# Help me lose weight



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

You're thinking that a gaming board is not the best place to ask for slimming tips but a couple of posters on the thread about gamer stereotypes mentioned they'd lost weight. So here goes...

I'm trying to lose just over 2 stone (30 lbs, 14kg). So far I've taken the following steps:
- No more chocolate, other sweets, ice-cream, cake, cookies, crisps, chips, pizza or pasta
- No more butter
- Almost no sugar
- Fewer calories
- More vegetables
- More fruit
- More fibre
- More fish (mostly tuna and salmon)
- Fried food only once a week using a small quantity of olive oil
- Red meat only once a week
- Two hours of strenuous exercise (martial arts) per week (don't have time for more)

I don't drink soda or alcoholic beverages anyway. Also, I walk about 3 to 4 miles a week.

Any other advice?


----------



## Lhorgrim (Apr 19, 2005)

Drink LOTS of water during the day, more than you think you can stand.

Stick with it.  Most people can't lose weight and keep it off, unless they continue to exercise and eat healthy.

Good luck on meeting your goal.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 19, 2005)

Going on a diet is fine, watch your caloric intake and exercise. Those are the two cardinal rules to losing weight. Don't give yourself such a strict dieting regimen. If you want pizza, only have a slice or two. Don't forbid yourself any foods. That is the first step to _not_ losing weight. If you have a craving for something, don't completely give in, but have just a little bit. 

If you like having desert, try Weight Watchers deserts, a heck of a lot less calories and its not like it tastes terrible. 

Eat a bigger salad a call that one of your meals, mix in those vegetables you want to eat with it. Also if you want a lighter breakfast try having a yogurt. Yogurt is good for you as it has the good bacteria your body needs. If anybody in your family (parents or grandparents) has a high cholestrol count, it might be hereditary. To bring it down eat a bowl of oatmeal eveyday, fill it with raisins and bananas and peaches, and use just a little bit of milk in it.

Two other things: One, make sure you drink plenty of water (keep yourself hydrated throughout the day and when you are exercising) and 2) don't overdo it when exercising (take 5 after 15 minutes of exercising).

Also, check out the following website on trans-fatty acids:
Trans Fatty Acids 101 - what and where?
The Myth of Cholesterol - Seafood?


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 19, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> Any other advice?




Simply put, the ONLY way to lose weight is to eat less, exercise more, or both.

You don't necessarily need to cut out any food, but get used to eating smaller portions.  Confine your eating to meal times only.  If you must snack, try to stick to fresh raw fruits and vegetables.

Exercising can be tough to get into.  At first its tiring, painful and uncomfortable.  Stick it through, and it gets easier.  Find exercise that you enjoy to do.  Exercise is easier to do and stick with, if it accomplises something at the same time...  Walk or bicycle to work, classes, the library or other around town errands, if possible.  Climb the stairs instead of riding the elevator or escalator.  Yard work and gardening.

Last year I started riding my bicycle to work every day (10 miles round trip).  I've lost about 10 pounds, reduced my resting heart rate and blood pressure by about 15 points each, and saved enough money in gasoline to buy a new bicycle this spring.  I plan on training up to take a week long cycle tour across Iowa next year.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Apr 19, 2005)

Water and Milk, drink lots of it.  

Balance your meals; breakfast, lunch and dinner.  Find out when you get hungry and adjust your meals to that time.  People will get hungry and snack, then eat lunch and dinner just a hour later.  

Walking or an outside hobby.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 19, 2005)

Also, if you enjoy coffee, drink decaf instead of caffinated. Try not to drink more than two cups a day.


----------



## jonesy (Apr 19, 2005)

Just make sure that you don't get on a "diet", but rather have a permanent lifestyle change.

The problem with diets is that most people (that I've seen) who have them assume that after they reach their ideal weight they can go back to living the way they did before. And then end up being larger than they ever were.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 19, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Also, if you enjoy coffee, drink decaf instead of caffinated. Try not to drink more than two cups a day.




Actually, caffeine and many other stimulants decrease hunger.  That's why many doctors during the 50s and 60s often recommended taking up smoking to housewives who had just given birth...  The nicotine suppresses hunger and makes it very easy to lose weight.

Caffein can, on the other hand, increase insulin levels, reducing blood sugar levels, thereby increasing hunger...  It depends on the person, and how much you drink.

Sticking to two 2-3 cups a day, as Frukatha said, is probably a good idea either way.


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Thanks to everyone who has posted so far.

Keep it coming!


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> Drink LOTS of water...



That's a good tip. I was aware that I wasn't taking enough fluids and started drinking more water but I probably don't have enough even now.


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> You don't necessarily need to cut out any food, but get used to eating smaller portions.



I've stuck to the above diet for over a month already and, despite the fact that I'm a chocoholic, I don't miss it that much. I guess I'm lucky in that way.



> Exercising can be tough to get into. At first its tiring, painful and uncomfortable.



Tell me about it. After my first martial arts class in many years, I was sore for two days.


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> ...Milk, drink lots of it.



I drink a fair amount of skimmed or semi-skimmed milk with low cal cereals (Special K). I probably eat too much cereal (two or three bowls every day).


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Also, if you enjoy coffee, drink decaf instead of caffinated. Try not to drink more than two cups a day.



I don't drink tea or coffee anyway.


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> Just make sure that you don't get on a "diet", but rather have a permanent lifestyle change.
> 
> The problem with diets is that most people (that I've seen) who have them assume that after they reach their ideal weight they can go back to living the way they did before. And then end up being larger than they ever were.



That's sound advice. I was planning on sticking to my strict diet until I lose the 2 stone and then allowing myself the occasional treat (i.e. chocolate or pizza). I suspect that as I lose weight, exercise will become easier and more enjoyable, so that even if I indulge a bit I'll be able to compensate with more calorie expenditure.


----------



## Andre (Apr 19, 2005)

A good tip I got from a co-worker:

If eating out, immediately cut your meal in two, and take half the meal home with you. Portions (at least in the US) tend to be too large, encouraging people to over-eat.


----------



## Blue (Apr 19, 2005)

A rule of thumb for water is 8 cups, plus 1 cup per 15 lbs you want to lose to get to your target weight.

The point above about the difference between a diet (something to lose weight) and changing your way of eatting (a lifestyle change to eat better) is very, very true.  Plus you avoid the "yo-yo".

Don't try to go on a massive "I'll lose 10 lbs a week".  Not only isn't it healthy, but it's not maintainable.

I've dropped about 80 lbs in the past 11 months by making big changes to the way I eat, and getting more exercise.  I happen to be doing a low-carb diet, but different strokes for different folks.

Good luck,
=Blue


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Andre said:
			
		

> A good tip I got from a co-worker:
> 
> If eating out, immediately cut your meal in two, and take half the meal home with you. Portions (at least in the US) tend to be too large, encouraging people to over-eat.



I don't eat out much unless I'm on a business trip. I'm going to be in Chicago for one week for just such a trip next month. I can't easily take food back to my hotel (no cooking facilities) so I'll just have to waste some or select healthier options. (No Chicago-style pizza for this fat-boy! )


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Blue said:
			
		

> I happen to be doing a low-carb diet, but different strokes for different folks.



Thanks, Blue. I tried a low carb diet some time ago and it did help but I found it difficult to keep. We probably don't have as many low-carb foods as you do and the specially prepared low-carb ones are quite expensive.

To other posters:
*PLEASE DON'T LET THIS THREAD BECOME A DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OR OTHERWISE OF LOW-CARB DIETS.* Thanks.


----------



## Turanil (Apr 19, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> Any other advice?



I am someone who lost 45 lb in two years (well the first 30 lbs in six months, then 15 in 1.5 year). So I will give you my advice, which is an over-simplification of scientific studies (try Dr Seignalet on google to know more if you need, but all sites in French...).

So basically:

*1) No more wheat/corn in any form.* As such, no more bread, pizza, cakes, spaghettis, and so on (and no more beer ever!). 

*2) No more milk and dairy products.* As such, no more milk, butter, cheese, ice-creams, etc.

*3) No more refined sugar.* As such, no more chocolate delicacies, sugar in the coffee, coca-cola and like beverages, cakes, etc. 

*4) Eat preferably raw rather than cooked.*

Eating everything else poses no problem. But with such a diet you nonetheless will be led to eat primarily vegetables, fruits, rice, fish, and meat (preferably meat such as chicken). 

The great thing with this, is that you loose weight that you won't take again (provided you keep going on with that diet), you loose it effortlessly. I mean: you don't need to starve. Well, the only time you starve is during gaming sessions when everyone else is eating junk food all that time. Myself, I eat (as suggested above) plenty just before going to the game, and then, well, I don't look at all the stuff available...   

Exercising is also a good thing, but I have still to go to the gym...


My advice: just do as I suggest for one full month (just one month) and see the result. Remember, it's about the choice of food, not quantities, so you don't need to starve.


----------



## Turjan (Apr 19, 2005)

jonesy said:
			
		

> Just make sure that you don't get on a "diet", but rather have a permanent lifestyle change.
> 
> The problem with diets is that most people (that I've seen) who have them assume that after they reach their ideal weight they can go back to living the way they did before. And then end up being larger than they ever were.



The problem with diets is that the body reacts to this 'hunger period'. Ususally, our digestion is not overly thorough. During hunger periods, though, the area within our intestines grows much larger with the goal to retrieve as much nutrition as possible from that little food that is offered.

At the end of the diet, the intestine is still in that 'super efficient' mode with the result that you have to eat much less in order to put on the same amount of weight than before the diet. After several diets, you probably just have to smell food to put on weight .

That's why the way with changed diets plus exercise seems to be the way to go. At least I know this theoretically .


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 19, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Water and Milk, drink lots of it.
> 
> Balance your meals; breakfast, lunch and dinner.  Find out when you get hungry and adjust your meals to that time.  People will get hungry and snack, then eat lunch and dinner just a hour later.
> 
> Walking or an outside hobby.




Uh, milk is extremely fattening. You'd be surprised what moving from whole milk to 1% milk will do for someone. Skim is best, of course, but I still haven't brought myself to drink skim. Looks too much like water to me. We drink 1%.


----------



## Talvisota (Apr 19, 2005)

Don't snack - eat only at mealtimes.  Our bodies were not designed to need that much food.  

Plus, try changing the amount of walking to 3-4 miles per DAY.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 19, 2005)

Lhorgrim said:
			
		

> Drink LOTS of water during the day, more than you think you can stand.
> 
> Stick with it.  Most people can't lose weight and keep it off, unless they continue to exercise and eat healthy.
> 
> Good luck on meeting your goal.





Someone want to explain to me how drinking water can help you lose weight?  I'm not being cynical here, I'm really curious. I've heard it before, and I just don't see the correlation.


Back on topic for a second, the key is the number of calories. Just check the number of calories on the label. The calories required for a person vary with their height and sex, but 1500 ought to be a good number of calories per day if you want to lose weight. A lot of really overweight people are put on strict 1000 calorie-a-day diets, and while hard, will shed pounds quickly. There are probably websites that will tell you how many calories per day you need to maintain zero weight gain. Just subtract a couple of hundred from that, and you're good to go.

The good aspect of this system is that you're already a gamer, so adding up numbers shouldn't be a problem for you.   And, that caloric intake can consist of whatever the hell you want. You can eat 1500 calories of ice cream every day (probably a lot less than you'd think!) and still lose weight in this fashion (assuming 1500 is less than maximum).


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Turanil,

French isn't a problem but the diet you suggest might be. To be honest, both to you and myself, I don't think I could stick with all of it. I pretty much need a pro-biotic yogurt every few days to keep my digestion working OK and I don't think I can easily do without my low cal cereals. Also, what do you do for calcium?


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Uh, milk is extremely fattening. You'd be surprised what moving from whole milk to 1% milk will do for someone. Skim is best, of course, but I still haven't brought myself to drink skim. Looks too much like water to me. We drink 1%.



I prefer skimmed to full-fat milk, so that's not really a problem for me. Other folks might want to shift from full fat to semi-skimmed to skimmed. One way to do this gradually is to mix milk types.


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Talvisota said:
			
		

> Plus, try changing the amount of walking to 3-4 miles per DAY.



I wish I could but unfortunately I don't have time.


----------



## Turanil (Apr 19, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> I pretty much need a pro-biotic yogurt every few days to keep my digestion working OK and I don't think I can easily do without my low cal cereals. Also, what do you do for calcium?



I think I have read in the book of Dr Seignalet that Calcium wasn't a problem for reason there is already ample calcium in other food (than milk) while body doesn't need that much of calcium anyway. But this is off the top of my head. See, I am lazy and only did read the 12 or so pages concerning the basic diet, not the 350 pages of scientific dissertation.

Keep on with your pro-biotic yogurt and cereals. I told you i lost 45 lb over two years, which is true; I just forgot to mention I could maybe have lost more if I didn't add butter anytime I eat rice and fish (so every day), and that i cannot live without my weekly chocolate tablet, plus sometimes (ahem, gaming sessions...   ), well, I forgot anything. But after two years without starvation and say 60%-70% of what I suggest eating-not-eating, I am here in much better shape and health. (Next step: going to the gym and work out...)


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Someone want to explain to me how drinking water can help you lose weight? I'm not being cynical here, I'm really curious. I've heard it before, and I just don't see the correlation.



Water doesn't have any calories. I'm guessing that it fills you up making you feel less hungry. That's just conjecture though.


----------



## Ampolitor (Apr 19, 2005)

*my advice*

when you drink the water make sure its COLD, your body will burn more calories to warm it up o your body temperature, drink Green tea, it cleanses your body of toxins and helps get rid of rcravings for sugar. dont drink lots of Diet soda its very very high in sodium which will retain water. Eat 5 to 6 times a day to speed up your metabolism and when you eat eat fruit and SMALL items, the trick is to STOP eating once you feel full, people have the need to finish everything on their plate, its rough the first week or so but you will quickly see that you wont be abe to eat nearly as much. good luck!


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 19, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> Water doesn't have any calories. I'm guessing that it fills you up making you feel less hungry. That's just conjecture though.



It works for me. I currently weigh 230lbs, and find that if I drink 8 large glasses of water a day (four in between each meal), I wont be hungry for at least 4 to five hours.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 19, 2005)

Here's what has worked for me:

1) Eliminate desserts/sweets and eliminate fast food (McDonalds, etc.).
2) Do not eat anything after dinner
3) Eat smaller meals (reduced portions)
4) For snacks, stick to healthy foods, such as raw baby carrots or fresh fruit

You can also work on increasing your body's metabolism (and thus increase your body's efficiency with burning calories) by eating small healthy snacks throughout the day. 

Using the above I lost 40 pounds over 4 months.  I also switched to skim milk and my breakfast consists of a bowl of Special K each morning.  Otherwise I eat what I want (albeit in small portions).

Good luck!


----------



## Darmanicus (Apr 19, 2005)

My father tried this rather specialised diet based around vegetable soup and LOTS of it. He lost just shy of 2 stone in roughly as many weeks and then switched to the weight watchers 'points' diet which has sustained him since.

Personally I think exercise is the key, especially if you are at a comfortable weight. Do 1-2 hours/day and you could virtually eat what you liked.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 19, 2005)

A friend of mine who was quite hefty, much more so than I, dropped 115 pounds over two years. I'm trying to follow his example, but the lifestyle change for me is the hardest part. Here's what he did.

Lifestyle change is the most important part. Only a little snacking; preferably none. More veggies and fruits, as little red meat as possible, as little fried food as possible. And more exercise.

Exercise is the most important part; two hours of strenuous exercise a week probably is not nearly enough though the walking will help add on to the benefit the martial arts class gives you. I'm not sure what your martial arts class is like, though. if it's like a school another friend of mine goes to where the instructor is likely to say 'OK, before class, what say we jog a mile or two?', it might be OK. 

My friend does walking when the weather is nice and treadmills when it's not. Every single day. He started slow, 15 minutes or so at first, but he was going from virtually no movement into an exercise program; you have to start slow. More than 2 years later, he's up to 2 hours or more of quick walking.


----------



## Trance Fiend (Apr 19, 2005)

I try to drink about 9 glasses of water a day, I eat 6 times a day (smaller portions mind you).
Every meal includes a portion of Protein(chicken, turkey, tuna) and a portion of Carbs(the healthy kind...like whole wheat, brown rice, veggies).  When ever I get the urge to snack(which is pretty often) I chew on beef jerky and dehydrated fruit.  I also lift weights about 4 times a week, and every other day do cardio for about 30 mins.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 19, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Water and Milk, drink lots of it.




Allow me to join the pile on against milk.

We've been conditioned by a very successful dairy industry to believe that drinking milk is good for you. Worse actually: we've been conditioned to believe that drinking milk is _essential_. 

It's simply not natural for an adult of any species to drink milk, let alone milk from another animal, let alone milk from another animal that is pumped full of hormones. 

But really, common sense should tell you that adult humans can't possibly _need_ to drink cow's milk.

Most adults, in fact, are lactose intolerant. 

If you also suffer from allergies, you would be surprised what just cutting milk out of your diet can do for you.

You can get all the calcium your body needs from other sources-- dark green leafy vegetables especially.


----------



## Henry (Apr 19, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Uh, milk is extremely fattening. You'd be surprised what moving from whole milk to 1% milk will do for someone. Skim is best, of course, but I still haven't brought myself to drink skim. Looks too much like water to me. We drink 1%.




You know, I've heard this repeatedly from many people, but I always am surprised to hear it. For me, skim, .5%, 1%, 2.5% and whole milk taste and look the exact same to me - my family is on skim, and cook with skim, because my wife nor I have ever noticed a consistency or taste difference. I guess I'm lucky, because it never bothered me.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 19, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> You know, I've heard this repeatedly from many people, but I always am surprised to hear it. For me, skim, .5%, 1%, 2.5% and whole milk taste and look the exact same to me - my family is on skim, and cook with skim, because my wife nor I have ever noticed a consistency or taste difference. I guess I'm lucky, because it never bothered me.




I suspect it's largely psychological. My Mom fooled us by pouring 2% into a Vitamin D container and then after doing that for several weeks, pointed out that we'd been drinking 2% (gasp!) for a couple of weeks, and hadn't noticed it in the least.

She also did a similar thing with our aquarium. No, she didn't make us drink the aquarium, but she threatened to remove it. "No! We like the fish!" She removed it anyway, and two weeks went by and she pointed out that there was no more aquarium. It's amazing how oblivious we were in our own home.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 19, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> You know, I've heard this repeatedly from many people, but I always am surprised to hear it. For me, skim, .5%, 1%, 2.5% and whole milk taste and look the exact same to me - my family is on skim, and cook with skim, because my wife nor I have ever noticed a consistency or taste difference. I guess I'm lucky, because it never bothered me.




I cannot tell a difference between whole and 2%. I can tell a slight difference between 1% and 2%. Skim milk is the very secretion of the Devil, though; I can tell if it's been used in baking, with food, etc; yuck.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Apr 19, 2005)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I cannot tell a difference between whole and 2%. I can tell a slight difference between 1% and 2%. Skim milk is the very secretion of the Devil, though; I can tell if it's been used in baking, with food, etc; yuck.




Skim milk is foul. 

The only think more disgusting is powdered milk. When I was a kid (one of seven, so we could go through a gallon of milk on one Saturday morning) my mom would cut corners by buying powdered milk.

There was nothing you could do to salvage the taste of powdered milk-- or to salvage the taste of your Lucky Charms once befouled with that watery sh*t.

These days my milk drinking is pretty much confined to the one remaining essential use of milk in my diet: washing down pancakes. And 1% will do for that.


----------



## Allanon (Apr 19, 2005)

Another handy tip is to just do 10 pushups and 10 situps whenever you see a post by Crothian. If that doesn't get you in shape nothing will 

But seriously, good luck, I have tried the same and only reached half of my goal (6kg instead of 12kg).


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 19, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> Another handy tip is to just do 10 pushups and 10 situps whenever you see a post by Crothian. If that doesn't get you in shape nothing will




We'd all be dead within a few hours...


----------



## smootrk (Apr 19, 2005)

A lesson in psychology as it pertains to weight loss.

If you relate the process of weight loss to negetive things, the whole endeavor will be harder to accomplish.  (ie.  Weight loss = loss of certain likable food, painful exercise, small portions etc).

You must endeavor to create rewards for every little positive stride you make.  And the most productive rewards are those that also include a healthy lifestyle.  If you lose a pound or two, reward yourself with a trip to the zoo, or a leisure bicycle ride (not painful), or even the purchase of an item that will contribute to a healthy lifestyle (like new hiking shoes, or a camelback (water backpack) that you will use on your next healthy excursion.

