My Life Story?

GuyClinch

Legend
You are going to get wildly different advice on this. I suggest you read Gary Taubes book - why we get fat. It's not a weight loss cure but it will change your thinking.

The prevailing opinion is that we get fat because of a lack of will power. You drink say Soda because you are weak - and therefore you get fat. So the 'cure' is simply to no be stronger and not do that..

While this has a certain nice moral high ground - and people love to use it all the time. Oh that fat girl needs to eat a salad..

But there is a 'second school' of thought on this and its an entirely different mindset. It's not that you are weak willed - its that fat people are actually hungry. Healthy people aren't really masters of awesome will power. They are just for most part eating better 'stuff.'

The idea here is that if you eat the right foods your body will balance your intake with your needs. You won't automatically turn into this incredibly fat whale if you just eat when you are hungry.. But you have to eat the right things.

For example the French aren't skinnier because they are tougher minded then americans. It's just they eat more animal fats (butter foie gras), more fresh vegetable, and more whole fat dairy then americans.

This is less rewarding for the preachy nutritionist types - but in my experience seems to be the more realistic point of view..

The problem is that our diet is sub-optimal - not that we are some weak willed lazy americans.. Americans are hardworking, IMHO. In short just change your diet - and don't stress about willpower.
 
Last edited:

Talker

Hall of Fame
I noticed some viewpoints on statins.
Here's another one. Because I post it doesn't mean I agree in full or in part. :)
It's for your information only, use it and make your own decisions.



By Dr. Stephanie Seneff
The trials that a new drug goes through can only achieve limited testing, and, almost always, the tests used to evaluate the side effects of a drug are too short due to expediency and cost.
It is only once a drug is unleashed upon the real world, and enough time passes, that we learn how its toxic effects can manifest themselves after years of treatment.

Fortunately, the internet holds the key to answers obtained by millions of patients who have unwittingly offered themselves up as guinea pigs in the experiment of living long-term with a given drug.
Statin drugs are particularly problematic because they suppress the synthesis of a biological wonder drug, namely cholesterol.

Repeatedly, retrospective studies have shown an alleged benefit for statins, which is actually a benefit derived from the many years of high cholesterol that preceded statin treatment.
This game has been played out for sepsis, pneumonia, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and Alzheimer's, and these are just the ones I'm aware of.

When the proper placebo-controlled study is done, the effect reverses -- statins make the situation worse.
But these negative results are kept well concealed from the public's eyes. This is how the myth has been kept alive that statins, instead of cholesterol, are the wonder drug.

Below are 13 links to Web sites that contain useful information about statin drugs and cholesterol. Spend some time perusing these links, and then you will be better informed to decide for yourself whether or not to take a statin drug.
#1. Biological Mechanisms Behind Statin Side Effects: Duane Graveline, the M.D. who goes by the nickname "Spacedoc" has done everything he can to inform the public of the dangers of statin drugs. Dr. Graveline is a former NASA astronaut and Air Force flight surgeon. His reasons for taking on the challenge of debunking statins are very personal, because he developed global transient amnesia while taking Lipitor, an unnerving experience that deprives you of all memory of events in your life looking back several decades.
Since then, he has conducted extensive research on the biological mechanisms behind the diverse severe side effects of statin drugs. The link above is but one branch of a vast network of frightening yet informative information about the potentially devastating long-term effects of statin therapy.

#2. Statins and Nerve Damage: The People's Pharmacy is a wonderful forum that allows patients to share their experience. This is one of many examples of adverse side effects of statin drugs available on that site.

#3. Statins and Pregnancy: Like thalidomide, statin drugs are a class X drug with regard to pregnancy, meaning they are contraindicated and should NOT be taken by pregnant women. They can cause significant damage to the nervous system of a developing embryo.

#4. New York Times Exposes Potential for Misdiagnosis Caused by Statin Use: This article points out some of the severe side effects statins can cause, and illustrates with a poignant story about a woman from Kansas. She had been taking a statin for years to reduce her cholesterol. Over that same time period, she experienced chronic muscle pain which neither she nor her doctor attributed to the statin therapy. It even led to a useless shoulder operation.
Her problem eventually escalated into skin lesions caused by a reaction to toxic protein by-products released by her disintegrating muscles. She was given an antifungal to treat the skin lesions, another misdiagnosis. But the antifungal interacted with the statins to further increase the severity of her muscle disorders. Three months later, she could barely stand, and her pulmonary muscles were so weak she couldn't breathe. She died shortly thereafter.

