CPAPtalk.com

DreamStalker wrote:And as for your corn statements, they are much too silly to address.

DreamStalker wrote:
Sure the First Law of Thermodynamics is a factor in overall body mass increase, reduction, or maintenance. But to say that "There are a lot of minor effects of one food vs. another, but by and large, it's how many calories you eat. " or to imply that human metabolism can be reduced to the simple-minded calories in / calories out model is well, is an even more silly game.

No, you're deliberately distorting things. Weight gain or loss is mostly calories in/calories out.

If you want to be healthy, there are a lot of essential nutrients that you need to keep your body working. Once you get the essential nutrients you need, weight gain or loss is mostly going to be about calories.

There are also a number of nutrients that have bad side effects if overconsumed.

DreamStalker wrote:
I can assure you that if you feed one group of people only wheat and another only cattle, both groups will eventually become deficient in some essential nutrients. But the ones on the all wheat diet will die long before the ones eating only cattle.

So what? Who is suggesting eating only wheat or only cattle?

Vitamin A is an essential nutrient. If you eat nothing but Vitamin A, you're going to die rather quickly.

DreamStalker wrote:
The human body is much more complex and requires "essential" nutrients from the diet. The human body requires essential minerals, essential vitamins, essential amino acids (some only available from animal protein), and essential fatty acids (some only available from animal fat). Guess what? Carbohydrates are NOT essential nutrients. The human body requires all the "real" essential nutrients for proper metabolism and more importantly for health. What good does it do to lose, gain, or maintain one's weight if they are going to be unhealthy or dead because of nutrient deficiencies? The human body requires essential nutrients to produce important hormones which allow the individual cells to interact with each other and with the external environment. Obesity, and human health for that matter, is the genetic expression of all those cellular interactions. If you make certain that you get all of the essential nutrients that your body requires, your cells will interact to manifest your ideal body mass and health. Forget about calories -- the human body will manage the First Law of Thermodynamics for you if you give it all the essential nutrients it needs to do so.

That statement bears repeating.

"If you make certain that you get all of the essential nutrients that your body requires, your cells will interact to manifest your ideal body mass and health. Forget about calories -- the human body will manage the First Law of Thermodynamics for you if you give it all the essential nutrients it needs to do so."

So, all the 400 lb guy on the shopping cart scooter at Walmart has to do is add some foods to what he's already eating so that he gets all the essential nutrients, and the pounds will magically melt off.

That's great. All I have to do is eat dreamstalkers theoretical essential nutrient food mix and I can eat all the ice cream and high fructose corn syrup soda I want and I'll still end up at the right weight. I'm really glad to know that.

cosmo wrote:Everyone wants to rain on my parade today

Even if the result was cut in half at 5lbs, thats still a sac of sugar's worth of padding I no longer carry around

But suppose it is 5 lbs the other way & you lost 16 lbs instead of 11?

StuUnderPressure wrote:

cosmo wrote:I just bought a glass digital scale today at Costco. It shows I lost 11 lbs The last time I was weighed was at a doctors visit 2 months ago.

I would not compare the weight reading on your new scale to the one at your Doctor's office. I find that the scales from 1 Doctor to another can differ by a "few" pounds.

Changes in the readings from the same scale is the only way to make sure that you really are losing weight.

Lots of digital home scales will give you a reading that's different by a few pounds on the same scale if you step off and step right back on.

Test your scales this way and see if they give the same reading consistently.

Also, get something with known weight like a quart of water. (2 lbs). Step on, weigh yourself, then pick up the water and weigh again and see how accurate it is at seeing the changes.

I bought a few digital scales in the past that were pretty useless because their readings varied so much with the same weight.

Another annoying thing is that some scales won't give a reading if you don't stand perfectly still. Some of them would take me several tries before I get a weight.

I recently bought a cheap Taylor 7562 scale at Walmart. It's fairly self consistent and consistent with my other digital scales. What I really like about it is that it shows your weight even if you aren't standing perfectly still, so you can see the reading going up and down by a pound or so as you move around a little, but you can get a pretty good idea about what your weight is even if it doesn't settle down and give you a single reading.

archangle wrote: No, you're deliberately distorting things.
....

That's great. All I have to do is eat dreamstalkers theoretical essential nutrient food mix and I can eat all the ice cream and high fructose corn syrup soda I want and I'll still end up at the right weight. I'm really glad to know that.

NOooo. YOU'RE deliberately distorting things ...

I said the exact opposite ... DO NOT eat ice cream and high fructose corn syrup soda if you want to end up at the right weight.

You are the one who said the type of calories did not matter. The good thing about science is that it enables one to understand the difference between human metabolism and a calorimeter.