Do not... do not... punish yourself for backsliding (or otherwise equate a painful/stressful process).   The posts that say do pushups/exercises everytime a certain thing happens are a recipe for failure.   Training your mind to love and enjoy a healthier lifestyle is the only way to achieve lasting health.... The process may be a bit slower than a fast diet change or exercise binge but the results will last your lifetime.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 19, 2005)

A better game is to drink a shot of tequila every time you see a post by Crothian.

You won't lose any weight, but you'll be drunk off your ass!


----------



## diaglo (Apr 19, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> Thanks to everyone who has posted so far.
> 
> Keep it coming!





the easiest way for you to lose several hundred lbs. is to give me your dice.   


good luck with the diet & exercise.


----------



## Zander (Apr 19, 2005)

Allanon said:
			
		

> I have tried the same and only reached half of my goal (6kg instead of 12kg).



How long did it take?

I wonder what sort of rate of weight loss I should aim for or expect.


----------



## Turanil (Apr 19, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> I wonder what sort of rate of weight loss I should aim for or expect.



I think you should not aim at losing weight, but you must aim at changing your food habits and get to a healthy way to eat for the remainder of your life. If not, the problem will quickly come back at a later time.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 19, 2005)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> drink Green tea, it cleanses your body of toxins and helps get rid of rcravings for sugar.




This whole idea of 'toxins' in the diet is generally a bunch of hooey you see in health food stores. Green Tea may taste yummy and have a decent amount of vitamins in it, but it's nothing special.



> dont drink lots of Diet soda its very very high in sodium which will retain water.




And that's completely false. Most diet sodas have 0 calories and at most 1 or 2% of your daily intake of sodium. Many diet sodas have no sodium at all. It's a myth that diet soda is bad for you when you're dieting.

Diet soda has literally no impact on your diet unless you're drinking liters of it per day over a prolonged period of time (in which case it _might_ impact your kidneys in the long term due to the caramel color used in darker sodas. However you'd be 100 times worse off if it was regular soda you were drinking, or even tap water in many areas).


I personally lost 50lbs in under a year and have kept it off for around 7 years now. What you eat and how much you eat doesn't matter, just your caloric intake and how many calories you use per day in terms of activity. That's it. There's no magic about certain foods etc. Any diet can conceivably work, but some may be easier to handle, or keep you less hungry (Atkins type diets tends to make you full faster but can also raise cholesterol depending on what you're eating).

Caffeine is neither good nor bad. Caffeine by itself increases fatty acid metabolism, this isn't up for debate. Recently there are slight indications that in some people it may increase insulin resistance. However the jury is still out on this one, and it's a single study that in some ways contradicts several other previous studies that I've seen. That study also used pure caffeine and not caffeine in coffee or tea where it would be mixed with other compounds, may of which are healthy in and of themselves as well.

And for an anecdote: I'm on about 4-6 shots of espresso a day and it's not hurting me.

Water is pushed around a lot, but it won't do much besides _maybe_ trick your body into thinking its not as hungry. There's also a lot of myths about how the average person doesn't get enough water, or people are chronically dehydrated, etc etc and that's all complete bunk. It can't hurt you in normal amounts, though every year a few people die of drinking too much water in a given period of time, but that's very VERY rare. If you're doing a lot of exercise however, it's good to replenish what you lose by perspiration.


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 19, 2005)

I'm surprised nobody has said this, lift.  Lifting is extremely important, otherwise you could just get into yo-yo dieting.  Even if it's once a week, do a full body lifting session.  Why?  When you're done dieting and return to your normal eating habits, there's the possibility of putting the weight back on, unless you plan on keeping these new eating habits.  Building lean muscle mass will prevent that because it will raises your metabolism and burns 50 calories per pound of muscle mass.  It will tighten up your body, making it look leaner, and preventing any sagging skin that may come with weight loss.  Their have been some published reports that lifting is better than aerobic exercise in terms of weight loss.

Don't give up on milk, just have it with say two meals a day.  Eat in smaller portions, about every 3 hours have some sort of snack, and cut out big meals.  Research has shown that only eating a little bit every three meals improves your metabolism.  Don't completely stop eating anything, that's a diet prone to fail, just have a little bit of it when a craving hits.

When you walk 3-4 miles try to jog a little bit.  Jog a few blocks, then keep walking.  You don't even need to get sweaty or anything, just raise your heartrate. 

Don't just weigh yourself, especially if you start lifting.  Get a body fat analyzer, and concentrate on body fat percentage.  Doing karate even could cause muscle gain.  Rate how well you're doing by a decrease in body fat percentage, not the scale, they can be misleading.

Finally, keep with it.  Rain or snow, you just have to keep on doing it.  Set goals for yourself, or do stuff with other people to keep you going.  It's hard to not go to the gym or the park or whereever when someone else is waiting on you to pick them up.  When I was in high school I started working out (met a really cool girl), lost 100 lbs in a year, and for about a three year period hit the gym at least 330 days out of the year.  Being in shape and healthy is the best feeling thing in the world.  I hit a goal of a four mile run in under thirty minutes in the park yesterday and the feeling of acheivement was awesome.  I feel sorry for the guy who doesn't want to lose weight because it's not "him".  He seems to be in denial, and doesn't realize just how great it feels to be in shape and active.  The best of luck to you.


----------



## ragboy (Apr 19, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> How long did it take?
> 
> I wonder what sort of rate of weight loss I should aim for or expect.




I researched this at the beginning of the year. The most logical approach I found has been talked about here, some, but entails a lifestyle change and losing no more than 3-4 lbs per month (about a pound a week). This prevents your body from going into 'fast' mode where you retain your fat stores, and the food/activity change is gradual enough that you don't even really notice it. 

I have a whole program I constructed from various health sources. My goals may be different from yours, but the long and short of it was: 

1 - Figure out your ideal body weight (YOURS, not a generic person of your height)
2 - Figure out your metabolism (again, your particular rate of burning calories - taking any planned regular physical activity into account.)

Once you know these two, and given the amount of energy needed to burn a pound of fat, you can then: 

3 - Build a weekly 'menu' that includes enough calories per day to maintain your current weight minus 1 pound and ensure that it's balanced between Protein, Fat, and Carbs (there's a formula out there) 
4 - Include an 'activity' plan to keep your metabolism at the rate you need it to be to sustain weight loss. 
5 - Stick to it. 

I built a menu and a variety of regular exercise that rolls over every month to ensure I don't get bored. Since the first of the year, I'm meeting all of my goals.

What's interesting is that when I built my plan above, I found that I wasn't eating enough food on a regular basis throughout the day to prevent being ravenous at dinner. I was skipping breakfast, eating a light lunch, a bad snack then gorging for dinner. Contrary to what many have said here, what I found in research and over the last three months for myself was that if I eat about six small meals per day, then I'm almost never hungry. And water. Lots of water. Flushes out the system, keeps your metabolism going, and if you're increasing your physical activity, lack of water can actually harm your body more than not exercising at all. 

Edit: Oh! And on what Bryan said -- Figure out your fat to muscle ratio in step one above. And continue to track it every month or so. Once you get that ratio to where you want it, you don't care about losing weight any more. Then you have to decide if you want to continue to accumulate muscle mass or hold steady. The beauty of the system above is that you know how your body is working and you can mold it to your goals by adjusting food/activity levels. Anyway...good point Bryan... 

Good luck!


----------



## Andre (Apr 19, 2005)

Just to be different:

I drink a lot of milk, always skim, often chocolate skim milk. I find it works much better as an appetite suppresant than just water. And having drunk skim milk for the past several years, I find that I don't like whole milk - the extra fat is very noticeable and not particularly appetizing (to me). Plus recent research has shown that drinking milk regularly helps some people lose weight - probably because they then eat less, but I don't know the details.

Drinking fluids is important, but keep in mind that you can get your 8 8-oz glasses of water from a variety of sources. Fresh fruit, for instance. Milk. Kool-aid (sugar free). Or just plain water. The important thing is to remain properly hydrated - not too much, not too little. BTW - "yuk" note for the day: if your urine is a deep yellow, you probably aren't drinking enough fluids. And no, alcohol doesn't count!    

Also, one reason most folks don't eat enough fruits and vegetables - on a per calorie basis, those two items tend to be very expensive compared to junk food. That's unfortunate, but keep it in mind when shopping - it's probably worth the few extra bucks to get the good stuff, even if it doesn't seem like a bargain.

Most important, we can already see in this thread that what works for one person fails for another. I dropped some weight a couple years ago and I've kept it off primarily by not eating out very often and working out every day, even if it's just half an hour on the stationary bike or 15 minutes with free weights. For me, getting exercise is the most important element, and I try to work out for an hour a day - but any amount of exercise makes a difference. For others, it will be dropping certain food groups, or portion control, or drinking milk, or not drinking milk, or...you get the idea. 

Just find out what works for you, what you can stick with long-term, and enjoy the change.


----------



## DrNilesCrane (Apr 19, 2005)

Good luck with the weight loss!  I started a program for myself at the beginning of February that follows a lot of the advice folks have already said, so I'll just offer that I bought an eliptical for my house (about $300 or so) and use that 4 - 5 times a week for an hour each time: great work out, and as I can measure/gauge the progress I'm making in terms of distance/calories burned/etc., it's been a great motivator to stick with it.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 19, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> A better game is to drink a shot of tequila every time you see a post by Crothian.
> 
> You won't lose any weight, but you'll be drunk off your ass!




Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink! Drink!


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 20, 2005)

Ampolitor said:
			
		

> when you drink the water make sure its COLD, your body will burn more calories to warm it up o your body temperature




Woah, woah, woah there...  You, sir, are very badly mistaken.

SCIENCE! To the rescue!

One calorie is, by definition, "the amount of heat required at a pressure of one atmosphere to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius".

That means, it takes 1000 calories to raise the temperature of 1 liter of water by one degree celsius.  For ice-cold water (0ºC), that means about 37000 calories to raise that entire liter of water up to body temperature.

Unfortunately, the units on food labels are listed in Calories (with a captial 'C'), each of which is equal to 1000 ordinary calories (with a lower case 'c').

So, each liter of ice-cold water you drink 'burns' only 37 calories as your body warms it up.  That's roughly equivalent to the calories in half a slice of bread, a 'pat' of butter, or your average peach.

Or to put it another way, you'd burn the same number of Calories from drinking 1 liter of ice-cold water, as you would by playing cards for 20 minutes, or walking (at a leisurely 2 mph) for 10 minutes.

Drinking extra cold beverages will not appreciably help you lose weight.


----------



## Zander (Apr 20, 2005)

ragboy said:
			
		

> I researched this at the beginning of the year. The most logical approach I found has been talked about here, some, but entails a lifestyle change and losing no more than 3-4 lbs per month (about a pound a week).



That's roughly what I figured. My plan was to lose a little over 2 stone (30 lbs) by Christmas. If I manage it, I'll try to stick to that weight.


----------



## Torm (Apr 20, 2005)

I keep seeing the name of this thread, and it isn't helpful to Zander, but I keep thinking of one of the more morbid but funny things I've ever seen. I'm finally just going to share it, in the hopes that it will get out of my head. It's very simple:

Man with AIDS, wearing a t-shirt with a black ribbon graphic on it, and in large letters, "Lose Weight Now! Ask me how."

Horrible, but at least he kept a sense of humor about it. I _guess_ that's good....


----------



## Inconsequenti-AL (Apr 20, 2005)

First off: Good luck with the weight loss! 

Sounds like there's plenty of good dieting advice here. 

Depends what you're trying to achieve... I found a small amount of exercise every day to be very useful. You won't lose much weight, but it'll get you feeling better and helps tone everything up a bit.

If you're an early rising sort of person, 10-15 minutes of excercises in the morning can be very productive. Just some situps, pressups and similar. 20 mins on an exercise bike would be even better. Don't go mad, just enough to get the circulation going.

Or possibly when you get home from work.

Tried doing them last thing at night before bed, but found that woke me up too much. 

Either which way, it's not much to slot into a routine... just a case of squeezing a few extra minutes out of the day.

Walking or cycling. If there's places you can get to without using the car, then this can be a very good way to go.

This thread is good. Making me work up the willpower to do some more exercise!


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Apr 20, 2005)

I just had to throw in my two cents here. I see a lot of you focusing on weight... DON'T. If you are eating correctly your weight will be what is should be for you (those height/weight indexes are averages only... have you ever met anyone that was completely average?).

Instead, do what a lot of women's magazine's suggest. Take your measurements and follow those. Yeah, it's girly but you'll feel a lot better about yourself.

The problem with tracking weight is that you'll be disappointed when you drop ten pounds and then steadily gain it back due to your regular excercise (muscle weighs more than fat, I believe).

You also need to find a diet that works for you. Personally, I'm on Atkins (low-carb) but it's incredibly difficult to maintain down here in Costa Rica 'cause EVERYTHING the locals eat on a regular basis is either loaded with sugar or chock full of flour or corn.  I gather that you're not living in the USA. If not, and low carb alternatives are not  available readily, maybe you should look into a caloric limiting diet.

I also disagree with the people that say no snacking. You can eat 7-8 times a day if you like... provided that you excersize proper portion control. 

Excersize it a bit*h. I have a desk-ridden job where I toil away for 9-11 hours a day. Between 1.5 hours of travel time and my wife and daughter, I too lack time to go and excercise for an hour.  I found that when I was taking the bus, if I got off a few stops before I was supposed to, I could get in some extra walking and that helped out a lot (don't know if that's possible for you though).  The best possible advice for getting into excersize (for me anyway) is to get an excersize buddy. If I'm in pain and just feeling lazy, I won't go to the gym. But if I can turn it into something social, then I'll do it. Especially if you and your buddy have an accord to not let each other slack.

If you eat out for lunch, try walking wherever you go. A little goes quite a long way.

Good Luck.


----------



## jmsetzer (Apr 20, 2005)

Hi there,

There is a lot of good advice in this thread, I think. Let me relate what worked for me.

I've lost 133 lbs. over the course of two years. I started at 300 lbs. on the dot and am currently 167 lbs. Lots of people ask me how I did it; what diet was I on? Did I have surgery? etc.

No surgery. No strict diet per se; just my own "diet" based on dietary theories I have read, from low-fat to low-carb to low-calorie. In the end, my principles lead to a reasonably a low-carb, low-calorie, and low-fat diet.

My principles:

1. No refined sugars, or at least very little. Natural sugars in fresh fruits and veggies are fine.
2. No bread, no rice, no pasta, no potatoes. That really limits complex carbs. By "no" I mean six days a week none at all, and when i do have them, it's a small serving.
3. Eat more fish and chicken. Lean proteins are good. Red meat occasionally, but more on the fish/chicken side.
4. Eat more veggies, espcially fresh veggies! And fresh fruits, too.
5. Moderation! Don't go nuts on anything (like eat two steaks because you're on Atkins or half a jar of peanuts or whatever).
6. Exercise! I exercise quite a bit naturally because I like sports (golf, tennis, basketball, and biking). Beyond those fun activites, I have a regimented routine that I follow at least three times a week (treadmill, cross-trainer, and light weights at the local YMCA). Do serious aerobic exercise (that is, work and sweat) for at least 30 solid minutes. You may have to work up to that; when I started, I could barely stay on the treadmill for 15 minutes at a low speed and no incline. Now, I am walk as fast I can without kicking into a jog for 40 minutes at the highest incline level on the treadmill. As you work more, you'll be able to go longer and harder, and you just keep pushing yourself each day.

Note that I follow these rules when I am what I call "weight loss mode." That is, if I'm trying to lose weight. If I want to maintain weight, I eat more a lot more like a typical person; poatatoes, pasta, bread, rice are all back on the menu, I just watch the portions. I try to follow the rule of one: one serving of anything is OK; two is not. I can maintain my weight and eat what I want, then, in moderation, as long as I keep exercising.

For the last couple of years, I've been in "weight loss mode" on and off; I let myself go into maintenance mode from November through January (birthday, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's, Super Bowl) and July-August (4th of July, Origins, GEN CON, summer fun.)

I have almost reached my final goal, which is 150 lbs; half the weight I was. Mind you, it has taken years, not weeks or months. Losing more than 2 lbs. a week is not good over long periods.

Part of my success may be that I haven't always been heavy; in high school, I was 135 lbs. (I am not tall-5'5"). So I knew I could do it; I just let myself go weight-wise after high school.

BTW, I do drink diet soda in moderation. And it is usually caffeine-free. Even when I'm not in "weight-loss" mode, I now prefer diet soda to regular, which now tastes way too sweet for me.

Good luck!


----------



## Wereserpent (Apr 20, 2005)

I lose like 10 lbs when I am sick, cause I am not hungry.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 20, 2005)

In the past four months, I've lost about 20 pounds. This week, I've been doing a liquid-diet to cleanse the body of "toxins". I feel great, and on Friday I'll what its done to my weight.

Anyway, by the end of the year I hope for that 20 pounds to be 60. That'll take me from 240 to 180 pounds. I've always been a big guy, and I've decided not to be. I'm moving away to where no one knows me, so I can easily be a not-fat guy there.

Anyway, my advice? Don't try to lose weight, try to become aware of what you're eating. My hippie advice worked very well for me. It started with the juice of half a lemon every morning and night, and it magnified from there. I like to think that the lemons have been taking me on a chemical journey towards being clean and more aware, but its mostly that I'm paying attention.

For example, take hamburgers. Really tasty. But now, I'm as aware of how they make me feel as how they taste. Its that sort of awareness that's allowed me to cut out most junk food -- it makes me feel bad!

There's lots of good advice in this thread. I'd like to talk about how bad for you atkins is (I think), but I don't think I should. If it works, then go for it.

Its almost all about diet. Instead of eating a whole pizza -- which I've done many times -- eat half. Think about how eating the whole thing makes you feel, and give a try not eating all of it. Start a slice at a time, and pretty soon you'll be at half.

But most importantly -- and this has been said -- if you're craving something, eat it! You crave foods largely because they've got nutrients or whatever that the body wants.

I found weightloss to be simple once I started. I've stopped drinking soda, and never want to go back. This is much better.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 21, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> This whole idea of 'toxins' in the diet is generally a bunch of hooey you see in health food stores. Green Tea may taste yummy and have a decent amount of vitamins in it, but it's nothing special.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Several studies have come out that have shown that drinking green tea is good for you because it is full of antioxidants. It is also full of the same plant chemicals that help prevent colon cancer. 

The reason water is pushed for people who are trying to lose weight is that is fills you up with no calories it is that simple. But there are people who do not get enough fluids in their diets and this causes problems like kidney stones, and dehydration. My roommate has been taken to the hospital twice because she has suffered from dehydration. The simple reason is she only drinks coke literaly eats no fruits or veggies except french fries. People don't realize a lot of your fluid intake comes from the food you eat.

As for soda I used to drink a lot of diet soda, 8 months ago I gave it up because I started taking a medicine that just made anything carbonated taste really bad. I have noticed a big change since I stopped drinking it. My ankles and finger were always swollen not anymore as a matter of fact my shoes don't fit they are to big now.

I sleep through the night now. I used to suffer from insomnia most likely from the caffine. But the biggest chage that I am the happiest with is I no longer live on antacids and laxatives the soda was playing havoc with my entire GI tract.


----------



## Xath (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Uh, milk is extremely fattening. You'd be surprised what moving from whole milk to 1% milk will do for someone. Skim is best, of course, but I still haven't brought myself to drink skim. Looks too much like water to me. We drink 1%.





Gah, I've been drinking Skim since I was 10; whole milk is like cream.  

Anyway, as far as advice goes, I lost 15 pounds when I stopped drinking soda.


----------



## Torm (Apr 21, 2005)

Whole milk is REAL milk. Skim is what you give to the dog. 

And some types of fats are _healthy_.


----------



## ASH (Apr 21, 2005)

I am beating a dead horse here... but the best way to loose wieght and keep it off is total life style change.  Exercise more, eat better,  more healthy foods.  Think of getting healthy and not of loosing wieght... the two are connected.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 21, 2005)

I was completely blown away when the FDA came out with their new revised "food pyramid" and a big chunk of that pyramid indicates that we should be drinking lots of milk.  Mularkey. I wonder how much the dairy board paid the FDA officials to put that in there. It's proposterous to believe that grown animals need to continue to drink milk to be healthy.

I drink milk because Froot Loops don't taste as good in water or coke. 


And no one has given me any scientific evidence to show that drinking gobs and gobs of water will help you lose weight. I'm still waiting on that. Oh, I've seen a lot of guesses and speculation, but nothing scientific. I'm just not buying that one.

And this idea that we need to drink 8 glasses of water a day is also hogwash. I don't think I've ever drank 8 glasses of anything in a single day, except for that 1 time in my life I got drunk. Yes, once. Getting drunk is not high on my list of things to do.

My belief is that the body will tell me when I should have a drink, and so forcing water down myself all the time is simply a waste of time, and has about as much credibility to as say astrology, or palmistry.


