezinski]

322. Facts are that losing weight and obesity

are tied to things like the green revolution and using insecticides...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w201461632286372/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6P-42MN6CV-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1095925235&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ea7771830d281f102757c7ac19415a07

They are also tied to things like BPA (Plastics you use every day)

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2008/01/14/is_plastic_making_us_fat/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TC0-45JCS4M-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1095928551&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=338312db0130bc211e48438e4a5a3c82

Did I mention a low thyroid function?

http://www.thyroid.org/patients/patient_brochures/weight.html

and fuel

http://www.ewg.org/report/CDC-Scientists-Find-Rocket-Fuel-Chemical-In-Infant-Formula

http://www.anl.gov/PCS/acsfuel/preprint%20archive/Files/43_3_BOSTON_08-98_0451.pdf

Or how about genes...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1647517.ece

Yep, it is as simple as you think huh? and this is just ten minutes of web searching since you wanted links.

I am sure it is just about shutting down your mouth, and exercising. And while this is the case with SOME people, the EMERGING science tells us that no, it is not that simple.

For the record I wish it were... but all these diet programs, and a multibillion industry, if this was the case... and it was just diet... don't you think the problem would be solved by now? One reason people are actually doing research is the incredibly high failure rate.

[dustbunnie]

327. Even if none of those things were factored in, people would still fail on their "diets."

They always have and they always will.

[sense]

330. Proving our point!!!!! Thank you!!!!

The diets recommended by the powers that be... medical org., doctors, ADA and AHA do not work. Never have in any of the research back to the 1800's. Low fat, high carb doesn't work as it works against the chemistry of our bodies. It's promoted by almost everyone as the only way to get healthier and it's the worst "solution" to the problem.

[dustbunnie]

347. I've never proposed that high carb diets are good. Or even that medical doctors know --

what they're talking about when it comes to nutrition.

I do propose however, that even on a high protein, high fat diet, lowering calories and moving around are the best ways to lose body fat. You can't sit around and eat truckloads of food every day, even if it's filet mignon, and not expect to be both flabby and overweight.

[sense]

354. What I've been arguing about from the beginning

is that we've been mislead by the experts and org. that are supposed to advise and recommend to us the healthiest ways to eat. Simple. That point is apparently being ignored or people are making bizarre assumptions based on my agreeing with science. The ADA and AHA recommended diets for millions of people are the diets that fail and make us more unhealthy. Why is that allowed to continue? To save egos? Is there more profit in sick people? That's a simple one....

[dustbunnie]

381. Sure there's more profit in sick people. I agree.

I'm not sure why the ADA and AHA have recommended relatively high carb diets other than foods like corn and wheat are so plentiful. But also, mixing these with meats and vegetables result in very tasty dishes. What's a burger without a bun? Pizza without a crust? It doesn't seem to be a problem for those who don't have a weight problem to eat according to the pyramid... it's only when people flounder and put on some pounds that all those carbs exacerbate the problem. I'm just guessing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

392. You are a trainer and you've never heard of the Framingham Long Term

Study?

That in short order is why the AHA recommends essentially a bad imitation of a Mediterranean diet.

And that is the why the ADA does

As to things like corn and HOW the pyramid was built, the meat and milk council have a little to do with it.

Here you go...

Framingham

http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/

It is a famous one...

[nadinbrzezinski]

331. I want you to go ahead and search what were the obesity rates

even fifty years ago...

The obese and grossly obese tended to be the exceptions, not increasingly the rule.

Those exceptions oh fifty years ago and further back might have been related to... the obesity gene, which would have a benefit in a famine... evolution is pesky that way. Even if it is highly mal adaptive in a society with plenty of food... the coming end of the green revolution might make it adaptive again. WHO KNOWS?

When was the first insecticide introduced? 1937

Up to ten years ago nobody really paid attention to this... DDT notwithstanding and only because it was making many birds go to the edge of extinction. (Something about thinning egg shells)

When did plastics enter routine use in the American kitchen? 1950s.

Do I need to hand the crayons to connect those dots? Oh wait, the WHO and other reputable organizations are now connecting those dots... so is CDC, why do you think CDC and NIH are funding all those research studies? And you honestly think Monstanto is happy with that? Something about untended consequences come to mind.

[dustbunnie]

344. Whether the obese were the exception is not the point. I know the numbers were less.

The point is that they existed, and it has always been difficult to shed weight, especially for the chronically obese. Fast weight loss diet products have been on the market since forever.

You make this all very personal because you have diabetes and seem to take huge umbrage at anyone else trying to become healthy or lose weight, just because it's difficult for you.

My last client was 50 lbs overweight when a divorce left him depressed and eating take out too much. I put him on a caveman style diet as a base with lots of leeway and no starving, gave him a good workout routine which he followed a few times a week, putting him in a social situation where he met people and came out of his slump. But according to you, we should've just told him at the door that because so many people are hypothyroid, plastics and insecticides have turned him into a mutant, he should just go home and swallow some pills. Or eat more and become chronically obese. What the hell. Why not since the world is gong to hell in a handbasket.

I don't think there are many people who disagree with your points. These things do contribute to the obesity, but they are far from the only reasons. And they certainly don't make it impossible for otherwise healthy people to lose weight and become healthy. Believe it or not, every single day people all over the world are embarking on exercise programs, eating healthier, and losing weight. Despite what you say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

353. Fast weight loss have been around since forever?

Really?

When being fat was seen as a sign of wealth I highly doubt it.

Go watch the Paintings by Reubens. Her girls are anywhere from obese to borderline morbidly obese. That was the standard of beauty.

And nobody said they are the only reasons, just that they have made things far less clear... and far murkier.

The eat less exercise more has failed. And since it has, they are doing this research and finding out it is not that simple. And it is not what I say... it is what scientists say... you know the people with the white coats we pay to do the research.

When all this is said and done I am willing to bet that this will be in the category of global warming. We are just seeing this emerge.

Oh and no, that human has not been turned into a mutant... genetics ain't working that way.

[dustbunnie]

359. Yes, quick weight loss products have been around for over 100 years.

At some point back then, obesity was also seen as a moral failing, as espoused by the religious.

"The first person to publicly combine ideas of religious fervor, food choices, and health appears to be an American minister by the name of Sylvester Graham. In the early 1830s, Graham began to preach that all manner of immorality was related to the sin of gluttony, and that the answer to good health, both morally and spiritually, was to follow a bland, vegetarian diet. In Graham's view, gluttony led to indigestion, which then led to a state of what he called 'overstimulation'. This, he said, eventually led to illness."

http://www.karlloren.com/diet/p119.htm

Quick weight loss products were made of often unsafe ingredients, just like today.

"At the turn of the century, many Obesity cures and weight loss supplements contained ingredients which even then they knew to be harmful, but which, they said, when taken in small doses, the body could handle. These Obesity cures and weight loss supplements had a list of players which reads like the ingredient list on rat poison. Obesity cures and weight loss supplements were made up of such things as Thyroid, arsenic, strychnine, dinitrophenol (an insecticide,) or human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG,) which is the hormone that turns the stick blue on a home pregnancy test. It's no lie, Obesity cures and weight loss supplements were for a while prepared from the placenta and urine of pregnant women. Later, some were made from the same ingredients from rabbits. Although HCG is still available, it is not an Obesity cure or a weight loss supplement. It is used in the treatment of a rare disorder called Fröhlich's syndrome, which affects young boys, causing them to develop fat on their hips, buttocks, and thighs, and upsetting sexual development. It is a rare genetic disorder that even when HCG was initially developed, was very seldom seen."



http://www.enotes.com/drugs-substances-encyclopedia/diet-pills/overview

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1225130/obesity_cures_and_quick_weight_loss_pg2_pg2.html?cat=51

And yes, of course I know my client hasn't become a mutant. Lol, I was being a smart ass. I do know how genetics work.

[nadinbrzezinski]

369. 100 years is hardly forever

some cultural anthropology is in order.

As food became more plentiful, being thin became the somewhat in thing... and that happened first in the US and then after WW II spread to Europe

But once again 100 years is hardly for ever.


Until then, and in TRADITIONAL societies still, girth is a sign of health and wealth. After all it means YOU CAN AFFORD TO EAT... therefore have a better potential of surviving a famine.

Oh and smacks head, look at a picture of Marylyn Monroe... she was the standard of her age, and she was hardly thin by modern standards. Getting thin meant going from Garfield sized to Monroe sized.

[dustbunnie]

379. You should have at least taken a look at the links I provided.

The notion of dieting originated in the 1800's as this was around the time that the capacity for mass storage meant the average person could avail him/herself of food, whereas before such time, it was mostly only the aristocratic elites that could afford to be obese. As soon as the average man became obese, it was seen as sinful. Your posting of art is a good reminder that people were in fact obese long before insecticides and plastics came into play. I'm not sure what your point is here. All you're reiterating is that MORE food (then available to the wealthy) = FATTER person. LESS FOOD (as in, not available to the poor) = THINNER person. Seems to prove at least half the notion of EAT LESS, MOVE MORE.

For your info, Marilyn was a very small person with large breasts. I know it's in vogue to say she was a size 14 these days, but that's a debunked myth. She weighed 118 lbs at 5'5" and wore a size 8. Probably a 6 jeans. That is a very normal weight even today.

[nadinbrzezinski]

389. mass storage meant the average person could avail him/herself of food

FOOD BECAME PLENTIFUL.. .this is the FIRST TIME in the last 15K years that this is the case since the rise of agriculture

This is also the first time since the evolution of humans starting with our most distant predecessor 4.2 million years ago.

Until this UNIQUE moment in human history... being fat is a sign of wealth and health.

You yourself said such.

And still 100 years when compared to oh 15K years is a second in time.

Why I cited cultural anthropology.

And no Monroe would not be considered thin today. For god sakes, she did not wear a four. (Sizes also changed but the point is that her times people were still wearing fuller figures)

[dustbunnie]

394. I have no idea what point you are trying make in relation to this thread.

We agree that that throughout history, people who were obese had access to a lot of food and ate it. And? Sorry I'm not getting any epiphany from this. It acknowledges what I already know.

I did not say Marilyn wore a four. She wore an eight by today's standards. That is a very normal size for today's woman. If you don't believe what I've said, snopes can elucidate you further as to what size she wore.

Sorry, this is not a big lady to me. But again, I'm not sure why Marilyn's size is important here. You seem to be implying that people were obese in the 50's. How does that work in with your theories about why everyone's fat today?

[nadinbrzezinski]

395. I did not say they were obese

but the SOCIAL standards of the age liked a fuller figure, slightly fuller than are the modern standards.

There were air brushes, but not photoshop.

And the point was, since I need to repeat this, that our fetish for diet started when food became plentiful and easily accessible, and that is a second in human history.

Mostly you either had food, or you starved.

So when you claim that people were looking for quick get thin remedies... that is a RECENT phenomenal at most five generations old... 25 years a generation.

THAT IS THE POINT.

[dustbunnie]

400. Again, I'm not following what point or relevance this has to the thread.

What does any of that have to do with dieting or exercise affecting one's weight? So far, I'm not seeing you refute that throughout history people who had access to a lot of food and ate it were obese, and those who starved were thin.

My comment regarding the quick weight loss products from the 1800s was just to illustrate that people were obviously obese, and people were obviously concerned about it BEFORE HFCS syrup, insecticides and plastic containers were on the market. In fact, one of the get thin quick products was insecticide. I think I made my point.

And as far as Marilyn and today's woman, you're confusing actresses with models, which is apples to oranges. There are voluptuous actresses in film today, with women like Jennifer Lopez, Salma Hayek, Kate Winslet and a bunch of others gracing the screen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

408. you did not know what framingham is

and you have no clue about extremely basic anthropology... no wonder I am arguing with a wall.

:banghead:

Of course all the chemicals we have added have nothing to do with the crisis either... and the world's weather is not changing and humans did not evolve.

I think we are done.

I like science not religious certainty.

Is this a characteristic of physical trainers? This cocksure, twenty years behind the power curve, quasi religious belief? Remind me not to hire one.

[dustbunnie]

412. You're a woman who is overweight and gloms onto every new diet craze...

I guess that makes you an expert. Keep reading every new book that comes out onto the market and convince yourself that this is "the one" which markets you the truth. You are a victim of the industry even though you have no idea that you are...the typical consumer.

You don't need to hire anybody, you know it all. And I'm sure a physical specimen that is an inspiration to all. I on the other hand, am just a lowly know nothing satisfied with my health and my weight and a couple of body building trophies gathering dust on my bookshelf. I guess we're both doing okay. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

413. WOW and I am supposed to be impressed

here is a free clue for ya...

I gained weight due to a medication that has as one of its side effects WEIGHT GAIN.

I was eating 1000 calories a day and still gained 50 pounds in three months dear.

I lost that weight over three years my dear. Now according to my doctor.. an RD, and an exercise physiologist this little foray into DRAMATIC weight gain due to a medication changed the set point. So between that and insulin resistance (read on diabetes, might be good for you. Wait you don't know about Framingham so why should I expect this knowledge from you?) losing more weight after reaching the present plateau is near impossible. I should add hypothyroidism as well, treated with drugs right now.

In case you wonder, I was also told after leaving that med behind to INCREASE my food intake to 1300 KCals a day. Surprised? I mean it goes against your religion.

I do exercise and I eat a balanced diet. And I have not dieted in years... and you know what? My weight is stable and though I am technically overweight, me and my doctor are peachy kin since losing as much as I have ALREADY has done wonders for my blood values.. so if and when the plateau breaks... well then, will continue on... and if it does not... well then, the most benefit have already occurred.

So when I read people like you going it is just ins and outs... well sorry if I don't believe your type anymore. Mostly I have learned from personal experience that it is far more complex than just diet and exercise, as major components as they are for MOST of the younger population. And of course plenty of reading in things like the Journal of Endocrinology where many of those obesity studies you refuse to read, might challenge what you believe to be THE TRUTH, are published.

I do not wish this on you... but a walk in my shoes or those of others would be good for you. When and if that happens. do you want your crow pie a la mode, or just warmed up?

I am willing to serve it up... anyway you want it dear. Oh and crow pie is zero calories, so you can go ahead and consume the whole thing. And no dear I would not hire you... not in a new york second, or in my whole life time.

But seriously you ask why the AHA recommends what they do, read Framingham... it is not a fad, but a multigenerational NIH funded, medical study. You know the difference right?

Oh and if you think Kessler is a diet book shows that you don't read... but have chosen to be ignorant. I wonder... do facts challenge religious belief? I guess they do... why some folks still fear evolution.

[dustbunnie]

421. For someone who was done, you sure are chatty.

:) I've manipulated my body through food and exercise in ways that you couldn't ever imagine. I couldn't even begin to describe it to you as it would go over your head completely. You've only recently discovered the world of health and so you're like a kid with a new toy. That's why when I read your arrogant exchanges with Paulsby it makes me smile. You have no idea what you're discussing beyond the stuff you read. You have no practical application for it at all, and you make yourself look foolish to those who are actually "in the trenches" so to speak, who've gotten there not by "luck" as you like to repeat incessantly, but by hard work, and through amassing reams of knowledge over many years.

My mom stopped using plastic containers back in the 80's. The fat gene business goes back to at least the 90s. Everything that Kessler and Taubes proclaim today, I learned ten years ago when I first started training. If you stick with it, ten years from now you'll be reading again what you've learned from these guys.

If I ever need medication that makes me blow up, I'll be prepared for it. I won't crap on, or denigrate the achievements and observations of others because my experience happens to be different, and I won't feel like browbeating them because I'm a know-it-all who just read a book.

[nadinbrzezinski]

425. "I recently discovered the world of health"

WOW....

Only for the last 25 years... Yep I just discovered it... I stumbled onto it the day I became a medic... like at 18, been a couple decades kid. Oh did I mention being a TA in a Nutrition program?

Any other stupid statements you would like to make?

My I had to actually answer to this as this is incredibly funny.

By the way did your manipulation include bulimia and anorexia? It is common among body builders... perhaps steroid use? It is more common among men, but women are known to use them as well... sometimes "legally" most of the time illegally.

And yes I will call you on your BS. It is oozing.

[dustbunnie]

432. Are you still at this Nadine? Lol.

Nice back story you invented for me. But according to you, nothing I eat or don't eat would affect my physique in any way, so why would I bother purging or starving myself? You say starving wouldn't result in any weight loss at all, so what would be the point?

You've also claimed that exercise has no bearing on what a person looks like so why would I use steroids since all they do is make you fat? I'm assuming it was my enthusiastic prayers to the goddess that got me the muscle I have and will keep me from gaining a lot of weight should I decide to eat my bodyweight in food every day.

How about if I repeat my "stupid statement." I don't believe you know much about how the human body reacts to nourishment or exercise. I don't really care if you were a medic. My doctor is the last person I'd ask for either a diet regimen or a training routine, so why would your former employment impress me? Lol.

[sense]

433. "to eat my bodyweight in food every day."

There you go again, outing yourself for who you are. That's what you think others are doing and that's what makes people fat. Good job. Keep spreading prejudice...maybe fox will hire you.

[dustbunnie]

434. There you go again, with your passive aggressive insults.

You have plenty of those, but very little to add to the discussion. According Nadine, nothing I consume has any bearing on what I look like. I am solely a product of environmental and external influences. The only influences that can affect me are insecticides, medication, and HFCS. I'm free to eat whatever the hell I like, whenever the hell I want to. No problem.

Nobody really knows what you it is you espouse, since you haven't said a word except to disparage people and to sort of agree with Nadine, except not really. You claim a high fat diet can affect change, but blast anybody who dares to post that what you eat makes a difference.

Instead of being so obnoxious and troll-like, why don't you actually post your own brilliant musings on what affects body weight and fat loss?

[sense]

435. Nadine has said nothing of the sort... you're

taking her words and mine and twisting them so you can sound superior. If you don't believe we add to the discussion in any way, you'll ignore us. The problem is, you're not getting away with prejudice, obfuscation and lies and you just can't stand it.

I'm not insulting anyone who's telling the truth, only those with obvious pre-concieved bias, based on appearance, not science, and like any other bigot you deserve to be outed.

So you call me obnoxious and troll like... very cute... anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll... I'm advocating the latest scientific research, it's not remotely difficult to find nor is the research (ancient and current) that proves your ideas about caloric expenditure and exercise are false. I've advocated one book, but there are many, that look at the research, the conclusions, false and otherwise, and the history of how we got to this place... in time. I simply advocated a book that brings the research and history of it into a clearer light in a very organized and simply manner so that you have a reasonable place to find it, without having to expend too much......will, effort, discipline, all those things you say are lacking in others.

She nor I have ever said that nothing you put in your body have any effect. That's a stupid statement and you said it to try to take away from the real issues. Why not talk about those and your clearly ingrained prejudice. Why act so sure that you're right, when you have no science to back you up? Sounds like what you called me only applies to you and serves to allow you to discourages anyone who's actually interested in looking at alternatives to the mythology you espouse.

[dustbunnie]

437. We're still waiting for your words of wisdom.

Once again you've added nothing to the discussion with your post.

Why don't you post your pearls of wisdom about the subject of fat loss vis a vis intake of nutrition?

[sense]

440. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories

Posted previously....endlessly.....

Many other resources out there, but I will not post them all, because I'm sure you know how to use the google....

[dustbunnie]

443. Just as I thought.

Since you've read all the research and have studied Taubes book at length, so much so that you feel compelled to scold and condescend to others on this thread, it should be easy for you to compose a two paragraph summary relating to us how fat loss/fat gain/nutrition/exercise all work together.

But you can't, because you don't really understand the practical application of what you've read.

[sense]

445. More insults from you....

because you've got nothing else. Nothing. There have been numerous explanations all around...and you apparently can't read.

[dustbunnie]

452. Not one word meaningful word from you. I'd say it's you who has nothing.

;-)

[sense]

453. Refusing to read.....

Who's got nothing?

[nadinbrzezinski]

449. Says the one that does not know what Framingham is

Core study

[nadinbrzezinski]

439. You do lack in reading comprehension and have quite

a few biases. Now you did engage in body building... so were you bulimic, anorexic and did you use steroids? I am going from HEALTH stats, so I did not invent a back story... I made an educated guess. By the way bulimics and anorexics not only have a distorted self image, but also a distorted image of the world and food in general.

You strike me as the sort.

[dustbunnie]

444. My reading comprehension is just fine.

And I see you can't answer my post, because what you've been shilling all this time is not exactly fact.

But for your edification, if I wanted to excel at bodybuilding, which I did, it would be stupid for me to be anorexic as it would mean instant failure. Building muscle and lifting heavy weights requires plenty of calories administered periodically over the day. I know you don't understand this concept at all, but anorexics really do lose all that weight because they don't eat enough. For some people, like me, calories in/calories out is relevant. When I dieted for a show, the manipulation of calories was extreme, in that I used both carbs and protein to affect certain changes in my body. But I still ate around 1200 cals a day, even toward the end. I only really suffered the last two days as my water intake was rationed. I won one show, came second in another, so no, I wasn't anorexic.

Bulimia is also ill-advised for bodybuilders. Although people think that purging will get rid of the food, a lot of it has already begun to be absorbed into the body through mastication, and so aside from all the other terrible side effects, many bulimics are bloaty, and not thin by any means. Many bulimics throw their electrolytes out of whack and have vitamin deficiences. That's not conducive to success on stage. My diet has always been relatively clean but I train hard enough that I earn every pig out and enjoy them immensely.

I competed on the amateur level at 5'6" and 130 pounds. I was blessed with European genetics and so was able to pack on decent muscle. Great natural delts and traps. My last show qualified me for professional level (although it was a tri-state nothing show) and would've had to consider taking roids if I wanted to proceed further. Those ladies compete upwards of 160 pounds and I couldn't do that by myself. Wasn't my dream though, and I have seen cliteral enlargement first hand. I enjoy body building because it makes me feel great and I enjoy the challenge of beating my strength levels. I also have an SO who wouldn't have liked it, and plan to have children, so it's too frightening to contemplate.

I'm happy though that in your mind I've graduated to roided up bodybuilder rather than ignorant libertarian.

[nadinbrzezinski]

448. I am glad to know that you are a personal trainer that does not keep

up with leading edge science

By the way, you are the one constructing stories, and insulting but cannot deal with somebody else guessing that you probably have some food issues. why you so violently react to this.

