nuclearay Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Self-induced ketosis is a great way to form kidney stones. Although I have never had one, I know many who have, and they look pretty painful... no thanks. Although I have not seen any statistical validation to back this up, I've noticed that many people who did the "low-carb" crap also lost extra weight by having their gallbladders removed within a year. Most people completely avoided carbs and ate bacon, steak, etc... I would venture a guess that gallbladders do not like an overabundance of high-fat foods. Eat right and excercise -- the prescription for America. Sounds so easy, so hard to do. Being that I was superactive for years (mountain biking, rock climbing)and ate whatever, whenever I am also struggling with "the hunger." Mind over matter, I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuclearay Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 If your knees and ankles can stand it, up your runtime and frequency (say 45min 5xweek). I've found that the single most effective way to lose the weight was to run. Not much can come close to the calorie expendeture (maybe Xcountry-skiing?. Seen any fat marathoners? Me neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
updawg Posted August 10, 2005 Author Share Posted August 10, 2005 I use to be in great aerobic shape, running 8 miles with out a problem, now since I added 20 pounds of fat I get lower back pain when I run and only do about two miles at a time. I also live in a hilly area which is great for my thighs and calves but can be very tiresome to run long distances. I'm just trying to gain back some of my aerobic strength and take off some weight quickly. I in no way am planning to stay on this low carb diet. Once school begins I have access to the indoor track and extensive gym. I will also be living in a apartment not having to rely on crappy cafateria food. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frzninvt Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Screw that! I am gonna die with a big greasy Big Mac in one hand and a large Slurpee in the other! Live life to the fullest you could be gone tomorrow! I see people all around me working hard all their lives, saving money etc. They retire and end up dying and not being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. I was in good health at my last checkup but my BMI was high but they don't seem to measure muscle though? What's up with that? My calves are as big around as most average peoples thighs. I do have a bit of a belly but I have alot more muscle in my legs and upper body, I used to be on a swin team and lifted weights for a few years. I am 5' 11" and around 220lbs but I feel grat have tons of energy and give heave a Cornwall from the ground up over my head in a single bound, no problem. Strong like bull! I only run when chased by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Absolute best dietary supplement is EXERCISE! I outa know - I recognize it when I see it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwm Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 "And to mix things up still further, the speed of light is not a constant as so many were taught in your intro science courses. All quantum is probability, and the speed of light is distributed over a Gaussian distribution - a 'normal' or Bell curve - with some light moving slower and some faster, etc.. The peak - the largest 'group' is simply the value accepted as the 'speed of light'. So much for our selective attention. And so much for the nature of quantum electrodynamics. And the math is even more fun!" Hmmm!! I'll have to check with the 'aliens' on this....... On the diet/weight loss issue, I think Robert Haas is closer to a healthier procedure----"Eat to Win" etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 ---------------- On 8/10/2005 3:34:52 PM cwm wrote: "And to mix things up still further, the speed of light is not a constant as so many were taught in your intro science courses. All quantum is probability, and the speed of light is distributed over a Gaussian distribution - a 'normal' or Bell curve - with some light moving slower and some faster, etc.. The peak - the largest 'group' is simply the value accepted as the 'speed of light'. So much for our selective attention. And so much for the nature of quantum electrodynamics. And the math is even more fun!" Hmmm!! I'll have to check with the 'aliens' on this....... ---------------- If this causes you to pause, you will be shocked by quantum!!!!! If you need any info on this, PM me and I will point you to lots of 'stuff'! Hey, why do you think that half of the technical terms in quantum have come from Alice in Wonderland and terms like "strangeness" are actual qualities in the area! And if you are a real glutton (no pun! as you will starve on this form!!!), you can play with this stuff ad absurdum in grad school! And the math is not pretty! Or, you can simply get Brian Green's Nova special on DVD called The Elegant Universe regarding TOE (Theory of Everything) that is a great intro to alot of the current ideas tying quantum and classical physics together! (~$15 at DeepDiscountDVD) (But avoid the book if you don't want the math!!!!) Also, Feynmann's QED is an excellent non-math based primer on quantum - it's actually enjoyable to read. And both can be enjoyed by non-technoids and you emerge with a good understanding of many of the issues!! A MAJOR accomplishment in itself!!! By the way, check out the quote below. That was a profound comment by one of the foremost Quantum physicists of the last century! And it also gives a bit of insight as to where the term quantum leap came from - it's rather like Dorothy's realization that she wasn't 'in Kansas anymore'! - due to the radical tossing out of all the classical rules! It doesn't work the way you think it should! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tpg Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meuge Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Protein supplements are ok... creatine supplements are iffy, since they are not very good for your kidneys. You are most likely simply not taking in enough protein. Also, aerobic exercise gives you increased muscle density, as opposed to increased muscle volume. It's real strength, as opposed to the easily gained, but also easily lost weightlifting muscle. Protein supplements are fine. Just make sure you're taking one that's made by a large company where there is a semblance of quality control. I prefer protein shakes, but they are considerably more expensive. They do tend to taste better and go down easier though. You need to ensure that you're getting all 8 essential amino acids (read: "eat meat") as well as all the vitamins (take Centrum or a generic equivalent), and very importantly, Calcium... which is what most people forget. I actually like the Viactive calcium chews (marketed to women, but who cares). It's easier to take than pills, and they indeed taste pretty good. Two a day should do for most of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 May I suggest that 'everyone' change their paradigm regarding 'losing weight'. As muscle weighs more then fat, as you lose fat and build lean muscle, you may actually find you gain weight! Or you may not change that much at all. But big changes are occuring! The main criterion is that an increase in your muscle tone and 'tissue distribution' will shift. But I would suggest looking more at the percentage body fat rather then the scales! Not only will it serve to be a better measure of your progress, the simple net loss of weight does not necessarily indicate good health! The distribution/balance of lean muscle tissue to fat is a much better indicator... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelerFan Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 ---------------- On 8/10/2005 9:59:14 AM updawg wrote: Well I decided to stop taking stacker 2's (I only bought a box of 20), I'm at work now though and really hungry. I already started eating my lunch at like 10:30.. All I have for lunch is a romain salad with a cut up grilled chicken filet with italian dressing. I just dip my fork in the dressing for the taste and then eat the salad that way (trick I learned in wrestling). That and a plout (the best fruit ever) it's a cross between a plum and an avicado. For dinner most likely I'll have pickle spears wrapped with cold cuts, and some hard cheese. This is pretty much my new eating lifestyle, that and I have a Herbalife shake for breakfast (13 carbs), along with my multivitamins through out the day. Now for you diet freaks is kitosis a bad thing or is it healthy to just burn off the carbs stored in your bodys fat? So far the weight is pretty much pouring off but of course I feel a bit sluggish... with little carbs who wouldn't? ---------------- That sluggish feeling is your metabolism slowing down in response to your too low carb diet. This is your bodies response to starving. You are probably burning up muscle tissue as well. Those are the last two things you want to happen. You need small meals spaced close together that include some carbs. And exercise any way you can to keep the old motor humming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddvj Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 Listen to SteelerFan, he knows what he's talking about!!! Unlike Low Carb diets, which NOBODY ever sticks to longer than a month or two, you can eat 5-6 small meals per day, and you won't want anything else. Once you do this for a few weeks, your metabolism will be stabilized, and if you want to splurge once in a while and have some Pizza, or Ice Cream, you will be able to handle it. You can eat like this for the rest of your life. Also, Running Two miles, Three times a week is not enough. You need to excersise longer, and more often. I like the eliptical machine at the gym, doesn't hurt my shins like running does, and I can go at a high level for 30-45 minutes. You can also add some weight training in there so you don't lose muscle mass. If you are just doing running, you should try doing short sprints, followed by a slower pace, then a sprint, etc. That's what all the "experts" are recommending now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edwinr Posted August 10, 2005 Share Posted August 10, 2005 ---------------- On 8/9/2005 12:04:28 PM updawg wrote: Alright I started taking ephedra free stacker 2's... ---------------- Stick to a balanced diet. Plenty of exercise, like you're doing and you'll do fine. A simple (not the complete explanation) is the theory that energy in should equal energy expenditure. This should maintain your weight. If you decrease your energy intake and maintain energy expenditure, you should start losing fat. Similarly, if you maintain you energy intake and increase energy expenditure, you should also start losing fat. In any weight loss, there is a tendancy to lose some muscle tissue as well as fat. Rapid weight loss (assisted by medication) can increase the loss of muscle tissue which is not really a good idea. There are other problems associated with weight loss assisted by medication. One of the best ways to improve weight loss, and maintain this loss, is to increase the amount of incidental exercise. This is exercise that we SHOULD perform during the day. Like parking the car an extra block away and walking to the shops, or getting out of the chair to change the television channel or adjusting the volume control on our amplifiers. In fact it has been suggested that the weight increase experienced by many audiophiles over the last 20 years has been a result of the demise of the long playing record. In the past we would have had to get up to turn the LP over, or to turn the volume up. Now we just aim the remote at the CD/SACD player and, bingo! Consider healthy snacking. When you feel the urge to eat a candy bar, eat an apple instead. Also I suggest that your 3 main meals a day be replaced by 5 smaller meals. Lunch should be the largest meal of the day and dinner should be a smaller proportion than you usually have. Nothing heavy that takes time to digest. It isn't wise to go to bed with a meal still digesting. Eat earlier in the evening with a healthy snack for supper. Can you get a proper exercise program written up by a fitness professional? This program should incorporate some cardio vascular as well as fat burning exercise. Incorporated in your program you should also include some resistance training to reduce the loss of lean muscle tissue, as well as improving 'muscle tone'. Whatever program you undertake, go carefully at first, then increase intensity as your fitness improves. Too high an intensity at first may result in overuse injuries and other strains. Before embarking on any exercise or weight loss program, you should see a doctor first. PM me if you have any specific questions. Edwin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators dtel Posted August 10, 2005 Moderators Share Posted August 10, 2005 IM with FRZNINVT. I did insurance for a bunch of years seen them in all shapes and sizes and ages die. Many were in much better shape and ate much better than the average person. The first claim i had to work on was was a person my exact age , birthday , and size 6'3" about 260lbs , he died in his sleep ,they say his heart just stopped not a heart attack it just stopped, he was found to have no health problems.