----------



## Torm (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> My belief is that the body will tell me when I should have a drink, and so forcing water down myself all the time is simply a waste of time, and has about as much credibility to as say astrology, or palmistry.



You may be right - I don't know - but I thought the idea behind drinking a lot of water was to help flush our systems of all the other _synthetic_ junk in some of our food and other drink, and artificial radiations from human activities in our food and atmosphere, that our bodies don't have any other natural way to handle than to just try to flush them.

Regardless, though, I like water - I was already drinking more than 8 glasses a day back when it wasn't cool.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> And no one has given me any scientific evidence to show that drinking gobs and gobs of water will help you lose weight. I'm still waiting on that. Oh, I've seen a lot of guesses and speculation, but nothing scientific. I'm just not buying that one.
> 
> And this idea that we need to drink 8 glasses of water a day is also hogwash. I don't think I've ever drank 8 glasses of anything in a single day, except for that 1 time in my life I got drunk. Yes, once. Getting drunk is not high on my list of things to do.
> 
> My belief is that the body will tell me when I should have a drink, and so forcing water down myself all the time is simply a waste of time, and has about as much credibility to as say astrology, or palmistry.




This is close to right. So close. 

Here's at least pseudo-scientific evidence for why you should drink water. The body knows how to use water really well, and can use it to help clean you of other the other crap you bring in -- coke, booze, meat toxins, etc etc. Water goes through the body and helps pick up bad, undigestable things to be removed. Without enough water (or other such things, like lemon juice), the toxins continue to build up.

Also, if you don't drink enough water the body builds up water fat -- we start storing the water because the body thinks we're in a drought. So to potentially save our lives, we keep lots and lots of water. And get sick, because we arn't using the water to remove crap from the body.

Drink water, it does a body good.

As for your body telling this -- this is absolutely true, but only under certain conditions. Those conditions being that you know how to listen. I used to crave coke. Now I cannot stand it. I craved it simply because it was how my body was accostomed to getting liquids -- so it asked me for more of it.

Now, even the thought of it makes me gag a little. Its ridiculously sweet. Anyway, the point is that the body will tell us, but how we interpret the body depends upon the chemical state of our body.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 21, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> You may be right - I don't know - but I thought the idea behind drinking a lot of water was to help flush our systems of all the other _synthetic_ junk in some of our food and other drink, and artificial radiations from human activities in our food and atmosphere, that our bodies don't have any other natural way to handle than to just try to flush them.







			
				Eolin said:
			
		

> Here's at least pseudo-scientific evidence for why you should drink water. The body knows how to use water really well, and can use it to help clean you of other the other crap you bring in -- coke, booze, meat toxins, etc etc. Water goes through the body and helps pick up bad, undigestable things to be removed. Without enough water (or other such things, like lemon juice), the toxins continue to build up.
> 
> Also, if you don't drink enough water the body builds up water fat -- we start storing the water because the body thinks we're in a drought. So to potentially save our lives, we keep lots and lots of water. And get sick, because we arn't using the water to remove crap from the body.




"toxins"
"bad, undigestable things"
"crap"
"meat toxins"
"artificial radiations"
"_synthetic_ junk"
"water fat"

*WOW*. 

Don't tell me you guys believe this garbage? I mean, do you hear what you're saying? This is like believing that if you swallow bubble gum, it sits and festers in your stomach for 7 years.  This is complete, and utter hogwash.

I swear, the science of food and diet has become the next "feng shui" or "accupuncture" of our day, hasn't it?  You'd be spouting as much science if you told me that magnets help get rid of back problems.

As John Stossel would say:

*GIVE ME A BREAK!*


----------



## Harmon (Apr 21, 2005)

Couple of suggestions (as there are a lot of good ones here)- I know you said you are walking and working out, but when you park your car at a store, the movies or where ever, park at the far end of the lot, this will mean walking just a little more.  Stand on one foot while you wait in any lines- this increases your balance and helps your core strength.  While sitting still tighten your core in long pulses, it will help very little but it will help. 

Last suggestion three suggestions- (this works for me) get a job that is physically demanding, wear a camel pack full of water at work, and eat only protein at work.

Good luck.


----------



## Torm (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> *WOW*.
> 
> Don't tell me you guys believe this garbage?



I take no credit for any of what Eolin added, which isn't to say I disagree with all of it either, but are you telling me that you _don't_ believe that humanity has increased the levels of ambient radiation on the planet by an unnatural amount, or that we take in many more artificial food additives, than our ancestors from even just a century ago? Or is it that you don't believe that water is used in the bodily processes that flush toxins (like uric acid, for example) and other unhealthy materials from our systems?....

Gone to pee lately? Noticed the liquid consistency? Ever noticed that it smells funny if you eat Sugar Smacks? What's THAT all about? 

(Oh - as for Stossel: You might want to see this.)


----------



## Harmon (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> I swear, the science of food and diet has become the next "feng shui" or "accupuncture" of our day, hasn't it?  You'd be spouting as much science if you told me that magnets help get rid of back problems.
> 
> As John Stossel would say:
> 
> *GIVE ME A BREAK!*




A closed mind is an unaccepting mind.

Used magnets for two years on cronic arm pain, worked well.  Accupuncture worked for a time.  Pills did nothing.  Massage and the movement of energy ended the pain, nothing MDs could do did anything- "your just going have to learn to live with it."

My Dad has ALS- used alternative methods for ten years, he is still up and walking about.  Doctors told him he would be dead in three years (99% chance of that) or in a wheel chair paralyzed completely (1% chance of that).  That was twelve years ago.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> "toxins"
> "bad, undigestable things"
> "crap"
> "meat toxins"
> ...





Amen.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> I take no credit for any of what Eolin added, which isn't to say I disagree with all of it either, but are you telling me that you _don't_ believe that humanity has increased the levels of ambient radiation on the planet by an unnatural amount, or that we take in many more artificial food additives, than our ancestors from even just a century ago? Or is it that you don't believe that water is used in the bodily processes that flush toxins (like uric acid, for example) and other unhealthy materials from our systems?....
> 
> Gone to pee lately? Noticed the liquid consistency? Ever noticed that it smells funny if you eat Sugar Smacks? What's THAT all about?




Our ancestors also ate off of lead plates, snorted ground up corpses, etc. We're better off now...

"ambient level of radiation on the planet" what in the hell does this have to do with food or diet in any way? 

Plenty of things that you eat are going to show up in your urine, but that doesn't mean it's unhealthy, it just means that it's small enough to pass through the nephrons in the kidney and that your body doesn't recover it (like salts, glucose, etc). If I ate nothing but fruit, or nothing but meat, or nothing but asparagus I can assure you that the smell of my urine would vary between each of those diets. It doesn't imply anything good or bad about those foods though.

*holds up the pseudoscience bashing hammer threateningly*

Anecdotal evidence means jack compared to actual research and real science. Googling for ten minutes or reading something in a nature food store isn't real science.

I don't have a closed mind, but neither am I so gullible as to believe anything joe crock mcflimflamartist is selling. Or perhaps that ground up tiger penis really will cure my cold? Or if I shoot the penguin I'll get a free Ipod?


----------



## AdamBomb (Apr 21, 2005)

*body for life?*



			
				Trance Fiend said:
			
		

> I try to drink about 9 glasses of water a day, I eat 6 times a day (smaller portions mind you).
> Every meal includes a portion of Protein(chicken, turkey, tuna) and a portion of Carbs(the healthy kind...like whole wheat, brown rice, veggies). When ever I get the urge to snack(which is pretty often) I chew on beef jerky and dehydrated fruit. I also lift weights about 4 times a week, and every other day do cardio for about 30 mins.



sounds like Body for Life?
I saw very good results when I used this program.  Training with weights is a great way to drop weight quickly, especially if you've moved into your 30's or beyond.
The key with this program is to do /strenuous/ cardio.  You really have to push yourself hard for those 30 minutes.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> "toxins"
> "bad, undigestable things"
> "crap"
> "meat toxins"
> ...




A year ago, I would have responded the same way. Hell, six months ago I would have said that talk about "toxins" was crap. Then I gave it a try.

Let me go through this part by part ... 


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> "toxins"



By this I largely mean things that are TOXIC. Cigarette smoke, car fumes, insecticides, all of that crap. It goes into our bodies, and we don't know how to deal with it. So it builds up. Things that cannot be removed through the digestive system get put into the blood, and wind up residing in flesh. meat and fat.



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> "meat toxins"



Yep, the toxins that we put into animals. Do you know what we feed cows? Steroids. Do you know what we feed pigs? Steroids. Any guess as to what we feed chickens? You guessed it, steroids.

Animals steroids, which we wind up ingesting. And which, again, we cannot digest. Do you seriously think that ingesting that sort of crap isn't going have adverse affects?



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> "_synthetic_ junk"



I'm not sure if I said this, but it sounds like the new me, so I'll run with it. I'm going to assume I was refering to, say, all the bizarre sugars we have. Like, for example, high fructose corn syrup. To get high fructose corn syrup, without going into the biochemistry, you effectively take corn syrup -- from corn -- and lower the amounts of sucrose and glucose while increasing the amount of fructose. This makes it sweeter and cheaper, but fructose is a simpler sugar that the body spends nearly zero energy digesting.

Result? You get fat, and have sugar rushes. You're blood sugar level is all over the map, and you might not even know that you feel that way. I didn't.



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> "water fat"




This refers to the amount of water stored in fat cells. Ask any woman, and they'll tell you about water retention. We do it to, its a natural thing for drought. It is *good* that we keep water in our bodies. It is the single most prevelant molecule on the planet and in our bodies -- do you really think human beings havn't been drinking water longer than anything else? (possible exception being human milk)

The Ph of water is seven. When clean, it is good at dissolving just about everything -- including most of the crap we ingest. The water can just take it away.


You're mocking what you havn't tryed. I did the same thing. For YEARS. Then, I tryed it. Go ahead, try it. Buy yourself seven lemons and eat them over a week. See if you feel different. I did.

Edit: Stupid chemistry error.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 21, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> I take no credit for any of what Eolin added, which isn't to say I disagree with all of it either, but are you telling me that you _don't_ believe that humanity has increased the levels of ambient radiation on the planet by an unnatural amount, or that we take in many more artificial food additives, than our ancestors from even just a century ago? Or is it that you don't believe that water is used in the bodily processes that flush toxins (like uric acid, for example) and other unhealthy materials from our systems?....
> 
> Gone to pee lately? Noticed the liquid consistency? Ever noticed that it smells funny if you eat Sugar Smacks? What's THAT all about?





What the heck is "ambient radiation", and yes, radiation levels have increased ever since we started testing nuclear weapons in the western deserts of Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. What does that have to do with how water can help me lose weight? And yes, we eat 100% more artificial food additives than our medieval ancestors did, who ate none at all.  And *gasp* we live longer than they do, because we eat better than they do. Yes, medical science has a lot to do with it as well, but we're all taller and generally a heck of a lot healthier. Kids today develop faster than kids two generations ago did. Compare your average 12 year old girl today to 12 year old girls 20 years ago. Amazing stuff.

Here's the deal. My body and your body is already 98% water. There's all kinds of water in every food that we eat. Your body is an amazing machine that can deal with all kinds of impurities in food. It can siphon out the nutrients we don't need from the nutrients that we do. Simply put, if your body doesn't need it, you're just going to get rid of it. Drinking extra water is not going to help you get rid of stuff faster. There is no organ in the body which stores "bad stuff" until a torrent of water comes along to get rid of it.

Consider this: Most medieval peasants didn't drink very much water. Most of it was fairly unclean, and quite dirty and nasty. Ale, mead, and wine were far more common. Are you suggesting that if I lived solely on drinking, say, iced tea, that I would wither away and die? That somehow any alternative to water is not acceptable? Saying that I can lose weight by drinking 8 glasses of water a day is not unlike suggesting that I can lose weight by drinking 8 glasses of Diet Coke a day. Both have zero calories, right, or are there too many "unnatural" things in Diet Coke that would fool my body into beleving that it wasn't getting the right stuff in order to flush the impurities down the drain?


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 21, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> A closed mind is an unaccepting mind.
> 
> Used magnets for two years on cronic arm pain, worked well.  Accupuncture worked for a time.  Pills did nothing.  Massage and the movement of energy ended the pain, nothing MDs could do did anything- "your just going have to learn to live with it."
> 
> My Dad has ALS- used alternative methods for ten years, he is still up and walking about.  Doctors told him he would be dead in three years (99% chance of that) or in a wheel chair paralyzed completely (1% chance of that).  That was twelve years ago.





Show me any scientific evidence performed by an objective research group using established scientific methods that shows that magnets (such as writstbands, etc) can relieve *any* kind of pain.  I'll settle for just one scientific journal.  If you find me one, I'll start wearing a magnetic bracelet tomorrow.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> *holds up the pseudoscience bashing hammer threateningly*
> 
> Anecdotal evidence means jack compared to actual research and real science. Googling for ten minutes or reading something in a nature food store isn't real science.
> 
> I don't have a closed mind, but neither am I so gullible as to believe anything joe crock mcflimflamartist is selling. Or perhaps that ground up tiger penis really will cure my cold? Or if I shoot the penguin I'll get a free Ipod?




Back off man, I'm a Philosopher. Of Science.

I've always wanted to say that.  Blame Ghostbusters and me actually being a philosophy graduate student (well, in the fall ...)

I never claimed what I was saying was medical science. That'd be a false claim. What I have claimed is that I -- and others who have tryed this sort of thing -- have noticed a difference. I've lost weight, have more energy, and like myself more. I'm much more in shape than I've been in ten years. Its do to awareness of what I'm eating and, yes, drinking a lot of water.

My entire last post was about the benefits of drinking water. Are you going to say -- as Kludge has -- that water isn't something we should be drinking? Or do you just disagree with how I've phrased the goodness of water? Or that I've pointed to negative consequences of our modern indsutrial life?


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Apr 21, 2005)

I met a beautiful woman who once told me, "The key to dieting is shitting." (That's #2, as the naughty language filter will probably catch that word)  Go to the bathroom a lot.  She swears that this helps a lot.

I think you've got this covered with the fiber and water.  Good luck!


----------



## Torm (Apr 21, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> If I ate nothing but fruit, or nothing but meat, or nothing but asparagus I can assure you that the smell of my urine would vary between each of those diets. It doesn't imply anything good or bad about those foods though.



Um, dude - the Sugar Smacks part was a _joke_. It IS weird, though - none of my other cereals do that quite that strong.  

As to what the radiation level has to do with it, it has resulted in an increase in the number of damaging free radicals we interact with - which water can help neutralize.

And you're not talking to some fad-following health food nut. Acupressure is interesting, feng shui is for fun, and I lump magnets for your back in the same category as crystal magic. And I'm going to eat my Doritos even if the "cheese" on them was made from something that fell from space one day.  But good, clean water is just plain OBVIOUSLY good for you - as long as you aren't exceeding the structural capacity of your bladder or some such....


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> By this I largely mean things that are TOXIC. Cigarette smoke, car fumes, insecticides, all of that crap. It goes into our bodies, and we don't know how to deal with it. So it builds up. Things that cannot be removed through the digestive system get put into the blood, and wind up residing in flesh. meat and fat.




No, they get processed and altered by the liver so as to aid in their removal from the body.




> Yep, the toxins that we put into animals. Do you know what we feed cows? Steroids. Do you know what we feed pigs? Steroids. Any guess as to what we feed chickens? You guessed it, steroids.




We feed them growth hormones. And oh, we digest it, and it gets broken down. Even if it was capable of interacting outside of its target species it would be rendered inactive by the Ph of the stomach just like most everything else.




> I'm not sure if I said this, but it sounds like the new me, so I'll run with it. I'm going to assume I was refering to, say, all the bizarre sugars we have. Like, for example, high fructose corn syrup. To get high fructose corn syrup, without going into the biochemistry, you effectively take corn syrup -- from corn -- and lower the amounts of sucrose and glucose while increasing the amount of fructose. This makes it sweeter and cheaper, but fructose is a simpler sugar that the body spends nearly zero energy digesting.




It spends about as much energy digesting fructose as it does glucose. They're both monosaccharides. And there's not much more energy used up digesting any disaccharide, be it lactose, maltose or sucrose. Fructose however does tend to induce a bit more craving AFAIK.



> The Ph of water is zero. When clean, it is good at dissolving just about everything -- including most of the crap we ingest. The water can just take it away.




F'ing wrong. The Ph of water is 7. And it can't do jack to things that aren't water soluble/polar. Fat soluble substrates end up being modified by the liver over time to make them water soluble. But water by itself isn't a panacea to 'flush the body of all those artificial toxins'.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> F'ing wrong. The Ph of water is 7.




Little typing error, already fixed. Let's not dwell on what it, seriously, just a typing error. Let's also not tell my physics graduate-student friends. They'd mock me.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

Ya know what I think bugs me the most?

That people are so stuck in the science-framework that they do not believe answers can come from anywhere else.

I've issued this: Try a lemon a day for a week. That's 7 lemons -- lemons, which are healthy anyway.Try it with water. See if you feel different at the end of the week.

There's no reason to get into a flame war when just a little bit of evidence can help so much. Go buy some lemons.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 21, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> By this I largely mean things that are TOXIC. Cigarette smoke, car fumes, insecticides, all of that crap. It goes into our bodies, and we don't know how to deal with it. So it builds up. Things that cannot be removed through the digestive system get put into the blood, and wind up residing in flesh. meat and fat.




What you're suggesting is, in a word, ludicrous. If I understand this, what you're suggesting is that things we inhale somehow end up in our muscle, fat, and skin? Even if that were true, drinking lots of water isn't going to have any effect on that. This sounds like pseudo-science to me. This idea of our bodies "not knowing how to deal with it" is a crock.




> Yep, the toxins that we put into animals. Do you know what we feed cows? Steroids. Do you know what we feed pigs? Steroids. Any guess as to what we feed chickens? You guessed it, steroids.
> 
> Animals steroids, which we wind up ingesting. And which, again, we cannot digest. Do you seriously think that ingesting that sort of crap isn't going have adverse affects?




Show me the scientific evidence. What I *think* is irrelevant.




> Result? You get fat, and have sugar rushes. You're blood sugar level is all over the map, and you might not even know that you feel that way. I didn't.




Only way my blood sugar is going to be all over the map is if I got diabetes and weren't aware of it. Last I checked my pancreas works just fine. It's Rel, Shemeska, and my wife that have to worry about their blood sugars.  And yes, if I eat more calories in a day than I need, I'll get fat. No mystery there. Still not sure how drinking water is going to magically make me thin. If I'm sucking in 3,000 calories a day, and drinking 20 glasses of water, I can guarantee that I am going to get fat. Water has no effect on that.


[/quote]This refers to the amount of water stored in fat cells. Ask any woman, and they'll tell you about water retention. We do it to, its a natural thing for drought. It is *good* that we keep water in our bodies. It is the single most prevelant molecule on the planet and in our bodies -- do you really think human beings havn't been drinking water longer than anything else? (possible exception being human milk)[/quote]

Everything has drunk water since the beginning of time. Until someone invented beer, water was pretty much all we had. So yea, water is great, it does its job well. And yes, we're made up of 98% of it. I still don't know how drinking lots of it is going to help me lose weight.



> The Ph of water is seven. When clean, it is good at dissolving just about everything -- including most of the crap we ingest. The water can just take it away.




So, what you're suggesting is that the hydrochloric acid in my stomach is insufficient for dissolving things, and I need water to come in and do the job for me? Care to explain to me in scientific terms how "water can just take it away".  What the hell happened to the digestive/excretory systems?  Does excess water suddenly override that??



> You're mocking what you havn't tryed. I did the same thing. For YEARS. Then, I tryed it. Go ahead, try it. Buy yourself seven lemons and eat them over a week. See if you feel different. I did.




WTF?  Where the hell did lemons suddenly come from?  Who is this, and what have you done with Eolin? We were having a discussion about water here. If you find him, redirect him to me, will you?


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 21, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> And you're not talking to some fad-following health food nut. Acupressure is interesting, feng shui is for fun, and I lump magnets for your back in the same category as crystal magic. And I'm going to eat my Doritos even if the "cheese" on them was made from something that fell from space one day.  But good, clean water is just plain OBVIOUSLY good for you - as long as you aren't exceeding the structural capacity of your bladder or some such....




I don't think Shemeska or I are suggesting that water is bad. No, I agree that water is great. But what I am saying, at least, is that I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that drinking water alone will help someone lose weight.  If that were true, there'd be a book "the Atkin's drink a metric assload of water" diet and it'd be a best seller.  If only it were that easy.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 21, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Ya know what I think bugs me the most?
> 
> That people are so stuck in the science-framework that they do not believe answers can come from anywhere else.
> 
> ...