I have met people with food issues in real life. I have met people who are body builders in RL with a few issues due to steroid use.

I also have met a few who, unlike you, went to get DEGREES in Medicine, Sports Medicine. Nutrition... you ain't one of them

By the way, calling me libertarian just shows your ignorance not only of things like what the fuck is the Framingham study but also about basic political definitions and political terms. So you know I am pretty left of you. And I like to read science on an aside. I am not the one engaged in magical thinking, YOU ARE.

So let me see you are ignorant of basic longitudinal studies...

You are ignorant of cutting edge science

And you are ignorant of basic political science terms...

And damn it you are proud of it

WOW how revealing of you.

Oh and since you called me a fat, latches to the latest fad diet (Guilty as charge, except my fad diet is as old as humanity, called intuitive eating, but guilty as charged) has told us your biases.

The UFOs are not coming and the etiology of obesity is now quite the hot subject at pretty conservative bodies like the World Health Organization, Sorry, if you do not understand what I said, get a dictionary. Quick what is the obesity rate RIGHT NOW world wide? You know that? I am betting you don't, but diet is no longer good enough to explain it and if that is troublesome to you, well I guess there is a 12 step program somewhere for you, or just stick to the UFO programs.

Oh and one more thing, you are a pretty ugly individual with extreme biases. Nope, I would not hire you as a personal trainer, not now, or the next life.

Oh and one more thing, you ain't going on ignore either. You are quite entertaining actually... in your ugliness.

[dustbunnie]

451. Well, I guess it's now obvious who has reading comprehension issues.

And who reacts violently when challenged. You can't stand anyone who might have a differing opinion from you and anyone who doesn't immediately hop onto your band wagon gets called all kinds of names. Where I come from, we call that bullying.

I'm glad to see that you have now reversed your opinion to include the fact that many people ARE affected by the amounts of food that they ingest whereas at the start of this thread you threw tantrums at anyone who would suggest it. You're progressing.

I'm not the one obsessed with diet, but it would appear from the amount of threads you start (all of which end in you stamping your feet like a spoiled child) that you are. Most people eat intuitively, but when you need a book to tell you to do that, and have to "think" about the "intuitive" part, it is no longer that, but just another diet craze.

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm a personal trainer by profession. I have done such work, and as I said, I enjoy helping the people who come to our gym who ask for it. My involvement in this thread has been to provide a balance against your incredible negativity and ill will against anybody who wants to take charge of their own health and body weight. But sure, I'm always happy to entertain you Nadine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

438. When we lack in readying comprehension

and invent things that other posters say, no wonder we cannot have a fruitful discussion.

By the way, since this is only calories and nothing more... hand me 1300 Kcals in chocolate and red wine. All things are equal... (oy the comma will be fun though, because they are not)

[dustbunnie]

441. I've not put words in your mouth at all.

You crap on changing one's diet regimen and exercise, and claim that it's impossible to lose weight due to external factors. If that is not what you mean, then why don't you explain yourself properly instead of calling every an idiot and a libertarian.

No one said anything about the value of calories. That's ABC stuff. Different foods create different effects, even when actual fat gain is not at issue. Excessive sugar and salt intake result in water retention which make a person look bloaty along with adding on the weight. Dairy as well. Sugar especially, wrecks havoc on the system so that even though that piece of chocolate may not kill a diet, the urge to eat more of same every few hours will. Alcohol is deadly to a diet for the same reason, along with the fact that it contains 9 cals per gram just like fat, but acts on the body like a simple sugar. Even ethnic differences can affect how a person reacts to certain foods. Since my ancestors come from Western Europe I'm okay eating potatoes. Dried fruit and nuts, and soy are not for me at all. I can often tell what kind of diet my clients are on just by looking at the bloat under their skin. But no one has ever said that the metamorphosis under eat less, move more is easy at all. Those few words are just a quick summary of a complicated concept. Losing body fat can be very hard work and requires trial and error to discover how your individual body works, what it needs and what's realistic.

[sense]

446. Baloney!

That's all you've done. You can try to justify all you want. You've repeatedly accused others of saying things they haven't said and tried to simplify what we have said down to nothing. Read the research. Quit getting lost in congratulating yourself on physical accomplishments in your past and move on up to some cerebral accomplishments.

If you spent as much time digging into the research as you do into others......

[dustbunnie]

454. Shame that no one but me gives you the time of day.

I guess it's because you have nothing to offer to this discussion.

I'm not into congratulating myself, but it seems Nadine is woefully misinformed about how anorexia and bulimia manifest in people. She's free to absorb or disregard any info that comes her way.

Instead of childishly sticking your nose into posts that weren't addressed to you, why don't you explain to us how this whole nutrition/exercise/weight loss business works? Explain it as though we were children. It shouldn't take more than a few moments for such an erudite person such as yourself.

:rofl:

[sense]

456. Now, I'm childish.... got any more names you'd like to

call me, Ms. Maturity?

No amount of explaining will do it for you. You're mind is closed.

[sense]

418. Ah, I see, very revealing.

You've paid no attention to what anyone has said, just made assumptions, based on your personal bias. Great.

Gloms? Typical consumer? Only in your mind....

[sense]

355. I think you're misreading her posts..

and making erroneous assumptions. She has taken no "umbrage? at anyone else's trying to become healthy or to lose weight. That is entirely your invention.

The caveman style diet is what works! Finally! Something that makes sense!

[AtheistCrusader]

345. Correlation/causation

Your trail of dots is missing a few dots. Like median income through the same decades. The amount of calories in the average american diet. The proliferation of fast food, and it's monetary cost, against basic grocery store staples. Not to mention hundreds of other factors.

[nadinbrzezinski]

356. Yeah that is why scientists are looking at how these

chemicals work in the human body and have found they have interesting effects, including cancer and obesity.

THey have nothing to do with markets. Science, unless we are talking about economics, does not care about markets, but concentrations of these chemicals in your adipose layer if you want to get technical and how that changes the ratio of estrogen in your blood, for example.

But now that you mention it, read into the cheap food policy and ask yourself who benefits?

[sense]

329. You don't have the facts.

I love facts. You're wrong about your assumptions. They are not facts. They're outdated and have been proven false. Read the research. Simple.

[sense]

151. Anecdote based on one person's biased experience proves

nothing. Again. You make far too many assumptions based on your prejudice, that you can't even begin to see the bigger, more scientific picture.

That the poor have less choices in their life is a proven fact. Get over yourself. You have no respect.

[paulsby]

251. you have no respect for the poor

i do.

i believe it is within their grasp.

many grasp it. some choose not to.

i don't criticize ANY person for being fat.

i criticize people who try to blame everything else but their own choices for same.

it's not "biased experience"

it's 25 yrs experience as an athlete, and learning what works and what doesn't work, and comparing notes with other athletes.

discussing these issues with our team nutritionist

reading the studies on pubmed etc. (not the ABSTRACTS, the studies)

making weight dozens of times

helping a friend prepare for a bodybuilding contest (talk about fat loss.)

and having contact with approximately 200 clients during my years as a personal trainer, and seeing what did and didn't work. (i did not personally have 200 clients, but we all compared notes and success and failure stories)

etc.

you will continue to belittle the poor and the obese

and i'll continue to live in the real world, with all it's inconvenient truths (tm)

[sense]

256. Still obfuscating.

You can fool the other people who haven't kept up with the science...but you're not going to fool the people who have. No matter how many straw men you throw out there...no matter your experience with athletes...who, by the way, are a very small part of the population and an even smaller part of the population we're talking about. Your experiences are not remotely the norm. They're not scientific, controlled, double blind....nothing will make your experiences relevant to this discussion. I'm sure you've got a lot of expertise in what you do, stick to that and you'll have a lot more credibility. If you have relevant science, then post it.

[sense]

136. I agree!

There are also other factors that we haven't yet discovered. We're still being told that everyone's cholesterol "needs" to be below 200 or 175. That's a completely arbitrary number chose by bureaucrats who are enabling pharma to earn huge profits on statin drugs. There has never been a study on women that shows that lowering cholesterol has an adverse affect on heart disease. We do, however, know that there are very serious side effects. Inflammation and homocysteine are implicated in heart disease, not cholesterol. That information is not being disseminated because pharma would lose too much profit and credibility.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. I take my statins but there is a clear family

history of familiar hyperlipidemia.

So I do thank Pharma for those... my mom would not be here sans them, and I would be on the edge.

But IMHO they might be overused. So readying all that info as well.

Genetics, I played lab rat two decades ago when they thought Vitamin E would be great... it was to a point...

[Kalyke]

292. Um, dude... I eat less than 1,000 calories a day and could not lose weight.

I walked three to four times a week and did sit ups until I was blue in the face. Nothing worked.

Finally, I opted for prescription and controlled diet drugs and vitamin shots for energy so I could get the fat to budge.

I suffered, still suffer and still need to lose 10 to 15 pounds that has slowed as my body has adjusted to the intake (food, vitamins, etc.). In the real world, women DO have more trouble losing weight than men.

[sense]

332. Exactly the story of so many!

The current "wisdom" of the ADA and AHA and the vast majority of doctors is false. It's been false since research about the subject began. False premises were started with and results ignored to "prove" a low fat, high carb, calorie restricted, starvation type diet works. It doesn't. Our bodies won't allow it. High carb, low fat diets don't work to sustain weight loss.

[nadinbrzezinski]

335. Realize 1000 is not recommended by any responsible RD

it leads to starvation syndrome. And doctors are not in the business of diet recommendation for some years now unless they are in the bariatric field or very specialized... aka specialties. Also this low fat diet, which is higher in COMPLEX carbs is loosely based on southern mediterranean diets, that do work.Not that most Americans actually follow that... either.

Framingham and other follow up studies over a generation prove that they do at multiple levels.

But for weight loss, 1000 low fat, high carb ain't what is the standard of care.

Just to keep this in the reality of science, and the ADA recommendations change every so often to reflect current studies. For example it used to be that at one time it was simply low fat. These days things like olive oils (part of that mediterranean diet) are highly recommended. So even the recommendations are a moving target. Oh and the ever popular debate of margarine and butter. Doc and I finally said. butter is far better for baking... so be it.

That said, things like the Pyramid are the way they are due to the American food industry... I mean if we were to follow a true mediterranean diet... our current consumption of... meat would be way down. Oh and the other problem is that the current advise to eat more fish (and this is recognized) has a little mercury problem... like insecticides... it is reflecting the pollution of our nest.

You know the real problem is not the ADA... as they change their standards as research requires, but all the fad gurus who do not. Yes I am talking about Adkins thank you...

[sense]

339. Good Calories, Bad Calories, as well as other sources, refute the evidence you cite in

a completely reasonable way and shows where and how the assumptions, not facts, were reported. Since the 1800's. Just as scientific studies, done on women, have never proven any positive correlation between low cholesterol and heart disease. My doctor handed me the studies that had been falsely reported as proof that we all need statins! She refused to read the actual study to determine the veracity of what was reported by the pharma company who did the Jupiter study.

I do agree that simple carbs are a huge part of the problem and complex are better. Just not very many of them.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

346. Framingham is part of these studies and the longest range, multigenerational study

now there is a little detail that may also be part of it, and recent research is looking into it.

We eat what is in the environment, Our bodies adapt to it. A proper mediterranean diet is very adequate in the mediterranean, for mediterranean peoples who have consumed a high veggie... complex carb, low fat, wine somewhere in their diet.

Now take that same diet to a traditional Mexican community, apart of the slight cultural issues... what is the traditional native american diet? Corn, beans, squash chillies, with a smattering of protein, fish, lean game, or in pre-hispanic times dog... You give this population the diet above and diabetes in higher rates and obesity will result... it is in the genes..

I'm using these two extreme examples... but populations are not the same and the ADA is starting to recognize this as well as NIH and other founding areas. So your classic mediterranean diet is not one that your body is adapted to, if you did not grow up in Greece, or Italy, but your body is adapted, assuming you are from northern European origin, to a diet rich in meat, complex carbs like barley and other grains, and higher in fat.

But we humans are omnivores and we actually have eaten a mix of COMPLEX carbs for a long time, at least since the rise of agriculture. We have also eaten more animal fats than we do these days, but they are looking at that. This started with the Pima Indian studies. This is where genetic background, once the dust settles, will play a critical role for not just diet, but also medicines.

In some ways this is exciting, in others damn scary.

By the way the modern american diet has the issue of being over processed simple carbs... not the rich dark breads I used to eat as a kid for example. (Thank god found a local european style bakery that does them... and no HCFS to be seen). And that is the problem... but the Pima studies as well as what is known as the French Paradox, and the Human Genome project are pointing to "designer, ethnic diets"

[sense]

358. The rise of agriculture is when our obesity problems

began. Before that we ate very few carbs and they were complex. Refining our carbs.. to the point where so many have no nutritional value.... well, and those troublesome HCFS are a huge part of the problem. They are no longer a part of our household, much to the chagrin of the youngest child.

[nadinbrzezinski]

367. Our problems started with

the current age. All data from CDC shows this... our spike is very recent like the last fifty years.

That pesky fat gene... would express itself if you had enough food. Humans ate carbs in the cave too. We know this. Fruits, berries, tubers and a few grains that could be eaten with minimum processng... We have found those in pre agriculture graves. Chiefly at places like oh Lascaux

I will repeat this, the problem with the modern american diet is not carbs, but the type of carbs. There is a huge difference between a slice of wonder bread, which is crap... and a slice of dark hardly milled, eastern european style rye bread. This bread, though somewhat processed is closer to the grains that were gathered and eaten by ancient men and women, and believe it or not even wheat.

This is where that pesky glycemic index comes in at least to me.

White Bread 75... why thank you hand me a bowl of sugar. Oh and I can say the same about potatoes even if I love them ok,

Barley ... 13.

And here is the problem Americans, even today, will consume mostly the high glycemic load foods, which are FINE in very small quantities... but if you eat a lot of them, they are a disaster. And if you add the rest of the chemicals... well then, we know where we are.

Now a little cultural anthropology. and medicine. Eating a lot of meat, exclusively, will lead sooner or later to gout. Why we cannot process it very efficiently and why meat is fine in small quantities. Yeah will be great for your carb load. Don't believe me? Until recently gout was a disease of the very rich who could eat meat all the time. White bread. why do Americans love white bread? Again a little cultural anthropology... (which also leads to the white pastas instead of whole wheat), white bread is highly milled, highly processed... very expensive. So having white bread, even that crap we call wonder bread, IS A SIGN of affluence... while having a slice of those dark milled, very much lower processed, breads is something the poor could have.

Now from the research into what the ADA is doing these days... they are starting, well after a lot other medical organizations around the world, adopting the Glycemic index... why well stupid national pride... I mean if we did not discover water boils at 100 centigrade, well it can't boil at 100 centigrade until we discover such. Don't worry, I grew up in Mexico, same stupid shit... pride will get you every time. But the ADA has a serious problem, as much as they are considering moving to GI index for diabetic diets for example, doing it for the population in general will be way too confusing. Hell current diabetic exchanges are way too confusing for many diabetics.

Oh by the way, this means consume mostly low to medium GY foods and go for high fiber, little processed and still keep protein within reasonable portions. No I am not hunting... nor do I need to fish my food...

The other thing that needs to change is what we allow the food industry to get away with... good luck there Don Quixote... which brings me back to GI index... Cherrios, watching one day the public access channel. is actually worst than oh Wonder Bread... can you say 85? Well then, truly hand me the sugar bowl... and many of our highly processed foods are up there.

By the way, here is a nice list of these things. I carry an app on my IPOD that has an extensive database.

Here is one for you

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

So in effect we go back in some ways to the way I ate in Mexico, at home... some meat, plenty of fresh vegies, some fruit, and some tortillas and beans... oh with plenty of chili of course. In other words, a balanced diet, and things like ice cream and cookies and all that were luxuries... treats... that's it.

And yes I have researched the paleo diet, and like all diets it has one serious problem. It's emphasis on meats, like the Atkins diet, can lead to some interesting problems with blood chemistries... ketoacidosis. So all in moderation... and yes even lots of fruit will lead to obesity. Anecdotally one of the patients at the Brookhaven institute said he was puzzled. He did not over eat. well except the two pounds of oranges a day.

We evolved to eat foods that are not that processed... but we also evolved not to eat all these chemicals. As I said above, when all is said and done and the dust settles, part of this will be the damage we've done to the environment, while part of this will be very much designer diets...

[janx]

382. Ahhh--

Extreme diets do just that, yes.

[dustbunnie]

88. What's your success story sense? Have you lost a lot of weight and kept it off --

long term through implementing the diet advice put forth in Good Calories, Bad Calories? Did you exercise as well or just follow the low-carb, higher fat diet? How long have you kept the weight off?

Sorry if it seems nosy, but am curious and if you don't mind sharing, it would be interesting.

[paulsby]

93. i've kept weight off

(or more correctly FAT off by...)

one: monitoring caloric intake. fwiw, this was necessary at the beginning, it's no longer necessary since it is now unconsciously automatic. good habits being just as hard to break as bad habits.

two: making better food choices. lots of fresh and minimally processed foods. eating foods that contributed to satiety w/o massive calories.

three: strongly limiting intake of simple sugars. although, POST workout, i will purposefully ingest sugars and proteins in order to replenish muscle glycogen stores, etc. other than that, very little

four: accepting that dieting HURTS, and at times i will be suffer

four is the hardest for people to do

also note that many OTC pharmaceuticals are very helpful in losing fat, and especially staving off catabolism due to dieting. i used ephedrine/caffeine stacks many times and had GREAT success with them. the reason congress tried to ban them (contrary to DSHEA) was because they are pimps for big pharma.

currently, i target my weight about 218 to 220 and then diet off 14 lbs or so prior to competititions.

although, i am right now on disability and recovering from injury and lost over 18 lbs initially, and am slowly building it back.

[dustbunnie]

103. Hey paulsby, I pretty much think I know how you keep the fat off --

and the muscle on.

I train too, still have a few clients myself here and there. I've competed twice and remember all too well what it was like two weeks out each time. The worst was the horrible hunger-driven insomnia. :)

Our philosophy differs a little I guess in terms of what "suffering" is. I've found that my clients who viewed dieting and exercise as "suffering" and/or punishment were always the ones to fail eventually. They all started off well, throwing themselves into it, but every setback or plateau was blown way out of proportion and caused depression or self-loathing. I always knew these people would someday explode and gain all the weight back. I was always right. The only ones who ever succeeded were those who fell in love with training (or some other sport like cycling) or those who fell in love with good health and changed their habits through heartfelt wanting. That's why I never promoted the "suffering" aspect of dieting.

But anyway, that's why I was asking sense about his/her experience as s/he seems to have a strong opinion and was wondering where it came from.

[paulsby]

111. i see your point

i don't tell people that dieting is suffering, i just make it clear that the idea that one can lose weight effortlessly, that there is some magick diet (tm) that will help you lose weight w/o discomfort etc. is a dream that is never achieved.

it's kind of like people who are always looking for the magic workout that will make them look like ronnie coleman. i tell them there IS no magic workout. coleman got hyooge through superior genetics, ample pharmaceuticals, and working out VERY VERY hard.

one thing i did was have my clients look forward to a "cheat day" once every 5 to 7 days. this offers a psychological relief, as well as a physiological relief (restokes metabolism, and prevents the body from going into starvation mode).

i think th epoint of commonality is that eating right (and working out) eventually becomes habit. one feels guilty NOT eating right or not working out. IT becomes homeostasis and people learn to enjoy eating right and working out.

don't get me wrong, on occasion i dread the next workout. but i know you gotta put the gym time in to get the results.

to quote jesse owens:"a lifetime of training for just ten seconds"

sports, like dieting has a VERY high mental component, as you say. and that is often the hardest to address, but the most important.

just for the record, i don't do bodybuilding. i do strength sports. but i have great respect for bbing, as a discipline and way of life.

[dustbunnie]

133. Lol, I guess all PTs all over the world talk themselves silly saying the same thing.

There is no magical diet or training routine, no. I always told my clients, "the turtle wins the race." The "rabbit" loses weight too fast and gains it back, along with more fat, quickly too. The woman who loses one pound a week over a long period of time while also changing her diet for the long term, will keep it off.

I remember your posts from some time ago, and thought you were a bodybuilder. I was close! :) I always like reading your posts about training and dieting. Hope you get over that injury soon!

I scaled down my training a lot over the last two years and am small but still strong, which I enjoy. Like you, couldn't imagine changing my lifestyle to exclude training, even through those occasional pockets of blahness.

[paulsby]

223. it's true in trading also

i know a few very successful futures and stock traders. and they, when they were new, just like most losing traders are always looking for the "magic indicator" that will tell them when to buy or sell. good traders know there is no such indicator. good traders are rational when the market is emotional, learn that there is a difference between contrarianism (good) and jumping in front of a moving train (bad), and that what is important is MANAGING risk, not the magic indicator. even a system with very high expectancy will fail due to emotionalism and/or failure to manage risk

good to talk to a fellow in the iron game. fwiw, i tore my subscapularis off the bone (the dr. said it was "the most dramatic MRI i have ever seen), and have been recovering from surgery. it's a slow process (tendons grow and heal much slower than muscles in general) at first, but gains are coming really fast now, i just gotta listen to my physical therapist and not go completely overboard trying to get it all back too quickly. it's a fine line.

fwiw, one advantage of resistance training, i am convinced, is that the body learns to respond to trauma much more efficiently. every workout, you are traumatizing your body (the russian sports scientists refer to training as an "irritant"), and the body improves itself to better react to that trauma in the future. S.A.I.D. - Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. well, i am convinced that my years of resistance training has helped my body respond to the trauma of surgery. my PT says i'm at least 8-10 weeks ahead of the curve in recovery. i've used lots of modalities- icing, electrostim, physical therapy, chiropractic, massage, and epsom salt whirlpool baths (how old skool is that?), but i think the training effect is the key element.

being strong is good. one of the things about being a strength athlete is at first it's kind of annoying because you get a lot stronger, but you don't get bigger, and you look at the big guys at the commercial gym and feel ripped off because you are stronger than them, but smaller.

after a while, it's the opposite. you kind of revel in the fact that you can outlift the gym guys while not loooking hyooooge. strength athletes are kind of like BMW M3's. they don't look like sports cars, but will blow the doors off most production model porsches.

we have a 120 lb woman who squats 345 no problem ass to grass, no wraps, etc.

she blows minds when she goes to a conventional gym, where people do power curtsies (1/4 squats) with less than bodyweight.

i think the difference between strength athletes and bbers is that we hate dieting, and can't count beyond 3 reps :)

[dustbunnie]

270. Oh I've known a few bodybuilders who have trouble counting past 3 reps too.

:) Hehehe.