< it was very strange to see his age ,birthday and almost my exact shape and size as me > I think that when it's your time what kind of shape or diet you have makes no difference. I'm not saying you can't change the time by doing crazy things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 ---------------- On 8/10/2005 11:43:05 PM dtel wrote: IM with FRZNINVT. I did insurance for a bunch of years seen them in all shapes and sizes and ages die. Many were in much better shape and ate much better than the average person. The first claim i had to work on was was a person my exact age , birthday , and size 6'3" about 260lbs , he died in his sleep ,they say his heart just stopped not a heart attack it just stopped, he was found to have no health problems.< it was very strange to see his age ,birthday and almost my exact shape and size as me > I think that when it's your time what kind of shape or diet you have makes no difference. I'm not saying you can't change the time by doing crazy things.---------------- Whoa! Just wait a doggone moment! Let me see if I have this right! So you are telling me, that while I can possible change the time, that I am still going to die???? I mean, I've listened to some crazy things...the cable/interconnect debates, SET debates, those thinking they can EQ non-minimum phase signals and even EQ to correct room anomalies, and now YOU are here to tell me that I am going to die! Yeah................................................................................................right! Amy, are you going to allow this kinda talk on the forum????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddvj Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 ...Not only that, but is he trying to say that someone 6'3" and 260lbs, is the picture of perfect health? I mean, that may not be morbidly obese or anything, but it's still a little outside the range of healthy. I'm not sure I see the point. If that dead guy had taken about 50 lbs. off, kept his blood pressure and cholesterol down, and maybe excercised from time to time, he might still be alive today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunburnwilly Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 I have read that 1 pound of muscle requires 50 calories a day to sustain itself . So if you work out , and replace the fat with muscle . Your body will become much more efficient , and your weight problem will be history . Until you stop working out and that muscle you aquired becomes fat . Again . Protien , Protien , Protien !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 My earlier jest aside, (and having recovered from the realization that we are all going to die, oh my!) the idea that mortality rates are not tied to caloric intake is not correct. It has been well known for many years, and well documented in clinical studies, including even those extremes where one would not want to be the one responsible! (prison,war, abuse, deprivation, etc.! - and obviously there is a point beyond which you DO NOT want to go!!!!!!! ), that restricted caloric intake below what is considered 'optimal' leads to a lowering of mortality rates. Reduced caloric intake is the only experimental technique to consistently extend maximum life span. This has been shown in many species tested, from insects, to fish, to rats and more. There are so many hundreds of studies that only a small number are referenced below. I cannot cite all of the research, but the effect of restricted caloric intake (my best recall is at ~70-80%), provided nutritional minimums are met, has been repeatedly shown in lowered mortality rates in lab animals. A quick search of "restricted caloric intake" and "mortality" in google brings up the recent UAB Med School study to this effect as well. http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=66310&site=196&return=38551 Also, check this out as this may be an even better source of data: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/6/1715S I can't tell you specifically if this is due to lower body fat ratios, lower hormonal activity, or what the actual specifics are, but there has been repeated clinically documented evidence of this effect within 'reasonable' parameters. And I am also sure that there are minimum nutritional standards beyond which the above is NOT true as well! I leave it to you guys to disagree or discover all of the research, but I have heard this clinical evidence anecdotally referred to in so many legitimate places over the years that I cannot cite the 'one' source! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwm Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 The caloric restriction (CRON)thing is VERY controversial.....try this one.... http://www.walford.com/ The food data base is very handy........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 ---------------- On 8/12/2005 2:14:05 AM cwm wrote: The caloric restriction (CRON)thing is VERY controversial.....try this one.... http://www.walford.com/ The food data base is very handy........---------------- Controversial? I have never seen it 'sold' as a diet! I have no idea about THAT!!!!! It is a result of many replicated clinical studies over many years. Animals live longer with less health problems. Its not a source of speculation. And replication is the measure of reliability in clinical/experimental studies! By the way, this has little to do with the recent flap over whether fat kills you! Its not the same thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.