Are you suggesting that I eat a lemon a day, or that I drink a glass of water a day with lemon juice in it.  Does it have to be an actual lemon, or will lemon from one of those little plastic lemons do?  And what is this supposed to do, actually, that just a glass of water won't do?  And will a lime work?  What if I just ate an apple a day, would that serve the same goal, or does it specifically have to be a lemon?  Does it have to be an organic lemon, or is a lemon from a large multi-conglomerate food-processing corporation ok?


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> As to what the radiation level has to do with it, it has resulted in an increase in the number of damaging free radicals we interact with - which water can help neutralize.




Radiation has nothing to do with free radicals. 'Free radical' is a term applied a number of molecules and how they interact on a chemical level with other compounds in your body. I'd rather not get into the exact biochemistry at the moment since I'm currently cooking dinner and I've already been in my lab enough today.

Water doesn't 'neutralize' them in any way. Certain other molecules can (antioxidants in general) but they themselves in overly large amounts (such as too much vitamin E) can cause problems.



> And you're not talking to some fad-following health food nut. Acupressure is interesting, feng shui is for fun, and I lump magnets for your back in the same category as crystal magic. And I'm going to eat my Doritos even if the "cheese" on them was made from something that fell from space one day.  But good, clean water is just plain OBVIOUSLY good for you - as long as you aren't exceeding the structural capacity of your bladder or some such....




Good to hear 

Acupuncture works on some things, somewhat, but not for -any- of the reasons claimed by traditional chinese medicine.

Extra water is neither good nor bad, it's just not a cure all. And there is a thing as too much water actually since it can screw up the osmotic balance of your body if you drink way way too much water.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> What you're suggesting is, in a word, ludicrous. If I understand this, what you're suggesting is that things we inhale somehow end up in our muscle, fat, and skin? Even if that were true, drinking lots of water isn't going to have any effect on that. This sounds like pseudo-science to me. This idea of our bodies "not knowing how to deal with it" is a crock.




I know it sounds ludicrious. I thought it was new-age crap as well. Then I tryed it. Near as I can tell, our bodies simply are not very good at handling the massive amount of crap that we are exposed it on a daily basis. 


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> Show me the scientific evidence. What I *think* is irrelevant.



How about how you feel? the changes I've made to myself have changed how I feel, how I look, how I act, and my beliefs about -- at least -- diet.  You know I don't have journal evidence, but is what I'm saying so dangerous as to require you to not be able to experiment with it? Are you so focused upon the current scientific community that you cannot do a little experimentation yourself?


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> Only way my blood sugar is going to be all over the map is if I got diabetes and weren't aware of it. Last I checked my pancreas works just fine. It's Rel, Shemeska, and my wife that have to worry about their blood sugars.  And yes, if I eat more calories in a day than I need, I'll get fat. No mystery there. Still not sure how drinking water is going to magically make me thin. If I'm sucking in 3,000 calories a day, and drinking 20 glasses of water, I can guarantee that I am going to get fat. Water has no effect on that.



I want to deal with the first part first. Its got problems. Here's how this works. If you ingest more sugar than your body needs (especially if it is a simple sugar), then it very rapidly is put into the blood stream. You're blood sugar goes up way high. As it is now much to high, the pancreas lowers it. Right, so far as it goes.

However, the pancreas lowers the blood sugar down to lower levels than it was at before. Because having slightly lowered blood sugar levels is OK (even if it doesn't feel good), and it is attempting to make us not *die* from the huge amounts of blood sugar.

So then it goes back up as you drink more soda, and the process starts over. With your blood sugar going waaay up then way down. Mainly because it is to much sugar, and very simple ones at that.



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> Everything has drunk water since the beginning of time. Until someone invented beer, water was pretty much all we had. So yea, water is great, it does its job well. And yes, we're made up of 98% of it. I still don't know how drinking lots of it is going to help me lose weight.



I explained, you did not listen. Try it.


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> So, what you're suggesting is that the hydrochloric acid in my stomach is insufficient for dissolving things, and I need water to come in and do the job for me? Care to explain to me in scientific terms how "water can just take it away".  What the hell happened to the digestive/excretory systems?  Does excess water suddenly override that??



You're right -- the water doesn't dissolve it. If I said that, it was a poor choice of words. Instead, the water flowing through the body picks up the toxic crap and whisks it away to a magical land where it leaves your body.

Fruity enough? What I just said was: Water acts as a cleanser, and having more clean water going through the body means you have more fresh fluids to take away the crap. 

Analogy time -- When it rains, my car gets cleaner. When it rains more, more and more levels of dust get taken off. When it doesn't rain much -- or when the rain is dirty -- my car gets dirtier and dirtier.



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> WTF?  Where the hell did lemons suddenly come from?  Who is this, and what have you done with Eolin? We were having a discussion about water here. If you find him, redirect him to me, will you?




I *always* talk about lemons. Lemons were the beginning of my life change. Sure, what I'm talking about right now is mostly water -- which is fantastic -- but the cornerstone of my fitness has been lemons. 

I'll say it again: Buy 7 lemons, and take the juice thereof morning and night for a week. I felt different after this.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Analogy time -- When it rains, my car gets cleaner. When it rains more, more and more levels of dust get taken off. When it doesn't rain much -- or when the rain is dirty -- my car gets dirtier and dirtier.




More appropriate to your body would be having your car on top of a machine that collects all the water from that rain, filters it and then continually rewashes your car with that filtered water to remove the junk on your car. Eventually it will need some more water, but it'll do its job fine on the average amount it has already. Adding continually more water will just make the waste water on the other end of the filter (urine in your body) more dilute each time. The concentration of junk in your bloodstream won't change any real amount.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that I eat a lemon a day, or that I drink a glass of water a day with lemon juice in it.  Does it have to be an actual lemon, or will lemon from one of those little plastic lemons do?  And what is this supposed to do, actually, that just a glass of water won't do?  And will a lime work?  What if I just ate an apple a day, would that serve the same goal, or does it specifically have to be a lemon?  Does it have to be an organic lemon, or is a lemon from a large multi-conglomerate food-processing corporation ok?




I'll answer your sarcastic questions as if they arn't.

I take the juice of a lemon a day, every day. At least. the plastic lemons won't do, it needs to be fresh. I squeeze my lemons by hand, and usually avoid swallowing the seeds. I don't think they'd be harmful, but I don't dig the taste and texture. 

Or at least, make it fresh if you want to proove me wrong.

Excuse the lack of real science here ... but lemons, besides containing a host of good things, makes the body more alkaline, rid the body of toxins, and other things you woudn't believe. I've gotten high off the lemons on multiple occasions, my tastes for foods have changed, etc etc.

I'm told that limes work -- though I swear by lemons. Apples won't do. They arn't acidic, and don't have the proper chemicals. And such.

I've never bought organic lemons. Would if I had the money, but my walmart lemons are doing the job.

Now, I know somebody is going to say that something as acidic as lemons cannot make the body more like a base. And probably call me a tree-hugging hipping. Which isn't to far from the truth. As for lemons making the body more alkaline -- tis true. What I *think* goes on is that the stomach can use the acid in place of its more nasty acids -- so less acid is produced, and the body is more alkaline.

Just so we can be clear: Every morning and every evening, I squeeze half a lemon into a cup, and fill it with warm water. This I drink. Try this for a week, we'll see if you notice a difference.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> More appropriate to your body would be having your car on top of a machine that collects all the water from that rain, filters it and then continually rewashes your car with that filtered water to remove the junk on your car. Eventually it will need some more water, but it'll do its job fine on the average amount it has already. Adding continually more water will just make the waste water on the other end of the filter (urine in your body) more dilute each time. The concentration of junk in your bloodstream won't change any real amount.




Eh, this is why I normally talk about lemon juice. Sweet, sweet lemon juice. I don't drink much water now that doesn't have lemon juice in it.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Excuse the lack of real science here ... but lemons, besides containing a host of good things, makes the body more alkaline, rid the body of toxins, and other things you woudn't believe. I've gotten high off the lemons on multiple occasions, my tastes for foods have changed, etc etc.




Making the body more alkaline in any way that would make a measurable change in blood Ph would make you feel sick, woozy, and if gone too far it'd kill you. The buffers in your blood actively keep your blood Ph in a certain range. If it goes above or below that range, proteins in your body denature (deform) and you start to die.



> Now, I know somebody is going to say that something as acidic as lemons cannot make the body more like a base. And probably call me a tree-hugging hipping. Which isn't to far from the truth. As for lemons making the body more alkaline -- tis true. What I *think* goes on is that the stomach can use the acid in place of its more nasty acids -- so less acid is produced, and the body is more alkaline.




Acid is acid when it comes down to Ph. It's just the concentration of H+ ions in a liquid. I don't recall the exact pathway your body uses to produce gastric juices, but elevated H+ content in the stomach is the end result. Lemon juice just contains citric acid among others, and your body doesn't care where it's getting the substrates from.

Nice idea, but not sound from my perspective (I'm currently trying to finish up my thesis in molecular biology, but I've got a fairly decent background in biochem to draw back upon).

And on that note, dinner is done and I'm off to go eat that. Chicken w/ mushrooms and a cream sauce. Atkins would probably approve if he wasn't being tormented by imps dressed up as twinkies and sacks of flour. (joking)


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

Shemeska, congrats on the thesis. Awesome stuff, getting a masters. I should be in about the same position in a couple of years.

That being said, what I have issues here is a challenge. I'm saying that you'll notice a difference. Given that its just lemon juice, its not going to hurt you, right?

So why not induldge the crazy man and give it a try? Even though there's no control, this is science -- or at least empericism. You're a scientist, so I'm sure you believe in emperical evidence. Give it a try, let us know if you feel any different.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 21, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> So why not induldge the crazy man and give it a try? Even though there's no control, this is science -- or at least empericism. You're a scientist, so I'm sure you believe in emperical evidence. Give it a try, let us know if you feel any different.




I don't like lemons...   

And honestly, it's too small a sample size. It could just be a change in the weather, or a change in the absorption of my insulin pump's injection site making me feel better, or I could be happier because my last class to teach was today and I've got those hours free next week. I'd need a statistically significant sample size doing this, and a matched positive and negative control group to see what was really going on. And then if it did do something that's where you start isolating and testing specific chemicals from the lemon. 

I'd humor you, but I really just don't like lemons. Too sweet. Most fruit I don't care for anymore, having eaten a low sugar diet for over a decade now.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

I didn't use to like lemons either.

Sure, its a small sample size. But the *sort* of change is dramamtically differnet from what you normally feel. Leastwise, was for me.

Everyone I know who has tryed this now swears by it.

As for specific chemicals ... Bah! The whole thing is pretty good for you (except the pesticides) -- Except for a matter of taste, there's not much reason *not* to do this.

Use limes. But make sure you're getting about an ounce of juice a day. I mentioned this to my doctor, and hey looked at my like I'm a crazy person. There's something there that medical science hasn't pinpointed, and i don't really think its going to.

It cannot hurt you to try. But if you refuse to try it ... then you've refused.

Enjoy dinner.


----------



## Torm (Apr 21, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> But what I am saying, at least, is that I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that drinking water alone will help someone lose weight.



Okay. I misunderstood the argument - I _agree_ with this. You either have to increase calories burned or decrease calories taken in. THAT has nothing to do with water - except insofar as drinking water may keep you from drinking high-calorie soda. Duh.


----------



## Torm (Apr 21, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> Radiation has nothing to do with free radicals.



It kinda does, but you have to go further along the history of those radicals to see what I mean. I'm not as ignorant of what I speak as I think you think.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 21, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> It kinda does, but you have to go further along the history of those radicals to see what I mean. I'm not as ignorant of what I speak as I think you think.




Huzzah, none of us are ignorant. I bet we've all got at least Bachelors degrees.

And I know I sound crazy -- but I'm no good at arguing against visible, obvious results.

Water helps cleanse much better than it does with weight loss. But cleansing helps with weight loss, they're connected. And what have you.


----------



## Torm (Apr 21, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> That people are so stuck in the science-framework that they do not believe answers can come from anywhere else.



There is nothing real that is OUTSIDE of the science-framework. So I can see why they would think that. Not to get religious here, but look at it this way:

Science is the exploration of the universe through empirical data and logical experimentation.

Religion/Metaphysics/Spirituality are the study of the universe through faith, feeling, and personal non-empirical exploration.

BUT - there is only one universe. So if science and spirituality disagree, one or both are wrong. When science produces demonstrable technology, I tend to reevaluate my belief system if it disagrees.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> There is nothing real that is OUTSIDE of the science-framework. So I can see why they would think that. Not to get religious here, but look at it this way:
> 
> Science is the exploration of the universe through empirical data and logical experimentation.
> 
> ...




As do I. Either I'm being misinterpreted or misrepresented. Or I mispoke.

Science, quo science, absolutely, I'm all for. It tells us about stuff emperically, which is what we should make judgements, decisions and all that based upon. (Note: I don't want to get into religion. Let's not.)

What I meant is that the current scientific -- especially medical -- community has some dogmatic baggage. Tell your doctor that you're doing meditation and it has made you healthier and you'll just get a weird look. At least with my doctor. Tell him that the juice of a lemon a day has changed your biochemistry, and you're likely to get the same sort of look. Medical science looks at how to fix things, and that's great -- but it is not the end all, be all of health. Remaining healthy isn't necessarily a matter of taking vitamins, but can instead be about heating whole foods and being more *aware* of what you eat. Awareness has a lot to do with it, and again, medical science can't say anything about that -- because it only exists inside our heads.

I'm very pro-science. However, I'm a pragmatist, and am as willing to dismiss medicine that isn't working as I am pseudo-science that isn't working. 

And, while I don't want to go to religion, I do want to say that science cannot claim that things exist outside of its framework. Science gives us a really good emperical view of the world, but it is only a modeling system. That is, while each new scientific paradigm brings about a new way of looking at the Universe -- Aristotle, Mechanichs, Relativity, Quantum Mech -- each one shows that the preceding model was insufficient in some way. So science gives us these excellent *models* of the world, but let's not forget that its just only a model. Like Camelot.


----------



## Harmon (Apr 22, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Show me any scientific evidence performed by an objective research group using established scientific methods that shows that magnets (such as writstbands, etc) can relieve *any* kind of pain.  I'll settle for just one scientific journal.  If you find me one, I'll start wearing a magnetic bracelet tomorrow.




You mean journals that are written in part by MDs?  

I can see by your tone that you would not be willing to even consider that alternate methods of medicine can work.  Keep in mind that Chinese herbal medicine has been around for several thoudand years longer then modern medicine.  Diseases like MS, ALS, cancer and so many others are less prevalent in countries that do not use modern medicine.

Using magnets to relieve pain is something that you must experience, as pain is something of individual perception.  Magnets have been used for hundreds of years longer then modern medicine.

Modern medicine could do nothing for me (excluding removal of my arm- which was suggested and considered), it could do not a thing for my Father, and told a close friend of the family that "you have six months to live, and there is no hope," (something like ten years ago).  Should you decide to investigate that which modern science puts off as hockus pockus then you will find that things like cancer, pain and such can be beaten.

Please do keep in mind that if I have a broken bone I would prefer modern medical practice (interesting phrase there- practice) set the bone for me, however I will manage pain and such myself.  Antibotics have become a necassary because of the strength of the modern bugs that we must combat in our own bodies- so I use them, however only for the most powerful of infections and illness.

My perception of you, Die was one of limit, and I hope that I am wrong about you.  You have nothing to contribute when you refuse to open your mind to possiblities.


----------



## Harmon (Apr 22, 2005)

(deleted by Harmon for content)


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> I know it sounds ludicrious.




There we agree.



> I thought it was new-age crap as well. Then I tryed it. Near as I can tell, our bodies simply are not very good at handling the massive amount of crap that we are exposed it on a daily basis.




There you go using scientific words like "crap" again. And, near as I can tell, our bodies do a fine job of handling this. Given the levels of "crap" that our bodies are exposed to on a daily basis, it's a damned wonder people don't fall over dead every day!




> How about how you feel? the changes I've made to myself have changed how I feel, how I look, how I act, and my beliefs about -- at least -- diet.  You know I don't have journal evidence, but is what I'm saying so dangerous as to require you to not be able to experiment with it? Are you so focused upon the current scientific community that you cannot do a little experimentation yourself?




I feel fine. And I've no desire to experiment myself. I don't have a reason to do so. I'm not in the medical field. And even if I were I'd have no reason to believe that drinking lemon water every day would have any other benefit other than to reduce my chances of getting scurvy, or possibly causing my teeth to decay slightly faster than they otherwise would.




> I want to deal with the first part first. Its got problems. Here's how this works. If you ingest more sugar than your body needs (especially if it is a simple sugar), then it very rapidly is put into the blood stream. You're blood sugar goes up way high. As it is now much to high, the pancreas lowers it. Right, so far as it goes.
> 
> However, the pancreas lowers the blood sugar down to lower levels than it was at before. Because having slightly lowered blood sugar levels is OK (even if it doesn't feel good), and it is attempting to make us not *die* from the huge amounts of blood sugar.




You know, that's a lot of stuff you've just said there. Care to back any of that up with some proof?  Where are you getting that the pancreas lowers the blood sugar down to a lower level than before it started? And who are you to question the machinations of the pancreas? My wife has diabetes, and while her blood sugar can fluctuate, mine never really does. It's the beauty of the pancreas. It can handle all the sugar I can throw at it. I don't know where you're getting your information from.




> So then it goes back up as you drink more soda, and the process starts over. With your blood sugar going waaay up then way down. Mainly because it is to much sugar, and very simple ones at that.




Once again, this is just not true. The pancreas keeps our blood sugars at a constant level all the time. Unless you have diabetes, there just is no fluctuation.




> I explained, you did not listen. Try it.




And prove what? That lemon juice tastes an awful lot like really bitter lemonade?




> You're right -- the water doesn't dissolve it. If I said that, it was a poor choice of words. Instead, the water flowing through the body picks up the toxic crap and whisks it away to a magical land where it leaves your body.




There we go with poor science again. Water in the body has absolutely nothing to do with removing "toxic crap" from our bodies. Nothing.




> Fruity enough? What I just said was: Water acts as a cleanser, and having more clean water going through the body means you have more fresh fluids to take away the crap.




*sigh* I blame our education system.




> Analogy time -- When it rains, my car gets cleaner. When it rains more, more and more levels of dust get taken off. When it doesn't rain much -- or when the rain is dirty -- my car gets dirtier and dirtier.




I'm not even touching this one. Shemeska has already covered it.



> I *always* talk about lemons. Lemons were the beginning of my life change. Sure, what I'm talking about right now is mostly water -- which is fantastic -- but the cornerstone of my fitness has been lemons.
> 
> I'll say it again: Buy 7 lemons, and take the juice thereof morning and night for a week. I felt different after this.




Hey, if your placebo affect works for you, who am I to stop you?


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

And you refuse to try it. You will not learn, and refuse to listen. So this conversation is pointless.

Good Day, Sir.

Edit: My dad is a type 2 diabetic. I've talked with my doctor about the pancreas. Stop with the wrongness.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2005)

Wow, this is like reading stuff by the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> I didn't use to like lemons either.
> 
> Sure, its a small sample size. But the *sort* of change is dramamtically differnet from what you normally feel. Leastwise, was for me.
> 
> Everyone I know who has tryed this now swears by it.




So, I'm curious. Where did you learn to do this? I mean, what prompted you to say that you wanted to have lemons in warm water twice daily. And what did you hope to achieve by doing this?  And how many people have you gotten to do this?




> As for specific chemicals ... Bah! The whole thing is pretty good for you (except the pesticides) -- Except for a matter of taste, there's not much reason *not* to do this.




Well, aside from it being rather ludicrous, I suppose not.



> Use limes. But make sure you're getting about an ounce of juice a day. I mentioned this to my doctor, and hey looked at my like I'm a crazy person. There's something there that medical science hasn't pinpointed, and i don't really think its going to.




Yea, those doctors... what the hell do they know?




> It cannot hurt you to try. But if you refuse to try it ... then you've refused.




I refuse.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Hey, if your placebo affect works for you, who am I to stop you?



Speaking of placebos, a laboratory recently released a study that I just flat cannot figure out. They took a number of test subjects in pain and gave them morphine daily for a set number of days. After that, they took part of them (leaving a control group, of course) and started giving them a nonreactive placebo instead, without telling them. Another period of time passes. Then, without telling them, they began giving a set number of subjects from both groups (leaving, once again, control groups for both sets) a chemical inhibitor that blocks the specific chemical receptors that allow morphine to work, mixed in to whatever they were getting before. The subjects from _both groups_ given the inhibitor stopped experiencing any painkilling effect! The inhibitor blocked a placebo that theoretically only works through a psychological effect.... I don't get it.  