And I do think your years of training and learning to listen to your body have a lot to do with the quick recuperation you're now experiencing. Lots of documented studies concur it seems. The semi-likelihood of surgery in later years is another good reason to stay in shape. I'll bet that being accustomed to discomfort and constantly driving yourself beyond the pain threshold during training also has something to do with faster recuperation in that you have the discipline and desire to do what it takes to "fix" yourself, perhaps not wallow in depression.

Btw... I saw your post where you mentioned the old 20-rep killer routine. :) Best training method I've ever used, bar none. It's too hellishly torturous to employ more than 2wice a year now, but I've seen inspiring changes each time. A bodybuilding old timer who blasted legs with that routine back in the 70s took me through it many moons ago. These secret wisdoms have been around for a long, long time.

[paulsby]

300. hell ya

that 20 rep squat program was BRUTAL. to have that amount of weight on your back for a few minutes is bad enough, let alone doing 20 reps and gasping like a fish out of water on the last two.

i agree that the body of a strength trained athlete is primed to adapt to trauma. i am really happy with how fast the strength and mobility has come back. 2 months in a sling, metric assloads of pain killers, etc. are certainly a catabolic environment. when i got out of my sling, my shoulder was literally gone. i couldn't even see any anterior or medial delt. they come back REALLY quickly.

did you do the gallon+ of whole milk a day thang when doing the 20 rep program? i did it religiously old school style, so i included the whole milk. nowadays, i've drunk skim for so long, whole milk tastes like cream.

[dustbunnie]

315. Must have been a shocker when the sling came off.

:) But yeah, isn't muscle memory fantastische?

I laughed a little when I read what you wrote about the milk. You're a guy, so of course, I'm sure you were slurping it right down. Milk always made me look too smooth so I avoided it. Still do. Plus I'd rather "eat" my dairy, like yogurt, some cheese, etc. Back then I did load up on the carbs, sometimes eating oatmeal twice a day. And cheated on little treats like ice cream and slivers of cheesecake. Those workouts really were so deliciously brutal! :D I remember my legs buckling on one occasion as I left the gym and having to lean up against the wall until some nice guy drove by and gave me a lift to my car. Lol. But what great strength gains after going back to a low rep workout afterward! I'm sure it worked even better for you as a strength athlete.

Now I just infuse 20's into my workout to mix things up a little, and also I find it keeps the weight off as the holidays approach and there's more eating and imbibing. It gets busy around this time and those workouts, while brutal, are pretty quick to get through.

[paulsby]

409. yea, it's like beginner gains all over again

remember when your lifts went up like 5-10 lbs per workout? i'm back in that mode. the cool thing was that even when i was in the sling, i was able to keep my legs and hip complex strong via squatting. i think that helped too. the 20's seem so foreign to me right now. 5 reps is a REALLY HIGH REP set for me now. i have a bunch of russian texts translated by bud charniga and they make the point that beginners (usually children, but it applies to all beginners) actually make QUICKER gains with weights in a 60% of 1rm max range for singles and doubles, than they do with anything higher. it seems that the more experienced a lifter, the more they have to work out in the 90% and 90%+ range in order to get gains. but for me, even though it feels light, i am NOT going to push the weights. the shoulder is totally healed, but the subscapularis (the muscle i tore and had to be reattached) is going to be babied a bit. check out this link. this is one of athletes i've trained with (although she doesn't lift much since the olympics and one of the most inspiring athletes i have ever worked out with. first american woman to clean and jerk double bodyweight, and made the olympic team as a mother of 3, at 33 yrs of age. this is a 105 kilo c&j at 53 kilo bw. she is also the only lifter i know (male or female) who wears full makeup and hoop earrings ON THE PLATFORM. lol. she's awesome http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oiF_S4eK1I

[dustbunnie]

429. Melanie Roach looks great there...strong lady. I'm impressed paulsby!

:) I've always thought she looks amazing, and not because she wears make up and hoop earings, lol. There aren't many female weightlifters and powerlifters around here and the few that I've met out here on the east coast were larger ladies. I look at Melanie and am amazed at how small she is physically. I remember reading she suffered through a pretty serious back problem a few years back.

Was going to ask if you were still able to train legs properly while you were in a sling... should have known. I'm trying to figure out how you managed squats, unless you were maybe talking about hack squats? But I don't doubt where there's a will, there's a way, always. :) A friend of mine lived with a similar injury to the one you're talking about. It took 4-5 months for total recuperation, if I remember. Started out doing soft pulley work and loads of physio, then isometrics and gradually back to the weights. He's fully recovered now, and back to hitting the gym full time. Makes sense not to push things too quickly, or you just wind up back where you started and it isn't worth it in the long run. But I hope you get back to kicking butt soon!

[paulsby]

430. the media

generally concentrates on the superheavyweight lifters. but the lightweight ones like melanie and tara knott (she got a gold medal at sydney) are very counterintuitive to most people. they never guess they are weightlifters. if told they are athletes, they guess soccer player or gymnast etc. melanie is pretty small, but she has incredible strength and speed. i kind of improvised on the squats. I used a manta ray which elevates the bar slightly over the traps,and then i hung a strap on my injured side and held it down by my waist, so i wouldn't have to raise my arm and could balance the bar. I was going to buy a hip belt squat thing from ironmind, but the rigged squats seemed to work well enough so i said screw it. I did a lot of jumping and plyos and a lot of kettlebell stuff (With my good arm). studies have shown that if you work one side of the body, there is a neuromuscular crossover, such that a training effect does occur (to a small extent) on the other side. the injury happened mid july and surgery was August 3rd, so it's been 3 1/2 months. planning to return to work in a couple of weeks or maybe by the 24th. melanie just had her fourth kid. last time i saw him he was in an adidas warmup suit. she's pretty busy, cause she and her husband run a gymnastics gym, and he's a state representative. i'm going to give you a little hint here i learned the hard way. if you are doing a lift in a competition (or the gym) and all of a sudden you feel shooting pain, and feel a grinding bone on bone type thing in your joint... don't keep going :) it has been a nice 4 month vacation off work, but all things considered...

[sense]

124. My opinions are based on science.

You're making assumptions based on consequences, not proving anything. Where is the cause of depression, plateau, regain, loss of energy. Your body is different than everyone else's. You were born with the hormone levels and body processes that allow you to live the way you do. There are studies that show 3 month old babies have a certain metabolism, certain levels of hunger and levels of activity. Those remain the same as they age. Those are not choices they made. They were born that way.

[paulsby]

135. actually no

i was born with a body that is disposed towards obesity.

i choose to eat and have an activity level such that i am not obese

actually, technically speaking, i am obese according to BMI, since that equates excess weight with excess fat.

but that's another issue.

everybody IS different

vive la frigging difference. but the basics of healthy eating are pretty simple.

some people can eat whatever they want and not gain an ounce

others gain weight very easily

the latter group have to work harder.

it's kind of like strength sports.

some people are genetically gifted (high ratio of fast twitch fibers, etc. etc.) and others aren't

the latter group has to work harder than the former group.

life is unfair

but ANY person, can improve their strength throough training

[sense]

154. We weren't talking about strength,

but, of course, I agree that most people can improve their strength.

[paulsby]

231. the analogies are there

i will never break a 10 second 100 meters (heck, no non-west african origin athlete has fwiw). i will never clean and jerk triple my bodyweight, i will never squat 1000 lbs (even with a squat suit), i will never outlift ed coan or pyrros dimas, etc.

my point is that REGARDLESS of your genetic gifts (or lack thereof), through effort, willpower, determination, proper eating, etc. ANYbody can make gains, and most people are surprised at how much they can improve.

it is the same with fat loss. some people have it much harder than others. all can improve. and except for the tiny percentage with significant medical issues (thyroid dysfunction, etc.) it is not rocket science.

i am a positive person. i believe that obese people can improve their bf levels and health. that it is within their grasp

as opposed to those people who make excuses for other's failures, i don't. those who want it bad enough and work for it almost always achieve it, when it comes to fat loss.

i don't believe being poor or overworked is an excuse. iow, i have more respect for these people than you do. you go on and on about all the reasons why it's too hard, bla bla. i go on and on about they CAN do it, and if they want to succeed, they can.

so, ironically, you are the one who is making the negative moral judgments, not me.

[sense]

240. You are positively wrong. You show no respect for science, let alone

people you consider weak. There is a huge difference between losing weight and getting stronger. You profess to know so much, but seem blind to the simplest facts. You're the only one still insisting that it's about character. Scared to find out the truth?

[nadinbrzezinski]

282. This is the problem yours is a MORAL argument

not a scientific one.

And moral arguments, does not matter if we are talking of drug use, alcohol or obesity, are black and white and are quasi religious in nature.

[nadinbrzezinski]

157. No matter how much training I do, my genetics, pesky things they are

will not allow me to build that much muscle. As a medic I lifted weight, REGULARLY, and not just patients. And I did NOT gain weight form muscles.

Oy and for a 5.1 woman, my max bench press was 130 lp and my leg press was almost 300 pounds. I could not do that today, but that is ok... I do my exercise...

There is this thing called genetics... you alluded to it... and it also plays a role in obesity... heard of the fat gene? It exists, not a figment of my imagination.

[paulsby]

259. absolutely

i deal with genetics and limitations thereof... every day

btw, if you are looking to put on muscle, i STRONGLY recommend the old school but very effective 20 rep squat routine. NOTHING (and i mean nothing) in my entire strength career put on more muscle mass than that program. it was scary.

it's really hard. really. i mean it hurt as much as marathon hitting the wall pain, but it works

i actually , as a weight classed athlete, AVOID putting on muscle. and any hypertrophy i get better be sarcomere, not sarcoplasmic.

i've stayed around the same weight for years, but have gotten MUCH stronger... so it's working.

a big part of my sport is getting stronger via better rate coding, neuromuscular efficiency, etc.

anyway...
the 20 rep program is probably google'able. randy strossen has a great book on the topic at ironmind.com which outlines the program and gives some history

either way, i recommend it.

i also find the thing about gaining muscle as a woman funny. in that, many of my female clients, like the first thing they would say is something like "i don't want to get all big and muscle'y like those female bbers ok?"

i assure them that unless they are an extreme outlier genetic freak- they won't, that those women are doped to the gills and often are from the beginning - outliers.

here's a very cool website by a woman who has been into weight training for a long time, is very smart, and has a good sense of humor

http://www.stumptuous.com/

[nadinbrzezinski]

278. No I do not want hypertrophy

and as I said, as a medic did not...

There is this thing called genetics. Hell even spoke about it with the sport physiology experts at my local campus... as they were puzzled.

Lets just say, we all agreed that yep I had muscle, I hit a wall and to get over that... forget it... them pesky things... I will NOT ever be a world classed body builder. It ain't in the genes.

And that is part of this pesky research you refuse to acknowledge. Oh and the fat gene... it does express itself not just in research mice... free clue.

[paulsby]

299. what is this myth

that i refuse to acknowledge the importance of genetics? in sports, and ESPECIALLY in bodybuilding, genetics are extremely important. contrary to popular myth, for example, you cannot change the shape of a muscle through training. Iow, the fibers run from insertion to origin and either get bigger or smaller and.or you get sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, but either way, the SHAPE remains the same. bbing magazines are filled with articles about changing the shape, and they are all rubbish. that's genetics. the ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch is also genetic. you cannot make fast twitch fibers (well arguably in rare cases due to satellite cell activation and fiber splitting you can,... but i digress), but you can train fast twitch fibers to act more like slow twitch fibers, but the reverse is not true. to quote sam mussabini from chariots of fire, "you can't put in what god left out". he was referring to sprinters. speed can be improved, but unless you have elite genetics, you will never be an elite sprinter. heck, like i said, NO male who is not of west african descent has ever broken 10 seconds. genetics are hugely important. what i am saying is that , excpet for those with rare conditions (thyroid, etc.) that they can lose fat if they change their eating habits and.or increase exercise. its that simple. they have the power

as far as fat loss/gain, i have said NUMEROUS times, that genetics is an important factor. some people can eat whatever they want, as much as they want and never gain a lb. other people (like me) would be fat as hell if we ate whatever we wanted. it does not therefore follow that one cannot LOSe fat by judicious dieting and exercise. that's the point. it's difficult (and for some even more difficult) based on genetics, but that doesn't mean one is destined to be fat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

301. and in a few cases IMPOSSIBLE

it can be due to GENES... can be due to Hormonal Problems from EXTERNAL reasons, and it can be from a dead thyroid... or meds... or a combo of the above.

The two latter ones are now recognized to be far more common than even ten years ago

Try to keep up.

Journal of Endocrinology... start there.

RIGHT NOW.. the if you shut your pie hole and exercise routine is no longer a religion well except in the wider population that still sees this in moral terms. And I am sorry to say this, but you do.

In your eyes all this is down to choices... well that is A MORAL STANCE... not a SCIENTIFIC stance.

By the way, here is a free clue on meds on anecdotal, aka MY Experience, which is as valid as yours I guess.

I was given Avandia... look it up. One of the MAJOR side effects is WEIGHT GAIN.

Within three months of taking this I gained close to fifty pounds. I was eating 1000 calories\ day and exercising.

I was taken OFF avandia, and told to eat 1300 KCals... not eat less something about the body response to starvation... look it up.. gee guess what? I LOST them (over the course of three years) have not regained them... and my doctor and I are peachy kin if I don't lose a gram more... WHY? Even though I am technically overweight, we know we hit that barrier... and insulin resistance makes it that much harder. So no, we don't want to throw my body into starvation mode... Oh and don't preach about doing more exercise either ok. As she and I concluded, with an RD and an exercise physiologist my set point MOVED UP... ain't budging, and this is actually based on that pesky science... here we go again... and modifying it might be done, but only over the course of twenty plus years...

Oh and there is the thyroid to contend with as well.

In your world, from the posts you have written, I am just plain dumb, fat and stupid with zero will power. (Though I am technically overweight, but I am fat.. and a slob to boot)

I sure hope you never get to walk in shoes like mine or millions others... but it would be a tasty piece of crow pie... would you like vanilla ice cream to go with it? In some circumstances people need to walk in those real shoes to understand that the black and white solutions are not only not working for most folks, but asking the questions WHY is leading to a hell of a complex (and shades of gray answer)

Now shutting pie hole and doing more exercise will work for some people... don't get me wrong... and definitely nobody is advocating people stop making better food choices, and exercise from time to time... but here we go again with that pesky science... it ain't that simple, and with an aging population we have really interesting things that will happen.

Now I have been curious about these things for many years... and gee as a Diabetic it was my research that told me the Avandia had that lovely side effect, early patient and gee was not published as a side effect in the human trials. IN fact, all diabetes meds tend to have that side effect one way or the other, potentially... so do steroids. You know how many people take steroids for I don't know Asthma? (That is the most common use btw) Though anybody taking a Cortosteroid (Ibuprofen) may be having that effect as well.

You asked what happened in the last hundred years. You were given an answer. By the way I KNOW people who do some of the research, and to paraphrase one of them... this crisis is partly a consequence of the Green Revolution... as he put it... unintended consequences are the hardest to deal with. Now what does he do for a living? Well research into I don't Obesity.

He also said, you keep claiming it does not matter, HFCS is a direct consequence of our cheap food policy (thank Nixon) and again unintended consequence.

Now you keep claiming we are infantilizing the poor. Here is a piece of trivia for you. How many stores that sell healthy food, as in supermarkets, exist in the city of detroit? If you said Zero you'd be correct. Detroit is an extreme example. So yes, a lot of this is also urban planning and other social conditions. As I said yours is a moral stand... and if you ever get to walk in the shoes of others... I suspect you will be the one finding all them excuses.

Over the years as a medic my moral stances went away. LEOs either get hardened or softened a bit... part of the job... after all you do deal with that five percent, repeatedly, that keep making wrong choices... so it does not surprise me.

[paulsby]

302. you are ignoring what i said

i have conceded from the beginning that for a very small %age of population, they cannot lose fat without medical intervention or literally starving themselves

i mentioned, for example, hypothyroidism. these people are RARE.

like i said, out of 200 clients, we only saw ONE who had a medical condition that needed intervention. all others (and some were obese, others merely overfat) were able to lose weight simply by modifying diet and adding exercise.

that;'s the reality.

outliers don't define the reality.

give me a group of 100 obese men and women and most of them will be able to lose fat if they stick with a common sense diet and exercise program.

[nadinbrzezinski]

304. That is the problem hypothyroidism is NOT as rare as it was believed

even ten years ago. It is a silent epidemic... and in the west you can blame that on DOD... JP=5 in the water table is believed to be a component of it.

And people who deal with the obese, like the Brookhaven institute have found that it is not just about shutting a pie hole.

Brookhaven deals with this every day... that is what they do. And they have found that it is not just about eating less and exercising more. That is part of it, but NOT THE ONLY THING THEY DO... and things like medical and psychiatric interventions are done by them as well.

Granted some of their patients have OTHER issues that we have not even touched upon...

But it is NOT JUST THAT SIMPLE. and morality does not belong in a heath care crisis.

And I am betting your failure rate on the long term... will equal that of every other program... that is 95 of those obese patients will go back to being obese... them are the statistics. So why is it that diets don't work? Because if this is will power (moral argument) then we have a bunch of weak kneed americans... wait where did I hear this before? Oh yeah when we used to talk about alcoholism as a moral failing.

[paulsby]

306. first of all

for the umpteenth time, i never claimed this was a moral issue or made any moral statements about obese people . that's your strawman. it's not related to anything i said.

the failure rate of any program is high because most people do not want to endure the discomfort and do not have the discipline to do so.

an analogy could be made to smoking. the vast majority of people who try to quit - fail

that doesn't mean it is not within their power to quit. it is.

it's really that simple.

and you are the one mentioning morality, not me

[nadinbrzezinski]

307. You are the one that keeps making the moral statements

the failure rate of any program is high because most people do not want to endure the discomfort and do not have the discipline to do so.

This is a moral statement... it implies moral weakness.

But I think we are done, because truly you are not, even when you are.

Have a good life and stay safe out there ok.

Oh and I forgot, why quitting cigs is so damn hard? NICOTINE ADDICTION.... has zero to do with will power.

[paulsby]

310. no, it's not a moral statement

you may read it that way. i don't intend it that way.

and thus, i would respectfully request you stop claiming i am making a moral statement about obese people

i am not

i made it very clear that i thought it WAS a moral issue when people (obese or not) feed their kids a diet of junk. but that there is NO moral issue when an individual is fat, skinny, buff, or whatever.

and you are wrong. nicotine addiction is very difficult addiction to break. it does NOT therefore follow that it is not within the power of the individual to break that habit. many people break the habit, cold turkey even. breaking addiction is hard. so is dieting. the analogy is apt

[nadinbrzezinski]

313. Then your choice of words is not leading to what you mean

As I said, we are done...

And yes you are talking about this not being moral even when you are making moral statements.

Those are your words...

Oh and the analogy is apt, the same five percent that quit cigs get lean, mean and thin and stay there. There is a correlation somewhere in there but has little to do with moral failings. (And them pesky eggheads are looking at it... something about addiction and behavior and serotonin levels, not will power) And if you use morally laden language, I will call you on it.

Stay safe in the field...

[paulsby]

317. thank you

i will try

[sense]

343. Repetition will not make it so. Your prior statements

indicate your complete and total commitment to fat people having moral failings. Science works, trying to badger people with insults does not.

[sense]

342. It's related to everything you said.

It's not about whether or not people are strong enough to persevere with something that doesn't work! There is a metabolic problem, that cannot be ignored, try as you might. What we eat has consequences, no doubt. We simply need correct information to be able to succeed. A huge majority of so-called experts tell us to eat low fat, high carb, despite the failure rate of 95% in sustained weight loss.

Sick people = bigger profits. Sad.

[sense]

336. You are the one ignoring what's been said.

If you'd studied any of the current science you'd know that hypothyroidism is no longer rare, not that we're really even talking about that, which you'd know if you actually read what we wrote instead of trying to prove a point based on your tiny anecdotal experience with athletes. Not relevant. Your clients aren't relevant. What we're all trying to tell you, is that the idiotic low fat, high carb regimen that has failed millions will continue to fail and should be abandoned. None of us are suggesting that anyone abandon the quest for good health and/or weight loss. It's simply that a different approach has been proven endlessly to produce results that can be sustained and we're all constantly advised to avoid that way of eating. Have you bothered to read this far? There's your clue to what we're talking about. All indications from your posts indicate you haven't read this far in any prior post. Your one sided "conversation" is being challenged with fact.

[sense]

333. The point is, as said repeatedly,

Calories in/Calories out has been proven false. Our bodies are complicated. The diets touted by "authorities" on the subject are not helpful, they are the opposite. High carb, low-fat doesn't work. Have you bothered to read anything? Or just posting away.....without a thought about what anyone else says. If we don't agree with you, we're wrong. That's a very unscientific approach and makes you look....

[sense]

116. Don't try to change the subject.

Your very clean disdain for something most people have no more control over than their height is ridiculous. Body fat is controlled by hormones and other body processes. Yes, we need to eat whole foods, not the processed crap, sugar and starch that is so abundant and cheap. We've been mislead for at least 30 years about so many health issues....science be damned and you continue to buy into it and spread prejudice and falsehoods.

[paulsby]

117. rubbish

there are few things in this world that we have MORE control over, than what we eat.

here's the facts

we have FAR FAR more obesity now than 100 yrs ago

genetics have not changed (appreciably) in 100 yrs

therefore, what is to blame for increased obesity is how people eat and how much activity they get

those are the ONLY other variables.

it's scientifically indisputable.

you are the one using prejudice. to paraphrase ... losers always whine about their best...

