Its over. A strange thing happened. It was about 5:30pm and I just could not get why I was feeling really heavy and lethargic. I had to get up and cook the dinner and I was feeling like I was going to throw up just thinking about it, but I had to make it so I got up and did so. I made pastry for a quiche and then chopped the veg for the filling - Bacon, onion, mushrooms and cheese and put it in the oven. I peeled the potatoes for chips and tried to get myself together.
I just couldn't. I sat down for a bit and the only thing I could put it down to was the lack of carbs in my diet. I didn't think it would affect me this much to be fair. I went upstairs and washed my face and neck and hoped I would feel better, but I didn't. I kind of felt weak and heavy, but not weak if that makes any sense... I went for the 256th wee of the day and the smell was sour. Real dark and sour. It was definitely ketones. My mouth tasted funny too, so I did one of those little urine test sticks that I remembered I had when I did Atkins about 4 years ago. Well man it was DEEP PURPLE. Sooooooo Purple it was even darker than the shade on the packet! (I tested another one with water just to see if they were stil working ok). When I did Atkins it took a good 3 or 4 days to get into Ketosis - or the fat burning stage where your body is literally gobbling up your own flab for energy. This tuna diet took just over 24 hours.
I felt so crud that I went downstairs and decided enough was enough and I would have a normal dinner that evening. I had already made the quiche and the chips for the rest of the house (about to be deep fried in lard!), so I grabbed some rice from the freezer and then made a quick wet curry. If I was going to eat, I was going to do it right. So I made a really quick and easy tomato based curry - 1 can lentils, 1 can chopped tomato and curry powder cooked quickly. It was nice and wet and easy to eat. The last thing I wanted was to have a band problem as well!
This was fine and I felt mildly better within 10 minutes of eating. Phew... I started to feel better and better until about 20 minutes after dinner I thought that I must have just been hungry and that I was a total slacker and didn't try enough. We decided to then go to TB's house and have a nice chat, and I was contemplating going back to tuna again when DH asked me if I was ok...
Now, I thought I sounded fine, but he said I was kind of slurring my words and there were too many 's'-es in my words and that I looked flushed. I had to admit I felt a little light headed. By the time I got to TB's I was feeling drunk as a lord. I was red in the face, hot and sleepy and felt pickled!
So, I went from one extreme to the other in a very short space of time. After about 30 minutes I started to feel less pissed, but my head started expanding and contracting with a headache!
Honestly, I am completely fine now, but WOW! What a weird experience. I must have been so absolutely low in blood sugar that eating dinner of rice and tomato, with lots of carbs and sugars must have simply overloaded my system and I immediately converted it to alcohol! It was the most strangest thing ever. What was the most amazing thing was the speed at which it happened. This afternoon writing the blog I felt fine... a bit rough, but nothing too bad. Then Boom! - and then Boom again when I decided to stop. Wow.
So no more tuna for me for a while! Scary stuff!
Essentially with slimmingworld I have just had a pure red day yesterday and today back to Extra easy... so hopefully the weight will have changed a bit.
Jumat, 31 Juli 2009
Day 2 of Tuna special
Well, I survived yesterday and its already 4pm on day 2... Can I hold out? I reckon so. I have had a better, more amiable band today and have thus far consumed 2 cans of Tuna fish in spring water. I Do have to admit that I smothered it in vinegar and black pepper. I think this was the problem yesterday... not moist enough. So I am drinking gallons of water and it took me an hour a piece to eat the tuna. I don't think I shall eat any more until dinner time to be honest.
Last night we went to bed early at about 11pm, and I have to admit I felt a little sick. I don't feel bad today as such, but I don't feel all that good either. I am loathe to say that its because of this diet that I feel so crap though. I guess we shall see after tomorrow is finished.
I am proper proud of myself for getting half way. The last few mouthfuls of tuna at lunch time were hard work. I just didn't want to eat any more and when I think about it, I get that water in my mouth and feel a bit sick around the gills. Maybe this peakiness has more to do with the diet than I think...
I must admit I did hop on the scales this morning, but they are decidedly dodgy as I said before and they said 16 stone 12. I only did it the once mind. To get an average I usually have to jump on at least 10 times, so I am not going to think too much about it. I don't think I shall get a true reading of the loss on this until Sunday morning.
One good thing is that I am honestly not hungry. Not at all. I ate the tuna because I have to at certain times, and not because I was physically needing sustenance. I think that just goes to show that a high protein diet is pretty good for staving off hunger. But then again, I knew that because of the Atkins diet.
I am also bored out of my skull right now, so I am going to play some Sims 3 and make a really crummy house and miserable characters Mwahhhahhahhh
The constant battle
I feel like I'm in the fight of my life with my weight, and I'm not winning. I'm constantly worrying about what I'm eating. Am I eating too much? Did I get enough protein? Did I get in at least some of the healthy eight? Did I drink enough water? Did I lose? Did I gain? How much do I weigh? What can I do to do better? It's making me insane.
Other people that have been doing this as long as me have it all figured out. There's Mary and Lynn and Tony and TJ and many others. They all get it. They know what to do and they do it. I know what to do, and I don't do it. What is different in their brain than my brain? Why can't I do this?
If I sound exasperated and frustrated and angry with myself, well, it's because that's how I feel today. Every day I attempt to get this right and every day I fail.
My weight this morning is 163.4. Not where I want to be. Obviously, I don't have the answers. If you do, please tell me the secret. Because I sure as hell can't seem to figure it out.
Other people that have been doing this as long as me have it all figured out. There's Mary and Lynn and Tony and TJ and many others. They all get it. They know what to do and they do it. I know what to do, and I don't do it. What is different in their brain than my brain? Why can't I do this?
If I sound exasperated and frustrated and angry with myself, well, it's because that's how I feel today. Every day I attempt to get this right and every day I fail.
My weight this morning is 163.4. Not where I want to be. Obviously, I don't have the answers. If you do, please tell me the secret. Because I sure as hell can't seem to figure it out.
Kamis, 30 Juli 2009
Tuna Diet required adaption
It was supposed to go like this:
all day eating tuna (6 cans) and drinking water (4.5 litres)
Well, by 2pm it was crystal clear that it was NOT going to happen that way.
By 2pm I still had not managed 1 can let alone the 3 I should have had by then... So I had to change the rulz.
I also was waiting for a call from DS and didn't know when that was going to be, so could not go out after 4pm. I had also run out of tuna by this time as I dropped a can on the floor. Ooops.
So dilemma dilemma...
Should I quit? Should I nip to the shop and chance missing DS calling?
I decided that I could adapt the diet recipe. Basically protein is protein and it kind of doesn't matter where it comes from as long as its protein... The whole point of this diet is to eat low calories, high protein and zero carbs... I have very nearly stayed on plan then:
1 can of tuna
1 piece of hot smoked salmon
1 can of chicken
2 litres of diet coke
6 black coffee
2 litres water
I think that is pretty damn good.
Analysing it then, today I have consumed:
570 calories
95.6 grams of Protein
16.25 grams of fat
3 grams of carbohydrates
I reckon that's cool.
If I had done 6 tins of tuna like the plan said I would have done
881 calories, 162 protein, no carbs and 3.9 grams of fat.
So, although I don't quite know what to make of this analysis, I still think that things are pretty darn OK for today. I have also bought 4 cans of tuna for tomorrow, and I have another couple of hot smoked salmon fillets in the freezer and a can of chicken in the cupboard. I am pretty stoked that I remained on some kind of high protein low carb feat for the whole day and didn't bust it.
Temptation...? YES. Oh wow, making chicken Kiev and chips for DH and Sue this evening was HARDCORE. Watching DH sit on the sofa and drink a nice cold beer and have a nice apple and a yogurt was nearly too much to bear whilst I was nearly puking eating my canned chicken. There is something about canned chicken breast that is just wrong. Its kind of moist, but not in a good way and it tastes really high in salt too. After a half can (100g) I was having mild gagging sensations just because of the sheer taste and volume of plain meat. This is not a crash diet for the faint hearted. I really struggled this evening. To be honest the tuna and salmon was fine. I wish I had just kept eating that rather than open the chicken as that is what made me feel a bit ill. Tomorrow I will crack on and having done today ok, I know that tomorrow I can do it, I just have to force myself. Then its the last day and then back on slimmingworld. I actually think that it will make slimmingworld feel so amazingly rich and fulfilling that I will be happy just having syn free meals!
Anyway, day one is OVER and I am happy with myself, even though I had to adapt it. There is no way on this earth I would have been able to eat 6 cans of tuna. Its just too much for a bandit. I reckon tomorrow its going to be 3 tops...
Oh yeah... I wasn't hungry AT ALL. How cool is that.
all day eating tuna (6 cans) and drinking water (4.5 litres)
Well, by 2pm it was crystal clear that it was NOT going to happen that way.
By 2pm I still had not managed 1 can let alone the 3 I should have had by then... So I had to change the rulz.
I also was waiting for a call from DS and didn't know when that was going to be, so could not go out after 4pm. I had also run out of tuna by this time as I dropped a can on the floor. Ooops.
So dilemma dilemma...
Should I quit? Should I nip to the shop and chance missing DS calling?
I decided that I could adapt the diet recipe. Basically protein is protein and it kind of doesn't matter where it comes from as long as its protein... The whole point of this diet is to eat low calories, high protein and zero carbs... I have very nearly stayed on plan then:
1 can of tuna
1 piece of hot smoked salmon
1 can of chicken
2 litres of diet coke
6 black coffee
2 litres water
I think that is pretty damn good.
Analysing it then, today I have consumed:
570 calories
95.6 grams of Protein
16.25 grams of fat
3 grams of carbohydrates
I reckon that's cool.
If I had done 6 tins of tuna like the plan said I would have done
881 calories, 162 protein, no carbs and 3.9 grams of fat.
So, although I don't quite know what to make of this analysis, I still think that things are pretty darn OK for today. I have also bought 4 cans of tuna for tomorrow, and I have another couple of hot smoked salmon fillets in the freezer and a can of chicken in the cupboard. I am pretty stoked that I remained on some kind of high protein low carb feat for the whole day and didn't bust it.
Temptation...? YES. Oh wow, making chicken Kiev and chips for DH and Sue this evening was HARDCORE. Watching DH sit on the sofa and drink a nice cold beer and have a nice apple and a yogurt was nearly too much to bear whilst I was nearly puking eating my canned chicken. There is something about canned chicken breast that is just wrong. Its kind of moist, but not in a good way and it tastes really high in salt too. After a half can (100g) I was having mild gagging sensations just because of the sheer taste and volume of plain meat. This is not a crash diet for the faint hearted. I really struggled this evening. To be honest the tuna and salmon was fine. I wish I had just kept eating that rather than open the chicken as that is what made me feel a bit ill. Tomorrow I will crack on and having done today ok, I know that tomorrow I can do it, I just have to force myself. Then its the last day and then back on slimmingworld. I actually think that it will make slimmingworld feel so amazingly rich and fulfilling that I will be happy just having syn free meals!
Anyway, day one is OVER and I am happy with myself, even though I had to adapt it. There is no way on this earth I would have been able to eat 6 cans of tuna. Its just too much for a bandit. I reckon tomorrow its going to be 3 tops...
Oh yeah... I wasn't hungry AT ALL. How cool is that.
It's official, I'm on a D-I-E-T!
Call it what you want, lifestyle change seems to be the most popular term for losing weight these days, but for me, it's a DIET. I've been screwing around for months with this, up and down the same eight to ten pounds. Right now I'm up to 163. I put on my size 10 slacks this morning, the ones that run a little small but fit perfectly a couple months ago when I weighed 154. They zipped up okay, but my tummy sticks out. Even when I suck it in it still sticks out.
Next week I'm in Tulsa for re-certification of our software that's used at common use airports. I'll be working with several software engineers that I've been emailing and talking to on the phone for several months. These guys are smart, really smart. I'm not. I'm not an idiot, but I'm not a true geek when it comes to computers. I can get by okay, but I'm kind of a fake when it comes to being a software engineer. I'm the project manager on this project, not actually doing any coding, but it's assumed that I understand the coding and all the moving parts.
So what does this have to do with me losing weight? Everything! My self-confidence is directly linked to my weight. When I feel fat, I feel stupid. I know that probably doesn't make sense to most people, but it's how my brain works. I guess I can fake the smart thing better when I feel like I look good. I don't know if it's me or if it's how other people treat me, but when I feel confident in my looks, I feel smarter. It makes absolutely no sense as I write this, but it really is how I feel.