#5. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS): Dr. Uffe Ravnskov has campaigned tirelessly to fight the myth that high cholesterol is damaging to your health. This web page contains valuable information about all the ways in which cholesterol keeps you healthy.
 
Last edited:

Talker

Hall of Fame
#6. The ASEPSIS Trial: The statin industry continues to claim that statins protect against sepsis because of several retrospective studies that show that those who take statins have less risk than those who don't.
What these studies are proving is that cholesterol protects from sepsis. The media keep saying that what is needed is a double-blind placebo controlled study, but they already have one they could talk about. It's just that you can't find out anything about it except that it was completed in January, 2008. You can read my take on statins and sepsis here.

#7. Statins Increase Pneumonia Risk: Just as for sepsis, the statin industry likes to claim that statins improve your chances against pneumonia. But a double-blind placebo controlled study proved them wrong. The risk for pneumonia that required hospitalization was increased by 61 percent in the statin group compared to the controls.

#8. WebMD Article on Muscle Pain and Weakness: This relatively benign article on WebMD provoked a firestorm of responses; each comment tells the story of another tragedy unfolding. To understand the biological mechanism behind the process by which statin drugs destroy muscles, see this link.
Here's a typical comment from that site:
"I was prescribed Crestor 20mg 2 weeks ago with cholesterol level 7.6. First time on any medication. After approx. 4 days I started to experience severe muscle pain, thigh, buttocks, arms, legs to the extent that I can hardly get out of bed in the morning. Have been back to Dr. who advised stopping tablets. Have been off them for 3 days, very little difference. I am hoping these pains will go away soon. I will never take a statin drug again - would rather take the healthy option, diet and exercise and take the risk. Have never felt so bad. Usually very healthy, fit person."
#9. Statins and Heart Failure: Dr. Peter Langsjoen believes that statin drugs greatly increase your risk of heart failure. I have argued why this might be true here.

#10. JUPITER Trial and Diabetes: The JUPITER trial, which was terminated prematurely after less than two years, was widely heralded for showing that statins reduce the risk of heart attacks in the short term for people with high levels of C-reactive protein but without high cholesterol.
However, little note was made of the fact that the JUPITER trial also showed a 25 percent increased risk to new-onset diabetes in the treatment group. Since diabetes is a strong risk factor for heart disease, one wonders how the trial would have turned out if it had been allowed to run to completion.

#11. High Cholesterol and Alzheimer's: This is the article that inspired the Newsweek article, #12 below, with the lead story that statins "protect from" Alzheimer's -- which is the exact opposite of the truth about statins and Alzheimer's.
The only relationship between high cholesterol and Alzheimer's the authors could find was if they looked back 30 years. What they're not saying is that, in the intervening years, cholesterol levels fell for those who later developed Alzheimer's. While no one has said exactly why their levels might have fallen, statin drugs are a good bet.
Here's the only thing that the article above has to say about statin drugs:
"Information on lipid-lowering treatments, which have been suggested to decrease dementia risk, was not available for this study."
You can be sure that, if there was any inkling that the statins might have helped, these researchers would have been allowed access to those statin treatment data. You can read my essay on statins and Alzheimer's to learn why statins would likely cause Alzheimer's.

#12. Glowing Newsweek Article on Statins:This article illustrates how thoroughly the statin industry has succeeded in brainwashing the media into believing that black is white. The lead story is that statins protect against Alzheimer's. If you have read my essay on statins and Alzheimer's, you will think otherwise.
The only two placebo-controlled studies mentioned in that article were "underway" at the time. Interestingly enough, the media have kept mum on one of these studies: "S5-01-05: Multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Simvastatin to slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease," Alzheimer's Association International Conference on Alzheimer's Disease, Volume 4, Issue 4, Supplement 1, July 2008, Page T200, now that it's done. I wonder why?? Unfortunately, there's not even an abstract available in the public domain for this study.
The other study, on multiple scerosis, failed due to the fact that they couldn't get enough people to agree to participate. I think people with multiple sclerosis were wise to stay away from it. Here's an article that shows that statins increase damage in multiple sclerosis.