[sense]

156. Just because you keep repeating dogma, doesn't

make it true. We've been given the wrong info on nutrition for at least 30 years. The food pyramid is a disaster for most people. Activity and input have been proven not to be all there is to it. I can see that you haven't been keeping up. It's a problem.

I don't know who you're quoting about the losers always whine....never heard of it and certainly didn't say it.

[sense]

95. You assume that my interest is personal, not

scientific? I'm talking about science. You're talking about prejudice and manipulation of data, people and organizations. Reading the info. on Amazon won't tell you what's in the book, it's not that simple. Voluminous studies have been cited and explained in the book. Really, you should read it. There are so many things taken as truth that are simply conjecture and false hypothesis and not only have not been proven, but have been found to be false, they simple have not been disseminated to the general public. Unfortunately scientists have been told that certain things are fact, and they're not. Started from a false premise will not enable you to find the truth.

[dustbunnie]

108. I'm not talking about prejudice or anything else.

I was just curious where your interest and experience lies as you seem very passionate about this thread.

We have the book at my gym, along with many others. I've already figured out what works best for my body -- took a lot of trial and error, but I'm always interested in other peoples' views.

[paulsby]

120. the truth is out there and you are ignoring it

here are the facts

1) we had relatively low levels of obesity 100 yrs ago in the US
2) we have relatively high levels now, even accounting for differences in demographics (iow, obesity has gone up amongst various racial groups, etc. it's not attributable to an immigration explosion of fat people)

there are only two things that could account for increased obesity

1) genetics

but that's not it. genetics have not, and cannot have changed appreciably in a few generations.

2) BEHAVIOR

bingo. what we choose to eat, and how much activity we get.

both are within an individual's control, and thus - ultimately - their responsibility

[sense]

160. Like talking to a brick wall

Nothing sadder than someone who refuses to learn.

[Gwendolyn]

265. You need to go back and reread your literature.

None of the science you've sprouted here disputes the fact that eating less and exercising more is futile or less than beneficial. You've repeatedly pointed to one book, Calories In, Calories Out, but it's clear you didn't understand a word of what was written. Either that, or you get some pleasure out of discouraging people from changing their lives for the better.

There are many, many people who lose bodyfat, increase muscle mass, and generally improve their mental outlook on life by following a long term diet plan that works for them, coupled with a good exercise program. That is all.

[sense]

272. It's clear that you didn't read it.

It's been proven that simply telling people to eat less and exercise more is insufficient, no matter how compliant they are. There are too many other factors not being taken into consideration, as if we're robots or drones, not individuals whose bodies all function uniquely. I have no idea why you'd think I'm trying to discourage anyone! I think it's very encouraging to know that so many of the things we've been told are just wrong.... and to be given alternatives that might actually work. I'm not remotely saying that anyone should give up! It's easy to lose the weight, entirely another thing to keep it off due to mechanisms in our bodies that thwart that. If you know the truth, you can be healthier. Simply following the "advice" of people invested in the status quo isn't helping. Step outside of the box.... there are other choices than low-fat, high carb that has been pushed incessantly for the last 30 years.

[Gwendolyn]

286. I know the book very well, and am prepared to post excerpts from it as well...

as from interviews with the author to prove my point.

In a nutshell, Taubes proposes that we become ever more addicted to carbohydrates even as we ingest them, screwing up our insulin levels, the consequence of which causes us to shovel more carbohydrates into our pieholes. By switching to low-carb, higher protein and fat, our bodies are able to get off the merry-go-round and regulate what we eat. Guess what! That translates into eating less since we're no longer prisoner of our cravings. The person who ate an extra 2500 cals a night in oreo cookies and ice cream, stops that behavior. And even though the person may still be eating "a lot" in terms of fatty foods, this continues to taper off as they lose more and more weight. Ergo... less weight, less food consumed.

Taubes also has nothing against exercise and basically what he states is that as soon as the body has weaned itself off the carbohydrate merry-go-round and begins to lose the excess fat, we suddenly find ourselves with energy to burn. Exercise is an excellent outlet for that, and encourages the building of strong bones and muscle mass. There are a myriad of other health benefits to exercising, including an amelioration in mood for many.

It's you who needs to get off your soap box. It's pretty clear from your posts that you ARE advocating for people to just give up and live with obesity, till science comes up with some pill to "fix" it for us. How fucking sad.

[sense]

349. You can't attribute motives to me based on lies.

Part of your in a nutshell is correct and that's what I'm recommending. I have never rec. what you say I do and you can't cite that. It doesn't have to translate into less calorically. Taubes does not recommend or advocate a low calorie diet, simply a low carb one. As he states, people are able to lose, while eating many more calories, up to 2700 daily, I believe although it may be more, as long as the carbs are kept very low. That's not calories in/calories out. There are chemical responses going on in our bodies that affect metabolism. I never said anything against exercise...whose posts are you reading????? Exercise is good, strength training is very helpful. Again, please cite my posts that prove what you're accusing me of.

I think your vocabulary is sad....and ineffective.

[rd_kent]

274. What studies? What dogma?

You cannot change facts. Calories in minus calories burned is the "secret formula" to weight loss.

[sense]

275. Again, you're behind in science.

Try to catch up. It's not the "secret formula". It's much more complicated than that and you'd know that if you'd done your research.

[rd_kent]

312. No, I am not "behind the science".

But you think I am, so please point me in the direction of this science that you are talking about.

As a certified personal trainer, I feel I know what I am talking about here. Sure, a proper diet is tailored to the individual, but nothing is going to change, no matter how bad you want it to, the fact that if you eat more than you burn (especially if it is unhealthy foods), you will not lose weight.

A proper diet and a proper exercise regimen, followed daily as a lifestyle (not a temporary plan) will keep one at a healthy weight. How do you not agree?

[sense]

360. I pointed... repeatedly......

Scientific research has proven that calories in/calories out is an out dated hypothesis and that we're far more complex than that.

I don't disagree that a proper diet and a proper exercise regiment, followed daily will keep one at a healthy weight! I've never said anything of the sort!!!!!

I simply agree with the scientific evidence that shows that the diet recommended almost exclusively by medical personnel and organizations, nationwide, is not working!! We are constantly bombarded at every turn with low fat diets as the answer! They are a huge part of the problem. Historically they've never worked for sustained weight loss except in perhaps 5% of the population who tried them, so I don't understand why all those who're supposed to be advising up about best practices for health keep insisting they do. Our bodies refuse the low fat, starvation level diets that are recommended, by changing our metabolism for the worse. Our bodies respond very well to high fat, med. protein and low carb diets, almost regardless of calorie count. Which doesn't mean we'll all end up skinny, but the majority of us would be much healthier and lighter.

[JonQ]

25. Which proves only that the diet industry isn't so great

not that weight loss through dieting and exercise is impossible.

And obesity is an epidemic in this country, with subsequent drop in life expectancy, overall health and increase in healthcare costs for all.

Obesity should be thought of the same as smoking, and for largely the same reasons.

[rd_kent]

273. Yours has to be the most ignorant post yet.

You are right about the diet "industry", but you fail to accept or acknowledge the FACTS presented to you in the previous post. There is NO getting around it. If people ate the way they are SUPPOSED to and exercised like they are SUPPOSED to, obesity would NOT be a problem, period.

[Missy Vixen]

28. Oh, and you're the oracle

>there are a very small %age of people who can't lose weight conventionally due to a medical condition. they are the outliers. most fat people are fat because they eat like fat people. i don't care if that's offensive - it's true.<

I knew before even opening this thread we'd be treated to your pearls of wisdom.

I'll take nutritional advice and information from someone like flvegan, who's a personal trainer, and has been one for years. If there was anyone on this site who should be bragging about his chops or making catty and misinformed comments about the fat, it's him, but he doesn't, and he never has.

Your comment about "outliers" also tells me you're in the wrong profession. After all, I'd prefer to not deal with a LEO IRL that sounds off on a subject he knows little about at best. After all, bullying is fun, isn't it? How's that for offensive, huh? Maybe those who find weight loss due to underlying medical conditions difficult to impossible should wear a sign, just so YOU know it's "okay".

:eyes:

[dustbunnie]

29. You don't have to like it, and you can take advice where you want to --

but what Paulsby says is absolutely true. I don't think he's in the wrong profession, believe he knows shitloads about what he's talking about, and have a feeling he's a decent competitor.

[Missy Vixen]

32. I think he gets off on demonizing anyone who's not exactly like him

I think you're the same way.

Have a nice day.

:eyes:

[dustbunnie]

34. I don't think that's true at all.

And no, I don't get off on demonizing people. I genuinely care about those who come to me for diet and training advice and do everything I can to help.

If people are happy being fat or different-sized, no skin of my back and I really don't care.

[paulsby]

31. he's a personal trainer

and so was i.

big f'ing deal.

it's not frigging rocket science. for pete's sake.

but i know, "it's not their fault"

like i said, i HAVE to make weight several times a year

i HAVE to maintain low bf levels

i HAVE to eat healthy, or i won't WIN.

it is not that difficult to understand. ... it is difficult to DO because people would rather buy overprocessed crap food than take the effort to cook from scratch. people would rather eat high fat, high salt laden crap because it gives instant gratification.

i know plenty about this subject, despite your evidence-less objections.

so sorry that i was "offensive" by daring to state the truth. i;ll say it again. most people are fat because of their own poor choices, not because of medical conditions. nothing substantially changed in the last 100 years in regards to genetics, PLENTY changed in regards to eating habits. guess which caused the obesity epidemic?

[sense]

51. You are male.....

which has been clearly proven to be a huge factor in weight loss. High fat and salt are scapegoats, not the bad things they've been made out to be. You are right about the overly processed foods though. They are a huge part of the problem, along with sugar, flour and other starches that really don't add any meaningful nutrition to our diets.

[paulsby]

77. depends on the kind of fat

when i say high fat, i am referring to high trans and saturated fat.

fwiw, i often eat high fat, but that's coupled with lower carbs and high protein as well. that's more complex. there is a difference between eating for performance and eating to lose fat.

i compete with plenty of women who are equally adept at losing fat and making weight for comps. being a woman is not an excuse for being fat.

[sense]

81. Misogynists would say that.....but

I won't accuse you of being one.....just uninformed and refusing to learn. We are each individuals and each of our bodies function differently. We cannot all be lumped together as one. Our hormones react differently to everything, we're not robots and we do not have total control over many of the functions of our bodies.

[paulsby]

233. and none of those truisms

which i have never denied, go against what i said.

our bodies function SOMEWHAT differently. we all (well 99.99% of us) have stomach, pancreas, liver, kidneys, etc.

the same laws of biology and thermodynamics apply to all of us.

i have never said we don't have (somehwat different) hormonal milieus

one of our elite females was found to have almost double the average T levels of the average woman and a much higher fast twitch muscle fiber ratio (and even better, lots of IIx fibers), etc.

freaks are freaks. we envy them. (and in the strength and bbing world, freak is a compliment)

but the basic rules apply

you eat too much, and especially of crappy, high glycemic foods, don't get enough basic substrates and phyto's, don't drink adequte fluids, don't get enough fiber, etc. and you will hamper your progress.

it is NOT rocket science. we have control over WHAT WE PUT IN OUR MOUTH.

it is one of the most important choices we make day in and day out

and good choices are rewarded and bad choices give generally bad results

[sense]

245. No one is disputing that we have control over what we put in our

mouths....no one. That isn't the point. Read the research. Those who stop learning because they think they know all they need to know about a subject are making a choice too. Ignorance.

[flvegan]

40. Well, thank you.

Styles certainly vary. I appreciate the kind words.

[sense]

39. You're repeating the same trash that

passes for science. Try to step outside of the box. We've been mislead about so many things by our gov. and the org. they annoint to provide us with info and you don't question the info. that hasn't ever worked?

I'll be you think cholesterol has something to do with heart disease! It doesn't. Inflammation and homocysteine levels are the culprits. There are other factors, of course, but we continue to be fed statins and told to lower our cholesterol as if it helps with heart disease. It doesn't, statins harm us and we need cholesterol for most functions of our bodies! Read!

[LeftyMom]

69. Oh for fuck's sake, that's just stupid and dangerous.

If you never ate a speck of cholesterol-containing anything, you'd have quite enough of it because your liver makes it for you.

[sense]

76. There are no scientific studies

that tell us how much we need. Statins are horrible drugs foisted on us so the pharmaceutical companies can make $$$$$. By the way, nice language, makes whatever you say so special....and completely irrelevant. Back up what you say with studies.... you can't, because there are none. There are also no studies, done on women, that prove statin drugs have any affect whatsoever on heart disease. They do, however, have terrible side effects. The studies done on men who don't have heart disease also don't prove any benefit from taking statins and lowering cholesterol.

[tonysam]

12. None of them work because they aren't supposed to work.

If they did, people who push these diets would be out of business.

What we have is a cultural attitude problem, a bigotry problem about "size," not an "obesity" problem.

[sense]

48. I agree that we've got

a bigotry problem, but we've also got a health problem that the power's that be are not addressing in a remotely helpful or honest way. They've invested 50 years in the "eat low-fat, high carb" dogma and it's going to be extremely hard for them to let go of it, because the public trust will be lost.

[iris27]

17. Statistics show 95% of dieters regain at least as much as they lost, if not more

(and it's usually more) within 5 years of starting a diet. (http://kateharding.net/2007/04/12/diets-dont-work-but/) This is not just "fad diet" people who eat nothing but grapefruits for 48 hours, but everyone, even die-hard Weight Watchers "lifestyle change" people who are committed to changing their whole life.

And while anecdotes aren't data, in my experience most of the successful 5% are those who've made their entire career about weight and become nutrionists or personal trainers. That's clearly not a choice we could all make...some of us have to be farmers, ditch-diggers, doctors, etc.

[dustbunnie]

24. Weight Watchers is like all the rest. It's a crutch.

It attracts people who need a goal, a group, a reward, a punishment, to succeed. As soon as the external diet helper is no longer there, people go back to their old ways.

Anyone who doesn't change their habits out of love for themselves is doomed to failure. They might as well just stay fat.

[mrs_p]

36. i think ww is not a crutch at all

it's a tool - just like using a personal trainer. i've learned a lot on ww and would use them over a pt any day.

[dustbunnie]

38. If it works for you then that's great!

WW has a low long-term success rate though, just like every other external diet helper. People have to stick with it forever, as they can't maintain the discipline on their own.

But I don't want to be discouraging at all, and it does work for those who can take the knowledge they get and eventually fly on their own. Those people have a certain attitude that WW can't sell or give to anybody. As I said in my other post... it's about loving yourself and wanting to achieve a healthy weight because you enjoy life and want the most out of it.

[paulsby]

261. yes

i have several relatives who have been successful with weight watchers. they also do little contests as a group, support each other , etc.

those are all good things.

[sense]

52. That's correct.

We've been mislead and misfed (I know that's not a word) Fats are our friends, just not the vegetable oils that have been foisted on us. Those have been shown to be carcinogenic.

[anonymous171]

23. There is only one "diet/weight loss program " that works. It's called "EAT LESS, MOVE MORE"

Any questions? :shrug:

[Adsos Letter]

27. None at all, that seems to be the most rational approach...

genetics and metabolism differences can certainly play a part (as well as some medications associated with weight-gain) but much of that can be ameliorated by a sensible diet (both quantity and quality) and simple exercise, like walking for exercise one hour per day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. When taking Avandia I gained a LOT (oh like 50 pounds in three months)

I was eating less than 1000 KCals a day.

Amazing what happens when I was taken OFF the med, and told to INCREASE my ingestion to 1300 KCal... care to guess what happened?

So how's that in your world?

Oh and there is plenty of science to back my anecdotal experience by the way.

[sense]

277. Just not the diet we've had pushed

upon us by "leading authorities". I'm simply advocating that the powers that be tell the truth. Low fat, high carb only makes most people fatter, because the body will not allow you to sustain the loss.

[Missy Vixen]

30. Considering the fact there have been multiple studies now

proving that 95% of those who lose 30 pounds or more regain it (and even more) within five years, your insistence sounds like more BS from someone who's naturally thin and has never struggled with weight loss.

I so enjoy the armchair experts here. God knows it's easy to sit behind a keyboard and tell everyone else exactly what they're doing wrong.

There's a reason why the diet industry rakes in $33 billion a year in this country.

:eyes:

[Obamanaut]

41. The reason the diet industry rakes in so much money is because

so many people with dimpled knuckles refuse to put down their twinkies and do some exercise. Instead, they hope a pill or the latest popular snack bar will fix it.

[Missy Vixen]

65. The reason why the diet industry rakes in so much money

is because people like me are sick and tired of being bullied and shamed by people like YOU.

I know it makes you feel powerful. After all, again, it's fun to bully and ostracize, isn't it?

In the meantime, it's unfortunate that you paint everyone else that's not exactly like you with the same broad brush. Obama must be so proud.

[sense]

171. Proving your ignorance and irrelevance, very nice.

Try reading some science....or posting about something you have some expertise in. No one needs more propaganda.

[Obamanaut]

262. So 'eat less, exercise more' is propaganda, eh? Interesting how folks

who parrot what they read about 'set points', 'the body knows what it's optimum weight is', 'diets don't work', 'it's the fat genes', etc are quite often, well, plump.

Eat smaller portions but eat four or five times a day, use a smaller plate, eat sensibly, chew food thoroughly, avoid beverages high sugar or hilgh fructose corn syrup content, increase exercise (walking and bicycling are easier on lower limbs than jogging/running) - all propaganda, spread by thin people.

[sense]

279. Propagandizing is what the AHA and ADA are doing

that's keeping us fat and enriching so many.

[Obamanaut]

297. What is keeping us fat is - wait for it - eating too much, too little movement.

I'm not going to play this any more. It is becoming more and more like the arguments smokers and (excessive) drinkers use "I can quit any time I want to" as they light up or buy another 12 pack.

Ignore henceforth.

[sense]

361. Simplistic thinking and not listening to science....

Never the path to truth or knowledge. Ignore... are you covering your ears, stomping your feet and making a lot of noise so as not to understand? Cool.

[Rabrrrrrr]

49. Yeah, it rakes in billions because lazy people don't want to believe "Eat less, move more"

[sense]

172. read much?

[Rabrrrrrr]

200. Yes, I read a hell of a lot! Thanks for noticing.

:yourock:

[AtheistCrusader]

375. That doesn't fall under 'moving more'.

Just teasing.

[EndersDame]

98. How many keep with the program and not go back to their old habits

[AtheistCrusader]

374. Dunno, I've gone from 310+ (scale maxxed out) to 250 in about a year doing just that.

Sedentary job, fast food and little exercise will do a real number on you.

Now that I've hit 250, I've hit a 'wall', and need to eat less (I have willpower problems with that one) or move even more. One or the other.

But yeah, my blood pressure's down, waist size down, etc. Just moving more, eating less. By moving more, I mean something meaningful like hitting Mt. Si trail, which is a greater elevation change than climbing 3 space needles stacked on top of each other. Do that a couple times a week. You'll lose weight.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

33. "What if I told you there was something you could do?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKs0oEIVOck

:D

[sense]

53. Oh, my god!

You mean it's just that simple!!! Wow, and all the research that's been covered up or statistics that have been manipulated... are of no value. I'll be thin in no time!

[nadinbrzezinski]

186. Try to keep up with the rest of the class in emerging science

Leading science is telling us it is not just calories in, calories out.

I know that for some folks this is truly a religion... and a good way to point at others and feel so much superior.

But the SCIENCE is not that simple.

Also genetics is not that clear.

But keep believing it is that simple. I am sure it lets you feel good...

And hope your body does not do what it sometimes does with the passage of years.

By the way, up to about ten years ago that thinking of yours was still pretty much accepted even in the research community. As they do much more research well it ain't that simple

[MadMaddie]

35. I found for me it is simple the word "Diet" doesn't work for me

It is changing my eating habits, no rice, bread or other junk during the week and three days of intense step classes. I have been doing this for a couple of months now and I feel better and I am shedding weight. The key is to acknowledge that the weight is not going to come off over night. I don't step on the scale every night, maybe once a month.

America needs to get fructose syrup removed from foods, push vegetable stands into inner cities and promote exercise. I know there are more complexities that need to be dealt with but it's a start.

Oh yea and eating healthy shouldn't be more expensive than eating at fast food joints.

[sense]

54. Exactly!

Remove the starches, sugar and over processed foods and we'd all be better off.

[FarCenter]

42. People don't shiver and sweat enough

Most people spend most of their time in heated and air conditioned spaces, including their cars.

Being outdoors in the cold is very good for you. If you are cold enough to shiver, it it increasing your metabolic rate significantly and increasing your muscle tone. If the air is below freezing, it takes a lot of energy to warm the air in your lungs.

Sweating also burns a lot of calories. It is not easy for your body to force water through your sweat glands and out your pores. Coping with the heat also increases blood flow and circulation in the skin which takes energy.

Outdoors excercise is very good for controlling weight. Walking 30 minutes per day is a good starting regimen.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

191. Sweating in high humidity(in the South) can also lead to heat exhaustion.

And a not-cheap trip to the emergency room.

I've been there.

Personally.

[FarCenter]

194. Well, you have to do it in moderation

In old pictures of the pre-air conditioned South, you don't see many fat people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

205. Yeah but they didn't have all the chemicals

we have in our food supply today...

See insecticides, play havoc...

See BPA

See HFSC

See Medis

See JP-5 in water table (though that not for the South, that is mostly the West)

I could go on.

[FarCenter]

213. I don't believe that chemicals would have any effect on the energy required for shivering & sweating

See, for example, "Muscle Metabolism and Shivering During Cold Stress" in "Nutritional Needs in Cold and High-Altitude Environments: Applications for Military Personnel in Field Operations" at http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5197&page=181 and following pages.

[nadinbrzezinski]

217. No but the chemicals have changed your and my hormones

and how the act

This is the emerging science,

Here you go BPA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10593191

http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/BPA-Environmental-Estrogen.htm

Insecticides

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/pmc/articles/PMC1566380/

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7X-4700585-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1094487552&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dd323984cb7b55a93efada33605d553a

I could go on... fact is that these is emerging science.

They are tied to cancer, which people get. But they are also tied to a slew of hormonal controls... that includes weight.

