spending thousands on gym and not losing a pound, trying hundreds of push ups and making crunchs still no results

my word is to the ones that feel themlseves fat...

the solution is simple just try to eat less than you burn...averahe male body burn something around 1200 to 1700 cals daily if you begin to exceed that level by eating all you will have a huge belt of fat around your belly and stomach and you ll never feel comfortable in your jeans again:D

cut sugar, cut flour, cut salt...3 white enemies;)

and please spend your weekends on the move at least and easiest try to have at least 9000 steps a day...that should not be very hard

bless your body bless your heart bless your life

Greetings from Constantinople

Dorian Gray the Immortal and forever young

P.S: Sorry about my wordings or any misunderstandings as you may guess English is not my mother tongue

transward (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:10 am I think people are missing an important point here. If you have to worry about the different effects of HFCS vs sucrose, it is a pretty good indication that you are eating too many sweets period. We have turned sweets from an occasional treat to a large part of our diet, and whatever the -ose you are talking about it is likely to have negative effects. Skip sodas and sweet drinks in favor of unsweetened seltzer and iced tea, and when you want a sweet go to a real bakery and get one of the real stuff. It will be infinitely tastier than the usual run of cokes, twinkies and candy.

Transward

Actually that's not the point at all. Yes, we consume too many sweets, but America is actually not the worst at that. HFCS affects you differently, your body is not designed to process this chemical. That is the point.

For anyone who doubts this, I dare you throw out the other sweeteners and use only HFCS in everyday life for 3 months and see what happens to you. All this ADA and AHA bullshit about low-fat or fat free diets that market products loaded with salt and HFCS (to say nothing of sugar) are what's to blame for obesity and the inability to lose weight, even in those who try.

I fought with weight for years, until I got onto the Atkins plan, or rather, a self-authored version of it that took it to extremes. Even with my blood sugars back under control, I was still losing about a pound every other day and I was eating a LOT - of natural produce and meats.

I've also kept the weight off since 2006.

At the last MOM even, I was berated for "how skinny" I was.

The first thing to go? Anything containing HFCS; then I took it from there on all the other worthless junk carbs.

Basics

Insulin = Fat Making Hormones

As it clears glucose from the blood that which cannot be used for immediate energy is converted into FAT under the influence of Insulin. Got that?

You need "X" amount of Insulin a day just to beat and breath and metabolize in a normal manner.

You need "X+Y" where "Y" represents the extra insulin required to metabolize fast absorbing carbohydrates. "+Y" = More Fat Making Hormone.

Works against loosing weight.

Simply, Carb restricted diets are minimal Insulin needed per day diets too.

That is one of several mechanisms that make them superior to other forms of diets.

Sugar, Corn Syrup, white grape juice - the first ingredient in most juices especially kiddie juices,

Brown Whole Grain Flour with saw dust fiber,

it does not matter. These are so easily absorbed a newborn could digest them.

But, over cook the pasta and moisten the bread please.

About the only good quick absorbing Carbohydrate is Honey

because you can only eat so much before you never want to see it again.

I really hope that makes sense to y'all and ref.

"Paleolithic Diet" in Google. Caveman diet. Makes Atkins look like a surgery cake walk.

Moi

I wonder if Cavemen on their Paleolithic Diet were in near constant ketosis?

nonuts (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:32 pm Actually that's not the point at all. Yes, we consume too many sweets, but America is actually not the worst at that. HFCS affects you differently, your body is not designed to process this chemical. That is the point.

I am sorry but I remain skeptical. I have seen no good research to prove that theory. The study quoted to begin this thread has been pretty well debunked even among food industry critics.

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfc ... /#comments

"by Marion Nestle

HFCS makes rats fat?

I can hardly believe that Princeton sent out a press release yesterday announcing the results of this rat study. The press release says: “

ramses (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:02 pm Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

”

How they came to these conclusions is beyond me. Here’s the original paper.

It has long been known that feeding sugars to rats makes them eat more and gain weight. But, as summarized in Table 1 in the paper, the researchers did only two experiments that actually compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose on weight gain, and these gave inconsistent results. Their other experiments compared HFCS to chow alone.