About the Author:
Dr. Stephanie Seneff is a senior scientist at MIT and has been conducting research there for over three decades. She also has an undergraduate degree in biology from MIT, and a minor in food and nutrition. She's affiliated with the Weston A. Price Foundation.
 
Last edited:

r2473

G.O.A.T.
You are going to get wildly different advice on this. I suggest you read Gary Taubes book - why we get fat. It's not a weight loss cure but it will change your thinking.

The prevailing opinion is that we get fat because of a lack of will power. You drink say Soda because you are weak - and therefore you get fat. So the 'cure' is simply to no be stronger and not do that..

While this has a certain nice moral high ground - and people love to use it all the time. Oh that fat girl needs to eat a salad..

But there is a 'second school' of thought on this and its an entirely different mindset. It's not that you are weak willed - its that fat people are actually hungry. Healthy people aren't really masters of awesome will power. They are just for most part eating better 'stuff.'

The idea here is that if you eat the right foods your body will balance your intake with your needs. You won't automatically turn into this incredibly fat whale if you just eat when you are hungry.. But you have to eat the right things.

For example the French aren't skinnier because they are tougher minded then americans. It's just they eat more animal fats (butter foie gras), more fresh vegetable, and more whole fat dairy then americans.

This is less rewarding for the preachy nutritionist types - but in my experience seems to be the more realistic point of view..

The problem is that our diet is sub-optimal - not that we are some weak willed lazy americans.. Americans are hardworking, IMHO. In short just change your diet - and don't stress about willpower.

And there is a "third school" that stresses exercise and blames many of our problems in this area on sedentary lifestyles. This one makes more sense to me. If you know people that are "active", they often also seem to be "fit" in many other ways as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUaInS6HIGo
 

Kobble

Hall of Fame
And there is a "third school" that stresses exercise and blames many of our problems in this area on sedentary lifestyles. This one makes more sense to me. If you know people that are "active", they often also seem to be "fit" in many other ways as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUaInS6HIGo
I think 70% of our problems are do to lack of exercise. Most of us don't eat so much that we can't exercise ourselves into a reasonably decent looking person. Sure, the abs are made in the kitchen has a lot of truth. If people don't exercise, they won't have abs no matter how little they eat.
 

pvaudio

Legend
6 grams of sugar is 24 calories. 24 calories from sugar in the morning after an overnight fast is good for you. The brain works on sugar. Your muscles preferentially work on sugar. More important than the 6 grams of sugar in this cereal is the 24 grams of complex carbodydrate that will slowly be broken down into simple sugar that will slowly be absorbed from the intestinal tract and ultimately used by the muscles and brain. All 100 calories of it. Presumably, one would eat this with milk, and my initial recommendation was to eat the cereal with fruit in it.
CF, I'm afraid I have to side with OTMPut on this one as what he's saying is truly correct. The body of science you're basing your argument on is based solely on biology (I have a very unique perspective, likely more unique than even the OP so I think I'm qualified to say this). That does not mean that it is wrong. The information you're presenting is based on scholarly articles which go by what tests in labs and under controlled settings have shown. This sounds perfectly ideal, much like the eat cereal for breakfast vs. eggs argument. I'm afraid to report, however, that that literature is rarely relevant.

I ask you to go find any person who has successfully lost weight and kept it off, or has transformed their physique whether or not the advice given to them by Swedish nutritionists in a journal trumped that given to them by a trainer at a gym. The reason is because unlike math based sciences, biology is fairly straight-forward ONLY for itself. Once you apply it to other things, its usefulness begins to falter. Let me give you an example. Biology states that eating a good healthy breakfast full of complex carbs, protein and fiber (yes I know) is the best way to start off the day. It's because each of these things affects a different physiological process which when looked at separately appears to be exactly what you want. Yet, when you ask someone who is overweight to start the day by doing this, two things happen:

1. If they have a caloric quota of say 1800kCal a day, blowing 500 of that (that bowl of cereal is truly a ******) on what's really not a satisfying meal is incredibly tough mentally.