Something about unintended consequences to the green revolution comes to mind.

[FarCenter]

218. Chemicals might change basal metabolic rates, but the shivering response is much larger

See for example table 2 in "Comparison of thermoregulatory responses between men
and women immersed in cold water" http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/89/4/1403

And vigorous exercise out of doors can increase metabolism to upwards of 4000 calories per day.

There is lots of research on this in military medicine, arctic exploration and cold water diving for miltiary and oil exploration purposes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. And also in hypothermia research

but the trick is that the research in how these chemicals are changing your and my metabolism is just new. I don't think Monstanto likes this in particular.

Also the research tends to work with younger, FIT adults with no medical issues, They do not take into account and have not been done with people with underlying insulin resistance and a slew of other problems

I am not saying don't go outside and do some exercise... hell's bells I do, hell I just got out of the shower after my lovely elliptical... but I am telling you when people ask what changed... not just the AC, but also the green revolution. And if BMR changes... it is a matter of progressive effects.

I am willing to make a prediction. What we are seeing is the leading edge of research that will have dramatic effects in how we look at the world, just like global warming does.

And like global warming folks will stick to what is damn easy to understand, and not look at the shades of gray that is the emerging science.

By the way, hypothermia was one of my favorite subjects as a medic, and keeping up to date actually led to starting the code on a gentleman who fell into a septic tank that was in the forties... he was one of our saves with no neuro effects.. though the course of antibiotics was long. Heatstroke on the other hand... well I kept up with the studies as well as the how do you train in this fucking hot desert weather and keep alive!

:hi:

[flvegan]

43. The problem with many (or most, if not all) "diets" and "programs"

is that they don't teach anybody anything. Most of them are an "eat this" type of program. They show the what (superficially) but never the why. Folks may have some short term advances, but so many fail to maintain them. In my experience as a trainer and sports nutritionist, I've had clients find their greatest successes teaching them the whys in addition to the whats.

But then, thankfully in time, they stop needing me. So maybe that's the answer why some of them are so successful. If folks stop needing them, they stop making money. This is why I'm not rich, dammit.

[Madrone]

87. Are you familiar with Dr. Esselstyn, and his heart disease study?

My boss turned me on to him, and I'm reading his book "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease" right now.

Funny my boss is all into it now, as he's poo-pooed me and my remarks about dairy and meat for a long time. Now he's actually thoughtfully considering no oil!

I've thought about bringing the subject up for discussion here a few times but... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't generate decent discussion.

Anyway - the book:

http://www.heartattackproof.com/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1583332723/103-0274510-1719827?ie=UTF8&tag=vegsourceinte-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1583332723

[flvegan]

89. Oh, yes.

I admit, I have not yet read that book, but it's on my very short list. Good mention!

[Madrone]

94. I figured you were.

Apparently his son is some kind of built, firefighting vegan in Austin. He has also written a book about the challenge he had with his firefighting buddies - I'll probably buy that one next.

Very interesting stuff, this heart disease study. You must read it - it will only add more inarguable facts to your vegan list. It especially applies to those who would never think of being vegan for ethical reasons.

[Rabrrrrrr]

47. That's because "diets" are bullshit - the only thing that works is learning how to eat properly

and sensibly.

"diets" offer the promise of a temporary quick-fix that will shed the pounds and then let you go back to your slovenly, fistfulls of food ways.

The only actual way to lose weight and then stay at a proper weight is to eat NUTRITIOUSLY, *all the time*, not just for a few months.

[sense]

55. yes, real, whole foods, not the overprocessed crap in the middle aisles of the stores.

[dysfunctional press]

57. i did it by cutting starch out of my diet.

of course i was motivated by the fact that ingesting starch caused me fairly extreme pain, due to the effects of my autoimmune condition.
However- it's also true that starch is not a natural part of the human diet. we are hunter-gatherers by nature.

the ancient greeks with a mediteranean diet, regularly lived into their 90's- without the benefit of 'modern' medicine, and don't seem to have had a big problem with obesity, either. :shrug:

[sense]

363. Very smart. And effective, I'll bet.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

58. It ain't always that simple. Millions have endocrine problems. Read this.

Reverse T3, leptin resistance, HCG and so forth:

Long Term Weight Loss for Thyroid Patients: Hormonal Factors That Affect Diets

http://thyroid.about.com/od/loseweightsuccessfully/a/we...

Mary Shomon: You have said that you feel that two key hormones -- leptin and reverse T3 -- are playing a key role in regulating weight and metabolism. Can you tell us a bit about leptin, first, and what it has to do with weight loss challenges?

Kent Holtorf, MD: The hormone leptin has been found to be a major regulator of body weight and metabolism. Leptin is secreted by fat cells and the levels of leptin increase with the accumulation of fat. The increased leptin secretion that occurs with increased weight normally feeds-back to the hypothalamus as a signal that there are adequate energy (fat) stores. This stimulates the body to burn fat rather than continue to store excess fat, and stimulates thyroid releasing hormone (TRH) to increase thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) and thyroid production.

Studies are finding, however, that the majority of overweight individuals who are having difficulty losing weight have varying degrees of leptin resistance, where leptin has a diminished ability to affect the hypothalamus and regulate metabolism. This leptin resistance results in the hypothalamus sensing starvation, so multiple mechanisms are activated to increase fat stores, as the body tries to reverse the perceived state of starvation.

<snip>

Mary Shomon: How do you treat leptin resistance in your practice?

Kent Holtorf, MD: Treatment can be focus on treating the elevated leptin -- leptin resistance. An elevated leptin also indicates, however, that the TSH is an unreliable marker for tissue thyroid levels, as the TSH is often suppressed, along with significantly reduced T4-to-T3 conversion. In short, if your leptin is elevated, you have reduced tissue thyroid levels. Also, almost all diabetics are leptin resistant, which has been shown to reduce T4-to-T3 conversion in diabetics by as much as 50% without an increase in TSH, making it very difficult for type II diabetics to lose weight.

<snip>



All those trainers and health gurus that never had a weight problem who tell you to do just as they do don’t realize what a disadvantage it is for people who have had a long-term weight problem. Of course, even these trainers would not even be able to maintain their weight with a metabolism that is 20 to 40% below normal.

We test the resting metabolic rate in our thyroid patients and find it inversely correlates with the reverse T3. The higher the reverse T3, the lower the metabolism, with many such individuals having a metabolism that is 20 to 40% lower than expected for their body mass index (BMI). Nobody believes how little they eat, and they are made to feel like failures -- despite doing everything right. Until their metabolic abnormalities are addressed, diet and exercise will certainly fail to achieve long-term success.

[nadinbrzezinski]

195. I will not ignore you

but reality is most folks have trouble with what is gray and black and white "moral" thinking is so much easier.

:hi:

[Naturyl]

61. Free today only: The World's Shortest Diet Book.

Chapter 1, Page 1:

Eat less, exercise more.

The End.

I should also add that this is not only the world's shortest diet book, it's also the only one that actually works.

[sense]

173. You may have used the world's shortest thought process,

in formulating that bit of idiocy. Oh, I bet that's the problem....you just like the really short books.....

[scrinmaster]

66. I've lost about 25 lbs in the past 4-5 months by, get this, eating healthier and excercising more.

I've actually gained a good deal of muscle as well, so I've lost more than 25 lbs of fat.

This is the general idea:
Don't eat fast food.
Don't eat junk food, chips, cookies, cake, candy, etc.
Don't drink soda, even diet soda, or sweetened juice.
Don't drink alcohol to excess.
Walk/jog/bike/elliptical every day.
Lift weights ~3-4 times per week.

[crikkett]

72. aw man, that sounds like

so much *work*

:)

[scrinmaster]

180. Haha, it was at first. Now I get antsy if I don't workout for a few days.

[Skittles]

68. I eat tons of junk

and am a size 4 at age 52 - my "secret" is exercising an hour every day - also, I lose my appetite when I get upset or stressed - and that happens a LOT :(

[TwilightGardener]

73. My theory is that many people have no idea what actual HUNGER feels like.

How could they, if they eat breakfast, and then a snack, and then lunch, and then a snack, and then dinner, and then a snack before bed? I think the reason I managed to stay near a normal weight without much effort is because I don't usually eat until my stomach growls and I really crave food--this may not be until 2 or 3 in the afternoon. My parents are both overweight, and they mechanically eat at all scheduled mealtimes, without exception, regardless of true hunger. I've heard it said that it's best to eat lots of small meals throughout the day, because then your body doesn't go into starvation mode and conserve fat--and those with blood sugar issues may have to do this. Doesn't work for me--I do better when I wait to eat until my stomach is really empty.

[Hepburn]

74. IMO, a lot of the time it is thirst and not hunger.

I know that is true with me and I have learned to have a large glass of something low in calorie when I feel this way.

[TwilightGardener]

75. That could be true--that people are mistaking their cravings.

And as a nice side benefit, I've noticed that tea or coffee, or any hot drink, can make me feel full for quite a while without having anything at all to eat with it. I have a big mug of tea most afternoons and can last quite a while until dinner.

[Lorien]

150. There is no such thing as a universally successful diet

I gain huge amounts of weight when I do as you do because it slows down my metabolism greatly. I wish that I could, because cooking and eating are hardly my favorite activities (despite the fact that I'm a very good cook). People may have food allergies or sensitivities, blood sugar issues, genetics that make their body return to a specific "set point" no matter what combination of foods they eat or when...there are just too many variables. "Calories in/ calories out" is often touted as the simple equation that should fit everyone, but it doesn't. I can go for three weeks on 400 calories a day and lose five pounds while my friend Christine eats a burger, fries and two Snickers bars at the end of every day to AVOID losing five pounds. I think most of us know what hunger feels like because most of us lead extremely busy lives and usually don't have time to eat or forget to eat at least a few times every week, but doing so effects everyone differently.

[TwilightGardener]

267. I eat whatever I want. I just don't eat massive quantities, all day long.

I try to wait until I'm actually hungry. I really think lots of people eat all day out of habit, or boredom, or because food is available all the time without even needing to prepare it. I can fall into this trap myself--when I worked, I would go to the nurses' lounge and my coworkers would always bring food in to share: tortilla chips and 7-layer dip, a sheet cake, etc. I wasn't hungry, but I'd eat some to avoid hurt feelings. And now that I'm a stay at home mom, I have to fight the urge to eat out of boredom. I understand that people's metabolisms, hormone situations, etc. are different, and this will cause some to gain or lose differently, but I am a big believer in HABIT being the driving force behind fatness--not the food itself.

[sense]

281. Belief vs Fact

Fact wins every time. It absolutely matters what you put in your body and we've been lied to. Low fat, high carb means you'll stay fat.

[TwilightGardener]

296. I eat mostly carbs. I am Italian and can't live without bread and pasta.

Also can't live without sweets and dessert. So your assertion (and that's what it is, it's not "fact") obviously doesn't always apply. I've been in a normal weight range for my height (occasionally off by 5 or 10 pounds here and there) my entire life, except for pregnancies. I guess I just don't worry about it--my philosophy is, eat when you're truly hungry, stop when you're full, and everything in moderation.

[paulsby]

79. rubbish

this assumes that people who try diets actually ADHERE to the rules and don't cheat and/or quit and give up because it's too difficult

it is not frigging rocket science.

look, nothing has changed genetically (to any decent extent) in the last 100 years. but obesity (especially amongst the poor) has increased tremendously.

is it that hard to eat like people ate 100 years ago?

no

i'd be fat as fuck if i ate what my eyes and stomach yearn for.

so, i don't

it is not rocket science. the problem is not the diets. the problem is that many people simply aren't willing to suffer and be disciplined. and yes, dieting generally is uncomfortable and at times excruciating.

it is MUCH easier to stay at a decent bw, then to GET to that bw. why? because the body naturally fights against upsetting homeostasis.

it's difficult to effect change

[sense]

83. You're repeatedly revealing your lack of education on

this matter. Spouting old school crap about how fat people have character flaws that make them fat is just arrogant and ignorant. It's been proven otherwise time after time. You can selectively choose what you want to espouse, but that doesn't make it true.

[paulsby]

86. i am relying on my education

and my experience - 20+ yrs as a competitive weight-classed athlete and former personal trainer.

i train with former and prospective olympians quite frequently. i know EXACTLY what they eat.

i see the way fat people eat, and compare it to the way (non) fat people eat.

there are staggering differences.

i see the way fat people SHOP (look into the grocery cart of the average 40 yr old fat person and compare).

it's not rocket science.

i never said anything about character flaws. i'm not making a moral argument. i'm making a pragmatic one

it is difficult, and at times, excruciating to lose fat.

that's the reality

for people who are already fat, the body WANTS to maintain that level of bf. the body seeks to maintain homeostasis, but is more inclined to add fat (or more correctly - increase size and # of fat cells) than lose fat.

duh

that means losing fat is HARD.

most people don't like to do stuff voluntarily that is HARD.

like i said, out of 200 clients, NONE of them failed to lose fat.

it is not rocket science.

people were not grossly obese in the #'s they are now , 100 yrs ago

it has not been a change in genetics. it has been a change in what people eat

[sense]

106. Your experience is anecdotal and not at all scientific.

I'm shocked that you can't see that. You're basing your knowledge on dealing with top level athletes, who wouldn't be top level athletes without the genes and body processes they inherited. I'm not trying to say that they don't train incredibly hard..... but anyone can lose fat, your body simply won't allow you to starve and every person's body reacts differently to more or less calories. The vast majority of people who lose weight regain it and more, as has been continually proven. You are accusing people of character flaws right and left....they can't stick with it, it's too hard, people don't like to do stuff that's hard. All excuses for vilifying people you find unattractive. So... fat people are slothful gluttons. End of story. What a crock.

[Obamanaut]

127. Many times the arguments against 'eat less, exercise more' as a

means of weight loss and management remind me of a justification I heard many years ago regarding drinking.

When asked if the person thought he had a drinking problem, the response was "I drink. I get drunk. I fall down. No problem."

Many of the "...vast majority of people who lose weight..." and then regain it, do so because they return to the same eating habits that caused their girth to expand in the first place. They simply will not believe or adhere to the idea that if one consumes more calories than one burns, they expand.

It isn't rocket science.

[sense]

162. There is a biological reason for regaining

the weight, which you've not allowed into your thinking. It has nothing to do with whether or not people "believe" anything. Our bodies are not simple and neither is the solution. It's more complicated than rocket science... and more interesting.

[Obamanaut]

165. You're right, it IS more complicated. When one ingests more calories

than the body uses, the body retains those calories in the form of weight gain.

And, when the body uses more calories than the amount consumed, some of the weight goes away.

Hey, it is much more complicated than I thought.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. It is, care to read the Journal of Endocrinology?

Leading science is telling us it is not just calories in, calories out.

I know that for some folks this is truly a religion... and a good way to point at others and feel so much superior.

But the SCIENCE is not that simple.

Also genetics is not that clear.

But keep believing it is that simple. I am sure it lets you feel good...

And hope your body does not do what it sometimes does with the passage of years.

By the way, up to about ten years ago that thinking of yours was still pretty much accepted even in the research community. As they do much more research well it ain't that simple.

[sense]

167. Oh, my,

now that you it that way..... If you stick to subjects you have some knowledge about you'd have more credibility. Apparently not a concern of yours.

[Obamanaut]

174. I'll go get the book mentioned in one of the upthread posts to help

in this subject about which I know nothing:

post 61 by DUer Naturyl "Eat less, exercise more"

So to recap, calories in < calories out = lose, while calories in > calories out = gain

[sense]

176. Maybe you can make that whole repetitive thing work.....

Just keep repeating lies like the gov. does and pretty soon it'll become "fact".

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. I'll repeat this since apparently that is what is in vogue

Leading science is telling us it is not just calories in, calories out.

I know that for some folks this is truly a religion... and a good way to point at others and feel so much superior.

But the SCIENCE is not that simple.

Also genetics is not that clear.

But keep believing it is that simple. I am sure it lets you feel good...

And hope your body does not do what it sometimes does with the passage of years.

By the way, up to about ten years ago that thinking of yours was still pretty much accepted even in the research community. As they do much more research well it ain't that simple

[dustbunnie]

184. Lol, yeah that's a short, but good read. :-D

For a lot of people it works very well. Easy to remember over a lifetime too.

[mamaleah]

84. I did very well on Weight Watchers, but they teach you how to eat. As in,

if you want a piece of cake, fine. But it cannot be a piece the size of a plate and you only get 1 piece. Tiny piece. 3-4 forkfuls tiny. But that's really all you need to enjoy it. And the whole cake uncut does not count as a single piece. :P

Losing weight is very difficult. You need to learn to control your portion size, control your food choices (again the cake is fine so long as you had lots of veggies and low fat protein already and it's not a humongous piece),and exercise.

[paulsby]

125. i agree

weight watchers is a pretty good program.

i have problems with certain aspects of it, but i respect it as a solid program for fat loss.

i have a few relatives who use it and they have all had success with it.

[mamaleah]

178. I recently went back on it.

I know I need to control my ration of calories in and calories burned. I spent a year not sticking to the main ideas of the program and I gained a lot back.

The only reason I prefer WW is that it allows you to eat real food and doesn't pretend that you will go your whole life without a chocolate bar or doughnut. It teaches you how to balance those things.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. may I make a recommendation?

I can make you thin... By Ian McKenna....

Intuitive eating... IT WORKS.

[paulsby]

222. there is validity to that too

a lot of people simply have been conditioned to think they have to clean their plate, and to take a big plate.

i know some people like this. they will absolutely fill their plate, and then wolf it down (and as a major foodie, that drives me nuts. you can't appreciate food at that speed), and then 20 minutes later, complain that they feel like crap and overate.

and then, they do it again.

it's simply amazing.

kind of like people who binge drink, throw up, say they feel like they wanna die, go to sleep, feel like crap the next day. and then a few days later... they do it again.

it's a kind of selective amnesia.

there are a lot of little tricks too. as mundane as it sounds, using smaller plates and smaller utensils helps psychologically when decreasing portion size.

also, i forget the name of the mechanism, but there are nerves in your body that sense literally how full (and expanded) your stomach is. they operate on a somewhat delayed basis. it's kind of like thirst. by the time you FEEL thirsty, you are already relatively dehydrated.

satiety is the same way. if you eat too quickly, you overstuff yourself because you don't realize you are full until many minutes after your stomach has expanded.

i lived hawaii for years. in hawaii, you are taught to "eat until you are tired". people there are VERY good at overeating. it's a hard habit to break, brah

[mamaleah]

239. Oh definitely.

It's not just "clean your plate". People rush through meals all the time. You really cannot appreciate flavors if you are shoveling food in your mouth over the sink.

[paulsby]

253. i work with a lot of ex military guys

and they are (for good reasons) experts at eating quickly. they often HAD to, especially during basic.

the more i've learned about cooking (something i have gotten REALLY into over the last three years), the more i learn to appreciate flavors, and eat slowly and savor

it's kind of like how a guitarist/musician HEARS things in music that a non-musician doesn't. as you educate your palette, you recognize things in food that you never noticed before, and it's really cool.

and when making up dishes and you taste and have to figure out "what does it need? more acid, more salt, more fish sauce (i live for fish sauce)? etc.)"

[mamaleah]

241. I have heard of that!

And I agree that you need to listen to your body. But too many people only identify hunger as that gnawing, growling sensation. You are way past hunger at that point.

I tend to eat better if I eat frequent, small meals as opposed to waiting to be half starving.

[nadinbrzezinski]

337. I tend to eat better if I eat frequent, small meals as opposed to waiting to be half starving.

that's what you are supposed to do when you engage in intuitive eating.

If you wait to the point that you have a hole in your stomach... you will eat more.

[Cleita]

85. I found out no pain, no loss.

I never got fat until middle age and it started to creep up on me. Watching calories and exercising does keep my weight down but there is no magic pill here that miraculously banished the extra pounds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Oh scientists are

and we know there are GENETIC factors, such as obesity genes.

There is the Leptein chain

Insulin resistance

I could go on.

So scientists are... but the diet fad industry is not

Of course there is also the role of processed foods and all that.

:hi:

[sense]

101. Don't forget hormones...

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Of course, as well as the role of medicines

I have a personal story with that one.

Avandia... I gained A LOT... and it's been a long slug to lose it.

Now here is the kicker, this is a med for diabetes... gaining weight is not good...

People taking steroids are even in more trouble when it comes to this... as that is a more or less common side effect.

I just listed the top of the list.

As far as I am concerned right now the chief reason for the rapid spread is something in the food we put... (insecticides and hormones as well), and we know the direct role of HCFS in this...

I could go on.

The science, as you know, is very extensive.

[sense]

159. Most of the meds for diabetes seem to have gaining weight as a side

effect..... how can that be an improvement? I agree about the intended and unintended food additives.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Well me, I have that good attitude about it

why cry about it?

I knew something about diet before that... but now, I have learned... and for me LOW carbs or complex carbs and protein are just what works.

[sense]

163. A good attitude is essential.

Education is the only thing that will help us. Easier to study things you think you might actually be able to use to improve your life or the lives of your loved ones. Maybe that's why so many are not keeping up, they've no experience......with some of the more challenging parts of life.

[EndersDame]

100. How many keep their exercise and diet regimen and not go back to their old habits

I know I have lost weight and firmed up when I worked with hand tools building trails and even adopted my hippie crew members penchant for healthy food. After the program I went to a job where I sat on my ass and let my healthy eating habits slide. I have since started going to the gym and have learned to cook healthy meals . Guess what I am losing fat and gaining muscle. I have to keep it up though. I know there are naturally fat people (my best friend is a self described big girl ) but also know that people are lazy (myself included). I really think sedentary jobs are to blame.

[Zywiec]

102. Travel to Eastern Europe and see all the thin people not dieting

I guess they're genetically different...

:eyes:

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

164. I was 103# graduating high school, over 25 years later, 115#.

For what it's worth, here is my kitchen motto.

Nothing Diet. Ever.
No low fat anything.
Land O'Lakes Butter only.
Whole Milk only.
Lotsa Coffee. With Half & Half and sugar.
Eat whole foods.
Nothing Processed. Make it like Momma did.
Cheating is okay once in awhile, Little Ceasears pizza is so spicy and tasty.
Loads of Garlic and Onion in most all dishes.
Craves sunflower seeds and Walnuts. Indulge this!
Little if any sweets.
2 1/2 glasses Merlot before bed.