No offense, but I think part of the problem in your and Shemeska's conversation with Eolin (and with me, earlier in the thread, for that matter - but I don't really care enough to get upset about it  ) is the condescension. Assume for a moment (and I know you are  ) that you are completely right in all of your assertions - in convincing others of this, you can still catch more flies with honey than vinegar.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 22, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> You mean journals that are written in part by MDs?
> 
> I can see by your tone that you would not be willing to even consider that alternate methods of medicine can work.  Keep in mind that Chinese herbal medicine has been around for several thoudand years longer then modern medicine.  Diseases like MS, ALS, cancer and so many others are less prevalent in countries that do not use modern medicine.




Ok, first off, do you have any evidence to suggest that MS, ALS, cancer and other "diseases" are less prevalent in countries that do not use modern medicine? And let's suppose for a second that cancer, ALS, and MS *are* less prevalent in say, China. Would you then have proof to conclude that _because_ they did not use modern medicine that that was the reason why those diseases were less prevalent? It could be that Asian genetics are less inclined to get those diseases, or any number of other factors that could go into such a number.




> Using magnets to relieve pain is something that you must experience, as pain is something of individual perception.  Magnets have been used for hundreds of years longer then modern medicine.




Yes, it's why it's called *modern* medicine. Funny that. And you're right. If you say a magnet has reduced your pain, then I can't prove that you're wrong. But neither can you prove that it's right. But common sense tells me otherwise. First off, our bodies are not magnetic, and if magnets do anything to us at all, it is non-measurable. Secondly, *IF* magnets had any significant effect on our bodies, don't you think that a powerful magnet would have a stronger effect? If that were the case, then those big magnetic cranes that they use to pick up garbage from destroyed buildings would totally screw people up when they turned that thing on. And lastly, the magnets in magnetic bracelets are so pathetically weak, the things won't even stick to a refrigerator. So there's barely even a magnet in there. Do you wear a magnetic bracelet? If you do, try this: does it stick to your refrigerator? If it doesn't, how can you be sure that it's powerful enough to affect your body in any way, shape, or form?





> Modern medicine could do nothing for me (excluding removal of my arm- which was suggested and considered), it could do not a thing for my Father, and told a close friend of the family that "you have six months to live, and there is no hope," (something like ten years ago).  Should you decide to investigate that which modern science puts off as hockus pockus then you will find that things like cancer, pain and such can be beaten.




If you have the solution, I'm sure the New England Journal of Medicine would love to publish it.



> Please do keep in mind that if I have a broken bone I would prefer modern medical practice (interesting phrase there- practice) set the bone for me, however I will manage pain and such myself.  Antibotics have become a necassary because of the strength of the modern bugs that we must combat in our own bodies- so I use them, however only for the most powerful of infections and illness.




Modern bugs?  Care to expand on that? And you're right, antibiotics are overrated. Tell that to Louis Pasteur.




> My perception of you, Die was one of limit, and I hope that I am wrong about you.  You have nothing to contribute when you refuse to open your mind to possiblities.




I'm a skeptic. I challenge the status quo, and I don't believe everything I read. You should be glad people like me live in this world, otherwise we wouldn't have modern medicine.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Wow, this is like reading stuff by the Flat Earth Society.



Which part? Eolin seems to have the non-scientific-methods part nailed - while I'd have to say the arrogance and bullheadedness are being handled by other parties. 

Oh, and if you want the nutty conspiracy theory part, try this on: There may be certain remedies for things - simple ones that anyone can do - that have been repressed by doctors and the pharmaceutical industry because there is no money in it for them....


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> I'm a skeptic. I challenge the status quo, and I don't believe everything I read. You should be glad people like me live in this world, otherwise we wouldn't have modern medicine.




Challenge the Status Quo? That's exactly what you arn't doing. Instead, you're accepting the status quo against reasonable people who say that there are other alternatives.

And until you open your mind, nothing we say is going to make any difference. When did this thread stop being about weight loss?


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Which part? Eolin seems to have the non-scientific-methods part nailed - while I'd have to say the arrogance and bullheadedness are being handled by other parties.




Right, because I'm the one who denies evidence of the senses.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Right, because I'm the one who denies evidence of the senses.



There are certain things we have discovered, particularly in physics but also in other disciplines, that tell us that, as diagnostic equipment, our senses just plain aren't good enough. Ya have to have a working hypothesis, and then you have to test hell out of it. And then do it again. And again..... And share your method and the results - even on occasions when they don't support your hypothesis.

OTOH, if you're talking about individual-sense-proof, well, it is just that - individual. I can have all the proof I need for myself that there is a G-d and then some - but the fact that we can't quantify and qualify it one way or the other by the methods described above (YET) is the reason you can't just walk up to a non-believer and say "look" and get a believer afterward, or vice-versa. It isn't _their_ individual-sense-proof.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

PS to Zander: A vigorous argument may help burn calories and cause weight loss - and that's what we're demonstrating. Yeah - _that's_ the ticket!


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> There are certain things we have discovered, particularly in physics but also in other disciplines, that tell us that, as diagnostic equipment, our senses just plain aren't good enough. Ya have to have a working hypothesis, and then you have to test hell out of it. And then do it again. And again..... And share your method and the results - even on occasions when they don't support your hypothesis.
> 
> OTOH, if you're talking about individual-sense-proof, well, it is just that - individual. I can have all the proof I need for myself that there is a G-d and then some - but the fact that we can't quantify and qualify it one way or the other by the methods described above (YET) is the reason you can't just walk up to a non-believer and say "look" and get a believer afterward, or vice-versa. It isn't _their_ individual-sense-proof.





I know. As stated earlier, Eolin is a philosopher. Of Science. And all that.

Anyway, our belief in microscopes and telescopes is an extension of our belief in our senses. 
And I don't have better-than-sense proof evidence for what I've been talking about. I don't have access to labs, or to large groups of people who I can test. What I do have is an awareness that something has chemically changed in me, and it started because of the lemons.

Its not like a belief in g*d. I've lost 20 pounds, and that cannot be easily denied or brushed off. The fact that I'm more energetic and just overall feel much better is subjective -- but 20 pounds of fat falling off my body really isn't.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 22, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> I can see by your tone that you would not be willing to even consider that alternate methods of medicine can work.  Keep in mind that Chinese herbal medicine has been around for several thoudand years longer then modern medicine.  Diseases like MS, ALS, cancer and so many others are less prevalent in countries that do not use modern medicine.




Wrong. Certain types of cancers that are utterly rare in the west are much more prevelant in China: nasopharyngeal carcinoma for instance. There are also cancers in asian cultures that occur much more than in the west, some linked to diet and some linked to genetics, some to both.

Given the massive pollution in industrial areas in china, I could only guess at the respiratory ailments in those areas. Traditional chinese medicine isn't doing much for either those or the cancers in any accepted studies.

And what pray tell are the rates of childbirth mortality in most nations without modern medicine compared to those who do? *eyebrow* I'm happy that I or my kids won't have a major risk of dying from any number of diseases that modern medicine has almost eradicated, or allowed us to be immune to.

When was the last time alternative medicine eradicated smallpox from the face of the planet?


----------



## reanjr (Apr 22, 2005)

I'm extraordinarily lazy, so my tips are for those who want almost no impact on their daily lives and no real activity (unless it's enjoyable).

Drink black coffee about 45 minutes before you eat.  It speeds up the metabolism and you burn the calories from eating quicker.  Note, putting sugar or milk in just adds back calories.  And lactose (if you choose to use 0% fat milk) slows your metabolism back down.  This has basically the same effect as if you work out before you eat, but requires much less effort.

Also, when reading a book, walk around instead of sitting or lounging.  Even at a glacially slow pace, you keep your blood pumping and your muscles moving.

Oh, and play Dance Dance Revolution on XBox/PS2/GameCube


----------



## Zander (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> PS to Zander: A vigorous argument may help burn calories and cause weight loss...



No, it won't. You're definitely wrong about that. Wrong, I say. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. If you have any degrees, you should be stripped of them. Tarred and feathered. That's what should happen to you and your ideas. This very minute! (How am I doing so far?  )


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> No, it won't. You're definitely wrong about that. Wrong, I say. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. If you have any degrees, you should be stripped of them. Tarred and feathered. That's what should happen to you and your ideas. This very minute! (How am I doing so far?  )



Good, good! Now, would you like the 5 minute argument, or the full 30?


----------



## Zander (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Good, good! Now, would you like the 5 minute argument, or the full 30?



Well, let's just say that I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Zander said:
			
		

> Well, let's just say that I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.




Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Also, what I've been doing recently in terms of eating is so bizarre I dare not post it. Either nobody'd believe, or I'd get called a witch doctor.


----------



## Crothian (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Which part?




umm...yes?


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Turanil said:
			
		

> I am someone who lost 45 lb in two years (well the first 30 lbs in six months, then 15 in 1.5 year). So I will give you my advice, which is an over-simplification of scientific studies (try Dr Seignalet on google to know more if you need, but all sites in French...).
> 
> So basically:
> 
> ...



Blech.  Who needs to torture themselves?  Just eat less of the same foods you always have.  My wife has always been able to lose weight (usually after giving birth) to the order of up to 40 pounds or more in six months or less just by eating smaller portions and running.  Eating all weird food and avoiding normal food is just gimicky.

On a side note, why do you set your goal in stones?  That's not very helpful because nobody uses that, so nobody knows what it means.  Pounds or kilos work just fine.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Blech.  Who needs to torture themselves?  Just eat less of the same foods you always have.  My wife has always been able to lose weight (usually after giving birth) to the order of up to 40 pounds or more in six months or less just by eating smaller portions and running.  Eating all weird food and avoiding normal food is just gimicky.
> 
> On a side note, why do you set your goal in stones?  That's not very helpful because nobody uses that, so nobody knows what it means.  Pounds or kilos work just fine.




Eh, most of the stuff he mentioned is fairly bad for us.

Of course, I do still eat whatever I want. To some degree, I've changed what I want. But still, I love the pizza. and milk. and cookies, to some degree.

Point is, it isn't gimicky to avoid the foods he's mentioned. Breads, particuarly white breads, pretty easily put on weight. Add in that a lot of people don't digest gluton well ... and it looks like we should avoid it. Still though, I loves it.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> I've issued this: Try a lemon a day for a week. That's 7 lemons -- lemons, which are healthy anyway.Try it with water. See if you feel different at the end of the week.



At least I'd get rid of that bloody scurvy that way...   Arrr.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Harmon said:
			
		

> I can see by your tone that you would not be willing to even consider that alternate methods of medicine can work.  Keep in mind that Chinese herbal medicine has been around for several thoudand years longer then modern medicine.



So has bloodletting by leeches.  I don't find that a very compelling stance.


			
				Harmon said:
			
		

> Diseases like MS, ALS, cancer and so many others are less prevalent in countries that do not use modern medicine.



I have no idea if that's even true or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and still point out that you conveniently forget to mention that life expectancy is also _much_ lower.


			
				Harmon said:
			
		

> Using magnets to relieve pain is something that you must experience, as pain is something of individual perception.  Magnets have been used for hundreds of years longer then modern medicine.



I heard almost the exact same thing from folks who use poisonous remedies like colloidal silver.  Or other equally useless remedies like Essential Oils.  These same people were on the run from the IRS for refusing to pay income tax, and believed that there was a big conspiracy to keep them down because they had invented new engine technology that would put the current automotive companies out of business.  They also talked about alien abduction quite a bit.


			
				Harmon said:
			
		

> My perception of you, Die was one of limit, and I hope that I am wrong about you.  You have nothing to contribute when you refuse to open your mind to possiblities.



1-900 psychics use lines like that quite often.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Also, what I've been doing recently in terms of eating is so bizarre I dare not post it. Either nobody'd believe, or I'd get called a witch doctor.



Ooh ee ooh ah ah ping pang walla walla bing bang.

You're a witch doctor, and I don't believe you. There. Now you have no excuse not to tell us what you've been doing - all the repercussions have happened anyway.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> So has bloodletting by leeches.  I don't find that a very compelling stance.



Actually, leeches have seen use again, recently, by honest-to-goodness certified and competent medical professionals. Although not for what they were originally. The new use has to do with the natural anticoagulant leeches produce to keep the wounds they make bleeding - in surgery, they can be used to prevent clotting. See this. Interesting if somewhat disturbing stuff.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I heard almost the exact same thing from folks who use poisonous remedies like colloidal silver.  Or other equally useless remedies like Essential Oils.



Also, there has been scientifically researched evidence lately that the idea that a dilution that is so diluted that it has essentially none of the original material in it can have the same effect as that material on the body is true - and researchers are trying to figure out WHY, cause it defies certain aspects of what we thought we knew. See #4, here.

And essential oils aren't _useless_ - I don't know what _remedies_ they are supposed to make, but I do know that Teatree Oil makes a fair bug repellant.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Ooh ee ooh ah ah ping pang walla walla bing bang.
> 
> You're a witch doctor, and I don't believe you. There. Now you have no excuse not to tell us what you've been doing - all the repercussions have happened anyway.




Fine, Torm. Just for you.

For the past nine days, I've been doing what's called "Master Cleanser". In effect, it is an ultra-low calorie diet. It consists of drinking lemonade -- of a very particular sort.

The lemonade is made of: fresh lemon juice (obviously), Grade B Maple Syrup, cayenne pepper, and water. I use warm water, but its not necessary.

What does this do? Many, many things. For one, it is supposed to cleanse the body of toxins. Given how I feel now compared to how I did then, that sounds legit. You also simply *shed* fat while on this diet -- I'm going to weigh myself tonight and see how much I've lost. It also makes you realize at a fundamental level that you don't need food. I've fasted for nine days, and feel like I could keep doing it forever. As of the fifth day, I have an actual disdain for solid foods. I havn't been hungry in a week, either. Empty when I wake up, but not hungry.

Tonight I am going to begin weaning myself off. This isn't a permanent thing, just an experiment. It has worked out very well.

Even though I've been ingesting only around 1200 to 1500 calories per day, I do not feel weak or tired. I've gone for walks the past two days, and have done what I normally do. I havn't been working, but that's because I'm inbetween  jobs right now.

that's the witch-doctor stuff I've been doing for the past week. And its been fantastic. Its weird, before I started changing how I eat I thought I felt fine. Now I can see how far I've come, and have also been able to see how much farther I can go. At times I can see all the way up the mountain.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> The lemonade is made of: fresh lemon juice (obviously), Grade B Maple Syrup, cayenne pepper, and water. I use warm water, but its not necessary.



Not sure what the maple syrup is for, but I understand the rest: The lemon juice is for acid that helps break down junk clogging up the works, cayenne increases your metabolism and makes you burn through calories a little quicker and sweat, and water is, well, water.

I drink something similar occasionally when I'm feeling like I'm tightening up in my digestion: Lemon juice extract, lime juice extract (just cause I like it and it is essentially the same except flavor), sugar (hmm, maybe the maple syrup is just for flavor?), and water. Seems to do the trick - like an uber-laxative. Grandma taught me to make it. 

The sound you just heard was Die_Kluge and Shemeska's heads exploding.


----------



## kenobi65 (Apr 22, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Going on a diet is fine, watch your caloric intake and exercise. Those are the two cardinal rules to losing weight. Don't give yourself such a strict dieting regimen. If you want pizza, only have a slice or two. Don't forbid yourself any foods. That is the first step to _not_ losing weight. If you have a craving for something, don't completely give in, but have just a little bit.




That's how I lost about 25 pounds, over the course of 2 years.  I didn't change *what* I ate, so much as *how much* I ate.  I call it the Einstein Diet (as in, "Geez, Einstein, if you didn't eat so damned much, you might lose some weight!")

Drinking water helps, too.  And, it's got to be water, not soda, not beer...


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Fine, Torm. Just for you.
> 
> For the past nine days, I've been doing what's called "Master Cleanser". In effect, it is an ultra-low calorie diet. It consists of drinking lemonade -- of a very particular sort.
> 
> The lemonade is made of: fresh lemon juice (obviously), Grade B Maple Syrup, cayenne pepper, and water. I use warm water, but its not necessary.




Main Entry: *snake oil*
Function: _noun_
1 : any of various substances or mixtures sold (as by a traveling medicine show) as medicine usually without regard to their medical worth or properties
2 : *POPPYCOCK, BUNKUM*

Look, if you want a really good read, find a copy of _Eat, Drink, & Be Merry_, by Dr. Dean Edell, at your local library.  It's all about losing weight, keeping it off, while staying healthy and happy at the same time.

As others have said, the book all boils down to...  Eat less, exercise more, and make sure you are getting all of your vitamins and minerals.  Nothing fancy.  That's it.  It works.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Bah!  I'm not impressed with your witch-doctory unless you've got zombies out working in your tobacco field.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

The Grade B Maple Syrup (as opposed to Grade A, or the sugar-based maple-flavored syrups) provides a bunch of nutrients. And its the primary source of calories. It is effectively boiled tree sap, with very little in the way of processing. Instead of surviving on animal meat and blood, now I'm thriving on tree blood. Or something. I like to phrase it that way anyway.

the Cayenne also cuts mucus. Lets you get rid of the excess.

Here's a link: http://www.bc1.com/~vitagem/Master_Cleanser.htm


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> As other have said, the book all boils down to...  Eat less, exercise more, and make sure you are getting all of your vitamins and minerals.  Nothing fancy.  That's it.  It works.



As a friend of mine who's used it quite successfully calls it; the First Law of Thermodynamics diet (he would; he's a mechanical engineer.)  Energy stored = Energy consumed - Energy spent, basically.  If you want to lose weight, eat less calories and burn more calories.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Main Entry: *snake oil*
> Function: _noun_
> 1 : any of various substances or mixtures sold (as by a traveling medicine show) as medicine usually without regard to their medical worth or properties
> 2 : *POPPYCOCK, BUNKUM*
> ...




Again with the arrogance. There's been a lot of that in this thread. I really dislike the assumption that I havn't looked into things, that I've done this without research, and that I'm dumb.

The arrogance is probably my fault -- I think Torm and I both have been telling people more than they are ready to understand.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Actually, leeches have seen use again, recently, by honest-to-goodness certified and competent medical professionals. Although not for what they were originally. The new use has to do with the natural anticoagulant leeches produce to keep the wounds they make bleeding - in surgery, they can be used to prevent clotting. See this. Interesting if somewhat disturbing stuff.



That's a far cry from bloodletting, though...    


			
				Torm said:
			
		

> Also, there has been scientifically researched evidence lately that the idea that a dilution that is so diluted that it has essentially none of the original material in it can have the same effect as that material on the body is true - and researchers are trying to figure out WHY, cause it defies certain aspects of what we thought we knew. See #4, here.



That doesn't change my point.  There is no medicinal value to colloidal silver whether it's extremely diluted to the point of hardly containing any silver or not.  Mostly it just causes argyria and you turn into a bluish-gray zombie-looking creature.  http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html


			
				Torm said:
			
		

> And essential oils aren't useless - I don't know what remedies they are supposed to make, but I do know that Teatree Oil makes a fair bug repellant.



Many of them repel more than bugs...

I've had folks try and tell me that they'll cure everything from a sore back to Ebola.  As near as I can tell, all they do is smell funny and make you oily if you put them on.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Again with the arrogance. ... I think Torm and I both have been telling people more than they are ready to understand.



You do note the irony in your post, I hope?


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Here's a link: http://www.bc1.com/~vitagem/Master_Cleanser.htm




"The glands and organs of our eliminative systems can easily become overwhelmed by wastes from poor diet, lack of exercise, tension, air and water pollution etc."

Okay.  So, the obvious question here now becomes...

Instead of being a lazy, over-anxious slug who smokes, drinks and eats garbage*, and only occasionally "cleansing the body of this accumulated waste" by injesting nothing but a lemonade-potion for a week and a half, why not just relax, eat better, eat less, exercise more and not accumulate the "toxins" in the first place?

*Note, I'm exagerrating for effect, here...    I don't necessarily mean that you are.  It is a serious question.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> The arrogance is probably my fault -- I think Torm and I both have been telling people more than they are ready to understand.



They're ready to understand - they're just waiting for us to provide evidence beyond the individual-sense-proof (is there a better word for this, please?) that I was talking about yesterday. And I don't blame them. Science is SCIENCE, not anecdotes, like Shemeska said. But, I do invite them to try some Pipe Cleaner (as I call my little recipe above) next time they feel oogy.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's a far cry from bloodletting, though...



True, true.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That doesn't change my point....



I didn't think it did. I just thought you might find it (and the other stuff on that page, for that matter) interesting.  



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Many of them repel more than bugs...



True again. But Teatree Oil smells pretty good, too - better than the pesticidal junk in the bug killer sections of stores.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> They're ready to understand - they're just waiting for us to provide evidence beyond the individual-sense-proof (is there a better word for this, please?) that I was talking about yesterday.




Exactly...  It's called empirical data.