My immediate plan is to shed five pounds by Monday (4 days), when I have to be in the Tulsa office of our vendor. Before you all get crazy and tell me that's unrealistic to lose five pounds in four days, I know some of my weight is water weight. I've been eating a lot of salt lately. Putting salt on my food, eating lots of Seasonsed RyKrisp (very salty), so I'm pretty sure I can drop at least a couple pounds of water.
Goal for today:
Workout - 40 minutes cardio & 1 hour weights (done at 5 a.m. this morning)
Eat maximum of 24 Points today - this will be tough, but I'm going to give it my best shot.
Drink a ton of water - 64 oz. minimum - with ice - lots and lots of water
Embrace the hunger - something I haven't been doing for months. It's something I have to do to lose weight. It's a fact of life for me.
Smile - it's not that bad. The results will be worth it.
Lucy
She went home last night, but it wasn't a total happy ending. The family is really nice and were happy to see her, but they told me Lucy belongs to their 18-year old daughter who is leaving for college next month. They need to find a home for Lucy. Someone that has the time and energy to take care of her and give her the attention she deserves.
Unfortunately, that's not me right now. I work a lot and travel a lot for work and spend about two hours a day at the gym. My husband hates big dogs (long story), but I love them. I love all dogs. Anyway, she's home, safe in her big back yard. They promised me they wouldn't give her to anyone and they're definitely not taking her to the animal shelter. Funny thing, she and I bonded in just two days. I practically cried when I handed her over to them and then she ran back to me wagging her tail like crazy and tried to knock me over again. I really hope they find a good home for her. She deserves the best.
Next week I'm in Tulsa for re-certification of our software that's used at common use airports. I'll be working with several software engineers that I've been emailing and talking to on the phone for several months. These guys are smart, really smart. I'm not. I'm not an idiot, but I'm not a true geek when it comes to computers. I can get by okay, but I'm kind of a fake when it comes to being a software engineer. I'm the project manager on this project, not actually doing any coding, but it's assumed that I understand the coding and all the moving parts.
So what does this have to do with me losing weight? Everything! My self-confidence is directly linked to my weight. When I feel fat, I feel stupid. I know that probably doesn't make sense to most people, but it's how my brain works. I guess I can fake the smart thing better when I feel like I look good. I don't know if it's me or if it's how other people treat me, but when I feel confident in my looks, I feel smarter. It makes absolutely no sense as I write this, but it really is how I feel.
My immediate plan is to shed five pounds by Monday (4 days), when I have to be in the Tulsa office of our vendor. Before you all get crazy and tell me that's unrealistic to lose five pounds in four days, I know some of my weight is water weight. I've been eating a lot of salt lately. Putting salt on my food, eating lots of Seasonsed RyKrisp (very salty), so I'm pretty sure I can drop at least a couple pounds of water.
Goal for today:
Workout - 40 minutes cardio & 1 hour weights (done at 5 a.m. this morning)
Eat maximum of 24 Points today - this will be tough, but I'm going to give it my best shot.
Drink a ton of water - 64 oz. minimum - with ice - lots and lots of water
Embrace the hunger - something I haven't been doing for months. It's something I have to do to lose weight. It's a fact of life for me.
Smile - it's not that bad. The results will be worth it.
Lucy
She went home last night, but it wasn't a total happy ending. The family is really nice and were happy to see her, but they told me Lucy belongs to their 18-year old daughter who is leaving for college next month. They need to find a home for Lucy. Someone that has the time and energy to take care of her and give her the attention she deserves.
Unfortunately, that's not me right now. I work a lot and travel a lot for work and spend about two hours a day at the gym. My husband hates big dogs (long story), but I love them. I love all dogs. Anyway, she's home, safe in her big back yard. They promised me they wouldn't give her to anyone and they're definitely not taking her to the animal shelter. Funny thing, she and I bonded in just two days. I practically cried when I handed her over to them and then she ran back to me wagging her tail like crazy and tried to knock me over again. I really hope they find a good home for her. She deserves the best.
Go tuna Go tuna GO!
Vroom Vroom fat burning machine
1 pint of water, 1 can of tuna about to be consumed. I thought I would let you all know this so that you can have no fear about your dearest Test Subject Bunny starting her mission.
Oh and my weigh in for this test: 16 stone 13.5lbs according to my scales (237.5lbs)
I did this 7 times. The first 2 times registered 16 stone 12 and a quarter, thereafter it registered 16st 13.5lbs So you see my scales are quite crap... but this diet is apparently good for FAT loss so we shall see. I sadly don't have those body fat measuring scales, but the loss of weigh should show up loss of fat too. I wont be losing muscle as its just pure protein.
Now ladies... I am off to Lady Jane's to get a couple of new Bra's and a Bikini top... Great stuff!
1 pint of water, 1 can of tuna about to be consumed. I thought I would let you all know this so that you can have no fear about your dearest Test Subject Bunny starting her mission.
Oh and my weigh in for this test: 16 stone 13.5lbs according to my scales (237.5lbs)
I did this 7 times. The first 2 times registered 16 stone 12 and a quarter, thereafter it registered 16st 13.5lbs So you see my scales are quite crap... but this diet is apparently good for FAT loss so we shall see. I sadly don't have those body fat measuring scales, but the loss of weigh should show up loss of fat too. I wont be losing muscle as its just pure protein.
Now ladies... I am off to Lady Jane's to get a couple of new Bra's and a Bikini top... Great stuff!
Organic food is no healthier, study finds
Organic food is no healthier, study finds
LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.
Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.
"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.
The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.
(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; editing by Simon Jessop)
End from Reuters
My conclusions at this time :
LONDON (Reuters) - Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.
A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.
"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.
"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."
The results of research, which was commissioned by the British government's Food Standards Agency, were published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Sales of organic food have fallen in some markets, including Britain, as recession has led consumers to cut back on purchases.
The Soil Association said in April that growth in sales of organic products in Britain slowed to just 1.7 percent in 2008, well below the average annual growth rate of 26 percent over the last decade, following a plunge in demand at the end of the year.
(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; editing by Simon Jessop)
End from Reuters
My conclusions at this time :
- Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, high in price but pesticides free.
- Ordinary fruits and vegetables are treated with pesticides, low in price, and may have same on nutritional contents.
Rabu, 29 Juli 2009
5 Day Pouch Test Support
New addition to our beautiful LivingAfterWLS Store: 5 Day Pouch Test Support -- All you need to succeed with 5 Day Pouch Test. No gimmick products here. Everything for purchase is something I use regularly and know to be beneficial to our best health LivingAfterWLS. I want YOU to succeed.Go Here
Lucy is going home!
Woohoo! I found the owner of the black lab. It took a bit of detective work, but I was able to track him down.
I called the Humane Society this morning, where she was adopted (AVID told me). They wouldn't give me the exact address, but said it was in the 2200 block of a street that's two blocks from my street. Best of all, they gave me the phone number that AVID had and when they called no one answered. AVID said the number must be bad and refused to give it to me.
I kept calling it all morning and no one answered, not even an answering machine, until about ten minutes ago. Finally someone picked up. He said they were worried sick about her getting onto the busy street two blocks from my house.
Her name is Lucy. Tonight Lucy gets to go home.
I called the Humane Society this morning, where she was adopted (AVID told me). They wouldn't give me the exact address, but said it was in the 2200 block of a street that's two blocks from my street. Best of all, they gave me the phone number that AVID had and when they called no one answered. AVID said the number must be bad and refused to give it to me.
I kept calling it all morning and no one answered, not even an answering machine, until about ten minutes ago. Finally someone picked up. He said they were worried sick about her getting onto the busy street two blocks from my house.
Her name is Lucy. Tonight Lucy gets to go home.
Tired to the bone
I don't usually write about the weather, but come on, 100 degrees in Seattle today! That's newsworthy. Thank God I let my husband intall three monster room air conditioners this year (at $500 a piece). I told him it was a waste of money and crazy and a bit white trashy to have window air conditioners. Who knew there would be a record heat wave this year.
Luckily I work in an air conditioned office, have an air conditioned car and now our home is basically air conditioned (kitchen, family room, bedroom).
So why am I tired to the bone? I sleep well, but wake up exhausted. It's a cool 67 degrees in our bedroom at night, just the way I like it (hubby says it's too cold). I even blew off my workout this morning. My excuse: I was too freaking tired to get up at 4:30 a.m.
I haven't even unpacked my suitcase from my vacation last week and need to repack for my next trip. I'm leaving on Sunday for a week in Tulsa (work). Just the thought of getting on another plane makes me crawl off to a cave somewhere and hibernate for the summer.
I'm going to walk the dog tonight (the found dog), and post some more signs for her. She's not leash trained although she can sit and shake hands. She loves to have her belly rubbed too. No, I am NOT keeping her although she's a really sweet dog. She acts like she's never been on a leash in her life. Since she's about five years old, that's kind of strange. That will be my workout today, the dog walking me. Basically that what it's like, her pulling me down the street. Unless her owner calls for her today or I can get more information from AVID.
I have one goal today, limit my eating and track my food. Also, attempt to get in the healthy eight eating guidelines. Surely I can accomplish this, at least for one day.
If only I wasn't so darn tired. All I can think about is how much I want to sleep.
Luckily I work in an air conditioned office, have an air conditioned car and now our home is basically air conditioned (kitchen, family room, bedroom).
So why am I tired to the bone? I sleep well, but wake up exhausted. It's a cool 67 degrees in our bedroom at night, just the way I like it (hubby says it's too cold). I even blew off my workout this morning. My excuse: I was too freaking tired to get up at 4:30 a.m.
I haven't even unpacked my suitcase from my vacation last week and need to repack for my next trip. I'm leaving on Sunday for a week in Tulsa (work). Just the thought of getting on another plane makes me crawl off to a cave somewhere and hibernate for the summer.
I'm going to walk the dog tonight (the found dog), and post some more signs for her. She's not leash trained although she can sit and shake hands. She loves to have her belly rubbed too. No, I am NOT keeping her although she's a really sweet dog. She acts like she's never been on a leash in her life. Since she's about five years old, that's kind of strange. That will be my workout today, the dog walking me. Basically that what it's like, her pulling me down the street. Unless her owner calls for her today or I can get more information from AVID.
I have one goal today, limit my eating and track my food. Also, attempt to get in the healthy eight eating guidelines. Surely I can accomplish this, at least for one day.
If only I wasn't so darn tired. All I can think about is how much I want to sleep.
Tuna and water quick boost?
Here's something I found online... http://www.mybodyfat.co.uk/
This guy is trying to lower his body fat and remain at about 200lbs. Now he looks pretty buff actually so he must be tall and work out and stuff, because I am not too far off 200 pounds and I look proper dodgy!! HA HA.
Anyway, he was talking about this very rapid weightloss diet called the Tuna and Water diet that you do for only 3 days and he lost 6 pounds.
Now I know that there are these websites out there that profess this and that... but this is just a blog or journal about this British chap trying to lose body fat... a bit like this blog really. So he had photos of the scales before, and after etc and it was about a month ago and this is what he did for 3 days:
9:00 am 1 tin of tuna & Multi vitamin
11.30 am 1 tin of tuna & 2 teaspoons of Benefibre (3.5g)
2:00 pm 1 tin of tuna
4:30 pm 1 tin of tuna & Multivitamin
7:00 pm 1 tin of tuna & 2 teaspoons of Benefibre (3.5g)
9:30 pm 1 tin of tuna
With this he drank 3/4 litres of water with every can of tuna.
Now, I actually feel like giving this a serious go just to see if it really does work, and considering I have my holiday in Crete in 4 weeks, it would be good to get some pounds off quickly. Now this guy has quite a lean physique, so I am thinking that maybe someone with much more fat in their body - and lets face it, I have the same analytical fat content as a Pork Scratching - might actually lose a lot more fat. I would much rather lose fat than weight that's for sure. At the end of the day it's the fat - not the actual weight - that makes us look horrible in a bikini... so I am going to have a go. Today is Wednesday, so I am going to start tomorrow. I honestly don't know i my band will let me eat tuna that early in the morning, but I will just swill it down with water and see what happens. I think it will be a seriously cool experiment, and only 3 days so its quick and I can see the end of it.
Also being as that its such a short time, my body wont go into survival mode, and also the fact that it is tuna means the extra protein will be fabulous for skin and hair etc.