I never thought I'd look like I do at my currant age. I'm not sure what I've done right, but I do hope someone else can glen success from my goofy motto.

Good Luck to us all.
Your Ma and G'ma musta did something right to live into the 80's range. I think the Drawing Board needs to be revisited again also.

[janx]

169. Nothing has changed.

How much you weigh has to do with how much food you take in vs. how much energy you expend. You're right, because weight loss programs often market food to people who don't know that they have to increase their physical activity--even just walking around--to lose weight.

[sense]

170. Much has changed.

Might want to read up.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

179. Post # 58 (mine) was ignored.

Nadin is right, there are MANY factors, insulin resistance, leptin resistance, millions of people with messed up or dead thyroid glands, HFCS, weight gain as side effect of medications, messed up adrenals, messed up ovaries, they produce reverse T3 which is a stereoisomer that blocks the work of T3 (thyroid hormone), which cause a slower metabolism and make it impossible to lose weight.

from http://thyroid.about.com

Conclusion: Statement from Dr. Kent Holtorf, M.D.:

All those trainers and health gurus that never had a weight problem who tell you to do just as they do don’t realize what a disadvantage it is for people who have had a long-term weight problem. Of course, even these trainers would not even be able to maintain their weight with a metabolism that is 20 to 40% below normal.

We test the resting metabolic rate in our thyroid patients and find it inversely correlates with the reverse T3. The higher the reverse T3, the lower the metabolism, with many such individuals having a metabolism that is 20 to 40% lower than expected for their body mass index (BMI). Nobody believes how little they eat, and they are made to feel like failures -- despite doing everything right. Until their metabolic abnormalities are addressed, diet and exercise will certainly fail to achieve long-term success.

There are many millions of people like this in the U.S. Yet all these people with normal metabolisms on DU swear up and down the fat people are just a bunch of lazy, uncontrolled idiots who spend all their waking hours sitting on the sofa stuffing their faces with junk food.

Enjoy the view from your high horse.

:wtf:

[janx]

376. But the OP didn't address those problems.

The OP was talking about fad diets, from what I read. I don't know what you mean about "high horse." You might be making some assumptions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

183. Here is what has changed

Leading science is telling us it is not just calories in, calories out.

I know that for some folks this is truly a religion... and a good way to point at others and feel so much superior.

But the SCIENCE is not that simple.

Also genetics is not that clear.

But keep believing it is that simple. I am sure it lets you feel good...

And hope your body does not do what it sometimes does with the passage of years.

By the way, up to about ten years ago that thinking of yours was still pretty much accepted even in the research community. As they do much more research well it ain't that simple

Reading a science journal or two might be in-order

[janx]

378. Genetics is a huge factor.

So is disease. But why are you making assumptions about me? For most people--MOST PEOPLE--it still boils down to how much food you eat and how active you are. How is that supposed to make me feel good?

And tell me again, NB--please elaborate on the "passage of years." ;-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

415. BMR slows down with the passage of years

for example...

And yes all those chemicals have changed quite a bit of the equation and this is in the leading edge of science.

I will even make a prediction... those chemicals will fall in the serious category of global warming and it is not just the US.

[AngryAmish]

175. Science has discovered that fat people are nothing but lazy, ugly slobs

Of course, that is nonsense.

[sense]

177. The message of so many.......

[DanTex]

188. Some speculation

I can be sympathetic to the possibility that it's genetic/hormonal/whatever, and that diets don't work, your body compensates and keeps your weight at a predetermined level, etc. But if that's true, I think there are some obvious questions that need to be answered.


1) 50 years ago there was a lot less obesity. But the genetic makeup of the US can't have changed enough to be responsible. This would imply it's not just genetic, and there is a significant diet/lifestyle component. Am I missing something? Maybe it's not 100% caused by diet and exercise, but really, what else is there that could account for the difference?

Granted, there are a lot of things that we can point to as causes. HFCS, chemicals in food, less exercise, etc. But, theoretically, a person in 2009 should be able to adopt the eating/exercise habits of a person from 50 years ago, and be less overweight. I mean, even if we don't know whether the key thing is portion size or exercise or chemicals or carbs or whatever, it would seem that the "50 years ago diet" is one diet that should actually work, not just in the short run, but for life.

Moreover, I doubt that people 50 years ago lived in a constant state of hunger-induced suffering. Therefore the "50-years ago diet" shouldn't involve unrealistic amounts of willpower and deprivation. I understand it may be expensive or inconvenient, but in terms of actually enduring hunger, it shouldn't be so bad. Maybe today's world is full of temptation, and therefore it takes more willpower than it used to to keep to that diet. Maybe. Who knows.


2) One thing I'm pretty sure of is that if I started eating 3 big macs a day I would gain a lot of weight, just like Morgan Spurlock in Super Size Me. Can anyone possibly disagree?

Also, I think I could pull off that change of lifestyle without too much trouble. Just big macs might be tough, but I'm pretty sure if that I wanted to, I could eat lots of fattening food. Like Robert De Niro when he gained weight for Raging Bull by eating at a bunch of expensive French restaurants. And I wouldn't get tired of it and start wanting to eat less because my hormones were telling me I was overweight. I'd just get and stay really fat.

If this is true, it means that your diet does matter, and it's not just genetic. If it's possible to change diet in order to gain weight (permanently), shouldn't it also be possible to change and lose (permanently)? I mean, say I was currently eat 3 big macs a day and then I change my mind and go back to my regular diet, whatever that may be. It stands to reason that after some time my weight would go back to where it is now. It seems really unlikely that eating 3 big macs a day for a certain period of time will make me permanently heavier even after I go back to my previous diet.

Let's take this a step further. You might argue that yes, it's possible to gain weight and be fatter than your genes want you to be but not lighter. If that's the case, however, I would guess that a huge majority of overweight people (and also non-overweight people) are actually heavier than their "genetic balance point". Honestly, who doesn't have a few "big mac equivalents" in their diet that they could get rid of. Which again seems to indicate that it is possible to change your diet, again without much suffering, and lose some weight.


I don't claim to know the answers, I'm just speculating here.

[dustbunnie]

190. What you've said is largely true. Good post.

On top of it all, everything's now available 24/7 as well. Not so 50 years ago. You can shop for junk food 24 hours a day, every day.

Most people who've put on some pounds can take them off again through slow but steady dieting and upping their exercise. It's the people who've yoyo dieted for years, losing muscle mass and gaining large amounts of fat with each binge period that have the most problems as they've fucked up their systems and taken on psychological issues. But there's hope for most who have the will and a good attitude.

[sense]

198. You are entitled to your own opinions,

but presenting them as facts just makes you look ignorant and arrogant.

[dustbunnie]

206. No need to be uncivil just because you've just discovered a new book and you're all excited.

I wish you well in your quest to lose weight.

I've spent a lot of time around gyms and people who are in various stages of dieting and both gaining and losing weight. Think I'll go with what I know over the opinions of someone who's running up and down a message board thread insulting people. Just think of how much more weight you could drop if you put that energy into physical activity.

[sense]

207. Oh, good! Personal attacks!

No actual knowledge....just insults. Your anecdotal time spent in gyms would be better spent reading the research before speaking. Just think how much more informed (and credible) you'd sound if you read the science instead of repeating old and tired rhetoric.

My quest isn't weight loss.

[dustbunnie]

208. Pot meet kettle and all that. Go look over this thread and your nasty comments.

I've read plenty thanks for your concern. You're the easiest read of them all.

[sense]

210. Facts can't be disputed. Live with it.

[dustbunnie]

211. That is correct. Now go latch onto someone else troll.

[sense]

212. Oh, my turn! my turn!

It's so funny. When you disagree with people on this list you get called a troll, freeper, creationist.... all sorts of things, just because people don't want to learn anything that contradicts whatever mythology or dogma they're holding onto.

Science, it's ever evolving. Gotta keep up!

[dustbunnie]

214. Awww... don't you think it would be more helpful if you were to lecture an obese person...

Or go have a sandwich. Lots of mayo, no bread. You'll feel better.

[sense]

216. I wouldn't want to steal your solution.....

I'll just go read some more.....

[dustbunnie]

269. Great plan!! While you're at it plse find the part where Gary Taubes says to pig out.

Cause I never saw that chapter. The one where he says you might as well sit in front of the teevee 16 hours a day chowing down on 7 BBQ chickens, 10 pounds of shrimp dipped in garlic butter, a 5 pound standing rib roast, and maybe a couple of baskets of yummy wings to wash it down. Since calories don't matter, just what you eat. Right? And where does he say not to bother with exercise because it won't make you look better or aid in alleviating symptoms of insomnia or depression, other factors in causing weight gain? Or how you won't put on lean muscle mass, which requires more calories for upkeep than fat does, thus allowing the muscle bound to eat larger quantities of food, and burn excess cals more expediently?

[sense]

284. Absolutely no one is advocating that or saying

anything of the sort! You sound ridiculous. Read the research, hell, trying reading the posts, instead of putting words in other people's mouths!

[dustbunnie]

308. You called me ignorant and arrogant, even while your diet guru agrees with me completely.

You've gone from being obnoxious to just sad. :rofl:

Here's what he says:

GT: There are two ways. One is you can starve people like on The Biggest Loser. You can get them to work out three hours a day. You can force them to lose weight by forcing them to be in negative energy balance. But as soon as they go back to eating they'll regain the weight. And not only that, they'll regain the weight faster than they lost it.

People have done studies of starvation or semi-starvation where they put people on 1,600-calories-a-day diets. They lose weight, but they're hungry all the time. When you go back to overfeeding them — 3,000 or 4,000 calories a day — they're still constantly hungry, even though they're eating two to three times the food they were eating before. They put the weight back incredibly quickly, and it's almost all fat.

TM: So they would end up fatter.

GT: They're fatter after they've been re-fed than they were before they started the semi-starvation diet, and they regain the weight far faster than they lose it. It takes maybe three, four, or six months of semi-starvation to lose 25% of your body fat, but you can gain it back in six weeks. It's like their bodies just inflate, you know, and they're hungry all the time. So even though they go back to eating 3,000 to 4,000 calories a day, they're still hungry."

Exactly what I said. And there's more...

TM: So what about the other option?

GT: The other people go on a diet, they eat less, they exercise more, they lose weight, and they keep it off. There are people who do that. The point I would make is that when you go on a diet, even if it's Dean Ornish's 10% fat diet, among the things that you give up are sweets, high-glycemic-index carbs, starches, and white flour.

If you drink beer regularly, you either give up the beer, or you switch to light beer. If you drink a lot of Coca-Cola or Pepsi, you drink Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi. So in the process of cutting calories, you also cut out carbohydrates. It's virtually impossible, mathematically, to cut your calories significantly without cutting carbohydrates, because carbohydrates are such a huge part of the diet.

So basically your expert says what I say. Yet you just can't seem to help yourself. You just keep blabbing away. Maybe you should read your own source more closely. Here. Don't say I never gave you anything.

http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_interviews/eat_your_lungs_out_while_getting_leaner

[rd_kent]

364. Well done. Bravo.

I spent an infuriating afternoon saying the same thing to this guy (not as well as you just put it) with no luck. I see he has not responded to your post, so I guess you educated him. Nice job.

[dustbunnie]

384. These threads usually end up with people talking to themselves.

Everyone is locked into their opinion and they all repeat the same thing from thread to thread. I just like to make sure that the "give up, don't bother exercising" crowd don't overwhelm and shut out rational advice, just in case someone out there who may be thinking of changing his/her lifestyle happens to stumble on the thread. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

385. Nobody has claimed such

except in your imagination.

So let me restate it in small words. This is a far more complex problem than just diet and exercise. Scientists are RIGHT NOW doing research as to why diets fail regularly... and it has nothing to do with will.

Now do you want me to simplify even further let me see if I can find a fourth grade dictionary.

[dustbunnie]

390. You know what? It's a complex issue for some, but not all.

There are people on anti-depressants, medications like prednisone and a bunch of others that make weight loss extremely difficult if not impossible. It's complex for them.

There are people with emotional and physical addictions to food. People who have dieted so stupidly for so many years, that they're fatter than ever with completely screwed up systems. It's complex for them too.

But there are hundreds of thousands of people for whom it ISN'T complex. They may be only 30 pounds over weight for a short period of time. Maybe they've been depressed, or started a sedentary desk job and got into going out for drinks with co-workers too often. Maybe they're getting older and have lost muscle mass. There are a whole bunch of people who need nothing more than to cut their calories, change their diets to get rid of carbs, and up their activity level to make it back to a healthy weight.

You keep ignoring these people and harp on the most dire cases to make your point.

Scientists RIGHT NOW may be doing research as to why diets fail, but for the most part, it's always been for the same reasons. People only make temporary changes, not lifestyle changes. Or, the changes are too dramatic and the body rebels. For the average person who is not a dire case, or on some type of medication, that appears to be the case more often than not. Even Gary Taubes agrees. As do the many experts you'll find if you use google.

[nadinbrzezinski]

391. When two percent of dieters succeed after five years

You are missing the bigger picture.

There, even lower level of English.

[dustbunnie]

398. 95% of "diets" fail. That is correct. Lifestyle changes are much more successful.

For the most part, diets fail for the reasons I gave you. People always have and always will, have trouble sticking to outlandish dietary restrictions. Eventually they will explode. At the same time, people will always look for a quick fix and will continue to go on stupid diet plans. Of those 95% percent that fail, many of them are less than 1000 cals per day plans, or the grapefruit diet, or whatever idiocy people are currently embarking on.

The successes you don't hear about are those where people quietly and intelligently just modify their eating habits for the long term. These are not "diets," they're lifetime eating plans.

People all over the world, even where the food is locally grown and not doused with HFCS, get fat. Mexico uses sugar in its foods and the obesity level is deplorable. And all over the world, people change their eating habits and lose weight.

And thanks, my English comprehension is just fine. You can skip the personal insults.

[nadinbrzezinski]

399. You still have an astounding failure rate

and this is not just the grapefruit diet, but WW, Jenny Craig, and even sensible programs supervised by medical personnel

And you still refuse to see WHY scientists are NOW looking at WHY most dieters will regain the weight after five years.

Some research has been done into brain chemistry and serotonin, you may want to look into that.

[dustbunnie]

403. Jenny Craig and WW are two examples of "rehab" style dieting. That's why they fail.

The customer is made dependent on the program by having to buy the approved food as well as encouraging group behavior modification. As soon as the crutch is removed and the person is left on their own, they fail. When people are in rehab they don't drink or take drugs. As soon as they leave, many fall back into their addictions. Same thing.

Again, you're just listing examples of those "diet" plans that I've already said don't work. Hundreds if not thousands of experts also say they don't work.

You've said a few times now that you're not trying to promote this idea that losing weight and being healthier is beyond the scope of human beings and so we should just give up and not try... but you keep arguing exactly that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

405. I guess those supervised by medical personnel are also crutches

by your definition all diet programs are going to fail.



And I am not arguing that. I am saying that given the diet industry failure it is time to ask why?

Insanity is to keep doing the same over and over again.

You argue for insanity I argue for research and to ask WHY this is the case.

[sense]

396. 95% failure rate for low calorie diets with or w/o exercise is

a huge part of the population and each time we lose and regain it changes our metabolism. The majority of people who diet even once will eventually fall into the category of people who's bodies have tried to adjust to prevent starvation. Not a small population. It's complex for anyone human. Our bodies change with everything we do. There are no exceptions to that.

There certainly are people who's genetic make-up will ensure that they either can't gain significant weight or maintain a gain. How fortunate for them. They do not constitute a majority.

Most experts do not agree that only people on meds... (who isn't) or dire cases are not who they're researching and reporting about. That's what the google tells me....

It's not about will.

[dustbunnie]

406. I agree with your first paragraph. I've been saying that all along.

There are very few studies done on people who quietly change their lifestyles in non-radical ways. Most all studies follow people on some kind of "diet." The studies that have been done on people who don't particularly do anything special like starve themselves, eat very particular foods, rehab diet, etc... but rather sensibly make slight modifications over a long period of time, show that these are the people that are successful.

However, this isn't sexy and doesn't promote huge profits for the industry and so these studies gather dust. At the same time, people aren't interested in long term goals - they like quick fixes. A lot of that has to do with why people fail at their diets. When you make slow, non-radical lifestyle changes, very little "will" is required. Mostly patience.

And for what it's worth, I haven't seen any study put forth by any expert, including Taubes, that says people can't ameliorate their situation by following intelligent eating guidelines matched with a good exercise activity. Yet you ladies keep repeating that mantra over and over and over again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

411. Those are part of your two per-centers

But they are NOT all your two per-centers.

Look ONCE again if you are truly interested into the studies being done on the neurochemical changes in obese people, as well as Basal rates.

Of course there is also the number of people with shot thyroids,no longer rare... who don't know that.

I of course don't expect you to be curious and do that.

[sense]

414. I haven't seen any studies done on people who quietly change their

lifestyles in non-radical ways. Can you tell me where to access those?

Patience won't get you anywhere if you have incorrect information about what works, which is what doctors and med. orgs. are espousing and have for at least 30 years.

You don't know that people aren't interested in long term goals. Which people, can you point them out? Of course not. That's an assumption, based on prejudice and false rhetoric.

"I haven't seen any study put forth by any expert, including Taubes, that says people can't ameliorate their situation by following intelligent eating guidelines matched with a good exercise activity. Yet you ladies keep repeating that mantra over and over and over again."

I don't know who "you ladies" refers to, but I have never nor have I seen anyone else post that you couldn't ameliorate your situation with intelligent eating guidelines and good exercise....
I cannot figure out where people are getting that.


The only problem I've addressed in that arena, repeatedly, is that the doctrine or dogma for the last 30 years has been to eat low fat, high carb for good health and it's ruined the health of millions because it causes too many changes in your metabolic function and we end up fatter than ever and definitely less healthy. The ADA, the AHA and doctors should not have been misleading people for the last 30 years. Those are people who are supposed to be helping and, especially, doing no harm. How have they all simply accepted as fact and disseminated information, which has been proved false over and over? Where are these people's consciences?

[sense]

366. I don't have a diet guru....

And I didn't call you anything, although I may have said that certain moral statements by others are arrogant and ignorant. I stand by that. If you read the entire book, not just that parts that agree with what you think.... 95% of people who use the low fat, high carb diets that have been constantly rec. by the experts for the last 30 years fail. It's a fact and it's in the book, which you failed to include when quoting about that type of diet. Your "facts" without context and missing important info are not truly facts.

Now, without any evidence to support your position that I'm obnoxious and sad, plus that I babble..... you assert your silly opinion.

My so called expert says what I say, which you haven't read or we wouldn't be having this one way conversation.

[dustbunnie]

383. You said my opinions make me look ignorant and arrogant. Exact wording:

"You are entitled to your own opinions, but presenting them as facts just makes you look ignorant and arrogant."

What I said about yoyo dieting is exactly what Gary Taubes and many other experts believe to be true. It's not a new concept, in fact people have known yoyo dieting (and its effect on insulin secretion) creates fatter people for decades. It doesn't require any special context because that is basically the whole crux of Taubes theory.

The second quote in there has been repeated by Taubes many times over as he is often asked to clarify his stance on exercise. I added that in to show you that he concedes it is possible to lose weight by conventional methods. May not be his preferred method. But, as he agrees, it works for some people.

[sense]

397. What you say I said, isn't true. I stand by what I said in context.

I was not referring to anything having to do with yoyo dieting. That is not the whole crux of Taubes theory! Oversimplification again!

I've not argued that you can't lose weight on a lower calorie, with exercise diet. What I said and most say is that it's not sustainable and therefor, it fails. The weight is re-gained and more added. How is that a success?

It does no good and much harm to yoyo. No matter how you do it.

[dustbunnie]

410. Of course I'm oversimplifying. This is a message board and his tome is 600 pages.

I've quoted your post to me. I WAS referring to yoyo dieting and you told me my opinions were fallacious and arrogant. But whatever.

Lower calories is subjective. Someone who was used to eating 5000 cals a day who goes down to 1500 is likely to fail. Someone who reduces his calories to something reasonable like 2500 will have a much better chance at success. It takes a long time, but in that time, the body has a chance to readjust to normalcy. There are few who would refute that. Certainly not Taubes.

[sense]

416. The only thing you quoted that I said

was this. "You are entitled to your own opinions, but presenting them as facts just makes you look ignorant and arrogant." It's a true statement. Opinions presented as fact are ridiculous. I had not spoken to you about yoyo dieting previous to your insisting I had, so you must be thinking of someone else and attributing it to me, again.

Lower calories, as prescribed by the ADA and AHA that I cited refers to the starvation level, high carb diets that have been advocated for the past 30 years. If you want to bring in dire cases or something extreme, you may, but that is never what I've referred to.

There are many, including Taubes, who refute that simply lowering your caloric intake without considering what type of calories or other factors including individual metabolisms and the changes brought on by prior dieting work. They do not work in the long run, and what good is a short term loss?

[dustbunnie]

422. No, my post is there, right above yours, which I quoted.

I gave you quotes from Taubes and you yourself agree that yoyo dieting is not a good thing, so maybe your comment was just knee-jerk. I'm sorry that you can't see how arrogant your many replies on this thread are, but it seems others have let you know as well.

I'm not really that interested in pursuing a conversation about official dietary guidelines issued by the powers that be. I'll leave that for you all. I was only interested in setting the record straight about what Taubes has written along with its practical application, since that's what you attacked me about.

You've agreed that even while on a high fat/protein diet, a person can't expect to sit around all day eating the equivalent of a small trailer in meat and butter without it having a fattening effect. So we're done.

But you may want to make these distinctions before you tell others who say that eating less and exercising more have worked to keep their weight down, how dimwitted and ignorant they are.

[sense]

424. I have not agreed to that.

I still don't know which post you could be talking about. Got a number?

I agreed that exercise was an important component of our lives. I can't recall anything about eating a small trailer of meat and butter...... I've never advocated unlimited eating. That's ridiculous and not what the conversation was about. It's not calories in/calories out. It's not about will or perseverance or character flaws. It's about science. We learn something new everyday. We can't keep up with it all, but we don't need to deny what others have kept up with.