If you give a pair of identical twins your suggested identical amounts of calories and the only difference is that one twin gets all the essential nutrients through a paleolithic diet and the other with YOUR suggested ice cream and high fructose corn syrup soda diet -- Guess which one will be less healthy and weigh more? Wait! The good thing about science is that if you understand how hormones determine the way calories are used and stored in the human body, you don't have to guess.

And your stupid science poster makes you look like an idiot. Science is not a belief system ... Science is knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.


This horse has been beaten to a pulp and yet somebody always comes along who just parrots mass media propaganda – only this time preaching the corporate marketing as science.

The dead horse can be found here:
viewtopic.php?p=440488#p440488


If you want the real sceince behind the simple-minded calories in – caloies out model, get it straight from the scientist's mouth and not from somebody with a dumb science poster.

Old video presentation I watched when it first came out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEH0OZVHmvQ&list

New video presentation I just found and have yet to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH9079LV4tY

I've lost 65 lbs in the past 6 months. I am working with a naturopath doctor, nutritionist and trainer. One thing that is obvious to me is that there is not only one path that works for everyone.

A few things that are working for me are:

- drink lots of water (the rule is 1/2 your body weight in ounces, daily, ie if you weigh 200 lbs drink 100 oz daily)
- eliminate sugar except that contained naturally in fruits, and avoid sugar substitutes (all of them)
- exercise 3-4 times a week for 30 mins minimum (muscle building burns fat)
- keep grains and starches to a minimum (the only grain I am currently eating is quinoa, and I only have a potato or rice once a week)
- get a food scale (you may think you know what 6 oz of cooked chicken looks like until you weigh it)
- eat real food (real food doesn't need a label; meat is real food, broccoli is real food. If it comes in a box or bag and has more than 2 ingredients, it is probably processed food full of unpronounceable poisons your body doesn't need.)

Good luck quietmorning, do what works for you, but make sure it is working, and don't hesitate to seek out a qualified nutritionist if you get stuck. Plateaus are normal, but if you go more than a few weeks with no weight loss, or experience a weight gain of which the cause isn't obvious, you may need help.

I can only speak for myself, but getting rid of bad sugars tells your body to burn fat and not store calories.

Im not a big fan of portion control because hunger is not something we can control.

Eliminating processed sugars (coke, pasta, bread, cookies, pizza) reprograms your body, elmininates your cravings,
and burns your fat. If youre physiologically normal that is.

too many people think caloric intake is the solution, but the real issue is your body storing calories as fat instead
of burning and elminating them.

My vote to David.
I, myself, may focus on reducing not WEIGHT but FAT. My health probably would be better if I can reduce 1% of visceral fat than shedding 5 kg of weight because weight includes everything of my body including my health-promoting muscles, bones and water. So should we go for FAT-HUNTING?

growing wrote:My vote to David.
I, myself, may focus on reducing not WEIGHT but FAT. My health probably would be better if I can reduce 1% of visceral fat than shedding 5 kg of weight because weight includes everything of my body including my health-promoting muscles, bones and water. So should we go for FAT-HUNTING?

So, it is no wonder: shedding pure fat seems to make me slimmer, too, faster than looking after calorie reduction. The big question is : how can I do that

growing wrote:So, it is no wonder: shedding pure fat seems to make me slimmer, too, faster than looking after calorie reduction. The big question is : how can I do that

First you have to sleep well (CPAP and sleep hygiene).

Second you have to eat well (as they say "real" foods).

Then since you are a man you can lift free weights or use the weight machines to build some additional muscle. Muscle will help metabolize food without converting it to fat. You should not lift heavy weights. Go through a variety of exercises and use light enough weight that you can do 16 reps. Make sure to do compound exercises like bench presses, squats or leg press, assisted pullups and dips, etc. You don't need to do more than one set per exercise and you don't need to work more than 30 minutes to get the best benefits.

You should also add in some cardio. Walking is great - outdoors is best or you can do 15 minutes on a treadmill to warmup for weight lifting. If you use the treadmill use an incline of 4%.

Your exercise program should be easy. If it is hard you will likely hurt yourself, cause poorer sleep and eventually give up. If you make it easy you get the opposite - protection from injury, better sleep and never wanting to give up.

OK, I wrote the most about exercise, but the first two items are the most important!

(If you are just getting started with weights use a trainer and videos on youtube to get the form correctly. Good form is critical.)

I agree with VVV's suggestions.

Although what you eat is the most important factor in controlling your hormones and thus ideal body weight, adding exercise will help get your hormones into ideal equilibrium faster and help maintain health. In other words, exercise should be an added option for achieving normal body composition and not be the focus of losing or maintaining weight.

The thing about exercise is that like diets, there are multiple approaches and protocols. Walking is by far the safest, easiest, and most productive for overall health. If however you are looking for ideal fitness, then weight (resistance) training and high intensity interval training (sprints) are essential in addition to lots of walking.