So tomorrow, I am going to go for it as above and see what happens. I will weigh myself that morning and Sunday morning just to see a comparison, but I will rely on the Monday weigh in as usual for the true result. My scales are not that accurate to be fair. So i will continue on plan for today and then do this Tuna thing and see what happens. Will be lush to lose a few really quickly. Maybe even do this once a week until the holiday to really shift some lard. I guess it depends how horrible it is to do it to be honest.
I love tuna though... so that's cool.
Yesterday was actually a pretty bad day. Thankfully I stayed in the 2000 calorie range, but it was not with good calories. I had a chicken salad for lunch which was about 150 cals if that, and then I made this lovely Chicken Liver and pasta dish. Sounds horrible, but actually chicken livers are divine. I spent ages making sure that it was all slimmingworld fayre and then I couldn't eat it and actually had to HMS for the first time in a loooooong while.
The recipe for anyone that cares:
This serves 4 and is completely free on Extra Easy Slimmingworld plan
1 packet of chicken livers - washed and chopped
1 onion finely chopped
2 garlic cloves grated or crushed
1 pack of smoked back bacon (fat removed) and chopped
4 tbsp's olive oil to fry (use as healthy B choice on slimmingworld plan)
1 tsp chilli powder
1 tsp paprika
1 tbsp sage
1 tub quark (very low fat soft cheese)
200mls skimmed milk (from A choice allowance on plan)
salt and pepper
Cooked pasta spirals and salad
Fry the onion, garlic, bacon, chilli, paprika, sage in the oil and then drain out the oil back into the pan and set aside pulp. Use the spiced oil to gently fry the chicken livers for 4 or 5 minutes, then add the pulp back in and mix it up. Set aside. Mix the tomato puree, quark and milk together to make a thick creamy pink coloured sauce and pour into the liver mixture and stir up. Throw in boiled pasta and mix up. Serve with a salad. Serves 4 hungry people!
Voila! This is what I couldn't eat: I had prodded it and pushed it about for half an hour before I took the photo so its not looking it's absolute best... In fact it looks like shit doesnt it. It wasn't though
This guy is trying to lower his body fat and remain at about 200lbs. Now he looks pretty buff actually so he must be tall and work out and stuff, because I am not too far off 200 pounds and I look proper dodgy!! HA HA.
Anyway, he was talking about this very rapid weightloss diet called the Tuna and Water diet that you do for only 3 days and he lost 6 pounds.
Now I know that there are these websites out there that profess this and that... but this is just a blog or journal about this British chap trying to lose body fat... a bit like this blog really. So he had photos of the scales before, and after etc and it was about a month ago and this is what he did for 3 days:
9:00 am 1 tin of tuna & Multi vitamin
11.30 am 1 tin of tuna & 2 teaspoons of Benefibre (3.5g)
2:00 pm 1 tin of tuna
4:30 pm 1 tin of tuna & Multivitamin
7:00 pm 1 tin of tuna & 2 teaspoons of Benefibre (3.5g)
9:30 pm 1 tin of tuna
With this he drank 3/4 litres of water with every can of tuna.
Now, I actually feel like giving this a serious go just to see if it really does work, and considering I have my holiday in Crete in 4 weeks, it would be good to get some pounds off quickly. Now this guy has quite a lean physique, so I am thinking that maybe someone with much more fat in their body - and lets face it, I have the same analytical fat content as a Pork Scratching - might actually lose a lot more fat. I would much rather lose fat than weight that's for sure. At the end of the day it's the fat - not the actual weight - that makes us look horrible in a bikini... so I am going to have a go. Today is Wednesday, so I am going to start tomorrow. I honestly don't know i my band will let me eat tuna that early in the morning, but I will just swill it down with water and see what happens. I think it will be a seriously cool experiment, and only 3 days so its quick and I can see the end of it.
Also being as that its such a short time, my body wont go into survival mode, and also the fact that it is tuna means the extra protein will be fabulous for skin and hair etc.
So tomorrow, I am going to go for it as above and see what happens. I will weigh myself that morning and Sunday morning just to see a comparison, but I will rely on the Monday weigh in as usual for the true result. My scales are not that accurate to be fair. So i will continue on plan for today and then do this Tuna thing and see what happens. Will be lush to lose a few really quickly. Maybe even do this once a week until the holiday to really shift some lard. I guess it depends how horrible it is to do it to be honest.
I love tuna though... so that's cool.
Yesterday was actually a pretty bad day. Thankfully I stayed in the 2000 calorie range, but it was not with good calories. I had a chicken salad for lunch which was about 150 cals if that, and then I made this lovely Chicken Liver and pasta dish. Sounds horrible, but actually chicken livers are divine. I spent ages making sure that it was all slimmingworld fayre and then I couldn't eat it and actually had to HMS for the first time in a loooooong while.
The recipe for anyone that cares:
This serves 4 and is completely free on Extra Easy Slimmingworld plan
1 packet of chicken livers - washed and chopped
1 onion finely chopped
2 garlic cloves grated or crushed
1 pack of smoked back bacon (fat removed) and chopped
4 tbsp's olive oil to fry (use as healthy B choice on slimmingworld plan)
1 tsp chilli powder
1 tsp paprika
1 tbsp sage
1 tub quark (very low fat soft cheese)
200mls skimmed milk (from A choice allowance on plan)
salt and pepper
Cooked pasta spirals and salad
Fry the onion, garlic, bacon, chilli, paprika, sage in the oil and then drain out the oil back into the pan and set aside pulp. Use the spiced oil to gently fry the chicken livers for 4 or 5 minutes, then add the pulp back in and mix it up. Set aside. Mix the tomato puree, quark and milk together to make a thick creamy pink coloured sauce and pour into the liver mixture and stir up. Throw in boiled pasta and mix up. Serve with a salad. Serves 4 hungry people!
Voila! This is what I couldn't eat: I had prodded it and pushed it about for half an hour before I took the photo so its not looking it's absolute best... In fact it looks like shit doesnt it. It wasn't though
Selasa, 28 Juli 2009
I am not the dog whisperer
She's a black lab mix, big as a horse and strong as an ox, and she has that big goofy, sweet lab personality. She showed up on our front steps yesterday afternoon. We live two blocks from a busy street. If she got on that street I knew she would be a dead doggie. What else could I do but bring her into our fenced backyard? It was really a no-brainer.
I posted 15 signs in the neighborhood at 5 a.m. No calls. I've listed her as a found dog with the Humane Society and Pet Finder.
I took her to the vet tonight and had her scanned for a microchip. I literally jumped for joy when they said she had an AVID microchip. Then my heart sank when AVID called the contact numbers and came back on the line and said one number was disconnected and the other had no answer. They promptly gave up. I begged then for the owner's name. I'm a pretty good detective and there are ways of finding people. Something about a privacy rule.
I wrote AVID tonight and told them what I thought about their stupid rule. I want the owner's name and the phone number that doesn't get answered. I also listed her on the AVID website as a found pet.
After I got her home from the vet, I made sure she had plenty of water and food. Then she promptly wrapped the cable she's hooked to around my ankles and knocked me to the ground. I got so wound up in the cable that I thought my feet might get amputated at the ankles.
She jumped on me, trying to lick me to death. I thought I was never going to get up. I was rolling around on the ground trying to get to my feet. She kept wagging her tail back and forth in a crazy frenzy, smacking me in the face, and pushing me back to the ground. I was sure she was going to knock out my front teeth with her antics. I'm strong, but she's stronger. Crazy, stupid, sweet dog.
Moral of this story...if your pet is microchipped make sure your contact information is current. Old phone numbers that don't work aren't going to reunite you and your pet. I'll keep searching for her owner. I know someone misses her. She's a character and a sweetie. She deserves to go back to her people. And no, I'm not keeping her. I'm going to find her owner.
Diet and exercise
On the diet front, struggling big time. After nine days of an eating frenzy it's damn hard to get back in control. Good workouts yesterday and today, but my eating sucks. Nothing really bad, just too much of the healthy stuff. Same old story.
I posted 15 signs in the neighborhood at 5 a.m. No calls. I've listed her as a found dog with the Humane Society and Pet Finder.
I took her to the vet tonight and had her scanned for a microchip. I literally jumped for joy when they said she had an AVID microchip. Then my heart sank when AVID called the contact numbers and came back on the line and said one number was disconnected and the other had no answer. They promptly gave up. I begged then for the owner's name. I'm a pretty good detective and there are ways of finding people. Something about a privacy rule.
I wrote AVID tonight and told them what I thought about their stupid rule. I want the owner's name and the phone number that doesn't get answered. I also listed her on the AVID website as a found pet.
After I got her home from the vet, I made sure she had plenty of water and food. Then she promptly wrapped the cable she's hooked to around my ankles and knocked me to the ground. I got so wound up in the cable that I thought my feet might get amputated at the ankles.
She jumped on me, trying to lick me to death. I thought I was never going to get up. I was rolling around on the ground trying to get to my feet. She kept wagging her tail back and forth in a crazy frenzy, smacking me in the face, and pushing me back to the ground. I was sure she was going to knock out my front teeth with her antics. I'm strong, but she's stronger. Crazy, stupid, sweet dog.
Moral of this story...if your pet is microchipped make sure your contact information is current. Old phone numbers that don't work aren't going to reunite you and your pet. I'll keep searching for her owner. I know someone misses her. She's a character and a sweetie. She deserves to go back to her people. And no, I'm not keeping her. I'm going to find her owner.
Diet and exercise
On the diet front, struggling big time. After nine days of an eating frenzy it's damn hard to get back in control. Good workouts yesterday and today, but my eating sucks. Nothing really bad, just too much of the healthy stuff. Same old story.
Nearly 10% of health spending for obesity
What are your thoughts? Share them here in the Neighborhood:http://www.livingafterwls.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11944By LAURAN NEERGAARDAP Medical WriterWASHINGTON (AP) -- Obesity's not just dangerous, it's expensive. New research shows medical spending averages $1,400 more a year for an obese person than for someone who's normal weight. Overall obesity-related health spending reaches $147
2009 Neighborhood Postcard Swap
Here is Kaye's other assistant Keeper Kitty with her postcards from the 2008 swap(As posted by my new assistant Camie in the Neighborhood)Hello.This is my first post to the Neighborhood and my first Neighborhood assignment as Kayes assistant. You are invited to join the second annual Neighborhood Postcard Swap and travel the world without leaving home. How it works:Select 5 postcards from your
The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Subdividing Lipoproteins
Two posts ago, we made the rounds of the commonly measured blood lipids (total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides) and how they associate with cardiac risk. It's important to keep in mind that many things associate with cardiac risk, not just blood lipids. For example, men with low serum vitamin D are at a 2.4-fold greater risk of heart attack than men with higher D levels. That alone is roughly equivalent to the predictive power of the blood lipids you get measured at the doctor's office. Coronary calcium scans (a measure of blood vessel calcification) also associate with cardiac risk better than the most commonly measured blood lipids.
Lipoproteins Can be Subdivided into Several Subcategories
In the continual search for better measures of cardiac risk, researchers in the 1980s decided to break down lipoprotein particles into sub-categories. One of these researchers is Dr. Ronald M. Krauss. Krauss published extensively on the association between lipoprotein size and cardiac risk, eventually concluding (source):
Krauss and his colleagues went on to hypothesize that sdLDL promotes atherosclerosis because of its ability to penetrate the artery wall more easily than large LDL. He and others subsequently showed that sdLDL are also more prone to oxidation than large LDL (1, 2).
Diet Affects LDL Subcategories
The next step in Krauss's research was to see how diet affects lipoprotein patterns. In 1994, he published a study comparing the effects of a low-fat (24%), high-carbohydrate (56%) diet to a "high-fat" (46%), "low-carbohydrate" (34%) diet on lipoprotein patterns. The high-fat diet also happened to be high in saturated fat-- 18% of calories. He found that (quote source):
Krauss then specifically explored the effect of saturated fat on LDL size (free full text). He re-analyzed the data from the study above, and found that:
Krauss also tested the effect of his dietary intervention on HDL. Several studies have found that the largest HDL particles, HDL2b, associate most strongly with HDL's protective effects (more HDL2b = fewer heart attacks). Compared to the diet high in total fat and saturated fat, the low-fat diet decreased HDL2b significantly. A separate study found that the effect persists at one year. Berglund et al. independently confirmed the finding using the low-fat American Heart Association diet in men and women of diverse racial backgrounds. Here's what they had to say about it:
Wrapping it Up
Contrary to the simplistic idea that saturated fat increases LDL and thus cardiac risk, total fat and saturated fat have a complex influence on blood lipids, the net effect of which is unclear, but is associated with a lower risk of heart attacks. These blood lipid changes persist for at least one year, so they may represent a long-term effect. It's important to remember that the primary sources of carbohydrate in the modern Western diet are wheat and sugar. Are the blood lipid patterns that associate with heart attack risk in Western countries partially acting as markers of wheat and sugar intake?