Take 300 people.  Leave 100 alone to eat their normal diet.  Put 100 on your average low-fat, low-calorie diet, and put the last 100 on yor lemonade fast.  After 40 days see how they're all doing, and compare.

That's what I want to know.

A single point of data and second-hand anecdotes are not very convincing...  Especially when posted over a fan-based roleplaying game web-site.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> I didn't think it did. I just thought you might find it (and the other stuff on that page, for that matter) interesting.



Indeed, later today or the next day when I've got more time, I intend to poke around there for some reading...


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Instead of being a lazy, over-anxious slug who smokes, drinks and eats garbage*, and only occasionally "cleansing the body of this accumulated waste" by injesting nothing but a lemonade-potion for a week and a half, why not just relax, eat better, eat less, exercise more and not accumulate the "toxins" in the first place?




It suggests you not be. And I think everybody here would agree you not be. But even if you're just eatning normal foods you're going to accumulate toxins. Sure, if you eat a lot of detox foods you'll have a lot less toxins (imagine that), and reducing such things is almost always good for you.  So ... yeah. It is suggested that you do this every six months or so to give the digestive system a nice break, and clean yourself of all the crap you've accumulated. Of course, that link should also say that if you go back to eating crappy things, you'll gain back the weight and the crappy things will be a part of you.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin...  Are also taking the herbal laxative tea, as it suggests?


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

I coudn't find a tea, but I've got fiber laxative pills.

On about the third day, I could distinctly feel my kidneys. It was bizarre. I'm not altogether sure what that was about.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> I coudn't find a tea, but I've got fiber laxative pills.



Make sure you take your fiber every day, it'll help keep you regular.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 22, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Make sure you take your fiber every day, it'll help keep you regular.



Yeah, to me that's the best solution for "cleansing my body of all the crap I've accumulated."


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Instead of being a lazy, over-anxious slug who smokes, drinks and eats garbage*, and only occasionally "cleansing the body of this accumulated waste" by injesting nothing but a lemonade-potion for a week and a half, why not just relax, eat better, eat less, exercise more and not accumulate the "toxins" in the first place?



I know you weren't talking to me, but since I use something similar: I don't smoke, I try to eat well for someone who LOVES food, and I drink water whenever it is available and good. But stuff builds up anyway, like sediment. So the occasional Pipe Cleaner does the trick.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> On about the third day, I could distinctly feel my kidneys. It was bizarre. I'm not altogether sure what that was about.



It may mean that you want to be careful: Grandma always said that a pipe cleaner now and then was good, but that too much could cause you kidney problems. She told us this because Pipe Cleaner is good enough to drink just for itself, and some of the grandkids _would_.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> It may mean that you want to be careful: Grandma always said that a pipe cleaner now and then was good, but that too much could cause you kidney problems. She told us this because Pipe Cleaner is good enough to drink just for itself, and some of the grandkids _would_.




Maybe, but it went aware. I lost the hyper-awareness of my kidneys. Besides, everything I've read from people who have done this diet has been positive. There's even supposed to be a little disorientation as the waste is getting filled out.

Its going to be weird tonight, to eat something other than Lemonade. I need to do it though, otherwise I might not stop fasting. And I'm not at a place where I want to do an ultra-low calorie diet permanetly. Maybe someday.

Heh ... according to How Stuff Works, my body needs around 2700 calories to maintain itself every day, because I weigh around 220 pounds. If I've been ingesting 1500 calories, that's 1300 a day. A pound is 3500, so that's 1 pound every 3 days or so. Its been nine days. What are we all going to think if I've lost more than the 3 pounds that it seems I should have?


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> And I'm not at a place where I want to do an ultra-low calorie diet permanetly.



Not ready to DIE, in other words. That's good.  



			
				Eolin said:
			
		

> What are we all going to think if I've lost more than the 3 pounds that it seems I should have?



That your metabolism is different than the average stated in How Stuff Works, either because you've been exercising more or just because you're YOU, and not an average. And, possibly, that you've flushed a bit of non-stored-fat waste that was clogging up the works out.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Not ready to DIE, in other words. That's good.




Actually ... http://www.azcentral.com/health/diet/articles/1029health-lowcal29-ON.html

It appears that, in lab animals at least, ultra-low calorie diets extend life.


----------



## Zander (Apr 22, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> On a side note, why do you set your goal in stones? That's not very helpful because nobody uses that, so nobody knows what it means. Pounds or kilos work just fine.



I assume that's directed at me.

I use stones. Therefore I'm nobody. Nobody's perfect.  

Seriously, millions of people weigh themselves in stones. But for the benefit of those who don't, I did give the pound and kilo equivalents in the opening post of this thread. Please have a look. 

Besides, it only takes a moment online to find out what the conversions are. www.ask.com will tell you.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

or you cna google it. "20 stone to pounds". Google is teh awesomest.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 22, 2005)

Unless you've got a yahoo, but I'm not one of 'em.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Unless you've got a yahoo, but I'm not one of 'em.



LOL.

"My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!"


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> LOL.
> 
> "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!"



Cause thats the way, uh huh, uh huh, he likes it
Cause thats the way, uh huh, uh huh, he likes it


----------



## Eolin (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!"




I'm sure I'm the only one doing the math on this one ...

40 rods is an eighth of a mile
1 hogshead is about 63 gallons.

So grampa Simpson is getting one mile per 504 gallons.

I'll refrain from political comment.

Edit: and with that, I'm gone for the night.


----------



## Torm (Apr 22, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'm the only one doing the math on this one ...



I wasn't - because the page I copied the quote from already had it done for me.


----------



## Andor (Apr 22, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> individual-sense-proof (is there a better word for this, please?)




Subjective


----------



## Eolin (Apr 23, 2005)

OK, so i weighed myself.

In the past week, I didn't lose 3 pounds. No where near.

I lost ten. In seven days -- friday to friday. That's a lot. Do I still sound crazy and as if I am of the Flat Earthers?


----------



## Torm (Apr 23, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> OK, so i weighed myself.
> 
> In the past week, I didn't lose 3 pounds. No where near.
> 
> I lost ten. In seven days -- friday to friday. That's a lot. Do I still sound crazy and as if I am of the Flat Earthers?



That is excellent. I'm glad to hear what you are doing is working for you.

OTOH, it still PROVES nothing. Not scientifically, anyway. Just to you.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 23, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> That is excellent. I'm glad to hear what you are doing is working for you.
> 
> OTOH, it still PROVES nothing. Not scientifically, anyway. Just to you.





What it does do is raise the rational subjective lillihood that such a thing is true.

The current best model for scientific discovery making is Bayes Theorem, which states:

P (H | E & B) = P(E|H) * P(H | B) / P(E|B) ... if i recall correctly, which I should.

What that says is that our rational degree of believe in a hypothesis H, is dependent upon Evidence and Background assumptions.

Anyway, what I have done is increase the evidence, which, while likely given my assumption that what I'm doing makes sense (aka, the evidence confirms my hypothesis) , the evidence also *disconfirms* the hypothesis that I'm a quack, and the hypothesis that my sort of dieting doesn't make any sense.

That, gentlemen, is conditional belief. And its scientific. Sure, there's not a whole lot of evidence and it is not the case that it has drastically changes the comparitive probabilities -- but it is evidence and cannot be simply thrown out.

I'd love to get three hundred people and put 200 of them on different diets to experiment. If anybody has got me 300 willing subjects, let me know. But as that hasn't happened, the only sort of evidence that we do have is individual -- and mine is just as valid as anyone elses. Granted, you may discount my evidence by thinking I'm lying, but if I am telling the truth (which I know I am), then it is the case that the epistemic probability of my hypothesis just went up.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 23, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> OK, so i weighed myself.
> 
> In the past week, I didn't lose 3 pounds. No where near.
> 
> I lost ten. In seven days -- friday to friday. That's a lot. Do I still sound crazy and as if I am of the Flat Earthers?






			
				Torm said:
			
		

> That is excellent.




I wouldn't say so.  In fact, it'd worry me a little.

Any expert you ask will tell you that 1-2 lbs. per week is the maximum healthy weight loss rate.  Anything higher than that, and you are likely losing either water weight (dehydrating yourself) or weight from non-fat tissues (losing muscle mass).  Either way it's not a good thing to do to your body, and you'll be more likely to put the weight back on afterward for two reasons...

First, muscle cells burn more calories than fat cells do...  even when you are resting.  Simply having more muscle makes it easier to stay slim.  But if you are burning up all your muscles with a fast, then in the end, you'll be burning fewer calories for the same amount of body weight.  You sabotage your own diet.

Second, when you fast and lose weight that quickly, your body automatically suddenly realizes, "Hey, I'm not getting enough food to maintain my muscles...  We're starving!"  Your metabolism goes way down to conserve energy.  Once the diet's over, it takes a bit of time for your body to get out of the 'starvation' mode.  In the mean time, you store up all that fat you just got rid of.


----------



## Jesus_marley (Apr 23, 2005)

I have found that in terms of a diet (not dieting), that the best way to achieve a healthy eating habit is to eat 4 - 6 meals a day. For an average reasonably active male, you should have a caloric intake of of approximately 2700 calories. If you are overweight and trying to lose some excess pounds, drop your intake by 4-500 calories for a short time and then *gradually* increase to a normal level.

Breakfast should be roughly 1/3 of you daily caloric intake. with the other 2/3 spread amongst your remaining meals. the reason for this is that you have the majority of your day in order to process the calories and the other meals act as a sort of boost to the main meal of the day.

lots of vegetables, some fruits.
whole grains and nuts 
protein.

avoid refined sugars and flour.
milk is nasty. though cheese is good.

plus lots of excercise.


----------



## Elf Witch (Apr 23, 2005)

Andor said:
			
		

> Subjective




I have been following this debate with great intrest. It reminds me of the debates I have had woth family and friends and my doctor several years ago when I first went on Atkins before the low carb craze hit. 

Everyone kept telling me it would hurt my heart well my cholesrtral levels went down, my insulin levels stablized and I took less diabetic medicine and my kidneys are fine. When I argued this point I was told it was not scientfic but subjective.

Now all these scientfic studies are coming out showing that if your kidneys are normal a low carb diet does not hurt them insluin does play a big part in weight gain and not all fat is bad for you. 

Just because a scientfic study has not been done on something does not make it hookum. So saying show me a scientfic study and then I will believe it is showing a closed mind. Using the Atkins as examle again he used some studies out Switzerland based on insluin and heart disease and his own finding to develop the diet. None of the naysayers ever did any study to back up their claims. It has only been in the last three years that a real effort has been made to study the effects of the diet.    

I am not trying to hijack the thread into a debate on low carb diets I was just using it as an example because it is an example that I am aware of.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 23, 2005)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I am not trying to hijack the thread




Why not? It woudn't be the first time this thread has been hijacked.

To the others: Yeah, ten pounds in a week is more than is thought to be healthy. I know. I look at myself now compared ot then and can tell you with a fairly reasonable degree of certainty that it was fat. It sure wasn't water fat, I was drinking 3 to 4 liters of water a day.

And I don't think it was muscle -- if it was, I don't think my pot belly would have reduced, and I don't think my legs would feel all muscly instead of fatty.

In short, I don't think this diet starves you. You don't get as many calories, but you do get all the nutrients and such that you really need.


----------



## Jesus_marley (Apr 24, 2005)

generally speaking, when starting a diet, the most dramatic weight loss occurs in the first 2 -4 weeks of the diet. A radical change in eating style, foodstuffs, and exercise regimen throws your body out of equilibrium and it takes time for your body to adjust. once it has adjusted to the new habits, your weight loss will diminish dramatically. A great deal of weight (over 5 pounds) lost in the first week of a new diet is not overly alarming in and of itself but if you continue to lose weight at that rate however, it is a serious red flag.


----------



## fusangite (Apr 24, 2005)

I think you guys are making the mistake of comparing low carb diets to diets that require way more self-discipline and work way more slowly. Atkins is a tool for making a transition to a healthier life than you _would otherwise have_ not for making a transition to a healthier life than you _would ideally have._

Most of those of us who have had good experiences with Atkins simply would not have had the strength required to lose weight 80% slower for 500% more work. Now, once you're on Atkins and your blood sugar is stable, you're feeling better about your body, your energy is up and, in many cases for the first time ever, you have actually been able to take some control over your physical self, *then* you should make a transition to a healthier diet and exercise regime. Atkins is a bridge not a destination.

There is no way I could have built the confidence, willpower and energy to start exercising again without the Atkins diet providing me with my first ever experience of setting a goal for my physical body and actually realizing it after 30 years of failing and failing again.


----------



## Pbartender (Apr 24, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think you guys are making the mistake of comparing low carb diets to diets that require way more self-discipline and work way more slowly. Atkins is a tool for making a transition to a healthier life than you _would otherwise have_ not for making a transition to a healthier life than you _would ideally have._
> 
> Most of those of us who have had good experiences with Atkins simply would not have had the strength required to lose weight 80% slower for 500% more work. Now, once you're on Atkins and your blood sugar is stable, you're feeling better about your body, your energy is up and, in many cases for the first time ever, you have actually been able to take some control over your physical self, *then* you should make a transition to a healthier diet and exercise regime. Atkins is a bridge not a destination.
> 
> There is no way I could have built the confidence, willpower and energy to start exercising again without the Atkins diet providing me with my first ever experience of setting a goal for my physical body and actually realizing it after 30 years of failing and failing again.




Alright...  Now that I can understand and get behind.  The trouble is, many people using the Diet Plan of the Year (be it low-carb, low-fat, high-fiber or whatever) don't look at it that way either.  Instead of seeing as a short-term booster toward a different stable and healthy lifestyle, they see at it as a long-term solution.  Inevitably, they get frustrated at the restrictions and tired of the work.  They quit, go back to their normal eating and exercising habits, gain back all their weight, and are right back where they started (sometimes worse).

You are actually the first person I ever heard suggest using a fad diet as a bridge to an ordinary, but healthy, diet...  To be honest, I hadn't thought of it myself.  It's a great idea.

And congratulations on finding a way to make it work, Fusangite!

Oh...  I ran across a website called Calories per Hour.  Aside from calorie counters and such, the site's got some really good tips in its FAQ section.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 24, 2005)

fusangite, let me agree with Pbartender that that is the awesomeest reason I've ever heard to use atkins.

I've never had "willpower over food", and my currently diet doesn't force me to have it. The no food for a week thing I could *not* have done if I hadn't built up to it -- by simply drinking lemon juice morning and night. Which is easy, and it was a supplement to my intake. I didn't remove anything *except* for when I started not wanting as much food. My food desires became lessened over the months.

Also, here's something I remember doing about a month ago. I was at home, eating oreos. I'd eaten more than I had wanted to, but coudn't stop eating them. So, I briefly stopped long enough to do my lemon thing. The lemon juice acts a pallete cleanser. With the taste of the sugar washed out of my mouth, I could stop eating those things.

Unlike a lot of the diets here, mine hasn't required additional willpower, it has added onto my own. Like what you did with Atkins. I'm glad it worked for you, even though I'm fairly anti-Atkins in general.


----------



## Zander (Apr 25, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Also, here's something I remember doing about a month ago. I was at home, eating oreos. I'd eaten more than I had wanted to, but coudn't stop eating them. So, I briefly stopped long enough to do my lemon thing. The lemon juice acts a pallete cleanser. With the taste of the sugar washed out of my mouth, I could stop eating those things.



After not having eaten sweet foods (except fruit) for over a month, I had some cake (my mother insisted!). I found it cloyingly sugary (no one else did). It seems that I'm slowly losing my sweet tooth, which is probably a good thing. Now, if I could only do the same about salt...


----------



## Torm (Apr 25, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> You are actually the first person I ever heard suggest using a fad diet as a bridge to an ordinary, but healthy, diet...  To be honest, I hadn't thought of it myself.  It's a great idea.



Not that it wasn't good of you to point it out if so, Fusangite, but isn't this kinda what Atkins himself says in the book, and people are just missing it mostly because they are "doing the Atkins diet" by going low/no carb and not really reading it?

The reason I ask is because I had a friend - good guy, but hardly the sort to come up with new nutritional theory on his own, if you know what I mean.  He read Atkins' book, started the diet, and he told me it had phases and toward the end it was going to get to be more of just a normal healthy diet - adding back in some carbs, etc.


----------



## fusangite (Apr 25, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Not that it wasn't good of you to point it out if so, Fusangite, but isn't this kinda what Atkins himself says in the book, and people are just missing it mostly because they are "doing the Atkins diet" by going low/no carb and not really reading it?
> 
> The reason I ask is because I had a friend - good guy, but hardly the sort to come up with new nutritional theory on his own, if you know what I mean.  He read Atkins' book, started the diet, and he told me it had phases and toward the end it was going to get to be more of just a normal healthy diet - adding back in some carbs, etc.



Everything you say here is true -- the final phase is just whatever level of carbs you can sustain without gaining weight.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 25, 2005)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> Any expert you ask will tell you that 1-2 lbs. per week is the maximum healthy weight loss rate.  Anything higher than that, and you are likely losing either water weight (dehydrating yourself) or weight from non-fat tissues (losing muscle mass).  Either way it's not a good thing to do to your body, and you'll be more likely to put the weight back on afterward for two reasons...



Unless your quite obese, of course.  If so, most experts will recommend a more rapid weight loss, especially if you're already coupled with high risk factors like heart disease, etc.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 25, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Why not? It woudn't be the first time this thread has been hijacked.
> 
> To the others: Yeah, ten pounds in a week is more than is thought to be healthy. I know. I look at myself now compared ot then and can tell you with a fairly reasonable degree of certainty that it was fat. It sure wasn't water fat, I was drinking 3 to 4 liters of water a day.




How do you know you only lost fat? Did you test your ketones? You can't tell by looking in a mirror if you're losing muscle.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 25, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarin, Nakia, and myself came up with the ultimate diet regime. We called it the Diaglo/Gen Con diet.

It takes elements of the average Gen Con gamer, and applies the foolhardiness of Diaglo to it.

Hitchhike to Gen Con.
Spend all your money on gaming books.
Don't eat for 4 days.
Sleep on the ground.
Carry around a 40 pound backpack full of lead miniatures.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 25, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> How do you know you only lost fat? Did you test your ketones? You can't tell by looking in a mirror if you're losing muscle.




I sure didn't. According to webmd ... 
"Ketones are often found in a person who has not eaten (fasts) for 18 hours or longer."

Which I was doing for over a week. I wasn't doing it for the weight loss, that was a nice side effect. Also, I didn't smell bad, so I don't think I was in ketosis. If anything, I smelt better. And everyone else seemed to smell bad. Like they were filled with mucus.

My fast is called the "lemonade fast", and you can easily google it. Under that name or the more exact "master cleanser".

I was getting *plenty* of carbs. Sugars. I've already tossed out all my Grade B Syrup contains, but iirc, the amount I was going through has a lot of sugars -- I've forgotten the numbers. If you want, you can always go check your local health food store. I was going through around 12 ounces a day of the syrup.

If I was losing muscle, would I have been full of energy? Would I have been going on my normal five-mile walks? Would I have had energy at roleplaying? Let me know, as I honestly don't know.

The place I think I lost most of it is in my digestive system. I'm pretty sure it has shrunk. In that, right now a very small amount of food will fill me. Yesterday at game we had spagetti, and I just had a bit of it -- about half what I normally do -- and I was full until bedtime. Game starts at noon.

Whatcha think now?


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 25, 2005)

Here's what I think: I think this is the stupidest stuff I've ever researched, and I believe that you are gullible for believing in something which has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.

From:
http://www.ehow.com/how_13481_understand-lemonade-fast.html



> Understand that the theory behind this fast is that lemon and lime juice, while high in vitamin C, potassium and other minerals, are also astringent, which causes tissue in your body to contract, squeezing out toxins stored deep within.




There's that word again. "toxins".  Apparently the liver in our body stops working when pseudo-science is introduced into the equation.




> 2.   Realize that this fast is also designed to help your body eliminate much of your old fatty tissue, at an average rate of 2 pounds a day, with a very low risk of negative side effects. This prepares your body to build new fatty tissue. Many of the toxins stored in the old fatty tissue are also released during this fast through the usage and breakdown of the tissue.




Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! Losing 2 pounds a day is dangerous regardless of the method used to fast. And the exact same thing could be accomplished by drinking water. I just love the pseudo-science on this one. Not only is it getting rid of "toxins" (pfeh!), but toxins stored in "old fatty tissue!".  Really, I wish someone would define "toxins" for me.




> 3.   Keep in mind that people also believe this fast eliminates and dissolves accumulated mucus throughout your body, helping to clear up the flu, asthma, hay fever, sinus or bronchial troubles, as well as colds and various allergies harbored within mucus. Cholesterol deposits in your arteries and veins also respond well to the intense cleansing power of lemon juice and cayenne pepper.