2. After taking in their high quality breakfast, your body has to go to work. It starts to break down everything you ate, process the nutrients, etc. All of this requires a good deal of energy in itself and you end up tired. So, when 11AM rolls around, something sugary or otherwise "useful" for energy starts to look appealing. What does one look for? Carbs. You then start cycling your blood sugar levels up and down throughout the rest of the day, so that by the time dinner time comes and you realize you're starving and because of point (1) you are at 1500/1800 of your calories, it seems impossible.

I know that this is what happens because a. I know a bit about biology, b. I've trained people who are struggling with their weight, and c. I've been there. As I said above, I have a unique perspective: I was raised by two physicians with my only sibling also now set to be an MD in a year. When I was 17-18 like the OP, I was >240lbs and 5'10. I'd developed hypertension to the point of getting LVH (to the non med savvy, your heart working so hard enough to the point that it becomes enlarged). However, I also had a large amount of muscle mass because I was active like the OP and simply because I was large. All of the rhetoric from my parents over the years about how to lose weight never helped. It was only once I realized that losing weight is SO easy because it's purely a mental game and not a biological process that the pounds started to melt off. That's all it is: it's your mindset when approaching food as an overweight person vs. what the literature says.

Let's hit the above scenario the way that I, and I bet OTM would, but no leading scientist would ever support. Breakfast rolls around, and you make the following:

1. large bowl of steel-cut oatmeal (since it's not rolled oats, 1/2 cup of dry oats takes 2 cups of water to cook down into a portion you'll likely not finish) for about 150 kcal

2. Five egg whites (<100 kcal) plus one whole egg for a total of about 170.

Let's round this out and say we've got 350kcal for breakfast now which is about the same as the "whole grain" bowl of cheerios you would consider to be satisfying. Throw in a glass of skim milk which is 80kcal/cup (yes I do know all of these numbers off the top of my head having used them so frequently). Now, we've got less than 500kcal for breakfast and an amount of food so enormous that you will feel satisfied easily for hours. The biggest thing though is that you can look at your plate and see that it's packed with food, and food that tastes GOOD no less and it fits into your diet very easily.

It's just doing things like this that let you lose weight easily. High protein, complex carbs only if you are going to eat them, and a moderate amount of fat to keep your body used to processing it. These tricks are tried, true and proven by those who have been there and done that. The scientific way, however, is the diet way. That's the hard way. It is not difficult to lose weight when you're overweight. It just requires a change in mindset, and being able to find food which you can still eat in satisfying amounts and not go over budget. Related: many people think weight-lifters eat super amounts of protein because it'll pack right onto their muscles. False. From a fitness perspective, taking majority calories from protein is the best way to do it. Why? It requires the most energy to break down, it requires the most energy to turn into fat, it keeps you satisfied better than any other food group, AND it helps you gain mass.

Even now, at 160, I went to Chili's last night with my fiancee and sister and got fajitas. I added 4oz extra of chicken and a skewer of shrimp. Simply used two tortillas instead of 4, and having those two super packed torillas with meat makes for a far more satisfying and fulfilling meal than some scrawny ones with twice the tortilla. It's all mental, through and through. Eat 6 pickles and a quart of water for a snack. Full for <100 kcal and took in water to help negate the salt. So on, and so forth.
 

pvaudio

Legend
Ok, a little off-topic but I don't really care haha, anyways, any suggestions on what I could do? I'm still in love with soda, I might try to drink some every other day, and what helps is that my matches don't normally end till 7 or 8, and by then I'm ready for homework, shower, and bed. But does anyone else have suggestions on what I could do to slim down a little bit, or tone up? I don't have the time for weightlifting right now, and jogging usually doesn't suit me.
You simply need a diet change. Worry about the exercise later. Drink milk and water, not soda. Yes, I know that sounds easier said than done. It really isn't. You need to change the way you think. Instead of thinking, man a soda would be good right now, think: what will this do for my body? If there is absolutely nothing positive, then you have no business drinking or eating it. Let me put it like this: although all calories are not created equal, you could eat nearly an entire package of fat-free hotdogs (they're exactly the same size and shape as the normal ones and taste about the same too. Just not as greasy.) for every ONE bottle of soda. Yes, I know that is also an enormous amount of salt in comparison, but when you replace your soda with a gallon of water a day, out it goes.
 

maggmaster

Hall of Fame
Also a former fatty here, I lost my weight by starting running at 16. Running + portion control = weighing 155 lbs for 13 years. I like everything you said PV, but I just have to say, eating a whole pack of fat free hot dogs conjures a terrible feeling in my stomach. Also for anyone who is going to start eating steel cut oats, be prepared, they are generally an unsoaked grain so the fiber is going to kick you in the intestines the first couple times you eat them.
 