* This is why you may read that small, dense LDL is not an "independent predictor" of heart attack risk. Since it travels along with a particular pattern of HDL and triglycerides, in most studies it does not give information on cardiac risk beyond what you can get by measuring other lipoproteins.
Lipoproteins Can be Subdivided into Several Subcategories
In the continual search for better measures of cardiac risk, researchers in the 1980s decided to break down lipoprotein particles into sub-categories. One of these researchers is Dr. Ronald M. Krauss. Krauss published extensively on the association between lipoprotein size and cardiac risk, eventually concluding (source):
The plasma lipoprotein profile accompanying a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles (specifically LDL-III) is associated with up to a threefold increase in the susceptibility of developing [coronary artery disease]. This has been demonstrated in case-control studies of myocardial infarction and angiographically documented coronary disease.Krauss found that small, dense LDL (sdLDL) doesn't travel alone: it typically comes along with low HDL and high triglycerides*. He called this combination of factors "lipoprotein pattern B"; its opposite is "lipoprotein pattern A": large, buoyant LDL, high HDL and low triglycerides. Incidentally, low HDL and high triglycerides are hallmarks of the metabolic syndrome, the quintessential modern metabolic disorder.
Krauss and his colleagues went on to hypothesize that sdLDL promotes atherosclerosis because of its ability to penetrate the artery wall more easily than large LDL. He and others subsequently showed that sdLDL are also more prone to oxidation than large LDL (1, 2).
Diet Affects LDL Subcategories
The next step in Krauss's research was to see how diet affects lipoprotein patterns. In 1994, he published a study comparing the effects of a low-fat (24%), high-carbohydrate (56%) diet to a "high-fat" (46%), "low-carbohydrate" (34%) diet on lipoprotein patterns. The high-fat diet also happened to be high in saturated fat-- 18% of calories. He found that (quote source):
Out of the 87 men with pattern A on the high-fat diet, 36 converted to pattern B on the low-fat diet... Taken together, these results indicate that in the majority of men, the reduction in LDL cholesterol seen on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet is mainly because of a shift from larger, more cholesterol-enriched LDL to smaller, cholesterol-depleted LDL [sdLDL].In other words, in the majority of people, high-carbohydrate diets lower LDL cholesterol not by decreasing LDL particle count (which might be good), but by decreasing LDL size and increasing sdLDL (probably not good). This has been shown repeatedly, including with a 10% fat diet and in children. However, in people who already exhibit pattern B, reducing fat does reduce LDL particle number. Keep in mind that the majority of carbohydrate in modern America comes from wheat and sugar.
Krauss then specifically explored the effect of saturated fat on LDL size (free full text). He re-analyzed the data from the study above, and found that:
In summary, the present study showed that changes in dietary saturated fat are associated with changes in LDL subclasses in healthy men. An increase in saturated fat, and in particular, myristic acid [as well as palmitic acid], was associated with increases in larger LDL particles (and decreases in smaller LDL particles). LDL particle diameter and peak flotation rate [density] were also positively associated with saturated fat, indicating shifts in LDL-particle distribution toward larger, cholesterol-enriched LDL.Participants who ate the most saturated fat had the largest LDL, and vice versa. Kudos to Dr. Krauss for publishing these provocative data. It's not an isolated finding. He noted in 1994 that:
Cross-sectional population analyses have suggested an association between reduced LDL particle size and relatively reduced dietary animal-fat intake, and increased consumption of carbohydrates.Diet Affects HDL Subcategories
Krauss also tested the effect of his dietary intervention on HDL. Several studies have found that the largest HDL particles, HDL2b, associate most strongly with HDL's protective effects (more HDL2b = fewer heart attacks). Compared to the diet high in total fat and saturated fat, the low-fat diet decreased HDL2b significantly. A separate study found that the effect persists at one year. Berglund et al. independently confirmed the finding using the low-fat American Heart Association diet in men and women of diverse racial backgrounds. Here's what they had to say about it:
The results indicate that dietary changes suggested to be prudent for a large segment of the population will primarily affect [i.e., reduce] the concentrations of the most prominent antiatherogenic [anti-heart attack] HDL subpopulation.Saturated and omega-3 fats selectively increase large HDL. Dr. B. G. of Animal Pharm has written about this a number of times.
Wrapping it Up
Contrary to the simplistic idea that saturated fat increases LDL and thus cardiac risk, total fat and saturated fat have a complex influence on blood lipids, the net effect of which is unclear, but is associated with a lower risk of heart attacks. These blood lipid changes persist for at least one year, so they may represent a long-term effect. It's important to remember that the primary sources of carbohydrate in the modern Western diet are wheat and sugar. Are the blood lipid patterns that associate with heart attack risk in Western countries partially acting as markers of wheat and sugar intake?
* This is why you may read that small, dense LDL is not an "independent predictor" of heart attack risk. Since it travels along with a particular pattern of HDL and triglycerides, in most studies it does not give information on cardiac risk beyond what you can get by measuring other lipoproteins.
The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Subdividing Lipoproteins
Two posts ago, we made the rounds of the commonly measured blood lipids (total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides) and how they associate with cardiac risk. It's important to keep in mind that many things associate with cardiac risk, not just blood lipids. For example, men with low serum vitamin D are at a 2.4-fold greater risk of heart attack than men with higher D levels. That alone is roughly equivalent to the predictive power of the blood lipids you get measured at the doctor's office. Coronary calcium scans (a measure of blood vessel calcification) also associate with cardiac risk better than the most commonly measured blood lipids.
Lipoproteins Can be Subdivided into Several Subcategories
In the continual search for better measures of cardiac risk, researchers in the 1980s decided to break down lipoprotein particles into sub-categories. One of these researchers is Dr. Ronald M. Krauss. Krauss published extensively on the association between lipoprotein size and cardiac risk, eventually concluding (source):
Krauss and his colleagues went on to hypothesize that sdLDL promotes atherosclerosis because of its ability to penetrate the artery wall more easily than large LDL. He and others subsequently showed that sdLDL are also more prone to oxidation than large LDL (1, 2).
Diet Affects LDL Subcategories
The next step in Krauss's research was to see how diet affects lipoprotein patterns. In 1994, he published a study comparing the effects of a low-fat (24%), high-carbohydrate (56%) diet to a "high-fat" (46%), "low-carbohydrate" (34%) diet on lipoprotein patterns. The high-fat diet also happened to be high in saturated fat-- 18% of calories. He found that (quote source):
Krauss then specifically explored the effect of saturated fat on LDL size (free full text). He re-analyzed the data from the study above, and found that:
Krauss also tested the effect of his dietary intervention on HDL. Several studies have found that the largest HDL particles, HDL2b, associate most strongly with HDL's protective effects (more HDL2b = fewer heart attacks). Compared to the diet high in total fat and saturated fat, the low-fat diet decreased HDL2b significantly. A separate study found that the effect persists at one year. Berglund et al. independently confirmed the finding using the low-fat American Heart Association diet in men and women of diverse racial backgrounds. Here's what they had to say about it:
Wrapping it Up
Contrary to the simplistic idea that saturated fat increases LDL and thus cardiac risk, total fat and saturated fat have a complex influence on blood lipids, the net effect of which is unclear, but is associated with a lower risk of heart attacks. These blood lipid changes persist for at least one year, so they may represent a long-term effect. It's important to remember that the primary sources of carbohydrate in the modern Western diet are wheat and sugar. Are the blood lipid patterns that associate with heart attack risk in Western countries partially acting as markers of wheat and sugar intake?
* This is why you may read that small, dense LDL is not an "independent predictor" of heart attack risk. Since it travels along with a particular pattern of HDL and triglycerides, in most studies it does not give information on cardiac risk beyond what you can get by measuring other lipoproteins.
Lipoproteins Can be Subdivided into Several Subcategories
In the continual search for better measures of cardiac risk, researchers in the 1980s decided to break down lipoprotein particles into sub-categories. One of these researchers is Dr. Ronald M. Krauss. Krauss published extensively on the association between lipoprotein size and cardiac risk, eventually concluding (source):
The plasma lipoprotein profile accompanying a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles (specifically LDL-III) is associated with up to a threefold increase in the susceptibility of developing [coronary artery disease]. This has been demonstrated in case-control studies of myocardial infarction and angiographically documented coronary disease.Krauss found that small, dense LDL (sdLDL) doesn't travel alone: it typically comes along with low HDL and high triglycerides*. He called this combination of factors "lipoprotein pattern B"; its opposite is "lipoprotein pattern A": large, buoyant LDL, high HDL and low triglycerides. Incidentally, low HDL and high triglycerides are hallmarks of the metabolic syndrome, the quintessential modern metabolic disorder.
Krauss and his colleagues went on to hypothesize that sdLDL promotes atherosclerosis because of its ability to penetrate the artery wall more easily than large LDL. He and others subsequently showed that sdLDL are also more prone to oxidation than large LDL (1, 2).
Diet Affects LDL Subcategories
The next step in Krauss's research was to see how diet affects lipoprotein patterns. In 1994, he published a study comparing the effects of a low-fat (24%), high-carbohydrate (56%) diet to a "high-fat" (46%), "low-carbohydrate" (34%) diet on lipoprotein patterns. The high-fat diet also happened to be high in saturated fat-- 18% of calories. He found that (quote source):
Out of the 87 men with pattern A on the high-fat diet, 36 converted to pattern B on the low-fat diet... Taken together, these results indicate that in the majority of men, the reduction in LDL cholesterol seen on a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet is mainly because of a shift from larger, more cholesterol-enriched LDL to smaller, cholesterol-depleted LDL [sdLDL].In other words, in the majority of people, high-carbohydrate diets lower LDL cholesterol not by decreasing LDL particle count (which might be good), but by decreasing LDL size and increasing sdLDL (probably not good). This has been shown repeatedly, including with a 10% fat diet and in children. However, in people who already exhibit pattern B, reducing fat does reduce LDL particle number. Keep in mind that the majority of carbohydrate in modern America comes from wheat and sugar.
Krauss then specifically explored the effect of saturated fat on LDL size (free full text). He re-analyzed the data from the study above, and found that:
In summary, the present study showed that changes in dietary saturated fat are associated with changes in LDL subclasses in healthy men. An increase in saturated fat, and in particular, myristic acid [as well as palmitic acid], was associated with increases in larger LDL particles (and decreases in smaller LDL particles). LDL particle diameter and peak flotation rate [density] were also positively associated with saturated fat, indicating shifts in LDL-particle distribution toward larger, cholesterol-enriched LDL.Participants who ate the most saturated fat had the largest LDL, and vice versa. Kudos to Dr. Krauss for publishing these provocative data. It's not an isolated finding. He noted in 1994 that:
Cross-sectional population analyses have suggested an association between reduced LDL particle size and relatively reduced dietary animal-fat intake, and increased consumption of carbohydrates.Diet Affects HDL Subcategories
Krauss also tested the effect of his dietary intervention on HDL. Several studies have found that the largest HDL particles, HDL2b, associate most strongly with HDL's protective effects (more HDL2b = fewer heart attacks). Compared to the diet high in total fat and saturated fat, the low-fat diet decreased HDL2b significantly. A separate study found that the effect persists at one year. Berglund et al. independently confirmed the finding using the low-fat American Heart Association diet in men and women of diverse racial backgrounds. Here's what they had to say about it:
The results indicate that dietary changes suggested to be prudent for a large segment of the population will primarily affect [i.e., reduce] the concentrations of the most prominent antiatherogenic [anti-heart attack] HDL subpopulation.Saturated and omega-3 fats selectively increase large HDL. Dr. B. G. of Animal Pharm has written about this a number of times.
Wrapping it Up
Contrary to the simplistic idea that saturated fat increases LDL and thus cardiac risk, total fat and saturated fat have a complex influence on blood lipids, the net effect of which is unclear, but is associated with a lower risk of heart attacks. These blood lipid changes persist for at least one year, so they may represent a long-term effect. It's important to remember that the primary sources of carbohydrate in the modern Western diet are wheat and sugar. Are the blood lipid patterns that associate with heart attack risk in Western countries partially acting as markers of wheat and sugar intake?