Last I checked, flus, asthma, hay fever, sinus and bronchial problems don't just lounge around in the body waiting for their number to get drawn. If this worked, every asthmatic in the world would follow this technique. And the only place "mucus" resides is in the sinuses, not throughout the body. Also, cold is a virus, and isn't even in the same category as allergies. And at the biological, chemical level, there is nothing "intensely cleansing" about lemon juice of cayenne pepper. By this argument, eating nothing but jalapenos would make me breathe fire.




> 4.   Realize that in addition to the cleaning powers of the ingredients of this fast, in general, juice fasting flushes your system with large amounts of liquid, allows your digestive organs to rest, and reduces the fermentation activity in your internal organs by supplying very little sugar or starch to your body.




Sorry. The digestive organs never rest. And what the hell is the fermentation activity in my internal organs?  Since when do our bodies produce wine?




> 5.   Understand that, because all the foods that most of your internal organs are constantly striving to filter, process and digest are eliminated, all of your organs are given a chance to rejuvenate themselves.




You know, if I did nothing but eat doritos and masturbated every day, my internal organs would continue to rejuvinate every day. It's just what they do. Drinking lemon juice has absolutely jack and sh*t to do with this.


This whole thing boils down to this:
If it works for you, Eolin - great. Continue to do your thing, and don't let me (or science) try to convince you otherwise. I seriously recommend talking to your health professional regarding *any* diet regimen before starting one, lemonade fast, Atkins, or whatever. These things are simply too dangerous otherwise. 

But you simply can not convince me that this thing has any valid scientific benefit since there are absolutely zero scientific studies on the topic. It's unproven, and unfounded, and for you to defend it is simply an utter waste of time. You can believe it, and have opinions about it which is fine. But you just can't argue about this from a factual standpoint.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 25, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> I sure didn't. According to webmd ...
> "Ketones are often found in a person who has not eaten (fasts) for 18 hours or longer."




Ketones are the result of what happens when your body converts muscle tissue into energy. Converting muscles into food is quicker and easier than converting fat into energy. It's why exercising is a necessary addition to dieting so that you don't lose muscle mass.


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 25, 2005)

Curtis, can I just step in here and say real quick that you are DA MAN!?

OK, thanks!


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 25, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Curtis, can I just step in here and say real quick that you are DA MAN!?
> 
> OK, thanks!




You could, but then that'd be off-topic.


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 25, 2005)

You know, I have a friend who lost twenty pounds by eating basically nothing and drinking only Mt. Dew for a few weeks.  He called it the Mt. Dew diet, we call it what happens when you f###ing starve yourself.  It's almost a guarantee that without some protein you're losing muscle in the process, it'd be hard to notice in just a week.  Though most diets and weight loss involves losing muscle, especially with fatty people, it's still a good idea to minimize that amount.  You want more proof that fasting isn't a great idea, watch a "Feed the kids of Africa" commercial, and notice that they're all skin and bones.  That's what will happen when you starve yourself, it's not healthy, it won't make you look good, and it's not at all the best solution.  Any fast will cause you too lose weight, drinking lemon juice and saying that the lemon juice is responsible is ridiculous.


----------



## Torm (Apr 25, 2005)

I know y'all aren't really talking to me about this, but I just want to clear up real quick that _I_ was never talking about starving myself with the Pipe Cleaner - I like to eat too much for that.   At most, maybe giving it a few hours to get in there and do its thing. But then, I'm not using it for a diet, either - just an aid to digestion.

When people think I'm crazy, I like for it to be for the right reasons, not misconceptions.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 25, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Ketones are the result of what happens when your body converts muscle tissue into energy. Converting muscles into food is quicker and easier than converting fat into energy. It's why exercising is a necessary addition to dieting so that you don't lose muscle mass.




I'm going to have to post a bit now, as I'll be away from the computer as I take a 3 mile walk home.

Again, according to webmd, ketones are *also* what happens when we burn fat.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 25, 2005)

Bryan898 said:
			
		

> fast will cause you too lose weight, drinking lemon juice and saying that the lemon juice is responsible is ridiculous.




Duh. Again, I wasn't starving myself, which I've stated many times. I was getting around 1200 to 1500 calories a day, and a whole lot of carbohydrates.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 25, 2005)

Here's the hard one. 



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> Here's what I think: I think this is the stupidest stuff I've ever researched, and I believe that you are gullible for believing in something which has absolutely no basis in scientific fact.



At one time, the atkins diet had no basis in scientific fact. Go back far enough, neither did non-uniform ciruclar movement of the planets. Same goes for everything that has been tryed. Saying that isn't now backed by science does not say that it is wrong, just that it has not been experimented with under sciences controlled conditions.

Also, its a big ole personal attack to call me gullible. And, indirectly, stupid. It has worked, and I've noticed really wonderful differences since I first began the lemon juice 4 months ago. So what if it hasn't been tested under controlled conditions? It works, and that's what I'm concerned with.

When you call it "stupid", that just says to me that you cannot yet accept it, as it is so far outside your paradigm. Six months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. I'm not gullible, I'm experimental. And this works.



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> From:
> http://www.ehow.com/how_13481_understand-lemonade-fast.html



I don't rightly know if that's the same website I've read, or if you googled for it. The origional book is called "Master Cleanser" and its bvy Richard Burroughs, I believe.


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> There's that word again. "toxins".  Apparently the liver in our body stops working when pseudo-science is introduced into the equation.



No, it works. It just gets overloaded by the sheer amount of absolute  in our world today.


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> Last I checked, flus, asthma, hay fever, sinus and bronchial problems don't just lounge around in the body waiting for their number to get drawn. If this worked, every asthmatic in the world would follow this technique. And the only place "mucus" resides is in the sinuses, not throughout the body. Also, cold is a virus, and isn't even in the same category as allergies. And at the biological, chemical level, there is nothing "intensely cleansing" about lemon juice of cayenne pepper. By this argument, eating nothing but jalapenos would make me breathe fire.



My asthma and allergies are ridiculously lessened after those nine days. I'm sure it'll come back, but for now I can smell the flowers, cuddle the dog, etc without worrying about my allergies. That's never happened before.

Why mention jalepenos? They contain different chemicals. By your own standards, they shoudn't have the same sort of affect. Cayenne pepper is known to raise metabolism, why do you find it so incredibly impossible that it can't have other neat properties western science doesn't know about?



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> Sorry. The digestive organs never rest. And what the hell is the fermentation activity in my internal organs?  Since when do our bodies produce wine?



Ok, now you're just being silly. And you know it. "rest" in the article means not working as hard. For instance, my heart beats less rapidly when I'm sitting than when I'm running. When my car is idling, the engine is at a much lower RPM than when I'm one the highway. Its that sort of rest. It allows your body to not have to worry about getting rid of new toxins, so instead you can heal yourself.

And I'm really not sure about what it said about fermentation. Perhaps I'll check that link when I get home. For now though, I'll at least say that not all fermentation produces wine.



			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> You know, if I did nothing but eat doritos and masturbated every day, my internal organs would continue to rejuvinate every day. It's just what they do. Drinking lemon juice has absolutely jack and sh*t to do with this.



Rejuvenate, sure. But less. Its just what entropy does.


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> This whole thing boils down to this:
> If it works for you, Eolin - great. Continue to do your thing, and don't let me (or science) try to convince you otherwise. I seriously recommend talking to your health professional regarding *any* diet regimen before starting one, lemonade fast, Atkins, or whatever. These things are simply too dangerous otherwise.



You assume I have a health care professional. I havn't been able to afford medical insurance in four years, and when I was on it I had a constant stream of drugs for my allergies. When I decided to stop taking those, I felt tremdensouly better. My mind cleared, and the world was beautiful. Its actually a lot like the difference women tell me they get when they go off the pill.

As for dangerous? I'm monitoring my condition, as are my loved ones. I'm better in touch with my body than I've ever been, and I've learned to listen.


			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> But you simply can not convince me that this thing has any valid scientific benefit since there are absolutely zero scientific studies on the topic. It's unproven, and unfounded, and for you to defend it is simply an utter waste of time. You can believe it, and have opinions about it which is fine. But you just can't argue about this from a factual standpoint.




I know I cannot convince you, and that's the said part. There are no studies, what there are is anecdotal evidence. One of the things I did was to look around the net for first-hand experiences. I figured if somebody had a bad one they'd post it. I coudn't find it. 

As for not being able to argue from a factual standpoint, that's just plain wrong. I can easily argue (and am) that I feel better, that I'm in better shape, etc etc. While those can be dismissed, the weight I have lost (30 pounds, 4 months) is an undeniable fact. It can't be argued, and I don't see you disagreeing with it. 

For me to defend it *to you* is a waste of time, merely because you will never believe it. I opened my mind to possibilities of things that I don't understand, and I am the better for it. And again, six months ago I would have been on your side arguing against the crazy man. But now I've learned there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreampt of in Science's philosphy.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 25, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> At one time, the atkins diet had no basis in scientific fact.




It still doesn't. It, like any other diet, can work if you're eating fewer calories than your body uses in a given period; there's no way around thermodynamics sadly. But that doesn't mean that it works the way it claims, and the most recent and largest studies are backing that up.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 25, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Sorry. The digestive organs never rest. And what the hell is the fermentation activity in my internal organs?  Since when do our bodies produce wine?




Glycolysis, in the absence of oxygen, progresses down a fermentative pathway rather than jumping into the Krebs/Citric Acid Cycle. So yes, when tissue doesn't get oxygen in sufficient amounts it defaults to this secondary method to produce energy, though it results in a buildup of lactic acid as a waste product.

However I seriously doubt whoever wrote up that screed about Master Cleanser knows anything about fermentation or basic biochemistry at all.

Add that to the bunk about cleaning out mucus and cholesterol. *chuckle* You'd die without mucus most of your internal organs. The Master Cleanser folks are swindling the ignorant and nothing more.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 25, 2005)

This is just getting downright unfriendly.

How're they swindling anything? Burroughs is dead. Everything I got for it, I got either from Walmart or from the local health food stores. Nobody associated with Master Cleanser got a dime. Unless you're claiming they are in collusion with the makers of maple syrup, and the companies that grow lemons.

Edit: Also, I positively love the fact that the people arguing against me are also arguing against each other about what this would do, fermentation, etc. Its fantastic that they can't get the story straight. 

What's also great is that I have tested this as well as I am able, and they simply dismiss it. "discrediting the source" its called. Its something scientists *shoudn't* do, merely because science rests upon testing hypothesis.

But that's what science has gotten to. More of a dogma than continued experimentation.


----------



## Torm (Apr 25, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> This is just getting downright unfriendly.



I concur, and I mentioned it before. I will never understand why some people think the best approach to convince someone of something is to first _attack_ their position and their intelligence for believing it. All that _really_ does is make people angry and on the defensive - and now they are willing to defend what they believed to begin with in the face of evidence that might have changed their minds through polite rational discourse before.



			
				Eolin said:
			
		

> But that's what science has gotten to. More of a dogma than continued experimentation.



And, it would appear the attacks can come from both sides. Hmm...

Folks - Flies. Honey. Vinegar. _Cliche_ for a reason.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

Torm, mine wasn't an ad hominem. And it was, what shall I say, when I was a little angry. And its what I think about a lot of modern medicine is general nowadays. Not just in this thread, but in general.

When I was a kid, I was given an inhaler for what was pretty mild asthma. I wasn't really told how often to use it, and nobody knew what possible side affect existed. I'm pretty sure that sh*t, and little exercise, is what turned me from a skinny 10 year to a fat 12 year old.


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 26, 2005)

> Duh. Again, I wasn't starving myself, which I've stated many times. I was getting around 1200 to 1500 calories a day, and a whole lot of carbohydrates.




Sorry I misunderstood, when I hear fast I think of someone not eating.  What's your average daily intake like?  The average male eats something like 2700 calories a day, if they cut down to your number and walked briskly 4-5 miles a day they may very well lose 10 pounds in a week as well.  What I'm saying is that in all likelihood, just cutting calories and exercise is what caused your weightloss and feeling good/ healthier is a side effect of that weightloss.  The lemons may have very little to do with the weight loss or good feelings.  A more accurate test would be to keep your average calorie intakes and eating habits, but add your lemons.  If you lose ten pounds after that, then I'd be somewhat amazed at the weightloss effects of lemons.


----------



## The_Gunslinger658 (Apr 26, 2005)

Hi-

You can always go on the "Stalingrad Diet" Water and wall paperpast   

Seriously, Do cardio every otherday and waight training on non cardio days. Do not eat crap after 6pm. Fruits, water and so on is all good.


Scott


----------



## Torm (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure that sh*t, and little exercise, is what turned me from a skinny 10 year to a fat 12 year old.



You could be right. But I would think it more likely that you were bulking up for puberty, and the little exercise and the effects of the inhaler AND the asthma on your respiration are what kept you from utilizing it in a healthy way DURING puberty. (I had an inhaler, too, from about 8 until I was 11 or 12, and got pretty bulky, myself.)

And as for modern medicine, some of it IS in a sorry state - but don't blame science. Science _works_, when it is allowed to. Blame human greed. :\ 



			
				Eolin said:
			
		

> And it was, what shall I say, when I was a little angry.



Two wrongs...yada yada. Another fine cliche.  

But, as Helga the Pony Woman used to say, "Two Wrongs don't make a Right - but three do." So that's why I'm harpin' at y'all.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

Bryan898 said:
			
		

> Sorry I misunderstood, when I hear fast I think of someone not eating.



No problem. There have been a lot of misunderstandings in this thread, and I think you're the first to be big enough to admit it. But, I wasn't eating. I was on a completely liquid diet.

But, as for not taking in anything for a week? That *would* be asinine. The Grade B Maple Syrup contains a bunch of nutrients. And a lot of sugars -- both complex and simple. Its good stuff. Check it out in your local health food store sometime.



			
				Bryan898 said:
			
		

> What's your average daily intake like?



Something around 2200, I'm pretty sure. That's why I've been losing over a pound a week pretty consistently for months.


			
				Bryan898 said:
			
		

> The average male eats something like 2700 calories a day, if they cut down to your number and walked briskly 4-5 miles a day they may very well lose 10 pounds in a week as well.



I didn't walk briskly. Also, according to How Stuff Works, to get rid of a pound you need to get rid of 3500 calories. Let's do some math and see if it works out. That'd be 35 000 Calories to burn off ten pounds. 2700 - 1500 (high end) is 1200. 1200 a day, times 7 days is 8400. Also according to How Stuff Works, walking a mile is about a hundred calories. I went on only two walks that week, and each is about five miles. That's another 1000 calories. Making 9400 calories burned. For sake of easiness, let's call that 10 000. That still leaves 25 000(!!!) calories unaccounted for. I don't know where that weight went, but given that that's a really big number, and given how I feel, I'm going to go ahead and continue to believe that the Master Cleanser works.



			
				Bryan898 said:
			
		

> A more accurate test would be to keep your average calorie intakes and eating habits, but add your lemons.  If you lose ten pounds after that, then I'd be somewhat amazed at the weightloss effects of lemons.




This is almost exactly what I did when I first started changing, four months ago. That's when I went on lemons -- one a day, more if I wanted it. My dietary intake has been shrinking, as I havn't been as hungry. I made very little effort to not eat, and just the week before I went on my fast I ate a "King Size" thing of Whoppers. Yummy Chocolate.

The lemons have a host of beneficial affect. Given it a try, Bryan. You might well be amazed if you do. Add in that lemons are counted amongst the world's healthiest foods, and there's hardly any reason *not* to try a lemon a day.

The best part of my fast was that I wasn't ever really hungry. Sure, up until the third day I was getting hungry, but after that it was easy. Whenever I felt the slightest bit hungry, I'd just drink more lemonade. Sure beats what I'm doing now -- waiting for a roomate to get home so we can all (3 of us) have dinner together.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> And as for modern medicine, some of it IS in a sorry state - but don't blame science. Science _works_, when it is allowed to. Blame human greed. :\




I blame mostly the scientific community being ingrained in its current dogma. In the history of everything that's cool, there comes a point where it is heavily weighed down by its awesome history and finds it hard to get aware from the memes it has accepted. the scientific community is no different.

Of course, the philosophical community is no different, either. That's why I'm going to a graduate school that doesn't even have a history compoenent to its philosophy masters program. Carnegie Mellon University f*ckin r0x.


----------



## Wereserpent (Apr 26, 2005)

My weight is really weird.  One day I weigh 195 lbs, the next I weight 190.  It is really weird. :\


----------



## Desdichado (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> How're they swindling anything? Burroughs is dead.



Well, yeah.  Too bad, too -- nobody could write planetary romances like the master...


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 26, 2005)

> That still leaves 25 000(!!!) calories unaccounted for. I don't know where that weight went, but given that that's a really big number, and given how I feel, I'm going to go ahead and continue to believe that the Master Cleanser works.




Your body requires so many calories per day to function.  As I stated much earlier in the thread each pound of muscle mass burns roughly 50 calories.  When you cut calories out of your diet your body has to use its energy reserves, or fat, to meet that daily recommended calorie intake.  So it was used by your body just to function.



> The lemons have a host of beneficial affect.




Most fresh fruit does.  However, I'm not a fan of lemons, nor am I in need of a diet.



			
				Galeros said:
			
		

> My weight is really weird. One day I weigh 195 lbs, the next I weight 190. It is really weird.




What time do you weigh yourself?  Your body weight fluctuates during the day.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> But that's what science has gotten to. More of a dogma than continued experimentation.




You're not a scientist and it's obvious.


----------



## Wereserpent (Apr 26, 2005)

Bryan898 said:
			
		

> What time do you weigh yourself?  Your body weight fluctuates during the day.




Usually around 2:00 PM-4:00 PM.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> You're not a scientist and it's obvious.




Never claimed I was. What I have said, multiple times, is that I'm a philosopher. Of Science.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

Bryan898 said:
			
		

> Your body requires so many calories per day to function.  As I stated much earlier in the thread each pound of muscle mass burns roughly 50 calories.  When you cut calories out of your diet your body has to use its energy reserves, or fat, to meet that daily recommended calorie intake.  So it was used by your body just to function.




Did you miss the point of my math? Completely?

The 2700 calories is my maintenance. Then I started finding out how much I had burned. Then I found out how much LESS that was than the 10 pounds. And it was most of it. So,  

It was done on the quick, so it might've been wrong. Anybody want to check it? One of the haters?

Edit: I have to leave. Two beautiful girls, both graduate students in science-related fields want to have a fun night with me.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin, you asked me what I thought. I told you. I think you're gullible. I think this is pseudo-science with no basis in fact. I think there are a lot of misconceptions, myths, old wives' tales, and misinformation being tossed about with regards to diet and our health.

This very idea of "cleansing toxins" is akin to palmistry, astrology, or raki healing. It's complete and utter bunk.


Even Doomed Battalions is at fault.



> Seriously, Do cardio every otherday and waight training on non cardio days. Do not eat crap after 6pm. Fruits, water and so on is all good.




There is no evidence that "eating crap after 6pm" is bad for us. This is another common myth. We need a certain amount of calories per day. It doesn't matter when we eat them, so long as we eat them. There is no evidence to suggest that if we eat a large meal right before bed that it's going to make us fatter.


----------



## fusangite (Apr 26, 2005)

I think a big problem with this debate is that people view diets as an exclusively physiological thing. There are huge psychological components to these things. Why do we need diets in the first place? Because we have trouble exercising self-control. The most important criterion for a diet is whether it is psychologically compatible to the dieter to the point where he or she can generally follow it. Of course jogging and weight training every day you're on a diet will make the diet go better *IF* you can do that. More often than not, if following a diet is really onerous, people fall off it, feeling that they simply don't have the capacity to diet. 

Now, I'm not a big fan of this cleansing thing but it's helping a guy lose weight. Why tell him to do something that's much harder that may have the net result of him not dieting at all. If you undermine his faith in his diet while simultaneously suggesting a course of action that is much more difficult, the net effect is actually to discourage him from dieting at all because you're making it "too hard."

Nobody decides to become fat. Obesity is a disease of the will not of the body. The discourse on this thread is increasinly moving towards an assumption of absolute control of the body through a perfect will. If this were the case, nobody would need to diet in the first place because nobody would have gotten fat.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Never claimed I was. What I have said, multiple times, is that I'm a philosopher. Of Science.




Not only does this make no sense, it's a sentence fragment. There's no such thing as a "philosopher of science" if that is what you are intending. You could be a philosopher, or you could be a scientist. The only area I can see them merging is in the area of bio-ethics. This discussion has nothing to do with that.

What are you, really?


----------



## fusangite (Apr 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Not only does this make no sense, it's a sentence fragment. There's no such thing as a "philosopher of science" if that is what you are intending. You could be a philosopher, or you could be a scientist. The only area I can see them merging is in the area of bio-ethics. This discussion has nothing to do with that.
> 
> What are you, really?



