Hottentot wrote:I tried eating a lot and eating a little, i'm always at 67kg no matter what.
Stopped eating bread and rice, came back to eating bread and rice, started eating one full plate in dinner, now eating two full plates, i can eat any fruit. As long i am not eating junkie food, i'm always at 67kg no matter what. Exercising or not.
I hate to adhere to this cliche, especially since it has proven untrue to my now 30 y/o body... BUT: How old are you?... The teenage body consumes corn syrup and exudes [athletic] excellence. I adamantly deny the "slowing metabolizing" theory, but the teenage body thrives through tons of abuse. This seems to slowly taper off as you approach 30.
I'm 27 now.
There's a problem though. I eat first at 6:30 a.m., then i'm eating again only at 11:00 a.m., then again at 16:30 a.m..
I think that's a pretty big window and it's not good.
I'm skinny as you can see by my weight, but i have a lot of fat in my gut. The inglorious skinny fat.
Today i'm starting a 30 day challenge of focusing on my healthy (no alcohol, more paleoish and no bad food... not that i eat bad food, it's rare, but i'll cut even the rare ones) and exercising (bodyweight only for now, i already do a lot, but i don't have a routine, i just do a bunch of exercises every day).
Let's see how my body responds in one month from now. If i gain or lose weight or gut. Then i'll start tweaking from there.
Hottentot wrote:I tried eating a lot and eating a little, i'm always at 67kg no matter what.
Stopped eating bread and rice, came back to eating bread and rice, started eating one full plate in dinner, now eating two full plates, i can eat any fruit. As long i am not eating junkie food, i'm always at 67kg no matter what. Exercising or not.
I hate to adhere to this cliche, especially since it has proven untrue to my now 30 y/o body... BUT: How old are you?... The teenage body consumes corn syrup and exudes [athletic] excellence. I adamantly deny the "slowing metabolizing" theory, but the teenage body thrives through tons of abuse. This seems to slowly taper off as you approach 30.
That cliche has proven about 98% untrue for me too and I'm 40. There is a tiny drop off, but not much. Definitely not the drop off in metabolic and physical ability that the majority of 40 year olds claim. The real cause is sitting around all day and eating Doritos. Even the teenage body can only do that for so long.
Wow. After reading through this thread I'm wondering what is really right.
I've heard some crazy theories that bash the conventional wisdom my doctor gives me (high LDL bad low HDL bad).
I had high LDL and low hdl/LDL ratio for years. My doctor hounded me to get on Lipitor. I tried dieting, exercise and lost twenty pounds. I went from 190lbs to 170. Cholesterol LDL didn't budge but triglyceride went down. I ran so much I blew out a knee. It wasn't worth it.
Then I was diagnosed with a large tumor in my heart. It was serious and required removal. In the process of imaging me to death for the work up they determined my arteries were VERY clear. My doctor still insisted on the Lipitor after the surgery. I scratched my head...why? He said preventative maintenance. Oh yeah, by that time I lost a lot of weight (155lbs) as a result of open heart surgery. Cholesterol was still high.
I walked away from the experience thinking nobody knows anything. I lost faith in how science in general is being done...that is collect a lot of anecdotal evidence and try to establish a correllation. If you find one then you've discovered something. A lot of science is being done in this not so scientific way and people walk away acting like the actually understand something.
It may very well come down to genetics. A friend of mine was involved in a diet study that showed eating stupid amounts of eggs didn't raise his cholesterol which bucked the conventional wisdom at the time. I was hoping we had learned more since then (1980). Not that you should eat stupid amounts of eggs because you may have the genes that efficiently convert eggs to LDL in your blood.
Smoking gun is an intriguing concept. A pal told me about having bad gums leads to heart disease...but I know from an acquaintance with diabetes that bad gums can be caused by diabetes. Which brings us back to the processed (high glycemic index) foods and heart disease. Who knows the truth? I wish I did.
Till then I'll take the advice here on moderation.
BTW I finally solved my high LDL problem. It dropped fast after I retired. I can only guess it was stress induced. Blood pressure dropped back to normal too. There seems to be an anecdotal connection between stress and cholesterol ...oops there I go.
The author promotes a mostly paleo diet on his blog, claiming to base his recommendations on medical research. He has come under criticism for passing himself as a real doctor when he is actually an acupuncturist. What he writes may or may not be true.
My anecdotal experience:
I was on a certain medication that required me to have my cholesterol tested once a month for several months. During this period, I was eating ~10 eggs a week. The doctor always told me that my cholesterol results were in "normal range." I did not see the numbers.
theanimal wrote:There hasn't been a legitimate critique of The China Study by someone who is not backed by the meat or dairy industry, or is a proponent of factory farming. I think its really important to research the authors of any presented study. You may be surprised by what you find..
No plans on a nutritional battle here. I read the China Study several years back. I remember that it almost read like a political manifesto. The author seemed to have a beef (pun intended) with the meat industry. A scientific evaluation requires a much greater sense of objectivity. Having said that, I eat little meat and virtually no red meat. For what it's worth, our teeth and digestive system are clearly consistent with an omnivore. In evolutionary terms, we were only supposed to last 30-40 years or so (sufficient to raise our offspring). Our desire to live much beyond that could very well necessitate nutrition different than the diet we were designed to eat according to our evolution. So the debate goes on.
"Dr. Nissen, who was not a member of the committee, agreed. “The science was never there” for the LDL targets, he said. Past committees “made them up out of thin air,” he added."
Yet, despite the evidence, your irrational doctor may keep doing the same damn thing:
"Experts say it is still unclear how much the new guidelines will change clinical practice. Dr. Rader suspects many cardiologists will still strive for the old LDL targets, at least for patients with heart disease who are at high risk. “They are used to it and believe in it,” he said.
Dr. Steven E. Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said he thought it would take years for doctors to change their practices."