* This is why you may read that small, dense LDL is not an "independent predictor" of heart attack risk. Since it travels along with a particular pattern of HDL and triglycerides, in most studies it does not give information on cardiac risk beyond what you can get by measuring other lipoproteins.
Savory Provence Grilled Leg of Lamb
Hello Neighbors!Tonight it is happy grilling at our place. I've got a butterflied leg of lamb on the gas grill over indirect heat.Did you know that lamb is the most widely consumed animal protein in the world? In fact humans have spent the last 1,000 years getting the seasonings and cooking technique just right. Lamb is a staple in the southern hemisphere -- my grandkids tell me the best lamb
How to minimize pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit
The effects of ingesting pesticides in the very small amounts present in vegetables or fruits are unknown, but you must protect yourself and your family from pesticides on fruits and vegetables. Because many fruits and vegetables sold in our markets today are treated with pesticides, and residues of these potentially harmful chemicals often remain on their surfaces. Try the following idea to minimize those harmful effect.
Wash all fresh vegetables and fruit thoroughly with lots of running water. Vegetables and fruit should be washed before it is eaten because washing does reduce levels of some pesticides. However, other pesticides are taken up internally in the plant, are in the fruit, and cannot be washed off.
Washing with plain water only removes 25-50 percent of the pesticide residue. Try to washing and rewashing fruits and vegetables and allowing them to soak for a few minutes.
It makes common sense to peel fruits, if possible, and not to eat potato skins unless you are able to purchase them pesticide-free.
Remove the outer leaves of lettuce, cabbage and other leafy vegetables and then rinse the vegetables. Peel hard-skinned produce, or rinse it with lots of warm water mixed with salt and lemon juice or vinegar.
I certainly advocate avoiding the skins of foods that are reported to have the most pesticide residue.
Commercial vegetable and fruit washes are available at your local health food stores and some supermarkets which are formulated to remove chemical residue from produce. Or you can also make your own produce wash using a much diluted solution of mild dishwashing detergent (1 tsp detergent mix with 4 liters water).
Many peoples really confused between trying to eat more vegetables and fruits as recommended by dietitians and the concerns over pesticides used on fresh produce. So, alternatively, you may want to buy and serve organic produce. Organic growers do not use pesticides to produce their fruits and vegetables.
Remember that the benefits of eating fresh fruits and vegetables may outweigh the risks associated with pesticide residue, but do with caution when buying produce.
Have another tips? Share with us and help other people.
Wash all fresh vegetables and fruit thoroughly with lots of running water. Vegetables and fruit should be washed before it is eaten because washing does reduce levels of some pesticides. However, other pesticides are taken up internally in the plant, are in the fruit, and cannot be washed off.
Washing with plain water only removes 25-50 percent of the pesticide residue. Try to washing and rewashing fruits and vegetables and allowing them to soak for a few minutes.
It makes common sense to peel fruits, if possible, and not to eat potato skins unless you are able to purchase them pesticide-free.
Remove the outer leaves of lettuce, cabbage and other leafy vegetables and then rinse the vegetables. Peel hard-skinned produce, or rinse it with lots of warm water mixed with salt and lemon juice or vinegar.
I certainly advocate avoiding the skins of foods that are reported to have the most pesticide residue.
Commercial vegetable and fruit washes are available at your local health food stores and some supermarkets which are formulated to remove chemical residue from produce. Or you can also make your own produce wash using a much diluted solution of mild dishwashing detergent (1 tsp detergent mix with 4 liters water).
Many peoples really confused between trying to eat more vegetables and fruits as recommended by dietitians and the concerns over pesticides used on fresh produce. So, alternatively, you may want to buy and serve organic produce. Organic growers do not use pesticides to produce their fruits and vegetables.
Remember that the benefits of eating fresh fruits and vegetables may outweigh the risks associated with pesticide residue, but do with caution when buying produce.
Have another tips? Share with us and help other people.
Pesticides on Vegetables and Fruit
Many different studies that have been done with animals have found that exposure to pesticides can increase the risk of developing various types of cancer, nervous system dysfunction, and reproductive problems.
But no scientist believes that this means we should reduce our consumption of vegetation, but many (including me) believe it prudent to reduce our exposure to the multiple toxic residues present in our food supply. I certainly advocate avoiding the skins of foods that are reported to have the most pesticide residue. And, of course, all fruits and vegetables should be washed before eating.
Read this article about How to minimize pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit.
If you are concerned about pesticides and chemicals, keep in mind that animal products, such as dairy and beef, contain the most toxic pesticide residues. Because cows and steers eat large amounts of tainted feed, certain pesticides and dangerous chemicals are found in higher concentrations in animal foods. For example, dioxin, which is predominantly found in fatty meats and dairy products, is one of the most potent toxins Linked to several cancers in humans, including lymphomas. By basing your diet on unrefined plant foods, you automatically reduce your exposure to the most dangerous chemicals.
The best way to scale back pesticide consumption is to go organic. In its annual survey released in 2004, revealed that 68% of Americans have tried organic fruits and beverages compared to 54% in the two previous years. The survey also reported that 27% indicated that they consumed more organic foods and beverages than they did the year before.
The three principal reasons people gave for purchasing organic were avoidance of pesticides (70.3%), freshness, (68.3%), and health and nutrition (67.1%). Avoiding genetically modified foods was the reason given by 55% of the respondents. "Better for my health" was the answer of 52.8% while "better for the environment" was the statement of 52.4%.
The major problem to more purchases of organic items is price with 74.6% of those polled giving that as a reason for not buying more. As a positive sign more Americans (40%) now recognize the organic logo and labeling on their purchases, up 19% from 2003.
What do you think?
But no scientist believes that this means we should reduce our consumption of vegetation, but many (including me) believe it prudent to reduce our exposure to the multiple toxic residues present in our food supply. I certainly advocate avoiding the skins of foods that are reported to have the most pesticide residue. And, of course, all fruits and vegetables should be washed before eating.
Read this article about How to minimize pesticide residues on vegetables and fruit.
If you are concerned about pesticides and chemicals, keep in mind that animal products, such as dairy and beef, contain the most toxic pesticide residues. Because cows and steers eat large amounts of tainted feed, certain pesticides and dangerous chemicals are found in higher concentrations in animal foods. For example, dioxin, which is predominantly found in fatty meats and dairy products, is one of the most potent toxins Linked to several cancers in humans, including lymphomas. By basing your diet on unrefined plant foods, you automatically reduce your exposure to the most dangerous chemicals.
The best way to scale back pesticide consumption is to go organic. In its annual survey released in 2004, revealed that 68% of Americans have tried organic fruits and beverages compared to 54% in the two previous years. The survey also reported that 27% indicated that they consumed more organic foods and beverages than they did the year before.
The three principal reasons people gave for purchasing organic were avoidance of pesticides (70.3%), freshness, (68.3%), and health and nutrition (67.1%). Avoiding genetically modified foods was the reason given by 55% of the respondents. "Better for my health" was the answer of 52.8% while "better for the environment" was the statement of 52.4%.
The major problem to more purchases of organic items is price with 74.6% of those polled giving that as a reason for not buying more. As a positive sign more Americans (40%) now recognize the organic logo and labeling on their purchases, up 19% from 2003.
What do you think?
The march of Mrs. Blobby
Hate self hate self hate self HATE SELF
Want to eat
Want to eat
Hate self hate self
eat
Hate self hate self hate self hate self HATE SELF
want to eat more
battle with mind battle with mind
eat
HATE SELF AD INFINITUM...
...and the result is 2 and a half pounds of lard re attached to my butt.
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Such is the week I have had - an endless battle with my own willpower. Groan.
My name is Bunny and I am a foodaholic.
I have also been having thoughts such as "Well what the hell, I've seen fatty's in bikini's." "Who really cares about my weight except me?" "Do I want to be slim really?" "Can I be bothered to lose weight" "What if I just give up and do what I want... will it really be that bad?"
To be honest, its been a really rubbish week - had the painter's in, and missing DS as he's at kids camp etc, - and I knew I would gain this week, so I just went with it. As you all know my weigh in is on Monday's, so on Saturday we had a slap up Chinese - aromatic crispy lamb in pancakes, shredded smoked chicken, seaweed, shredded sticky chilli beef, chicken fried rice and sweet and sour sauce and prawn crackers to the tune of £35 + bottle of red. YUM. Then on Sunday we had a huge Indian takeaway which set us back £25 and I enjoyed every mouthful.
Yesterday I went to the weighbridge and faced the music. I stayed to 'image therapy' which I think is a completely pants and pointless title seeing as all it is is reading out peoples losses/gains and asking each one how they did that week. I don't know why they don't just call it Confession! It usually ends up with a load of old biddies talking about how they do their knitting whilst watching telly, or their Friend is going to Scotland and their husband is ill and they think they have swine flu or other such petty crap that has nothing to do with slimmingworld. And then you get the ones who are blatantly not doign it, but expect to lose wight anyway and will NOT listen to any suggestions and you just want to throttle them, and then the ones who just sit there and list all the food they ate menu by menu each day for a week and its terminally boring... BUT, that said it does focus the mind sitting in front of said biddies and having them say "oh well, maybe next week" and "how can you get on track" because they all do genuinely care. Staying to Confession as I am now going to call it is good for me. If I stay I usually do better, and even though most of the people there are dappy, at least they are there to talk to and its kind of a social occasion for them, so whatever.
They all know that I have a lap band, and that I can eat any amount of rubbish, but struggle with real food, so its useful to me to be able to share my joys/failures with them. Sometimes they come up with good ideas too... like one lady found a trifle that was low in syns as she brought it in for me because it was soft and sweet and said it might be easy for me to eat and nice when I want a sugar hit rather than chocolates... so that was nice. I hate trifle though, but bless her anyway.
So I got a rap on the knuckles and I was on plan 100% yesterday and so far 100% today.
Yesterday was a bit weird... I could not drink my coffee after slimmingworld, probably because I had a spoon of pea soup and one of the shucks got stuck or something, so for most of the day until 5:30 I could not eat anything. Then after I went to tesco I was able to drink 1 litre of Innocent smoothie, which was about 700 cals for the whole carton. I was glad of that as I was needing sugar and pure fruit smoothie is about the best I can grab. Then I made a roast chicken dinner and I ate this:
Then in the evening I managed to keep control of myself and had a muller light and some home made tomato soup. The tomato soup was luscious:
10 very ripe large tomatoes
1 onion
2 sticks celery
3 carrots
teaspoon of thyme
1/2 teaspoon of dried chilli flakes
2 tablespoons of tomato puree
3 litres of water
1 vegetable stock cube
1 tablespoon of olive oil to fry the onion a little (but you can omit this)
salt and black pepper to taste
Boil to death for about an hour and then blitz with a hand blender and then portion into food bags and freeze.
Its just great. I am about to have a bowl now actually!
Then today I have been on plan too. I woke up at bout 9:30 (DS is away on camp remember) and filled in all my stuff for the CRB enhanced disclosure check I have to do each year as I work with children, got that down to the post office and that took about 45 minutes to sort out as they never know what the hell they are doing and I have to wait and wait and wait for them to read the guidance notes (again just like the last 6 years running) and then make a phone call because they are still baffled, and then I tell them they should write "just fill in the 'check&send' form" on their guidance notes so that EACH YEAR we don't have to go through this farce and they say "what a good idea, I will do that" and then not bother again like they haven't done each time they have said that (Yeah, I get a little grieved by this!)... and then came home to find I had a music theory paper to mark for a pupil, so I did that and then had to trek back down the post office again to post that, then came home and had a coffee. After all that it was 12:30. So I made a chicken salad with the left over roast chicken from last night and added honey mustard dressing (8 syns for the WHOLE bottle so very low syns to use) and now its 3 o'clock and I am peckish again. Heres the chicken salad:
I am able to eat quite a lot of food at each sitting as long as I go about it right. I think that this is a good thing.
To eat and have nothing stick I must do the following:
1.) Drink 1/2 pint of squash or water and then have a coffee - immediately before eating
2.) Chew teaspoon size mouthfuls for the first 5 or 6 bites and do it thoroughly
3.) Chew thoroughly every other bite of the meal
4.) Stop eating immediately on sensation in chest and wait a full minute until next mouthful
These are MY golden rulz. they are not the same for everyone, but this is how I manage my band and food intake.
If I follow these rules:
I do not HMS (aka PB)
I do not have to eat between meals
I do not have any problems what so ever.