NE1for10is?

Semi-Pro
The way to stop drinking soda is by replacing it with something else. I did many years ago by it by replacing soda with carbonated water without sugar or sweetner. Just water and bubbles and maybe some lemon or lime.
 

pvaudio

Legend
Also a former fatty here, I lost my weight by starting running at 16. Running + portion control = weighing 155 lbs for 13 years. I like everything you said PV, but I just have to say, eating a whole pack of fat free hot dogs conjures a terrible feeling in my stomach. Also for anyone who is going to start eating steel cut oats, be prepared, they are generally an unsoaked grain so the fiber is going to kick you in the intestines the first couple times you eat them.
I should have put that disclaimer: I do not advocate eating an entire pack of fat free hotdogs or eating a jar of pickles just because you can eat and eat and not take in many calories. Eating a jar of pickles is making my kidneys moan just thinking about it! The idea is replacing things you would normally eat a lot of with something else you can eat a lot of, but have it work for you. Good examples are skim vs. 2%, Edy's slow-churned icecream vs. their or anyone else's normal kind (you honestly cannot tell the difference) tuna salad instead of deli meat (you would be amazed how little Miracle Whip you need to get the same taste as normal super creamy tuna salad) or even two grilled turkey burgers on a bun (make them yourself so you know just how much fat is in it: it should not be more than what is natural) vs. a single beef chuck patty. These volume tricks are enormously helpful, and if you're smart about it, can be done reasonably healthily.

The other point that I also want to stress is the value of two things: reading, and cooking. They are both complementary and INVALUABLE when trying to lead a healthy lifestyle. You quickly learn the nutritional value of certain foods, and once you know what is savvy eating and what isn't, knowing how to cook can take anything and make it tasty. Go through your cupboard and get rid of anything that isn't wholesome. That includes potato chips, those stupid rice cakes which are the worst diet food ever created, sugary stuff, etc. Fill it instead with replacement items which are far more healthful. As an example, if you have some Ruffles, can them. Put in there instead some Riceworks chips. Two main differences: the latter is made from brown rice and sesame and are 100% complex carbohydrates. The oil used is also far more healthful, so there is extremely little saturated fat. Since they're made from brown rice, the texture is absolutely amazing: the chips about 3x the thickness of a potato chip, but they still eat like a chip. That means you can have the same serving size, say 10 chips, and have 3x as much going in. What's going in is going to keep you fuller, be healthier and in my opinion, taste better.

Switching from Perdue chicken to Amish Organic chicken isn't a savvy choice. Switching to cooking only with olive oil as needed, tomato based sauces vs. cream based sauces, substituting ground turkey for ground beef when making chili or tacos(I dare you to tell them apart), going for ground chicken instead of ground beef for meatballs (I have a recipe for this that is astounding, can't take credit for it though. I'll link it later.), etc. It pays to learn simple cooking skills because you can take simple, ordinary ingredients, whole ingredients mind you, and make great healthy meals.

As an example, this is a recipe that I very much enjoy and is very easy to make. I first had it at an Italian restaurant, but knew I could make it taste likely even better and healthier. It's based on an Italian dish/side called peperonata or fried peppers. Here is a basic recipe, and then I'll give you mine.
Ingredients

1/4 cup olive oil
2 red bell peppers, seeded, sliced into 2 1/2 to 3-inch long strips
2 yellow bell peppers, seeded, sliced into 2 1/2 to 3-inch long strips
2 orange or green bell peppers, seeded, sliced into 2 1/2 to 3-inch long strips
1 large onion, sliced into half-moons
4 garlic cloves, sliced thin
1 tablespoon dried oregano
1 tablespoon sugar
4-5 Roma or other plum tomatoes, seeded and diced
Salt and pepper to taste
1/2 cup fresh basil, leaves torn roughly
Lemon juice

Method:

Take bell peppers of a variety of colors, seed them, and rib them.