You and others haven't done the research, yet continue to spread lies, based more on simple bias. One of the points about eating a high fat diet is that you're satisfied with less food, so you don't continue to physically crave food the way that you do once you start eating high carb. Your body also doesn't process carbs the same way it processes fats or protein. Once we start eating high carbs that effects all sorts of different processes in our bodies so that even if you diet and exercise, your body will not allow weight loss. If you don't radically change away from the prescribed diets, these changes will be permanent and your health will decline. But others, including many on this supposedly progressive, informed site will still chastise (perhaps not in person) those who have these problems as slothful, lazy, piggish and other lovely titles.

Merely looking at someone and judging them, based on being physically unattractive to you, is prejudice and bigotry. It doesn't matter what the differences in appearance are....or religion... or anything else....

When you perpetuate mythology of any sort you harm people around you and once you have more education to go on and not change your ways or educate yourself with new eyes....
well, that says much more about you, than the person you're looking down on.

When you exaggerate what others say and declare they agreed with you... you're still wrong and not absolved of prior or current misrepresentations.

[Gwendolyn]

431. You're hilarious. And everything you've posted on this thread is hilarious.

You've replied to pretty much everyone who has said that lowering calories and exercising more will help people reach and maintain a good bodyweight, calling them liars and suggesting that they post elsewhere where they know something of which they speak. Unlike you, the genius. We're supposed to take you at your word that you know of what you speak, rather than just assume that you're another keyboard blabber mouth, or even a 300-pound inmate at some prison somewhere. Even though you've posted nothing substantial about anything at all. No theory, no suggestions, no personal experience. Just the parroting of some talking points you read in a book.

What's hilarious is that after going from post to post berating everyone and informing them of their ignorance, you proceed to tell us in this sub-thread that:

1. No, you can't eat everything in sight if you wish to lose weight. Not even on a high fat, high protein diet. In essence, calories in equals calories out.

2. Yes, exercise is beneficial to anyone on a weight loss program.

So, thanks for playing.

[Obamanaut]

436. +1 n/t

[sense]

450. More baloney from Gwen

You cannot attribute to me, what I have not said. You can and do keep repeating yourself...and calling names revealing more about you than me... Apparently in addition to not keeping up with science, keeping track of who said what is too much for you too.

I didn't say Calories in= calories out, ever. I've said the opposite.

Everyone benefits from exercise, for fitness, which doesn't mean it's essential for weight loss. No I'm not suggesting anyone remain inert.

[rd_kent]

388. What I think you fail to grasp, is that many of us agree with you

kind of. I agree that high-carb diets are pointless. Atkins was on to something, it worked for me and it works for others. The problem you don't seem to get is that there IS a correlation between calories in and calories out. Even GT says so. That part is not rocket science. A person can eat just like GT says, but if they overeat and sit on the couch and not exercise then they will still be fat. Are you saying the opposite?

[sense]

402. Did you read the part about the changes in adipose tissue function?

There are people for whom that is correct... the whole calories in/calories burned thing. It's not the majority and many, many others either have genetic or diet induced changes in the way they store and use fat that contributes to it not being a simple calories in/calories out equation. Most people who've previously dieted as instructed (low fat, high carb) will have these changes and it makes it much more difficult for them to lose weight in a cal in./call out after. We're starting to discover more of the intricate changes that occur due to a lot of things we do to ourselves.

There are many who're disputing what I've tried to say based on the false premise that there are only 2 choices. It's like the argument that you're either with christ or satan, no other choices.

The type of calorie is important and the type that's been vilified for so many years is fats, which the research shows is not the problem.

I'm not advocating copious eating and sofa surfing. I'm just trying to get people to look at the alternatives that are being shown to be more effective than starvation with most calories coming from carbs.

I do know there are differences in carbs and of course, complex are better than simple. I don't think that's in dispute anywhere, although a large section (no pun intended) of the population doesn't seem to have gotten that message.

I'm also trying to point out, that just because the ADA or AHA or your doctor tell you something doesn't mean it's true. We all have a lot more access to information than we used to and we should use that before repeating propaganda and myth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

192. Here is what has changed in the last fifty years

apart of the food industry and their addictive food... (That is another post)

1.- Insecticides. There is more than just emerging science that it affects hormones and how they act in the human body. No, DDT and thin shells was not the end of end. They affect the food chain and how your hormones and mine work.

2.- BPA and again its effects on hormones... The Journal of Endocrinology is a good place to go read.

3.- We no longer have simple sugars in our bread, but things like HCFS... which is spread across the whole food chain Oh did I mention that pesky science?

4.- Cheap Food Policy, no, not the last fifty years, but to be specific 1972... which leads to things like hormones in the meat you eat and the milk you drink... as well as HFCS and other food additives.

That is what a lot of people do not want to understand. That is what changed. Not genetics. We are not bacteria... our generations last a little longer than that.

[sense]

197. Glad to know you're just speculating....

Instead of so many who can't seem to move into this century in science, yet insist they've got all the answers.

Many of the answers are in the current research, as well as in the prior posts on this list. Good book that addresses most of the research and current thinking and how we got there: Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Not a quick read, but full of great information.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

199. What has changed: Toxins and chemicals by the thousands in our environment.

Pesticides, plastics, all kinds of chemicals and toxins loose in our environment. Toxins mess up your endocrine glands. This has led to an epidemic of millions of people with hypothyroidism. That means your thyroid is not putting out enough hormone to keep you alive or it might be dead. Mine is dead from a very common autoimmune disease. This happened over forty years ago.

It doesn't matter how much you diet or exercise, you won't lose any weight without additional factors (such as hormone replacement -- thyroid and testosterone are the biggies) and additional studies, such as reverse T3 formation and leptin resistance.

Interview I've been quoting from:
http://thyroid.about.com/od/loseweightsuccessfully/a/weight-loss-diet.htm

Kent Holtorf, MD: We try and investigate and treat as many dysfunctions and suboptimal metabolic conditions that we can. We have had success with a large range of individuals, from those who need to lose a few pounds to those who are over a hundred or more pounds overweight. The most satisfying are the people who lose 50 to 100 pounds or more. It totally changes their lives.

We are also seeing more patients who come in after gastric bypass – those who either didn’t lose weight or have gained much or all of their weight back. Most have low tissue thyroid levels as well as significant leptin resistance. They can also have a growth hormone deficiency as well.

We had one person who was eating 800 calories a day after having gastric bypass and she was still gaining weight. Nobody believed that was all she was eating until they put her in the hospital and monitored her food intake. They insisted her thyroid was fine, as she had a normal TSH, T4 and T3. When we checked her reverse T3, however, and it was over 800 and her leptin was 75. We checked her metabolic rate and it was 45% below normal. Dieting alone would, of course, never work with such a patient.

Also, toxins such as biphenyl-A can block the thyroid receptors everywhere in the body except for the pituitary, which has different receptors. So due to the ubiquitous nature of these toxins, I believe that everyone has a relative deficiency of thyroid activity that is not detected by the TSH. People blame food intake and lack of exercise for the obesity problem in this country, but I think a major problem is the thyroid-disrupting toxins, as well as stress.

Additionally, dieting is shown to not only reduce the T4-to-T3 conversion and increase reverse T3, but it is also shown to reduce the numbers of peripheral thyroid receptors -- but again, not in the pituitary -- so the same amount of thyroid has less of an effect, but the TSH is unchanged. This exemplifies the importance of clinical and target tissue assessment in the determination of overall thyroid activity in an individual. Also, women have fewer thyroid receptors than men, making them more sensitive to small decreases in serum levels of thyroid hormones.

=============================

Another article by Dr. Holtorf:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kent-holtorf/long-term-weight-loss---m_b_192933.html?show_comment_id=24291950#comment_24291950

It is not simply a problem that individuals are taking in more calories than they are consuming or lack of exercise or willpower, but rather it is a complex vicious-cycle of endocrinological and metabolic dysfunction. Contemporary medicine has failed to address these dysfunctions in overweight individuals and doctors and patients continue to believe that all cases are a matter of willpower and lifestyle. Thus, it is no surprise that obesity is reaching epidemic proportions.

Research is demonstrating that dysregulation of two key hormones may be a cause or major contributor of weight gain or inability to lose weight in the majority of overweight people. The first is leptin and the second is reverse T3. The exciting part is that doctors can now test for the presence of these physiologic barriers to weight loss and prescribe appropriate treatments with potentially dramatic results.
=============

BTW, I do NOT eat when I am bored, or for comfort, or for relief from stress. I have always been unable to consume a normal restaurant meal at one sitting. I cannot eat a burger that is larger than 1/4 lb. unless I am extremely hungry. Because restaurant meals are so huge, I can take the leftovers home and get one or two more meals out of them. My mother and grandmother just KNEW I was going to die because I did not eat enough to keep a bird alive. And I was physically active, I just came home every day after school and collapsed for three hours due to my hypothyroidism. Back then in high school, I was of normal weight. I could have died from hypothyroidism, instead of from not eating enough.

I also had severe bacterial pneumonia/bronchitis on and off for about seven or eight years. I had numerous hospitalizations and ER visits. When you are barfing your guts out because of sinus infection drainage, you lose your taste for food. In all the time I was sick over those years, I only lost about six or seven pounds. In order to get to the recommended BMI, I should have been losing thirty pounds. Never happened.
=============


More info:


www.thyroid-info.com

www.thyrophoenix.com

www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

What is my thyroid and why does it hate me?
http://www.beautynewsnyc.com/in-this-issue/what-is-my-thyroid-and-why-does-it-hate-mean-interview-with-dr-kent-holtorf/

http://www.holtorfmed.com/handouts

[sense]

202. Thank you!

Great information.... Science, gotta love it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

203. Just one correction and I do love your posts

if you ate like a bird... or I ate like a bird, we'd balloon up.

I know it is an americanism, but I share my home with two parrots... they are birds... they consume more calories in half a day (equivalent mind you) than I could put away in a full day. They have a very fast metabolic rate.They almost eat all day... and they keep themselves in a very narrow band weight wise

:-)

Since we want to be more or less accurate with the science.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

225. Thanks for that.

Yes it's an American expression. I guess because people see a bird pick at the ground, and think they don't eat much. I remember you are the parrot expert, which I find interesting.

You are the other person around here who reminds the physically perfect/speedy metabolism folks about all these reasons for obesity.

You know what? I'm considered to be on the verge of morbidly obese according to my BMI.

When I see somebody who really is obviously morbidly obese, the people who have hanging bellies, and huge butts and can barely move, you know what I think?

I feel sorry for them. I know they are in a lot of pain physically and mentally. I live in Texas, so I see LOTS of them.

They probably have the same thyroid problems I do and probably a bunch of other medical problems that are far worse than mine, and probably no money for health care. I don't have insurance but at least have money for those six month checkups.

I'm very well educated about medical stuff, I have a BA in biology and a law degree. I've gone to some fairly sophisticated big city weight-loss and anti-aging doctors, and I NEVER heard about reverse T3 and leptin resistance until I read those interviews with Dr. Holtorf, just a few days ago. So I can imagine what other factors against them these people have -- bad diets, sodas, junk food, lack of cooking and shopping skills, inability to listen to their body's hunger signals, and who knows what else.

I guess those skinny perfect people who think all fat people are bad and evil would just run off screaming and leave town, if they lived where I do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

230. Well when it come to nutrition

it is not just human nutrition I had to teach myself. After cookie almost died from the "perfect diet" (seeds) I had to learn how to break him out of that habit and get him to eat varied food and absolutely no junk.

My vet's frustration is that many of his patients are still on seed diets... and god he's seen horrible things, some close to what we see in humans.

So we talk, and he at times recommends articles on bird nutrition and I compare notes with human... and it is amazing how our needs are not that different...

But hi carbs hi fat diets, whether this is mickey Ds or sunflower seeds... are not healthy long term.

I don't have a science degree I just read... pub med and all that.

:-)

[alarimer]

189. There is no magic bullet; people simply have to eat LESS.

We eat too fucking much; have you seen the portions in restaurants these days? Enough to feed two or three people. Maybe we think we won't get our money's worth if the portion sizes are smaller.

Eat less and maybe get off the couch now and then.

A sedentary lifestyle and eating too much is why we are in the shape we are in. Restaurant menus need to be clearly labeled with fat content and calories. You shouldn't have to search for the website (if there even is one) in order to find out.

Starting in elementary school, people need to be educated on nutrition and exercise and no junk food should ever be available in schools: no hamburgers, french fries, pizzas, sodas. Kids should not be allowed to eat off campus either. Of course this doesn't help the ones that bring their lunches.

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. That is part of it, but NOT ALL OF IT

Leading science is telling us it is not just calories in, calories out.

I know that for some folks this is truly a religion... and a good way to point at others and feel so much superior.

But the SCIENCE is not that simple.

Also genetics is not that clear.

But keep believing it is that simple. I am sure it lets you feel good...

And hope your body does not do what it sometimes does with the passage of years.

By the way, up to about ten years ago that thinking of yours was still pretty much accepted even in the research community. As they do much more research well it ain't that simple

By the way read Kessler's the End of Overeating.... for the food industry responsibility in this. The portion size, that large, is also that far more cost effective for the restaurant/

[sense]

201. read something......

non-fiction preferably, about the subject before posting. I'm sure that are many topics on here that you're well informed about. This isn't one of them.

[trudyco]

196. Epigenetics, what your grandparents went through....

Look up epigenetics. I also read something on a study that found what the grandparents went through (I think in puberty) effects the grandchildren. In one set of rats the grandkids took on body fat whereas the counterparts with grandparents that didn't go through (? hunger? Overabundance of food? Don't remember the trigger) didn't absorb the calories as fat - it just went through their system or they developed less fat cells to begin with. This was a confirmation of a human study from some european country that had thorough medical records dating several generations.

Another interesting tidbit - I read that those who get bariatric surgery and then have children have thinner children than those who have the kids and then shortly afterwards have surgery. Not genetics, not environment... something chemical that happens during gestation I'd hazard.

Obviously there is more going on than calories in/calories out. The upper stomach regulates "I am full". The middle bump in the stomach does the most stretching and regulates the "I am hungry" hormone. The lap band works on the former (and causes restriction so can't eat as much), the vertical sleeve gastrectomy works on the latter (and also causes restriction so can't eat as much). Some people do OK with the band, some do OK with the sleeve, some don't keep the weight off with either. We are just in the beginning stages of the science behind eating. IMHO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

204. We are just in the beginning stages of the science behind eating. IMHO.

Indeed, and welcome to DU... even if a little delayed.

:hi:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

209. Genetics? A family tendency towards autoimmune diseases.

I got it from Mom. Mom had a dead thyroid (Hashimoto's) diagnosed at age eleven. 1934 or so. She gained weight as she got older, until she got so old she lost her subcu fat and became skin and bones.

I have a dead thyroid (Hashimoto's disease - autoimmune) diagnosed at age eleven. 1965. I was normal weight in my early twenties, but have gradually gained weight over the years. I've taken Armour all these years, kicking and screaming and fighting with board-certified endocrinologists.

Grandmother was tall, thin and had an overactive thyroid. She was an overachiever, and got old ten or twenty years later than everyone else did. She thought the rest of the world was lazy.

Mom's sister had a thyroid where one-half was dead and one-half worked. She slept a normal eight hours a day and was never overweight.

My aunt had four daughters. Two of them are tall, slim, beautiful and always cheerful.
Two of them are fat, grumpy and used to pick on me all the time when I was a kid.

Pop quiz: Guess which two of them suffer from hypothyroidism?

Clue: It ain't the cheerful ones.



Some of the people in mom's family also have rheumatoid arthritis which is an autoimmune disease.

[DemBones DemBones]

219. Funny how people want to ignore genetics. . .

until their own metabolism craps out on them and they see it's not that easy to stay thin when your body is working against you.

Nobody can do much about genetics or about environmental factors like hormones in our food and drinking water.

Getting a proper diagnosis/ proper treatment of thyroid problems isn't easy, either, and if you are hypothyroid you will gain weight.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

419. Thyroid diagnosis is a disgrace in the US and all over the world.

read horror stories at:

www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

T4 only does NOT work. ArmourT3 and T4 both, does work. And I just found out about reverse T3 which cancels the good T3.

Millions of people have messed up endocrine systems due to weakened immune systems due to toxins, stress, hormones in meat, etc. etc.

[thelordofhell]

215. Drink twice as much water, eat half as much food

And always eat something every 4-5 hours.

[sense]

220. Science refutes it.

It's a complicated problem. If it were that simple there'd be no obese people. Read the research....or maybe just post about things you know.... Not trying to be mean, but do people really have nothing better to do than comment on something they really have no knowledge of or interest in? There are so many threads here to choose from. I learn so much here every day from people who've done the research and do have the knowledge I'm lacking and would like to be informed about......This is really a great resource.....having to filter the rest....is exhausting.

Hey, maybe that's the point..... drown out the facts with dogma.....repeating the same mantra over and over.......... and turn up the volume when people disagree.
Soon we'll all be republican............... go sarah!

[mamaleah]

246. Well that's how people learn.

They post and someone corrects them.

If you are annoyed by opinions I suggest you skip 99.9% of the threads around here. Your panties might end up perma-wadded.

[sense]

250. I think I'm there.

Beating my head against the wall of ignorance.

[mamaleah]

252. Then avoid leaving the house.

Because not everyone is going to think you are a genius or agree with you.

[sense]

258. I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm a genius or

that they should agree with me. I simply think that denying science and refusing to learn are repugnant.

[Gwendolyn]

266. Your arrogance speaks otherwise. You need to go back and reread as it didn't take the first time..

No on is denying science in this thread. Rather, you've posted extensively on why people should just sit home and be obese. Perhaps that works for you, but it's by no means a recipe for success for everyone.

There are many people who benefit greatly from improving their diet regimes and increasing physical activity, particularly if they can manage to maintain it over a lifetime. It's repugnant to try to discourage people from making positive changes in their lives. Shame on you.

[sense]

285. Why are you lying?

I've never said anything of the sort! That isn't what I advocate and of course, that's not what the research says. You haven't read a word I've said...

[Gwendolyn]

291. I've read it and you're spewing a lot of nonsense.

You've argued with every single person who has volunteered the idea that engaging in good eating habits and an exercise program is full of shit. The fact is, that anyone following a diet proposed by Gary Traubes will eventually find themselves craving less food ---> calories, and losing weight.

They will enjoy an increase in energy which can be put to good use, with multiple health benefits through exercise. In any event, that excess energy is likely to provide the impetus for the person to become more active and spend less time eating. All that essentially boils down to, is EATING LESS, MOVING MORE. One school says in order to be thin you have to start with EAT LESS, MOVE MORE, and Taubes school of thought says that's the end result if you eat as he says. So what. Same difference.

Add to that the thousands of people who have managed to lose weight the conventional way, through medium carb, medium protein and fat diets and exercise, which even Gary Taubes concedes is possible, yet you want to spit on these people as well because they just don't fit the woe-is-me theme you're spouting. Never mind that these people are all around us, and certainly at my gym every night. They simply don't exist, because *you* say so.

[sense]

311. Quote me~ You can't because I didn't say it.

The millions of people who've lost weight on low fat, high carb diet gain it back at an incredible rate, plus more. Not every single one of them, obviously, but the vast majority. I've not once spouted any woe is me.... who the heck are you reading and attributing it to me? Me spit?

More proof that you haven't read my posts and certainly not the current research.

Sheesh.....Delusional much?

[dustbunnie]

325. Go back and read your posts. Apparently the ignorance of everyone else is "exhausting."

Every one of your posts is condescending and arrogant. You try to tell people they're *wrong* even though they're obviously enjoying great good health at optimum body weights. What hubris.

And yes, millions of people who go on diets in general gain it back. That's because of a number of reasons. They are emotionally addicted to food (which is different from physical addiction), they diet too quickly and stupidly, they focus on a dietary punishment/reward self-flagelation system which is destined to failure, or think of themselves as either "on" or "off" a diet, rather than focusing on changing the mindset over the long term. So it's either the rigid diet plan, or eating everything in sight. No middle ground. That's it basically.

You claim to be such an expert because what, you've read a book? Hate to tell you, but what Gary Taubes purports is just another diet that forces people to eat a certain way. It's the rigid diet plan all over again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

341. So you know them egg heads, we call them researchers have found

actual physical addiction to food. They have also found that obese people's brains react different... serotonin levels mostly. This is a physical addiction not unlike Cocaine. We have also found evidence that certain food combos create cocaine like reactions in the human brain.

So it is not just psychological addiction.

:-)

Kessler goes into this in detail in the End of of Overeating if you want the cliffs notes to that problem and how food has been made quite addictive by the food industry. They know what they are doing.

Trust me, read the book, how you read a menu at a restaurant changes forever.

Oh and there is precious little actual diet advise in that book.

And while Taubbs has that issue, and an axe to grind with the American Dietetic Association, even researchers are finding out that calories are processed differently depending on the source they come from.

[sense]

368. Ignorance was not what I referenced with the word exhausting.

There you go again, taking my words not only out of context, but not even in the same sentence and putting them together to suit your own agenda. Weird.

There is nothing obvious on the net.

I don't claim to be an expert.... that's just what you said...lies.

I think without the sight and inflection cues you're not able to determine anything about my posts that would suggest arrogance. I'm citing fact, as opposed to opinion and you don't like it. The failure of most people who diet is because they've been given the wrong info. I would not presume that people are stupid (as you do), just mislead. If you don't have the facts, you're doomed to fail.

You've clearly not read the book.....or the studies and research. Gary Taubes uses studies and research to show you why certain things don't work on most people and where we went wrong in the nutrition and diet milieu in the last 30 years and a way for the majority to be more successful.

You're arguing against success!

[thelordofhell]

298. Of course it's never simple

You have to find a balance that works for you. But one of the best places to start is to reduce your intake of flavored water (soda, coffee, tea, etc.) and increase your pure water intake. Also, by spacing out your meals and not eating copious amounts of food at your meal keeps your body at a regular caloric burn.

Notice that I said START. It's not the be-all end-all, but it's a good place to begin. Stop thinking of nourishment as a panacea and you will start to eat and drink healthier, and that changes your mind-set, which is a requirement to lose weight and keep it off.