If I don't follow these rules:
1.) I have to HMS
2.) only manage one mouthful and then sit for an hour with pain in my chest
3.) not manage anything else to eat for hours and feel weak
I always call it HMS'ing rather than PB'ing because I NEVER have 'productive burps'. That has never happened. If I have a problem it always ends up in me Having to Make myself Sick or HMS for short/decency reasons
I have never in my entire time with the band burped and had blowback. Nope.
If I get a heavy chest, it usually will not pass, and I have learned to stop eating if I have the slightest sensation because experience tells me that if I carry on it will only be a.) more painful and b.) mean it could get embarrassing if in company where I cannot wait and have to throw up immediately. If I stop on first sensation I can usually wait until I am at home/safely installed in a bathroom to get on with the HMS job and I can wait out the pain as its not terrible. On very rare occasions the food does pass through, but it normally takes about 1 to 1.5 hours to do so.
So that's me for the last few days. I will try and keep with the programme guyz and girlz and let you know how its going. I am going to take more photos of meals as I find this really helps me, and I guess you too, know how much I am eating and the type of foods I can eat as a restricted bandster...
Obesity costs U.S. health system $147 billion: study
Obesity costs U.S. health system $147 billion: study
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year, U.S. researchers said Monday.
They said obese people spend 40 percent more -- or $1,429 more per year -- in healthcare costs than people of normal weight.
"It is critical that we take effective steps to contain and reduce the enormous burden of obesity on our nation," Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a news conference at a CDC obesity meeting where the study was presented.
"Reversing obesity is not going to be done successfully with individual effort," Frieden said. "It will be done successfully as a society."
The CDC outlined 24 new recommendations on how communities can combat obesity in their neighborhoods and schools by encouraging healthier eating and more exercise.
Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee and chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Foresty, said the report underscores why prevention and wellness efforts must be part of any plan to reform the U.S. health system.
"Report after report shows that if we fail to take meaningful steps now on prevention of chronic disease like obesity, healthcare costs will continue to spiral out of control," Harkin said in a statement.
26 PERCENT OBESITY RATE IN U.S.
More than 26 percent of Americans are obese, which means they have a body mass index of 30 or higher. BMI is equal to weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. A person 5 feet 5 inches tall becomes obese at 180 pounds (82 kg).
For the study, Eric Finkelstein of the non-profit RTI International and researchers at the CDC and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality analyzed medical cost data from 1998 and 2006.
They found U.S. obesity rates rose 37 percent between 1998 and 2006, driving an 89 percent increase in spending on treatments for obesity-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and arthritis.
Obesity now accounts for 9.1 percent of all medical spending in the United States, up from 6.5 percent in 1998.
"What we found was the total cost of obesity increased from $74 billion to maybe as high as $147 billion today, so roughly double over that time period," said Finkelstein, whose study also was published in the journal Health Affairs.
An obese Medicare beneficiary spends $600 more a year on drug costs than a Medicare patient of healthy weight.
The CDC's new obesity prevention strategies aim to address issues such as a lack of access to healthy food in poor neighborhoods and sedentary lifestyles that contribute to America's obesity epidemic.
Frieden said soda and sugar-sweetened beverages "play a particular role in the obesity epidemic," noting that Americans consume an extra 150 calories more per day in sugar-sweetened beverages than two to three decades ago.
He said adding a tax to soft drinks might curb consumption but that was not a position held by the Obama administration.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Bill Trott)
By Julie Steenhuysen
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of all medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year, U.S. researchers said Monday.
They said obese people spend 40 percent more -- or $1,429 more per year -- in healthcare costs than people of normal weight.
"It is critical that we take effective steps to contain and reduce the enormous burden of obesity on our nation," Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told a news conference at a CDC obesity meeting where the study was presented.
"Reversing obesity is not going to be done successfully with individual effort," Frieden said. "It will be done successfully as a society."
The CDC outlined 24 new recommendations on how communities can combat obesity in their neighborhoods and schools by encouraging healthier eating and more exercise.
Democratic Senator Tom Harkin, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee and chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Foresty, said the report underscores why prevention and wellness efforts must be part of any plan to reform the U.S. health system.
"Report after report shows that if we fail to take meaningful steps now on prevention of chronic disease like obesity, healthcare costs will continue to spiral out of control," Harkin said in a statement.
26 PERCENT OBESITY RATE IN U.S.
More than 26 percent of Americans are obese, which means they have a body mass index of 30 or higher. BMI is equal to weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. A person 5 feet 5 inches tall becomes obese at 180 pounds (82 kg).
For the study, Eric Finkelstein of the non-profit RTI International and researchers at the CDC and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality analyzed medical cost data from 1998 and 2006.
They found U.S. obesity rates rose 37 percent between 1998 and 2006, driving an 89 percent increase in spending on treatments for obesity-related diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and arthritis.
Obesity now accounts for 9.1 percent of all medical spending in the United States, up from 6.5 percent in 1998.
"What we found was the total cost of obesity increased from $74 billion to maybe as high as $147 billion today, so roughly double over that time period," said Finkelstein, whose study also was published in the journal Health Affairs.
An obese Medicare beneficiary spends $600 more a year on drug costs than a Medicare patient of healthy weight.
The CDC's new obesity prevention strategies aim to address issues such as a lack of access to healthy food in poor neighborhoods and sedentary lifestyles that contribute to America's obesity epidemic.
Frieden said soda and sugar-sweetened beverages "play a particular role in the obesity epidemic," noting that Americans consume an extra 150 calories more per day in sugar-sweetened beverages than two to three decades ago.
He said adding a tax to soft drinks might curb consumption but that was not a position held by the Obama administration.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Bill Trott)
Senin, 27 Juli 2009
Day 208 - Stress
I have learned a lot about stress and how I deal with it in the last few weeks. I have come to the conclusion in my life that there are at least 2 ways my body can deal with it. Emotionally or physically. My ENTIRE life, I have dealt with stress through emotional eating. No matter what was going on, if I ate, I felt better for the time being. Chocolate, cake, pop corn, chocolate, ice cream, chocolate... you name it, I would crave it until I could put the kids to bed at night and then have my moment to "deal".
Lately, I haven't used this method to deal with the stress in my life. I don't know why either. How can a person who has dealt with stress the same way for the last 25 years by eating, suddenly change her M.O.? Maybe it's the daily exercise? Maybe I shrunk my stomach with smaller portions? Maybe I am just busy in a way I have never been before? For whatever reason, stress now upsets my stomach to the point where the thought of eating makes me want to hurl? I have heard stress causing such physical manifestations on people and I always wish I would have the problem of not eating instead of gorging. Be careful what you wish for!!
So I was thinking the other day that if over eating is an emotional way to deal with stress, how can a person change their perspective? How can a person change their emotional cravings to something more productive? Not eating is never a good thing. No matter what the stress in my life, I am just not going to stop eating, that would be CRAZY! One thing I have been able to notice in myself is that by not having the cravings, the drive to gorge, I have been able to focus and think about healthy food. Lunch comes, and nothing sounds good, so what to do? Eat something healthy even if typically it's not something that would fill you. During this process, I have learned to focus on the food, not the appetite. I used to just follow my appetite and that is where I would get into trouble. If I craved something, I went and got it. If I wanted more, I would eat until I would be physically ill. Understanding that over eating was my way of dealing with stress, I can more identify what I am doing and try to choose something different.
Lately, I haven't used this method to deal with the stress in my life. I don't know why either. How can a person who has dealt with stress the same way for the last 25 years by eating, suddenly change her M.O.? Maybe it's the daily exercise? Maybe I shrunk my stomach with smaller portions? Maybe I am just busy in a way I have never been before? For whatever reason, stress now upsets my stomach to the point where the thought of eating makes me want to hurl? I have heard stress causing such physical manifestations on people and I always wish I would have the problem of not eating instead of gorging. Be careful what you wish for!!
So I was thinking the other day that if over eating is an emotional way to deal with stress, how can a person change their perspective? How can a person change their emotional cravings to something more productive? Not eating is never a good thing. No matter what the stress in my life, I am just not going to stop eating, that would be CRAZY! One thing I have been able to notice in myself is that by not having the cravings, the drive to gorge, I have been able to focus and think about healthy food. Lunch comes, and nothing sounds good, so what to do? Eat something healthy even if typically it's not something that would fill you. During this process, I have learned to focus on the food, not the appetite. I used to just follow my appetite and that is where I would get into trouble. If I craved something, I went and got it. If I wanted more, I would eat until I would be physically ill. Understanding that over eating was my way of dealing with stress, I can more identify what I am doing and try to choose something different.
Fighting Inertia to Start Weight Loss
Albatross has a good discussion about 'inertia' and how it prevents us from getting started with our weight loss goals. She's lost about 30 pounds in the past year and has increased her fitness and health levels. See what she has to say about overcoming inertia and the four factors that helped her do it.
Back from vacation, and I have no regrets
I got home around 11 p.m. last night, but didn't get to sleep until almost 1 a.m. Lots of catching up with the hubby last night/this morning. Turns out he really missed me while I was gone for nine days. I should do solo vacations more often. Right now I'm exhausted. The typical I need a "vacation to recoup from my vacation" story.
I had a really great time in Alaska, I always do. Did lots of stuff, lots of visiting with everyone, and lots of pictures (about 500 pictures--gotta love a 2GB memory stick). I'll post the pictures later, right now I'm late for work.
No exercise to speak of except swimming every day, but not swimming for exercise. It was swimming for fun, mostly playing with the kids or floating around on an inflatable chaise lounge. Even though it was 75-80 degrees all week, the water temperature was 68-70 degrees, which is very cold. Every time I got in the water it took my breathe away. The only way to stay warm was to keep moving, so I got a little exercise.
I weighed this morning, and I'm up to 163.4. I thought I had gained a lot more because it turned out to be an eating frenzy week. When you have kids around, there's a lot of junk food. Plus lots of family dinners with tons of food, and two Sunday brunches at the best brunch place in town. The brunch included 18 feet of desserts, and I had one of each. I just couldn't resist all the temptation.
Today is back to work and back to healthy eating, counting Points and exercise. Also a detox from the sugar. I think I ate more sugar last week than I have in the last year.
Even though it was fun eating all kinds of good food (Tillamook Udderly Chocolate is my new favorite ice cream), I'm glad to be home and back in control of what I eat. The next couple of days will be tough, but once I get through them it'll just be part of my routine again.
I have no regrets.
I had a really great time in Alaska, I always do. Did lots of stuff, lots of visiting with everyone, and lots of pictures (about 500 pictures--gotta love a 2GB memory stick). I'll post the pictures later, right now I'm late for work.
No exercise to speak of except swimming every day, but not swimming for exercise. It was swimming for fun, mostly playing with the kids or floating around on an inflatable chaise lounge. Even though it was 75-80 degrees all week, the water temperature was 68-70 degrees, which is very cold. Every time I got in the water it took my breathe away. The only way to stay warm was to keep moving, so I got a little exercise.
I weighed this morning, and I'm up to 163.4. I thought I had gained a lot more because it turned out to be an eating frenzy week. When you have kids around, there's a lot of junk food. Plus lots of family dinners with tons of food, and two Sunday brunches at the best brunch place in town. The brunch included 18 feet of desserts, and I had one of each. I just couldn't resist all the temptation.
Today is back to work and back to healthy eating, counting Points and exercise. Also a detox from the sugar. I think I ate more sugar last week than I have in the last year.
Even though it was fun eating all kinds of good food (Tillamook Udderly Chocolate is my new favorite ice cream), I'm glad to be home and back in control of what I eat. The next couple of days will be tough, but once I get through them it'll just be part of my routine again.
I have no regrets.
Minggu, 26 Juli 2009
Vegetarian Diet : Longevity
How Much Longer Do Vegetarians Live? This is a difficult question to answer accurately, as there are few studies on lifelong vegetarians in countries with electricity, refrigeration, good sanitation, and adequate nutrition.
Become a vegetarian can help protect against the most serious health problems Americans face today, including heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
Many people are not aware that the same deadly steroids that are banned from use by athletes are in our meat.
US Dept of Health And Human Services, did find in a 2006 study that Ischemic heart disease mortality rates among vegans, as compared to non-vegans, were significantly lower in fish-eaters and lacto-ovo vegans. Other studies do not show a difference in the mortality rates for various diseases.