The study is extremely complicated and confusingly described. As best as I can tell, here’s what they found:

1. The first study used 10 male rats in each group and observed them for 8 weeks. At the end of the study, the rats fed chow alone weighed 462 grams. The rats fed sucrose plus chow weighed 477±9 grams. The rats fed HFCS plus chow weighed 502±11 grams. The authors say the difference between 477 and 502 grams is statistically significant. But these rats were offered the sugars for 12 hours per day. The rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day, which should be expected to be fatter, were not. They weighed less (470 grams) than the rats fed sucrose for 12 hours per day. So these results are inconsistent.

2. The second study did not compare rats eating HFCS to rats eating sucrose. It just looked at the effects of HFCS in groups of 8 male rats.

3. The third study used female rats (number not given) and observed them for 7 months. At the end of the study period, female rats fed HFCS plus chow for 12 hours a day weighed 323±9 grams. Female rats fed sucrose plus chow under the same conditions weighed 333±10 grams. This result is not statistically significant.

Although the authors say calorie intake was the same, they do not report calories consumed nor do they discuss how they determined that calorie intake was the same. This is an important oversight because measuring the caloric intake of lab rats is notoriously difficult to do (they are messy).

So, I’m skeptical. I don’t think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of HFCS and sucrose on the body weight of rats. I’m afraid I have to agree with the Corn Refiners on this one.

So

Paolo wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:34 pm does HFCS make rats fat? Sure if you feed them too many calories altogether. Sucrose will do that too."

For anyone who doubts this, I dare you throw out the other sweeteners and use only HFCS in everyday life for 3 months and see what happens to you. ..... The f

irst thing to go? Anything containing HFCS; then I took it from there on all the other worthless junk carbs.

I will point out that in order to do that you pretty much had to throw out highly processed and packaged foods not to mention fast food all of which have switched to HFCS simply because it is dirt cheap compared to sugar, (important when you are selling "billions and billions.) Those changes on their own are sufficient to explain the improvements, without even talking about the effects of HFCS. as Dr. Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology puts it: “…compared to sucrose HFCS isn’t metabolically evil, it’s economically evil because it’s so cheap, they put it in nearly everything…”

I do not question your experience, but I still have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the cause is a difference in metabolism between HFCS and sugar.

Transward

transward (imported) wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:35 pm ”

I do not question your experience, but I still have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the cause is a difference in metabolism between HFCS and sugar.

Transward

Transward, I agree and hope you read the basics I posted above.

It is not the difference in metabolism.

It is the increase in the daily total grams of rapidly absorbing carbs.

When Coca Cola was "sugar" it was a rare treat.

Now Coca Cola with HFCS is a daily treat, super sized.

It isn't the choice of carbs,

White Grape Juice - 100% Real Juice (Wow, that must be better for you!)

It is a function of the 2-3 decade increase of total rapid carbs in our diet.

HFCS substitution for Sugar just coincidentally happened when soft drinks became sustenance and not a treat.

1 gram of fast absorbing carb is = 1 gram regardless of source.

British did some wonderful studies where they compared,

fructose - a sugar that allegedly does not need insulin to get into cells

glucose - a sugar that does need insulin to get into cells

sucrose- table sugar, a compound of two simpler sugars as above

potato starch - a complex carbohydrate, starch

"another starch" - can't remember.

They made them in equal carbohydrate gram amounts in equal form as a solution. Following blood sugar responses in Diabetic persons and non Diabetic persons they found no difference based on the choice of the five carbohydrates.

1 gram of processes carb = 1 gram of processed carb.

Also there has been decades of bad nutritional advice whereby even the American Diabetic Association was advising those with a carbohydrate metabolism disease to eat more pasta because it was a virtuous complex carbohydrate and not <the horror> carb free meat with cholesterol.

And that's why the latest data on tight control does not pan out.

Tight control on an abusive diet does not work is all it demonstrates.

Moi

tight control keeping blood sugar physiological

loose control just keeping blood sugar sort of, okay.

For the record, yes, I did throw out a lot of stuff.

Anything low fat, fat free, or "Heart Healthy" immediately went into the trash.

Learning to shop was thereafter quite the experience, because I was astounded at how much sugar and HFCS I was taking in every day. It's no wonder I was fat.