Oh yeah........and stop being so pretentious and insulting to others.

[sense]

370. Pretentious and insulting?

Why, yes you are.

Read what's been written. Yes, I'm frustrated with many who take what is said and paint over it some weird brush of their own and attribute it to me. It's crap. Science will win out.

How insulting that you'd suggest that anyone doesn't know the simplest things about balance and that if you consume copious amounts of anything you're not going to be healthy. I do not advocate sugar in any form, simple carbs, or the copious ingestion of anything. Stick to the truth, it offers you more credibility.

Why do you say that I treat nourishment as a panacea? This is what's so frustrating......I've not remotely said that or any of the other things you say I've said. If you're going to argue, try to argue with the person who actually may have said that.....

[thelordofhell]

393. Aaaaand then you prove it

Science has won out.....again. Ciao.

:tinfoilhat:

[sense]

404. What? That you can't read?

My frustration is expressed as frustration, nothing more.

[thelordofhell]

442. No it isn't........you're just being insulting

Let's see now....according to you.....

I have no knowledge of science(apparently though, so does everyone else that disagrees with you)
I'm a republican(this is a direct violation of DU rules)
I can't read(your frustration leads to your expressing ignorance)

You're done, I'm through with you, this is over.



:banghead: :tinfoilhat:

[TicketyBoo]

255. I don't believe that

it is simply a calories-in, calories-out equation.

My dad (very slender) used to eat a quart of country cream a week and Mom joked that she got fat watching him do it.

A family friend who is a registered nurse says she is sure there is something besides calories-in, calories out going on and she is confident that they will figure it out some day, but that day is a ways away.

We all probably know people who get away with eating hot fudge sundaes and cinnamon rolls without gaining an ounce. Me? If I eat an M&M, I get a bump on my thigh.

Incidentally, I grew up as a very slim child and didn't really start to pack on the pounds until I hit my 30s.

[sense]

260. They are beginning to figure it out.....now that they're looking in the right places..

Hormones, toxic chemicals, HFCS and so much more..... There's a great book out that cites an enormous amount of studies dating back to the 1800's through the present. It explains so many things.. Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. Not an easy read, but so very interesting and informative. We've been so mislead by the AHA and ADA......

[Kalyke]

288. Are you female?

My gynecologist said the stresses in women's lives have caused many a woman to gain weight without even really eating a lot.

It's the culture. Women now mostly work out of the home, but are still charged in our culture with taking care of children, working like slaves at home and getting very little rest.

It usually hits us when we hit about 30 to 35 (it was 37 for me, after my second child). I'd never had a weight issue before - or, if I did, I could lose it relatively quickly. Now, it's like pulling eye teeth.

[TicketyBoo]

303. Yes.

And my weight started to rise significantly after my father began to be seriously affected by Alzheimer's disease.

I can buy stress as a reason.

Quite a few years after the weight gain began, they found a severe thyroid deficiency, which compounded the issue. I lost weight while pregnant without even trying. That should have been a clue that something strange was going on.

[Vinca]

263. I've had a weight problem most of my life. The only time I managed

to lose it and get to a normal weight I was severely depressed over something that had happened in my life. Near suicidal. So much for that diet. Except for a brief stint with one of the diet hucksters, I had pretty much given up until something hit me just recently that I should try again. I decided the "calories in/calories out" approach is the only way to go. I also decided not to weigh myself . . . ever. In the past the guaranteed diet killer has been a week with no weight loss. I also decided not to restrict my food since I eat healthy stuff 99% of the time anyway. I'm not keeping journals or logs. What I am keeping in mind is 1200 calories total a day and portion control. I'm weighing and measuring. I started on November 1 and I feel as if I've already gotten into the habit of not eating constantly. My pants are a little looser, but I don't think I've lost more than 5 lbs. I've decided in my mind to stick with this for a year and see how it goes, then reassess. I might be where I want to be by then or not. In any case, if I can do it for months on end I will have changed my lifestyle and I think that's the most important part of losing weight.

[rd_kent]

362. Bravo. Good luck and keep up[ the hard work.

[Kalyke]

280. It's the crap preservatives they put in our food.

I am using diet pills (controlled), energy boosters and absolutely no hidden HFCS and have lost 15 pounds - and it's staying off.

I do partake of a real Coke on the weekends - one a day, complete with HFCS - but that's ALL the HFCS I'm getting. I eat Arnold's bread (whole grain or wheat) or the whole grain from my store's bakery (no HFCS), very, very, very little pre-processed foods, very little red meat, no pork and mostly veggies and fruit.

I do drink alcohol.

I also have found a way to exercise that is not boring, takes time away from my kids or is pointless: I dance with my kids when I get home. Dance 'til we sweat and have some heart pumping. Great exercise - no lying on the floor trying to do sit ups whilst a toddler is climbing on you, no ignoring them... and I can keep it up.

However, limiting the HFCS and boosting the energy to have energy to exercise has been key.

[Ganja Ninja]

287. Humans evolved to survive lean times.

For thousands of years we've lived on diets that were calorie deficient and food that was less than healthy or downright spoiled. Having plentiful food year round just isn't the natural state.

[walldude]

295. THere are basically two ways to lose weight. The lazy way and the

hard work way. Hard work means proper diet and exercise. For some with glandular problems it may also mean medications.


The lazy mans way: Cocaine. And that is not a joke. Go on a month coke binder. You'll lose all the weight you want and more. Those are the 2 ways guaranteed to make you lose weight.

[sense]

371. No dispute about the proper diet and exercise, except

that most people are being mislead about what that is.

Cocaine? Too many side effects.... and not sustainable unless you're talking about a really short life....

[Sparkly]

348. Serious question: Deprived of food, would anyone NOT become skeletal and die of starvation?

Seriously.

I understand research and theories that one thing or another can cause people to have a more or less difficulty in gaining or losing weight, but ultimately, doesn't it come down to the math of calorie intake vs calorie burning? (Granted, again, metabolic differences, number of fat cells acquired in childhood, etc. can alter the efficiency of the process on either side of the equation.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

357. It is all the variable that play a role in a "normal environment"

Once the green revolution stops, trust me that will be the least of our troubles, speaking of ghoulish math... WITHOUT the use of insecticides and other chemicals in industrial agriculture we believe the planet can support 4B people... what happens to the other two billion?

[sense]

372. Totally deprived of food for an extended period

of time? Yes, we'd all die.

Calorie intake vs calorie burning has been proven a false hypothesis. Too many other factors, including hormones, metabolic disruptions that are either genetic or triggered by prior dieting or other factors we may not have discovered and things too numerous to mention. The type of calories you take in affects the chemical reactions of many organs that metabolize food. Too many carbs, even complex carbs can wreak havoc with the balance of calories in out...

Huge oversimplifications, obviously, but it's a serious issue of miseducation.

[treestar]

365. Everyone's an individual

that's what I'm driven to conclude. Everybody has their own ideal, individual diet.

[sense]

373. So simple and yet, so true.

[Nikki Stone1]

380. The diet industry is the closest thing to a perpetual motion machine we have

Diets don't work. The success rate is 2%. Yes, 2%. That means a 98% failure rate. And those 98% who fail don't blame the industry, they blame themselves. So, when they put back on all the weight they lost plus 30% (yes 30% more is average), they get desperate and run back to the diet industry that failed them the first time. It's endless repeat business because the product doesn't really solve the problem: it masks it in the short term.

Actually, the diet industry is a lot like religion: it seems to work and then it fails you. You spend the rest of your life trying to get the thing to work as advertised. I always thought that if I were really unscrupulous, I'd start a diet center with a church attached. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

387. I'd start a diet center with a church attached.

so damn true, thanks for the laugh!!!!!!

I should ask the doctor if she wants me to play mice though. I am one of those 2 percenters. Though I suspect part of the reason was why I gained to begin with... meds

But I'd like to see if the changes in brain chemistry are there... early research in that.

And no I do not feel morally superior, just damn lucky!

One thing that went right!

[Nikki Stone1]

423. So how about: Nikki's Two Percenters: The Chosen Thin

The rapture depends on your BMI. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

426. Can the side god by the great FSM?

I mean I am itching to build a Spaghetti temple for the oh great one!!!!!

[sense]

417. So true.

[flvegan]

401. WELL...I see this thread went brilliantly.

Or something.

[janx]

407. YEP.

;-) :hi:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

420. More info about women and testosterone lack.

Testosterone for Women

Contrarian Endocrinology: Testosterone for Women

by Karlis Ullis, MD with Josh Shackman, MA

In this series of articles, I will attempt to bring clarity to two common myths about endocrinology. The first myth is the notion of the exclusivity of "male" and "female" sex hormones. While it is true that men have higher concentrations of testosterone and lower concentrations of estrogen and progesterone than women, all of these sex hormones play vital roles in both sexes. The second myth I will dispense with is the notion of "good" and "bad" hormones. Some hormones such as DHT and testosterone have been demonized and blamed for all sorts of health problems, but the fact is that every hormone plays a vital balancing role in the body. Rather than be labeled as "good" or "bad", each hormone has an optimal equilibrium level in the body with respect to the other sex hormones. It is when your sex hormones are out of balance—out of their proper ratios then you may manifest health problem, not just because of any one solitary "villain" hormone.

Testosterone is widely known as being the male hormone, yet it has been so villainized by society that even its medical use in men has been made into a social taboo for many years. However, now not only has testosterone replacement therapy became more accepted for use in men, more and more doctors are now also prescribing testosterone for women. In this article I will outline the benefits for testosterone use in women for increasing libido, mood, energy, skin quality, and most importantly to Mesomorphosis readers – body composition.


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

Testosterone and Female Body Composition

A women in her late twenties, came to see me complaining about her difficulty in losing weight. After taking a medical history , it was very difficult to tell what the basis of her problem was. She was working out daily, with a balance of aerobic exercise and weight training under the guidance of a qualified personal trainer. Her diet was a basic low carbohydrate/ high protein diet. Even more perplexing, she had been taking a caffeine/ephedrine thermogenic stack and had previously experimented with some diet drugs as well. Something was obviously wrong. I did blood tests to check all of her hormone levels. When the results came back, all of her hormones were in the normal range except for, you guessed it, testosterone! She had very low free testosterone level. It was equal to that seen in a postmenopausal women. This was an obvious source of her fat loss problem .

While the role of testosterone in maintaining muscle mass and losing body fat may be obvious to bodybuilders and athletes, it is a basic hormonal fact that is often absent in the medical community. It is known that many women begin to gain fat rapidly about ten to fifteen years before the menopause and also after. The connection between low to absent testosterone production and the deterioration of a healthy body composition is rarely made. Most women are often only given estrogens and progestins as hormone replacement therapy, but not testosterone.

I have found in my medical practice that giving women estrogen and progesterone and not testosterone makes it almost impossible for them to lose weight/fat.

With the scourge of increasing obesity in the USA, one would expect the medical community to pay closer attention to these issues. Yet the connection between sex hormones, and body composition is highly controversial.

Why is there such a controversy? Why is a hormone commonly used by farmers to fatten up livestock given to postmenopausal women at risk for obesity? Many doctors point to a recent study showing that when postmenopausal women given estrogen actually gained less weight than those not given estrogen (Espeland, et al, 1997). In this study 875 women were either put on .625 mg of oral estrogen a day or a placebo for three years. So does this mean that estrogen is actually a good fat-loss agent? Hardly! In this study, in spite of the publicity it was given, the authors note that when you control for lifestyle factors such as physical activity the effects of estrogen replacement therapy were insignificant.

From my clinical experience I have found that on the average when a young woman goes on birth control pills a 3-5 pound gain in fat mass can be expected, and at menopause with oral estrogens 4-8 pounds of fat mass gain can be anticipated - especially when oral estrogens are used. A recent controlled study showed that oral estrogens caused a gain in fat mass and loss in muscle, with a decrease in IGF-1 levels (O'Sullivan et al, 1998). This study is more consistent with my clinical observations.

So why isn’t testosterone more commonly given for weight loss in women? The medical community actually commonly believes testosterone causes obesity. This is due to a number of studies linking upper body obesity /abdominal obesity in women to elevated testosterone levels. Once again, this is a case of blaming one hormone as a "villain". In these women, they do in fact have higher than normal testosterone levels but their whole hormonal system is out of balance. Not only do they have high testosterone levels, but they also have poor insulin sensitivity as well as high insulin levels. Often these women have a metabolic problem of insulin resistance—which is associated with obesity. There is no serious evidence that testosterone replacement therapy for women will result in greater body fat – in fact the opposite is true.

With the social stigma against testosterone and anabolic steroids in general, and it is difficult enough to get a study approved on testosterone in men. Imagine how difficult it is to get a human use committee to approve a study on testosterone in women! However, there is one study that helped to illuminate the potential for androgens to help women lose fat. Lovejoy et al, in 1996, compared the effects of nandrolone decanoate and the anti-androgen drug spironolactone on body composition in obese, postmenopausal women. The dose given the nandrolone group was low – 30 mg every other week. All women in the study were put on a calorie restricted diet (500 calories below lean mass maintenance), and were told not to change their exercise habits. After nine months, the women receiving nandrolone lost an average of 3.6 percent of their bodyfat while the placebo group lost only 1.8 percent and the spirolactone (an anti-androgen) only .5 percent. Nandrolone doubled the rate of fat loss over the placebo and the anti-androgen group barely lost any fat at all – the role of androgens in fat loss is clearly demonstrated. Even more impressive, the nandrolone group actually gained an average of roughly four pounds of lean mass in spite of the calorie restriction while the placebo and anti-androgen groups lost over two pounds of lean mass. Nandrolone also did not produce insulin resistance as androgens have been previously believed to do.

Lovejoy’s group were impressed by the ability of nandrolone to produce increased muscle mass in spite of overall weight loss. Keep in mind that dose was fairly small and only given every other week, and that these women were put only somewhat extreme calorie restricted diets without being put on a weight training program. Imagine the improvement in body composition had these women been put on a balanced exercise program and were given a high protein diet in addition to their nandrolone!

Despite the positive result, the authors cautioned against using nandrolone decanoate as a weight loss therapy. There was a mild abnormality of blood lipids and a slight increase in abdominal fat in the nandrolone group. While these side effects were minor, I believe that if testosterone was used in this study instead of nandrolone, these effects would be smaller or non-existent. I also think that daily use of a testosterone gel would be more effective than a bi-monthly shot, since the gel would keep testosterone at a more physiological and consistent level whereas injections lead to huge up and down fluctuations.

It is clear to me, both from my clinical practice and from research, that testosterone is vital for women to preserve their lean mass and to prevent obesity. Not only will testosterone help mobilize body fat and negate some of the fat storing effects of estrogen, it is also extremely effective in building lean mass in women - even at small doses. Hormone replacement therapy that only includes estrogen and progesterone but leaves out testosterone is a curse of many a women’s fat loss program. This is not only a concern for postmenopausal women. Young women should think twice about using birth control pills. Birth control pills elevate estrogen and progesterone levels while drastically lowering testosterone levels. This is reason why many women experience large gains in fat as well as a decreased libido when using birth control pills.


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

Energy, Mood, and Libido

Far from being the cause of irritability and "roid rage" as widely believed, I have found that restoring testosterone levels to normal can tremendously improve energy levels and mood in women.

Estrogen is sometimes believed to be energizing, but most women do not feel much of an "energizing effect" from estrogen. Natural progesterone can have a calming, relaxing effect on women, but the nasty synthetic and potent progestins like Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate) or the more potent, nornorethindrone can actually cause irritability, aggressiveness, and even acne.

Libido is one area of use for testosterone in women that is starting to gain larger acceptability. One pharmaceutical company (Unimed) is close to getting a testosterone gel for women approved for use as a libido enhancing drug. While the thought of horny postmenopausal women may cause you to snicker, I believe that libido is a serious medical issue. The infamous study on sexual dysfunction funded by the Ford Foundation and the U.S. National Institute of Health showed that low interest in sex was the number one cause of sexual dysfunction in women (Laumann, et al, 1999, JAMA , Feb., 10, 199, Vol 281. No 6p537-544). Restoring a healthy libido in women can help bring back the spice in marriages, relationships, relieve stress and depression, and even improve body composition through increased sexual interest and activity. Testosterone is the primordial hormone for promoting both a sexy body and a better sex life.

Testosterone and Skin

Do you have dry and thin skin? This may be a sign of lack of oil production from your sebaceous glands. A lack of oil production can be related to a decline in testosterone . Also thinning, atrophy , or inflammation of the the introitus (the vaginal opening) can be from a hormone imbalance. Even painful intercourse can be due to the lack of estrogen and testosterone. I have treated young and older women with testosterone creams to thicken the vaginal entry so that they may be able to enjoy sex without pain. Using small and balanced doses of T gels and creams I have improved the quality of aging skin without the side effects of acne, hair loss or masculinizing effects.

The role of testosterone on skin condition is often ignored, even though this should be of obvious concern to anybody using testosterone to improve overall physical appearance. Normally it is believed that testosterone can only worsen skin by causing breakouts of acne. However, low testosterone levels can only lead to worsening of skin conditions as well. Restoring testosterone to normal levels can make skin look much thicker and smoother than it was before.


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

Protocols for Female Hormone Replacement Therapy

Many women come to my office complaining of lack of energy, sex drive, and weight gain. They have been to other doctors who have told them that these are inevitable effects of aging and they should just learn to live with them. However, I have found that providing these women with a "hormonal makeover" can have profound effects on their lives. For postmenopausal women, I begin by placing them on "start up" small dose of a testosterone cream or gel (usually at .25 to 1 milligram every other day in the am applied to the neck area behind the jaw for best absorption capacity, or the inner non sun exposed area of the upper arm hangs next to the chest wall). The dose is individualized over time.

Next, I may redo their previous hormone replacement program. If they are currently on Provera, I immediately switch them to natural progesterone which I believe is far safer. Most postmenopausal women are on Premarin, which is an odd blend of estrogens derived form pregnant horse urine (pregnant mare urine). I reduce the dose of estrogen, and change them over to a natural bi-estrogen or a natural transdermal estradiol compounded formula. This change is significant, as one study showed that Premarin caused an increase in fat mass and loss of muscle in postmenopausal women while transdermal estradiol had no significant effects on body composition (O'Sullivan, 1998). I also encourage women to increase their intake of fiber, and phytoestrogens by taking a black cohosh containing formula and other plants that have estrogen like effects. Soy products are a must.

The goal of this program is to give women back an optimal balance of sex hormones similar to the one they had in their youthful days. Testosterone levels and sometimes progesterone levels can be restored with natural hormone replacement therapy. Balanced and safe estrogen levels can be obtained from a combination of estrogen production from the aromatization of the testosterone they are using , from phytoestrogens such as soy, black cohosh, and a small dose of natural estrogen. Once this natural balance is restored, women can often break the weight loss plateaus they previously reached and can reverse the loss of muscle and bone mass that occurs with age.

For younger women I am more hesitant to give any hormonal therapies, especially if they wish to someday have children. This is not to say that pre-menopausal women cannot benefit from higher testosterone levels. I have been using the prohormone 4-androstenediol (4-adiol) in selected women who are not wanting to have babies. It has a high conversion rate to testosterone and does not directly convert to estrogen. Since 4-adiol is short acting, I believe it can be used safely in women without causing much side effects or shut down pituitary production of the gonadotropins, if used infrequently. The only problem is that most 4-adiol products are made for men with 100 mg capsules, whereas doses for women should be anywhere form 10 to 50 mg. There are now available 12.5 mg lozenges of 4-adiol in the sublingual cyclodextrin form. Women could take 1/4 to 1/3 of a lozenge intermittently to raise their T levels.


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

Conclusion

While traditional "female" hormones progesterone and estrogen may have a role in preventing heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and osteoporosis, I believe testosterone replacement therapy in the near future will have a much larger effect on women’s lives. In fact testosterone replacement therapy may soon become more widely practiced by women than men.

I also believe that testosterone and other androgens may have a critical role treating some types of female obesity - the estrogen dominant type. Precious little research has been done in this controversial area, but it is obvious that a major reason why women have more difficulty losing fat than men is due to their lower levels of testosterone. Since testosterone can not only help mobilize fat but also build muscle, women can attain higher resting metabolic rates.

This is in stark comparison to most diet drugs that result in loss of muscle and usually the return of lost body fat once drug use is ceased. While androgens will obviously have some side effects in women, hence the controversy, however these side effects are likely less than the often life threatening effects of Phen-Fen and other diet drugs. Testosterone as a treatment for obesity is probably much safer and actually more effective in the long term than liposuction. I really hope more research is done in this area, as I believe androgens are crucial in the war against the rapidly evolving plague of obesity in this country.


I hope the medical establishment can soon move away from the concept of the ancient and antiquated model of male hormones are for men and female hormones only for women into a universal concept of optimum hormonal balance of all the sex hormones in both sexes. I really hope to see more studies on testosterone replacement therapy as testosterone becomes more accepted. As controversial as this is, the medical establishment is just as rigid in its approach to male hormone replacement therapy. I hope to help change this with my next article, which will deal with the controversial area of progesterone and estrogen replacement therapy for men.

[L0oniX]

427. You can't get something from nothing ...it's a physics thing.

[sense]

428. Not that simple, again.

[amborin]

447. i don't agree with your dichotomy

---you say some gain weight and can't keep it off for any time

---others have no weight problems no matter what they eat

you are only mentioning two tiny parts of the population

lots of people don't fall into your narrow categories; there are many, many categories out there

many people are 'normal' weight for their height, but have to constantly watch what they eat in order to maintain this 'normal' weight

i also disagree with your first sentence, where you say, "people try one after another, if any of them worked, most people would be at an "ideal" weight."

the fact is, MANY people THINK they are adhering to a diet, but they are either fudging and NOT adhering to it; or they adhere to it for a short time, then relapse.

for someone who is anywhere from 20-100 lbs overweight, losing that weight is a tough slog

it takes really hard work to deny oneself the food one craves, and to keep at this until the weight is lost.

we are literally "hard wired" to want to eat, and to retain and store the calories and fat that our body consumes and/or produces.

[Political Heretic]

455. [TAG] - this thread has been tagged as example of bourgeios underground in action.

Tagged for future reference.