Many vegetarians are healthy and live long lives, but it doesn't mean that those who eat meat can't enjoy the same result. It is not enough to study health and longevity only in terms of being vegetarian or not. There are other important factors that have to be considered as well, such as physical activity, the quality of food people eat, where they live, and also how much they eat.
Become a vegetarian can help protect against the most serious health problems Americans face today, including heart disease, diabetes and cancer.
Many people are not aware that the same deadly steroids that are banned from use by athletes are in our meat.
US Dept of Health And Human Services, did find in a 2006 study that Ischemic heart disease mortality rates among vegans, as compared to non-vegans, were significantly lower in fish-eaters and lacto-ovo vegans. Other studies do not show a difference in the mortality rates for various diseases.
Many vegetarians are healthy and live long lives, but it doesn't mean that those who eat meat can't enjoy the same result. It is not enough to study health and longevity only in terms of being vegetarian or not. There are other important factors that have to be considered as well, such as physical activity, the quality of food people eat, where they live, and also how much they eat.
Vegetarian Diet : Is No Guarantee of Good Healthv
The reasons for choosing vegetarianism may be related to one or more of the following: morality, religion, culture, ethics, aesthetics, environment, society, economy, politics, taste, or health. A generic term for both vegetarianism and veganism, as well as for similar diets, is "plant-based diets".
Some vegetarians, particularly those who do not consume any food of animal origin, can experience deficiencies in calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B12 or complete proteins. Vegetarians are also at risk of energy deficiency in the form of calories, particularly in children.
An adult on a vegetarian diet for a prolonged period can be at increased risk for periodontal (gum) disease from a lack of vitamin D and calcium. Teeth may soften when there is a shortage of vitamin D, becoming more susceptible to decay and periodontal disease. Vitamin D is produced in the body with sun exposure, so deficiencies are rare, but it can develop in those who do not consume milk or fish. Adding vegetable margarines or soy milk to the diet may solve the problem.
Another risk reviewed by scientists from Australia and Vietnam of all the peer-reviewed literature on the issue has found that people on vegetarian diets have approximately 5% lower bone mineral density (BMD) than non-vegetarians.
The researchers selected nine studies for analysis which compared the BMD of 2749 men and women - meat eaters and vegetarians - from around the world and the study was led by Professor Tuan Nguyen from Sydney's Garvan Institute of Medical Research and Dr. Ho-Pham Thuc Lan from the Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Their findings are published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Iron-Deficiency Anemia due to low iron storage may be another issues. One study found that 27% of women and 5% of men who were lacto-ovo-vegetarians had low serum ferritin levels (iron storage).
Balancing vegetarian food ( variety and quality ) and nutrition is vital to maintaining a healthy vegetarian diet.
Some vegetarians, particularly those who do not consume any food of animal origin, can experience deficiencies in calcium, vitamin D, riboflavin, vitamin B12 or complete proteins. Vegetarians are also at risk of energy deficiency in the form of calories, particularly in children.
An adult on a vegetarian diet for a prolonged period can be at increased risk for periodontal (gum) disease from a lack of vitamin D and calcium. Teeth may soften when there is a shortage of vitamin D, becoming more susceptible to decay and periodontal disease. Vitamin D is produced in the body with sun exposure, so deficiencies are rare, but it can develop in those who do not consume milk or fish. Adding vegetable margarines or soy milk to the diet may solve the problem.
Another risk reviewed by scientists from Australia and Vietnam of all the peer-reviewed literature on the issue has found that people on vegetarian diets have approximately 5% lower bone mineral density (BMD) than non-vegetarians.
The researchers selected nine studies for analysis which compared the BMD of 2749 men and women - meat eaters and vegetarians - from around the world and the study was led by Professor Tuan Nguyen from Sydney's Garvan Institute of Medical Research and Dr. Ho-Pham Thuc Lan from the Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Their findings are published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Iron-Deficiency Anemia due to low iron storage may be another issues. One study found that 27% of women and 5% of men who were lacto-ovo-vegetarians had low serum ferritin levels (iron storage).
Balancing vegetarian food ( variety and quality ) and nutrition is vital to maintaining a healthy vegetarian diet.
Sabtu, 25 Juli 2009
MRFIT Mortality
The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention trial was a very large controlled diet trial conducted in the 1980s. It involved an initial phase in which investigators screened over 350,000 men age 35-57 for cardiovascular risk factors including total blood cholesterol. 12,866 participants with major cardiovascular risk factors were selected for the diet intervention trial, while the rest were followed for six years. I discussed the intervention trial here.
During the six years of the observational arm of MRFIT, investigators kept track of deaths in the patients they had screened. They compared the occurrence of deaths from multiple causes to the blood cholesterol values they had measured at the beginning of the study. Here's a graph of the results (source):
Click on the graph for a larger image. Coronary heart disease does indeed rise with increasing total cholesterol in American men of this age group. But total mortality is nearly as high at low cholesterol levels as at high cholesterol levels. What accounts for the increase in mortality at low cholesterol levels, if not coronary heart disease? Stroke is part of the explanation. It was twice as prevalent in the lowest-cholesterol group as it was in other participants. But that hardly explains the large increase in mortality.
Possible explanations from other studies include higher cancer rates and higher rates of accidents and suicide. But the study didn't provide those statistics so I'm only guessing.
The MRFIT study cannot be replicated, because it was conducted at a time when fewer people were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. In 2009, a 50-year old whose doctor discovers he has high cholesterol will likely be prescribed a statin, after which he will probably no longer have high cholesterol. This will confound studies examining the association between blood cholesterol and disease outcomes.
Thanks to The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo for the MRFIT reference.
During the six years of the observational arm of MRFIT, investigators kept track of deaths in the patients they had screened. They compared the occurrence of deaths from multiple causes to the blood cholesterol values they had measured at the beginning of the study. Here's a graph of the results (source):
Click on the graph for a larger image. Coronary heart disease does indeed rise with increasing total cholesterol in American men of this age group. But total mortality is nearly as high at low cholesterol levels as at high cholesterol levels. What accounts for the increase in mortality at low cholesterol levels, if not coronary heart disease? Stroke is part of the explanation. It was twice as prevalent in the lowest-cholesterol group as it was in other participants. But that hardly explains the large increase in mortality.
Possible explanations from other studies include higher cancer rates and higher rates of accidents and suicide. But the study didn't provide those statistics so I'm only guessing.
The MRFIT study cannot be replicated, because it was conducted at a time when fewer people were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. In 2009, a 50-year old whose doctor discovers he has high cholesterol will likely be prescribed a statin, after which he will probably no longer have high cholesterol. This will confound studies examining the association between blood cholesterol and disease outcomes.
Thanks to The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo for the MRFIT reference.
MRFIT Mortality
The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention trial was a very large controlled diet trial conducted in the 1980s. It involved an initial phase in which investigators screened over 350,000 men age 35-57 for cardiovascular risk factors including total blood cholesterol. 12,866 participants with major cardiovascular risk factors were selected for the diet intervention trial, while the rest were followed for six years. I discussed the intervention trial here.
During the six years of the observational arm of MRFIT, investigators kept track of deaths in the patients they had screened. They compared the occurrence of deaths from multiple causes to the blood cholesterol values they had measured at the beginning of the study. Here's a graph of the results (source):
Click on the graph for a larger image. Coronary heart disease does indeed rise with increasing total cholesterol in American men of this age group. But total mortality is nearly as high at low cholesterol levels as at high cholesterol levels. What accounts for the increase in mortality at low cholesterol levels, if not coronary heart disease? Stroke is part of the explanation. It was twice as prevalent in the lowest-cholesterol group as it was in other participants. But that hardly explains the large increase in mortality.
Possible explanations from other studies include higher cancer rates and higher rates of accidents and suicide. But the study didn't provide those statistics so I'm only guessing.
The MRFIT study cannot be replicated, because it was conducted at a time when fewer people were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. In 2009, a 50-year old whose doctor discovers he has high cholesterol will likely be prescribed a statin, after which he will probably no longer have high cholesterol. This will confound studies examining the association between blood cholesterol and disease outcomes.
Thanks to The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo for the MRFIT reference.
During the six years of the observational arm of MRFIT, investigators kept track of deaths in the patients they had screened. They compared the occurrence of deaths from multiple causes to the blood cholesterol values they had measured at the beginning of the study. Here's a graph of the results (source):
Click on the graph for a larger image. Coronary heart disease does indeed rise with increasing total cholesterol in American men of this age group. But total mortality is nearly as high at low cholesterol levels as at high cholesterol levels. What accounts for the increase in mortality at low cholesterol levels, if not coronary heart disease? Stroke is part of the explanation. It was twice as prevalent in the lowest-cholesterol group as it was in other participants. But that hardly explains the large increase in mortality.
Possible explanations from other studies include higher cancer rates and higher rates of accidents and suicide. But the study didn't provide those statistics so I'm only guessing.
The MRFIT study cannot be replicated, because it was conducted at a time when fewer people were taking cholesterol-lowering drugs. In 2009, a 50-year old whose doctor discovers he has high cholesterol will likely be prescribed a statin, after which he will probably no longer have high cholesterol. This will confound studies examining the association between blood cholesterol and disease outcomes.
Thanks to The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo for the MRFIT reference.
Jumat, 24 Juli 2009
The Health Benefits of a Vegetarian Diet
The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada have found a properly-planned vegetarian diet to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to significantly lower risks of cancer, ischaemic heart disease, and other fatal diseases. Necessary nutrients, proteins, and amino acids for the body's sustenance can be found in vegetables, grains, nuts, soymilk, eggs and dairy.
A large body of scientific literature suggests that the consumption of a diet of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, nuts, and fruits, with the avoidance of meat and high-fat animal products, along with a regular exercise program is consistently associated with lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, less obesity and consequently less heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and mortality. In African-Americans, the frequent consumption of nuts, fruits and green salads was associated with 35-44 percent lower risk of overall mortality.
A major report published by the World Cancer Research Fund in 1997 recommended we lower our risk of cancer by choosing predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes and minimally processed starchy staple foods, and to limit the intake of grilled, cured and smoked meats and fish. These methods of preparing meat produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines which are carcinogenic.
About three dozen plant foods have been identified as possessing cancer-protective properties. These include cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower), umbelliferous vegetables and herbs (carrots, celery, cilantro, caraway, dill, parsley), other fruits and vegetables (citrus, tomatoes, cucumber, grapes, cantaloupe, berries), beans (soybeans), whole grains (brown rice, oats, whole wheat), flaxseed, many nuts, and various seasoning herbs (garlic, scallions, onions, chives, ginger, turmeric, rosemary, thyme, oregano, sage, and basil).
These foods and herbs contain of host of cancer-protective phytochemicals such as carotenoids, flavonoids, isothiocyanates, isoflavones, ellagic acid, glucarates, curcurmins, liminoids, lignans, phenolic acids, phthalides, saponins, phytosterols, sulfide compounds, terpenoids, and tocotrienols. These beneficial compounds alter metabolic pathways and hormonal actions that are associated with the development of cancer, stimulate the immune system, and have antioxidant activity.
A recent survey of 47,000 Italians found that persons in the highest tertile of vegetable consumption had a 21 and 11% reduced risk of myocardial infarction and angina, respectively, compared with those in the lowest tertile of vegetable consumption.
A British study found that daily consumption of fresh fruit was associated with a 24 percent reduction in mortality from heart disease and a 32 percent reduction in death from cerebrovascular disease, compared with less frequent fruit consumption. Daily consumption of raw salad was associated with a 26 percent reduction in mortality from heart disease.
But vegetarian diet may have negative impact on our health. See our next post about this.
A large body of scientific literature suggests that the consumption of a diet of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, nuts, and fruits, with the avoidance of meat and high-fat animal products, along with a regular exercise program is consistently associated with lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, less obesity and consequently less heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and mortality. In African-Americans, the frequent consumption of nuts, fruits and green salads was associated with 35-44 percent lower risk of overall mortality.
A major report published by the World Cancer Research Fund in 1997 recommended we lower our risk of cancer by choosing predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes and minimally processed starchy staple foods, and to limit the intake of grilled, cured and smoked meats and fish. These methods of preparing meat produce polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines which are carcinogenic.
About three dozen plant foods have been identified as possessing cancer-protective properties. These include cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower), umbelliferous vegetables and herbs (carrots, celery, cilantro, caraway, dill, parsley), other fruits and vegetables (citrus, tomatoes, cucumber, grapes, cantaloupe, berries), beans (soybeans), whole grains (brown rice, oats, whole wheat), flaxseed, many nuts, and various seasoning herbs (garlic, scallions, onions, chives, ginger, turmeric, rosemary, thyme, oregano, sage, and basil).