For the safest most optimal approach to weight training, I think Doug McGuff's protocol is the most efficient and ideal to follow. You can get his book and/or find his YouTube videos. Basically it is slow motion movements to muscle exhaustion over a period of one to two minutes per exercise with each of five "circuit" exercises being compound ... squats and four upper body push/pull exercises. "Circuit" means all five exercises are done right after one another with very little to no rest in between which means your whole session should be done in less than 15 minutes. Also, he recommends this protocol no more than once a week (or longer for some people) to allow the body to fully repair and recover.

High intensity interval training can also be done safely in the form of swimming, or stationary bike, or any other exercise that allows you to move your body as quickly as possible to exhaustion (within 10 to 15 minutes) without impacting your bones (like sex )

Avoid jogging or marathons unless you make a living off of it. So long drawn out cardio should be avoided unless you are an athlete. It is just not worth risking the body damage of being a professional athlete unless you are being paid a lot for it and you love your profession and are willing to be a cripple in old age, assuming you make it to old age.

I found this excellent YouTube channel with lots of good talks that will free you from the mass corporate-media propaganda -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PdJFbjWHEU&list

To make the effect of "calories in=calories out" even less meaningful is this study

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... QlUSH2vgb8

Scientists have witnessed epigenetic inheritance, the observation that offspring may inherit altered traits due to their parents' past experiences. For example, historical incidences of famine have resulted in health effects on the children and grandchildren of individuals who had restricted diets, possibly because of inheritance of altered epigenetic marks caused by a restricted diet.

So what your parents and/or grandparents experience with regard to food & diet can affect you. In another earlier study I read, if your grandfather at an early age had a very restricted diet then you, the grandson had a much higher risk of having diabetes.

BlackSpinner wrote:To make the effect of "calories in=calories out" even less meaningful is this study

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... QlUSH2vgb8

Scientists have witnessed epigenetic inheritance, the observation that offspring may inherit altered traits due to their parents' past experiences. For example, historical incidences of famine have resulted in health effects on the children and grandchildren of individuals who had restricted diets, possibly because of inheritance of altered epigenetic marks caused by a restricted diet.

So what your parents and/or grandparents experience with regard to food & diet can affect you. In another earlier study I read, if your grandfather at an early age had a very restricted diet then you, the grandson had a much higher risk of having diabetes.

This is why I always say, "Pick your parents (and grandparents) very carefully."

BlackSpinner wrote:To make the effect of "calories in=calories out" even less meaningful is this study

http://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot. ... QlUSH2vgb8

Scientists have witnessed epigenetic inheritance, the observation that offspring may inherit altered traits due to their parents' past experiences. For example, historical incidences of famine have resulted in health effects on the children and grandchildren of individuals who had restricted diets, possibly because of inheritance of altered epigenetic marks caused by a restricted diet.

So what your parents and/or grandparents experience with regard to food & diet can affect you. In another earlier study I read, if your grandfather at an early age had a very restricted diet then you, the grandson had a much higher risk of having diabetes.

The study in your link is recently published but I saw a BBC documentary about 2 or 3 years ago on the same topic ... I found the YouTube video for anyone interested in "The Ghost In Your Genes"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvDgcdxPA2U

And then there's this - What is a calorie, anyway?

Of course, we all know that we're talking about the energy available in foods. But there's the physical amount of energy and then there's the physiological amount of energy. Or, the amount of energy that can be obtained by burning and the amount of energy we as humans can extract metabolically. I'm not an expert, but I gather from a little Google work that the caloric values of foods we see on labels is based on the physical value of energy contained in the components, i.e., fats, carbs, protein, and alcohol, of a food modified by a coefficient of digestibility as determined by one Wilbur Olin Atwater in the 1800's. Apparently, Atwater determined these coefficients by studying the amount of food remaining in the feces of various animals after having been fed the food in question.

Further it seems, these coefficients of digestibility are essentially those used by the USDA in its 1973 publication, the Energy Value of Foods, which would appear to be the basis for all caloric labeling currently in use in the U.S. As I understand it, the food for which the caloric content is to be determined is first broken down into its components, again fats, carbs, protein, and alcohol, by mechanical and/or chemical means and the Atwater determinants are applied to the amounts of each component found. There is no attempt to determine the physiologic calorie content of the whole food.

Again I'm no expert and I certainly could be wrong, but in my quick trip through Google space, I did not find any reference to suggest that caloric labeling of food today has been modified in any way by studies in humans to determine the true physiological caloric content.

Interesting, I thought.

Energy Value of Foods; USDA, 1973 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/D ... s/ah74.pdf

How do food manufacturers calculate the calorie count of packaged foods? http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ufacturers

e-Notes, calorie, http://www.enotes.com/calorie-reference/calorie-177741