Excuse me but there are philosophers of science and historians of science with doctorates from philosophy departments, history departments or special interdisciplinary programs in this area like this one: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/ihpst/. These people are most emphatically qualified to discuss science.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Excuse me but there are philosophers of science and historians of science with doctorates from philosophy departments, history departments or special interdisciplinary programs in this area like this one: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/ihpst/. These people are most emphatically qualified to discuss science.




And like I said earlier, I'm a soon-to-be graduate student. In mostly the philosophy of science. At a damn-good school. The only Canadian school I applied to was Western Toronto. They're the only school (of 12) that I never heard back from. It makes me sad, I wanted to leave America.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Not only does this make no sense, it's a sentence fragment. There's no such thing as a "philosopher of science" if that is what you are intending. You could be a philosopher, or you could be a scientist. The only area I can see them merging is in the area of bio-ethics. This discussion has nothing to do with that.
> 
> What are you, really?




Wow. This amazes me. Really. You're asserting that you know a *whole* lot more than you do. Here's something experts rarely know: You're area of expertise does not make you an expert in other areas.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Not only does this make no sense, it's a sentence fragment. There's no such thing as a "philosopher of science" if that is what you are intending. You could be a philosopher, or you could be a scientist. The only area I can see them merging is in the area of bio-ethics. This discussion has nothing to do with that.
> 
> What are you, really?



Philosophy, at its root, is the study of _all_ knowledge.  Aristotle covered biology along with ethics, politics, poetry, and so on.  The term _natural philosophy_ describes this branch of philosophy.  It is a relatively recent development to divide the areas of knowledge into highly specialized fields.  There is no inherent exclusivity to being a "philosopher of science."

This is why the highest degree a university awards is called the "doctorate of philosophy (PhD)."

(The philogist in me cringes slightly at the mixing of Latin and Greek to form the term _philosophy of science_ since "science" is probably itself a literal synonym for "philosophy.")


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I think a big problem with this debate is that people view diets as an exclusively physiological thing. There are huge psychological components to these things. Why do we need diets in the first place? Because we have trouble exercising self-control. The most important criterion for a diet is whether it is psychologically compatible to the dieter to the point where he or she can generally follow it. Of course jogging and weight training every day you're on a diet will make the diet go better *IF* you can do that. More often than not, if following a diet is really onerous, people fall off it, feeling that they simply don't have the capacity to diet.
> 
> Now, I'm not a big fan of this cleansing thing but it's helping a guy lose weight. Why tell him to do something that's much harder that may have the net result of him not dieting at all. If you undermine his faith in his diet while simultaneously suggesting a course of action that is much more difficult, the net effect is actually to discourage him from dieting at all because you're making it "too hard."
> 
> Nobody decides to become fat. Obesity is a disease of the will not of the body. The discourse on this thread is increasinly moving towards an assumption of absolute control of the body through a perfect will. If this were the case, nobody would need to diet in the first place because nobody would have gotten fat.





Best. Reply. Ever.

Seriously. But don't worry, nobody has discouraged me from my diet. I know it works. And its worked for everyone that has tryed it. And, besides, Julie of "How Stuff Works" agrees with me.

What still bugs the analytical part of my brain is those missing 7 pounds or so. That's weight that fell off, and thermodynamics doesn't claim it should. So, I don't know where it went. I'm still weighting for someone to explain to me where, exactly, that extra weight went during that week of Cleansing.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> What still bugs the analytical part of my brain is those missing 7 pounds or so. That's weight that fell off, and thermodynamics doesn't claim it should. So, I don't know where it went. I'm still weighting for someone to explain to me where, exactly, that extra weight went during that week of Cleansing.



Into the Ether?


----------



## Torm (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> What still bugs the analytical part of my brain is those missing 7 pounds or so. That's weight that fell off, and thermodynamics doesn't claim it should. So, I don't know where it went. I'm still weighting for someone to explain to me where, exactly, that extra weight went during that week of Cleansing.



Well, I keep hearing (although it may be an urban legend) that there is some insane amount of undigested meat in our colons most of the time, that never really reduces because as some gets finished, we put more in. If you went through a week without putting more in....


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> And like I said earlier, I'm a soon-to-be graduate student. In mostly the philosophy of science. At a damn-good school. The only Canadian school I applied to was Western Toronto. They're the only school (of 12) that I never heard back from. It makes me sad, I wanted to leave America.




So if you are majoring in "philosophy of science" why the .? Why say "I am a philosopher. of science."  Why?


----------



## Henry (Apr 26, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Well, I keep hearing (although it may be an urban legend) that there is some insane amount of undigested meat in our colons most of the time, that never really reduces because as some gets finished, we put more in. If you went through a week without putting more in....




If I had to guess, the missing seven pounds would be water weight loss, due to the severe amount of electrolytes in Eolin's "Master Cleanser." Same idea with drinking seawater.


----------



## fusangite (Apr 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> So if you are majoring in "philosophy of science" why the .? Why say "I am a philosopher. of science."  Why?



Because that's how your job is described. People with PhDs in history are called "historians;" people with PhDs in philosophy are called philosophers. That's one of the perks of getting the degree, actually.


----------



## Chairman7w (Apr 26, 2005)

Add me to the group that believes that more exercise is needed.  

1 to 2 hours a week just aint gonna get it.  Saying "I don't have time," aint gonna get it either.  You have to make the time.  Less gaming, less TV, something.  Heck, get a treadmill and mix the exercise with other things (like gaming or TV).  Seriously, the other stuff just won't work if you don't exercise more.  1 hour a day and you'll lose weight, period.  

Running is about the best thing there is.  Just drink a lot of water, don't eat like a pig, go run an hour a day and watch the pounds fall off.


----------



## tarchon (Apr 26, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Because that's how your job is described. People with PhDs in history are called "historians;" people with PhDs in philosophy are called philosophers. That's one of the perks of getting the degree, actually.



On the other hand, I'm a doctor of philosophy and I'm neither a doctor nor a philosopher. Not really a master either, but I can claim to be a bachelor.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> So if you are majoring in "philosophy of science" why the .? Why say "I am a philosopher. of science."  Why?




I'm not majoring in "Philosophy of Science". I got my two bachelor degrees a year ago, as of May. I said I'm a Philosopher of Science because its a cool name, and more or less accurate. Its accurate in that I've had many courses in the philosophy of science, and its what I'll be doing in the Fall. Its inaccurate if it led you to believe I was claiming to have a PhD, which definetly isn't the case. Yet, anyway.

Besides, earlier it let me say in my Vengman-esque way "Back off man, I'm a Philosopher. Of Science." Which I've wanted to find a reason to say for a while.


----------



## tarchon (Apr 26, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Not only does this make no sense, it's a sentence fragment. There's no such thing as a "philosopher of science" if that is what you are intending. You could be a philosopher, or you could be a scientist. The only area I can see them merging is in the area of bio-ethics. This discussion has nothing to do with that.
> 
> What are you, really?



Philosophy of science is a perfectly legitimate branch of philosophy, e.g., Karl Popper. It has real live journals, faculties, and everything. (It's generally more epistemology than axiology.)


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> If I had to guess, the missing seven pounds would be water weight loss, due to the severe amount of electrolytes in Eolin's "Master Cleanser." Same idea with drinking seawater.




You know, I don't really know what this means. Does drinking 3 to 4 liters of water mixed with good stuff let your body release older water? 

Also, I've felt as if my intensines have shrunk. I don't have a way to emperically observe that, but it sure is how I feel. and its in line with what the Master Cleanser literature claims.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 26, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Philosophy of science is a perfectly legitimate branch of philosophy, e.g., Karl Popper. It has real live journals, faculties, and everything. (It's generally more epistemology than axiology.)





Also, thanks to everyone who popped out to the wordwook to defend the existence of the philosophy of science. I've been out most of the day, so I havn't really been able to. My writing sample was a philosphy of science paper. Its describes why it is that we shouldn't just write off all ad-hoc hypotheses, as some have been quite useful to scientific discovery. And it shows what the differences are between the useful ones and the ones that are bunk. With a Baysean explanation for why that is.

Edit: Now I have to leave again. I've got to go help a friend move. Expect me to pop in occasionally during the day.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 26, 2005)

Torm said:
			
		

> Well, I keep hearing (although it may be an urban legend) that there is some insane amount of undigested meat in our colons most of the time, that never really reduces because as some gets finished, we put more in. If you went through a week without putting more in....




It is an urban legend.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 26, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Also, I've felt as if my intensines have shrunk. I don't have a way to emperically observe that, but it sure is how I feel. and its in line with what the Master Cleanser literature claims.




They actually have in a way, but that's not the Master Cleanser doing that.

It's simply a reaction of your intestines and stomach to you eating less volume of food. If you reduce your volume of food and keep it that way for a period of time, your GI tract is going to contract slightly, back to its nominal volume without being stretched as much by a larger amount of food. A byproduct of this is that you feel slightly less hungry. You eat less and over time you don't feel as hungry constantly as you did initially when you decreased the total amount of food you ate. This doesn't have to do with caloric intake, but just the raw volume of solid food and how it impacts the size of the stomach and intestines as they expand to accept its passage.


----------



## Torm (Apr 26, 2005)

Shemeska said:
			
		

> It is an urban legend.



Okee dokee.


----------



## der_kluge (Apr 26, 2005)

Speaking of urban legends - more on the "8 glasses of water per day" myth:

http://www.snopes.com/toxins/water.htm


----------



## fusangite (Apr 26, 2005)

Chairman7w said:
			
		

> Add me to the group that believes that more exercise is needed.
> 
> 1 to 2 hours a week just aint gonna get it.  Saying "I don't have time," aint gonna get it either.  You have to make the time.  Less gaming, less TV, something.  Heck, get a treadmill and mix the exercise with other things (like gaming or TV).  Seriously, the other stuff just won't work if you don't exercise more.  1 hour a day and you'll lose weight, period.
> 
> Running is about the best thing there is.  Just drink a lot of water, don't eat like a pig, go run an hour a day and watch the pounds fall off.



You seem not to have read or perhaps just not comprehended my post on this issue. Tell me: if someone exercises 5 minutes a day, isn't it better than exercising 0 minutes a day? How about this: is it better for someone to diet and not exercise to go from 300lbs to 250lbs or is it better for them not to diet at all?

Telling people that because they're not prepared to suffer through an entire hour of exercise every day that they might as well not do anything about their health is the kind of crap that keeps people fat, unfit and depressed.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 27, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I'm a doctor of philosophy and I'm neither a doctor nor a philosopher. Not really a master either, but I can claim to be a bachelor.



I'll off in the fall to begin my studies in pursuit of becoming a Juris Doctor . . .


----------



## ssampier (Apr 27, 2005)

> Regular coffee and tea drinkers become accustomed to caffeine and lose little, if any, fluid. In a study published in the October issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, researchers at the Center for Human Nutrition in Omaha measured how different combinations of water, coffee and caffeinated sodas affected the hydration status of 18 healthy adults who drink caffeinated beverages routinely.




I'm not trying to lose weight*, but if I drank 8 glasses of water a day, I'd have to use the restroom every 10 minutes; three to four times a day is enough for me, thanks!

*I'd like to lose inches instead.


----------



## two (Apr 27, 2005)

*Reganing taste*

One great thing about changing your diet away from the standard American fast-food processed-food high-sugar corn-syrup-in-everything heavy-preservative etc. standard fare is that it gives your taste buds a chance to recover.

Somebody mentioned cake being too sweet after a month of going without heavy sweets.  That's a very good thing.  Most cakes ARE too sweet.  And you can't taste much else but sweet when you eat them.  However, once your palate gets a little more refined (yes, I will use the word refined, in that you can now taste things you could not before) and you are satisfied with lower levels of "sweet" in desserts, it opens the door for other flavors -- nuts, yeast, the grains in the flour itself, fruits, etc.

It's really a wonderful and fun side effect of taking control of your diet and ridding yourself of junk.

Honestly, you will get to the point (about 5-6 months I suspect) when you will take a bite of Domino's pizza and think "what the hell is this cardboard sweet overcheesed crap?"  And you won't want to eat it, not because it's "processed junk food and bad for you" rather because it honestly tastes like what it is:  cheap.  You will reject it on grounds other than "calories" or what have you.  Your taste and awareness have advanced too much for that stuff.  It's great.

Downside:  you can't be satisfied with a bag of oreos anymore.

Upside:  the pleasure you get from high quality foods will be incredibly greater than the paltry pleasure of something really low-grade like oreos.

The goal of a diet is weight loss, after all, but a life-style change even better.  

Doing away with high-fructose corn syrup is in itself a huge step.  If you can do this -- (and it's not tough, just a pain at first learning what has it because so much has it) -- you will automatically, and by default, stop eating 99% of the junk that's most bad for you.  Because high-fructose corn syrup is in everything that's made cheaply and shoddily.  Low-grade breads; low-grade desserts; low-grade pasta sauces; low-grade X, Y, Z.  (includes pizza dough, of course, pizza sauce too, often, from chain restaurants)

No quality food includes high fructose corn syrup, period.  It's one of the great "easy to remember" rules.  Before you buy something, check for HFCS.  If it's there, put it back on the shelf and buy another brand that doesn't have it.  Very easy, very rewarding.  If no brand doesn't have it, go to a better grocery store.

Plus, you are rewarding companies for not producing schlock.  That's always nice.

*good luck everyone!*


----------



## tarchon (Apr 27, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to lose weight*, but if I drank 8 glasses of water a day, I'd have to use the restroom every 10 minutes; three to four times a day is enough for me, thanks!



Sounds like good exercise. I will half seriously note that fidgeting has been found to relate to "natural" slimness.


----------



## Torm (Apr 27, 2005)

But, but - what about our Mountain Dew?! You're in off-topic, but this _is_ still a gamers' site, you know! You're trying to start a riot, aren't you?!


----------



## Eolin (Apr 27, 2005)

Two, you rock. That's great advice.

One of the many things that has happened me over the now-nearly five months is that coke disapeared from my diet. I suspect this has had a bigger impact on my health and wellbeing than I really give it credit for.

A few weeks ago, I tryed to drink coke -- there was some late-night gaming. I coudn't stand it. It was awful. This stuff I used to swear by now did little more than make me cringe. My taste buds were on fire with the sweetness, I hated it.

So i cut a lemon in half, and cleansed it right off my pallete. Wonderful stuff, lemons.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Apr 27, 2005)

Too much Coke-drinking will mess up your kidneys sure enough! I used to drink the stuff all the time at work before we switched to Pepsi. And many a time, my side would hurt and I'd then have to switch to water to flush that crap out.


----------



## Bryan898 (Apr 27, 2005)

> One of the many things that has happened me over the now-nearly five months is that coke disapeared from my diet. I suspect this has had a bigger impact on my health and wellbeing than I really give it credit for.




Probably, I read an article once that said Americans in general would lose an average 15 pounds a year if they cut pop out of their diet.  (I'm an Iowan, it's pop, not soda.)


----------



## tarchon (Apr 27, 2005)

I stopped drinking soda regularly (maybe once, twice a week now) and I think I lost maybe a pound or so, not that I have a lot of excess to lose though.


----------



## two (Apr 27, 2005)

Yes, soda is quite hideous for you.  There are a LOT of scientific studies showing that the human body has a very hard time dealing with high-fructose corn syrup in small, medium, and large quantities.  It is not only linked to weight gain but the really phenominal increase in diabetes, particularly early-onset (age 12-30).  

Scary stuff.  

Definately cut back or give up soda if you can possibly manage it.  Nothing but good will result.  Substitite ANY other caffinated beverage for a net gain. 

One curiosity of the American culinary scene is the "cheaper is better" mentality.  For example, let's say a restaurant started advertising a "burger for 25 cents."

That's right, 25 cents, or even a dime.

Ye olde typical american things "durn, that sure is cheap, I'll get 4 for a buck!" and rushes over.

Other cultures would think "uh, what does it mean that they can sell a hamburger for 25 cents?"  and take the extra step of asking, "do I WANT to eat something that is that cheap and thus is using absolutely the lowest grade meat/bread/condiments/cheese possible?"  The reasonable answer is: "no."

There is a real disadvantage to cheap food.  In America, it's pretty clear.  The lower classes, the poor, and the un- or under-educated are heavier on average than the middle class, which is heavier on average than the upper middle class, which is etc. compared to the wealthy.

Cheap food is readily available in America.  It's quite unhealthy, but available (even been to Sam's Club?  *shudders*).  

The trick is not to eat (or desire) the cheapest possible food.  Or even the 2nd cheapest.  Rather, the goal is high quality food (which doesn't have to be expensive; produce, after all, is very cheap per pound).

But that's obvious.  The trick is getting it done in practice. 

It's worth it folks!  

Go team!  

Good luck!

Throw away that soda!


----------



## tarchon (Apr 27, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Definately cut back or give up soda if you can possibly manage it.  Nothing but good will result.  Substitite ANY other caffinated beverage for a net gain.



Kahlua worked for me.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 27, 2005)

tarchon said:
			
		

> Kahlua worked for me.




Not having caffeine in my diet worked for me. Strangely enough, I didn't even notice the coke falling out of my diet. My thirst for it just faded away.


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 27, 2005)

two said:
			
		

> Yes, soda is quite hideous for you.  There are a LOT of scientific studies showing that the human body has a very hard time dealing with high-fructose corn syrup in small, medium, and large quantities.  It is not only linked to weight gain but the really phenominal increase in diabetes, particularly early-onset (age 12-30).




Not early-onset diabetes, but type II/adult onset diabetes. Type 1 is autoimmune, type 2 is a combination of genetics and intracellular fat that causes insulin resistance. Hence why many type II diabetics can simply lose weight and not have the same degree of problems.

High Fructose corn syrup has a little quirk in that it seems to be more easily converted into fat than other sugars by comparison, and so a massive increase of it in your diet leads to overweight people and they have a massively higher incidence rate of type II diabetes.




> One curiosity of the American culinary scene is the "cheaper is better" mentality.  For example, let's say a restaurant started advertising a "burger for 25 cents."




How very true *chuckle*

Though FWIW I was reading an article the other day in the Financial Times that described how a similar trend is hitting Europe now, especially Germany considering the economic slump that they're in (though regardless of economy, the trend seems ingrained over here in America that cheap = good).


----------



## Shemeska (Apr 27, 2005)

Eolin said:
			
		

> Not having caffeine in my diet worked for me. Strangely enough, I didn't even notice the coke falling out of my diet. My thirst for it just faded away.




I don't have a thing for diet soda so much as I have a RAGING caffeine addiction. If I don't get a liter or two of caffeinated diet soda every day or a pot of coffee or a few shots of espresso I get downright surly. Right now it's about 6 shots of espresso on average a day. *chuckle*

And it's worse when I'm running a game. I'll chain drink my way through a case of diet Mt Dew or a few two liter bottles, going on to the next as soon as I finish one.


----------



## Eolin (Apr 27, 2005)

An hour and a half ago I had a mocha thing. I havn't had this level of caffeine/sugar in, quite literally, months.

I am tweeked! My hands are shaking, and even tutoring math was difficult.


----------



## Wereserpent (Apr 27, 2005)

Maybe I am strange, but I dont care what is in something, as long as it tastes good.  The "cardbard pizza" technique doesnt work on me either, because that is just an trendy exxageration due to it being "cool" to hate fast food places.


----------



## two (Apr 28, 2005)

Galeros said:
			
		

> Maybe I am strange, but I dont care what is in something, as long as it tastes good.  The "cardbard pizza" technique doesnt work on me either, because that is just an trendy exxageration due to it being "cool" to hate fast food places.




Help me out here --?

What is a "trendy exaggeration"?  It's "cool" to hate fast food places?  If so, it's the only "cool" trend in years to make nutritional and health sense!

That's awesome!  I again have hope for American youth!

I'm not saying cardboard pizza doesn't taste "good" -- to a degree.  I'm saying (and many other have had this experience) that as your taste buds get more refined, and you eat less high-salt high-sugar high-processed food, your enjoyment of "real" food increases greatly.  

Your taste gets more complex;more demanding; more keen.

You won't be happy with "cardboard" pizza anymore, because you know how much better a quality pizza tastes.  It's that simple.  

It's not a snob thing, it's an education thing.  

It's like your young sibling that only ever watched "Gilligan's Island" on TV and thinks that is the best entertainment ever made -- PERIOD.  Ten years later, after watching vastly superior TV shows, movies, documentaries, etc. your now not-so-young sibling just can't go back and blindly enjoy "Gilligan's Island" any more (ignore camp pleasures for the moment).  That's not a bad thing.  It's a widening of experience.  It's good.  

Sure, you lose some pleasure (Gilligan's Island ain't funny anymore) but so much has been gained in return!


----------