My diet now consists of meat, eggs, cheese, fresh produce, very little fruit, and a stock of canned vegetables that contain minimal salt and no added sugars of any kind. If I even taste sweetness in it, regardless of labeling, I toss it and don't buy it again. Just about everything I eat gets sprinkled with vinegar, too.

One only need ask those here who have met me, dined out with me (anyone at the last MOM) how picky I am about what I eat. I think I nearly killed Jesus (A) when he was here last time!

Grocery shopping doesn't take very long now.

And just so you know, Moi, my ketone count has been "off the scale" for about 4 years now.

Everyone I know who follows a low-carb or even more restrictive Paleo diet reports similar findings. My highest fasting blood glucose reading in the last several months has been 95. It's usually in the upper 80's. I did have a few upper 70's last week, and a 1-hour reading after dinner of 72 yesterday.

Moi is correct is about insulin. It's so simple that even a Type-1 kid I know figured it out on his own - less carbs=less insulin required=no more weight problems. The first foods to avoid? Anything made for diabetics, especially Glucerna products! Yes, they use corn syrups. Why? To sell more meds, of course.

Personally, I don't care if anyone doubts this. I have all the findings I need with personal experience, and the experiences of those I know who have tried the same thing. My A1C's and my waistline speak for themselves.

I have a good friend who 20 years ago went to one of those health fairs. He left scared to death that he was going to die any moment. Overweight, high blood pressure, etc. He started on an immediate low-fat diet. All veggies, tuna, ham, etc. He started doing meat "substitutes" by mixing 90% soy with 10% meat the night before (breakfast sausage, hamburgers, etc) to allow the meat flavor to spread into the soy. He used that mixture for his breakfast, BBQs, etc.

He lost an impressive amound of weight and solved the blood pressure, etc. problems. A couple of other guys who knew him went the same route and also lost a lot of weight.

Arab Nights (imported) wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:10 am I have a good friend who 20 years ago went to one of those health fairs. He left scared to death that he was going to die any moment. Overweight, high blood pressure, etc. He started on an immediate low-fat diet. All veggies, tuna, ham, etc. He started doing meat "substitutes" by mixing 90% soy with 10% meat the night before (breakfast sausage, hamburgers, etc) to allow the meat flavor to spread into the soy. He used that mixture for his breakfast, BBQs, etc.

He lost an impressive amound of weight and solved the blood pressure, etc. problems. A couple of other guys who knew him went the same route and also lost a lot of weight.

Yes, that system no doubt works as it is a total calorie reduction too.

But what about all those "plastics" to make something look and taste like, meat?

And the vital fatty acids only found in animal fat sources as vital amino acids.

Then there is Vitamin B12. It is one thing to be a Hindu and over thousands of years create a population as to extract adequate Vitamin B12 from celery, and another to be a Westerner who thinks by eating like a Hindu he will be healthier, voluntarily maybe being a first generation wash out of a population that needs more dietary Vitamin B12.

It takes five years to deplete your stores of B12 and I have known a friend to do it. Pass the celery.

Take a pill?

Then how good and natural a diet can it be!

Moi

Eats what walks on hooves or grows on trees.

Anything else better be chocolate.

Now you know two people.

Twelve years ago when my line of work cratered, I came down from 4,000 meters and bought a business in a mile high town. I had been miserable during that last 6 month stint at altitude. Sickly all the time, etc. I figured I was just too old. So I move down to only a mile high and kept getting sick thru the winter. The traditional doctors were absolutely no help. I went to a chiropractor who ordered a blood panel. He said that I looked a little depleted in iron (too much time with fried chicken and rice in the jungle) and got me started on liquid vitamin B12. For women I guess it makes them feel ready to take on the all the guys in the world. It did not make this immediate difference for me. But, you know, I rarely get sick now. I have spent two of the last five years back at 4,000 meters in the southern hemasphere. That means many, many changes from sea level to 4,000 meters, from desert to jungle and from winter (because the seasons are reversed) to summer and vice versa (I am the stinky guy dragging a winter coat thru the airport when it is 115 outside). I have only had a very few days where I felt like I was hitting on two cyclinders and none where I was absolutely knocked flat like happened every spring and fall when I was in my twenties.

I am not on either diet and my weight control program consists of shitty food and Montezuma's revenge plus exercise, but I still need B12 in my dotage.