Thinly slice one or two onions, depending upon the number of peppers, and blanch, peel, seed, and crumble a couple of tomatoes.

Mince and sauté a little bit of the onion in olive oil, and when it begins to brown add the remaining onion and the peppers. Cook covered for a few minutes over a medium flame, just long enough for the peppers and onion to wilt without browning. At this point remove the cover and cook, stirring gently, until the liquid evaporates.

Next, add the crumbled tomatoes and check seasoning; when the tomatoes have wilted but aren't completely cooked the peperonata is ready: You'll end up with a dish that's somewhat cooked and somewhat raw, and which can be eaten hot, as a side dish, or spread cold over slices of toasted bread as a snack.


http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/peperonata/
http://italianfood.about.com/od/bellpeppers/r/blr0825.htm

The basic elements you need are:

Bell peppers
Onions (I prefer red for a bit more zing)
Olive oil
Tomatoes
Basil
Oregano

Here's how I modify it. I add the following:

Garlic (in the jar works fine)
Shallots (optional, gives a bit more aromatic flavor)
3-4 boneless skinless chicken breasts
1/2-1lb peeled and de-veined shrimp

I modify the above:
1. You do not need 1/4 cup of olive oil. That is preposterous. A drizzle in the pan is all that's necessary.

2. The tomatoes are not the focus of the dish, it's the tomato base with the peppers and onions providing the flavor. So, instead of wasting time with tomatoes, get some Classico organic or Barilla organic marinara sauce. The organic part here is key. You do not want a sauce with corn syrup or sugar in it, and your generic Prego or Ragu is loaded with sugar. It should be tomatoes, salt, basil, garlic maybe, and that's it. Sugar is not an ingredient.

3. Flavor = satiety. Get some good poultry seasoning, salt and pepper, and a touch of olive oil. Tenderize the chicken breasts with a mallet, or poke lots of holes in them with a fork. Season the chicken breasts well with the poultry seasoning (basically a mix of sage, thyme and rosemary if you want to use them separately), hit them with some salt and pepper, put them in a ziploc bag, and drizzle in the olive oil. Toss them around a bit so that the seasoning is nicely distributed, and leave them in the fridge for a couple of hours to marinate.

Now, take some garlic, the shallots and the onion and put in a pan and saute. You only need a drizzle of olive oil for this, we're not frying anything. Get a big pot and throw in the sliced or chopped peppers. Throw in the onion mix. Dash of salt, dash of pepper. Now, pour in enough of the marinara sauce that it just coats them, and no more. Sprinkle over the top some dried oregano and basil. Turn this on low heat. The goal is for the peppers to be firm, not mush, after cooking down for about 40 minutes. That's why you need the heat low. When you've got about 10 minutes to go on your peppers, take your chicken outside and throw it on the grill. Since it's been marinating for a few hours, it will be extra tender but not laden with salt and fat. Bring it inside, put on a plate and cover.

Your peppers should be just about done now that your chicken has finished, so it's time to throw in the shrimp. They'll cook quickly and only need the heat already in the pot. At this point, uncover the chicken and slice it thinly. Once the shrimp are cooked after like 5 minutes (completely opaque, but not yet white because that's overcooked), put in the chicken. Stir everything up and remove from the heat. You're done. You can serve this over a bit of pasta, or you can eat it straight up. Salt and pepper to taste.

You've now got a dish that will last you at least 5 meals, or will serve your family, is packed with good lean protein, is extremely healthy, you know the ingredients so you know the caloric load, and best of all, it tastes fantastic. I know that sounds complicated, but I simply described every single step in making it. Truthfully, it takes next to no effort. The hardest part is cutting up your onion and peppers.
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
And there is a "third school" that stresses exercise and blames many of our problems in this area on sedentary lifestyles. This one makes more sense to me. If you know people that are "active", they often also seem to be "fit" in many other ways as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUaInS6HIGo

Of course, this school of thought is far from new:

"Lack of activity destroys the good condition of every human being, while movement and methodical physical exercise save it and preserve it" ~ Plato
 
Top