These foods and herbs contain of host of cancer-protective phytochemicals such as carotenoids, flavonoids, isothiocyanates, isoflavones, ellagic acid, glucarates, curcurmins, liminoids, lignans, phenolic acids, phthalides, saponins, phytosterols, sulfide compounds, terpenoids, and tocotrienols. These beneficial compounds alter metabolic pathways and hormonal actions that are associated with the development of cancer, stimulate the immune system, and have antioxidant activity.
A recent survey of 47,000 Italians found that persons in the highest tertile of vegetable consumption had a 21 and 11% reduced risk of myocardial infarction and angina, respectively, compared with those in the lowest tertile of vegetable consumption.
A British study found that daily consumption of fresh fruit was associated with a 24 percent reduction in mortality from heart disease and a 32 percent reduction in death from cerebrovascular disease, compared with less frequent fruit consumption. Daily consumption of raw salad was associated with a 26 percent reduction in mortality from heart disease.
But vegetarian diet may have negative impact on our health. See our next post about this.
Vegetarian Diet
A vegetarian diet focuses on plants for food. These include fruits, vegetables, dried beans and peas, grains, seeds and nuts. Studies have shown that vegetarians (following a well-balanced low-fat high-fibre vegetarian diet) often have lower incidence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and some forms of cancer.
Different people follow different forms of vegetarianism. A true vegetarian eats no meat at all, including chicken and fish. A lacto-ovo vegetarian eats dairy products and eggs, but excludes meat, fish, and poultry. It follows, then, that a lacto vegetarian eats dairy products but not eggs, whereas an ovo vegetarian eats eggs but not dairy products.
A vegetarian diet can be a very healthy option but it is important to ensure it is well balanced. You could stuff your face with chips and chocolate at every meal and be vegetarian but you wouldn’t be doing your health much good.
A balanced vegetarian diet should include:
1. Grains and cereals: Wholegrain bread, brown rice, wholewheat pasta, muesli.
Legumes, nuts and seeds: Soya beans. kidney beans, split peas, lentils, almonds, cashews, sesame seeds
2. Fruit and vegetables: As much as you want - think variety. Try new fruits and vegetables and include them in your diet every day
3. Dairy or soya products: Look out for fat free and reduced calorie options for milk, yoghurts, cheeses.
A plant-based diet is rich in its content of health-promoting factors such as the many phytochemicals. The consumption of a generous supply of whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits and vegetables provides protection against chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
If you're choosing a vegetarian diet, the most important thing you can do is to educate yourself. That's why the ADA says that a vegetarian diet needs to be "appropriately planned." Simply dropping certain foods from your diet isn't the way to go if you're interested in maintaining good health, a high energy level, and strong muscles and bones.
Different people follow different forms of vegetarianism. A true vegetarian eats no meat at all, including chicken and fish. A lacto-ovo vegetarian eats dairy products and eggs, but excludes meat, fish, and poultry. It follows, then, that a lacto vegetarian eats dairy products but not eggs, whereas an ovo vegetarian eats eggs but not dairy products.
A vegetarian diet can be a very healthy option but it is important to ensure it is well balanced. You could stuff your face with chips and chocolate at every meal and be vegetarian but you wouldn’t be doing your health much good.
A balanced vegetarian diet should include:
1. Grains and cereals: Wholegrain bread, brown rice, wholewheat pasta, muesli.
Legumes, nuts and seeds: Soya beans. kidney beans, split peas, lentils, almonds, cashews, sesame seeds
2. Fruit and vegetables: As much as you want - think variety. Try new fruits and vegetables and include them in your diet every day
3. Dairy or soya products: Look out for fat free and reduced calorie options for milk, yoghurts, cheeses.
A plant-based diet is rich in its content of health-promoting factors such as the many phytochemicals. The consumption of a generous supply of whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits and vegetables provides protection against chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
If you're choosing a vegetarian diet, the most important thing you can do is to educate yourself. That's why the ADA says that a vegetarian diet needs to be "appropriately planned." Simply dropping certain foods from your diet isn't the way to go if you're interested in maintaining good health, a high energy level, and strong muscles and bones.
Alcohol and Diabetes Risk
It's OK to have an occasional drink. But what does occasional mean? The American Diabetes Association suggests that you have no more than two drinks a day if you are a man and no more than one drink a day if you are a woman. This recommendation is the same for people without diabetes. Find out what effects alcohol can have on your diabetes according to known report from various sources.
Some drinks are better choices for people with diabetes. Select drinks that are lower in alcohol and sugar. If you use mixers in your drinks, choose ones that are sugar free, such as diet soft drinks, diet tonic, club soda, seltzer, or water. This will help keep your blood sugar levels in your target range.
Light beer and dry wines are good choices. They have less alcohol and carbohydrates and fewer calories.
Nearly 23,000 Finnish twins provided information on ther alcohol use, diet, smoking. physical activity, medical and social condtions. They did so in 1975, 1981 and 1990. Over 20 years of follow-up, 580 cases of type 2 diabetes were identified. In an anaylysis of pairs of twins with different drinking patterns, those who consumed alcohol in moderation had half the risk of diabetes compared to those who consumed less alcohol. The researchers report that their findings are consistent with numerous previous studies that have shown moderate alcohol drinkers to have a 30-40 percent reduced risk of type 2 diabetes.
Carlsson, S., et al. Alcohol consumption and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: a 20-year follow-up of the Finnish Twin Cohort Study. Diabetes Care, 2003, 26(10), 2785-2786.
Medical researchers examined the results of 15 different studies and found that moderate drinkers are less likely to have type 2 diabetes than are abstainers. Teetotalers and heavy drinkers have equally high risk of the disease.The 15 studies were conducted in the U.S., Japan, Finland, Korea, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK and followed a total of 369,862 men and women for an average of 12 years.Moderate drinkers (those who drank between about a half a drink to four drinks per day) were found to be 30% less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than abstainers or heavy drinkers.Whether drinkers consume beer, wine or distilled spirits makes little difference, but the pattern of consumption does. It’s much better to consume frequently (such as daily) rather than infrequently for maximum health benefits.
The research findings are published in the journal, Diabetes Care.
Pre-menstrual women who consume a daily drink of beer, wine or distilled spirits (whiskey, rum, tequila, etc.) have a much lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than abstainers, according to a study that duplicates similar findings in men.
The Harvard study involved about 110,000 women age 25 to 42 over a ten-year period. Dramatic reductions (about 60%) occured among women who drank between 1/2 and two drinks daily compared to abstainers. The reduction of risk was lower for those who drank less.
The study, led by Dr. Goya Wannamethee, is published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
A study of over 5,000 women with type 2 diabetes mellitus by Harvard researchers found that coronary heart disease (CHD) rates "were significantly lower in women who reported moderate alcohol intake than in those who reported drinking no alcohol."
Women who drank more than 5 grams (about half a glass) a day reduced their risk of CHD (fatal or nonfatal) by more than half.
Solomon, C. G., et al. Moderate alcohol consumption and risk of coronary heart disease among women with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation, 2000, 102, 494-499.
A major study of almost 21,000 physicians for over 12 years has found that men who are light to moderate drinkers have a decreased risk of Type 2 diabetes mellitus.
These findings are consistent with several other large studies, including the Nurses' Health Study of 85,000 women and the Health Professionals' Follow-Up Study of over 41,000 men.
Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus affects over 15 million people and is the seventh leading cause of death among those over 45 hears of age in the US. This serious disease is also associated with higher rates of cardiovascular disease, renal failure, and blindness caused by retinopathy.
Umed, A., et al. Alcohol consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among US male physicians. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2000, 160, 1025-1050
Some drinks are better choices for people with diabetes. Select drinks that are lower in alcohol and sugar. If you use mixers in your drinks, choose ones that are sugar free, such as diet soft drinks, diet tonic, club soda, seltzer, or water. This will help keep your blood sugar levels in your target range.
Light beer and dry wines are good choices. They have less alcohol and carbohydrates and fewer calories.
Disclosure
My Disclosure Policy
This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation.
The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics or posts made in this blog. That content, advertising space or post may not always be identified as paid or sponsored content.
The owner(s) of this blog is compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. Even though the owner(s) of this blog receives compensation for our posts or advertisements, we always give our honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers' own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question.
This blog does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest. For questions about this blog, please contact me : Weightlossvalue At Yahoo Dot com
To get your own policy, click here
This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation.
The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics or posts made in this blog. That content, advertising space or post may not always be identified as paid or sponsored content.
The owner(s) of this blog is compensated to provide opinion on products, services, websites and various other topics. Even though the owner(s) of this blog receives compensation for our posts or advertisements, we always give our honest opinions, findings, beliefs, or experiences on those topics or products. The views and opinions expressed on this blog are purely the bloggers' own. Any product claim, statistic, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider or party in question.
This blog does not contain any content which might present a conflict of interest. For questions about this blog, please contact me : Weightlossvalue At Yahoo Dot com
To get your own policy, click here
Kamis, 23 Juli 2009
The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: A Little Perspective
Now that we've seen that the first half of the diet-heart hypothesis-- that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol elevate serum cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-- is false, let's take a look at the second half. This is the idea that elevated serum cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease, also called the "lipid hypothesis".
Heart Attack Mortality vs. Total Mortality
We've been sternly warned that high serum cholesterol leads to heart attacks and that it should be reduced by any means necessary, including powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs. We've been assailed by scientific articles and media reports showing associations between cholesterol and heart disease. What I'm going to show you is a single graph that puts this whole issue into perspective.
The following is drawn from the Framingham Heart study (via the book Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, by Dr. Harumi Okuyama et al.), which is one of the longest-running observational studies ever conducted. The study subjects are fairly representative of the general population, although less racially diverse (largely Caucasian). The graph is of total mortality (vertical axis) by total cholesterol level (horizontal axis), for different age groups:
If you're 80 or older, and you have low cholesterol, it's time to get your affairs in order. Between the age of 50 and 80, when most heart attacks occur, there's no association between cholesterol level and total mortality. At age 50 and below, men with higher cholesterol die more often. In the youngest age group, the percent increase in mortality between low and high cholesterol is fairly large, but the absolute risk of death at that age is still low. There is no positive association between total cholesterol and mortality in women at any age, only a negative association in the oldest age group.
Here's more data from the Framingham study, this time heart attack deaths rather than total mortality (from the book Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, by Dr. Harumi Okuyama et al.):
Up to age 47, men with higher cholesterol have more heart attacks. At ages above 47, cholesterol does not associate with heart attacks or total mortality. Since the frequency of heart attacks and total mortality are low before the age of 47, it follows that total cholesterol isn't a great predictor of heart attacks in the general population.
These findings are consistent with other studies that looked at the relationship between total cholesterol and heart attacks in Western populations. For example, the observational arm of the massive MRFIT study found that higher cholesterol predicted a higher risk of heart attack in men age 35-57, but total mortality was highest both at low and high cholesterol levels. The "ideal" cholesterol range for total mortality was between 140 and 260 mg/dL (reference). Quite a range. That encompasses the large majority of the American public.
The Association Between Blood Cholesterol and Heart Attacks is Not Universal
The association between total cholesterol and heart attacks has generally not been observed in Japanese studies that did not pre-select for participants with cardiovascular risk factors (Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, by Dr. Harumi Okuyama et al.). They also aren't observed on Kitava, where no one seems to have heart attacks or stroke regardless of cholesterol. This suggests that total blood cholesterol as a marker of heart attack risk is not universal. I suspect it would not necessarily apply to someone eating an atypical diet.
Subdividing Cholesterol into Different Lipoprotein Particles Improves its Predictive Value
So far, this probably hasn't shocked anyone. Even entrenched proponents of the lipid hypothesis admit that total cholesterol isn't a great marker. Researchers long ago sliced up total cholesterol into several more specific categories, the most discussed being low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). These are tiny fatty droplets containing fats, cholesterol and proteins. They transport cholesterol, fats, and fat-soluble vitamins between tissues via the blood.
The LDL and HDL numbers you get back from the doctor's office typically refer to the amount of cholesterol contained in LDL or HDL per unit blood serum, but you can get the actual particle number measured as well. One can also measure the level of triglyceride (a type of fat) in the blood. Triglycerides are absorbed from the digestive tract and manufactured by the liver in response to carbohydrate, then sent to other organs via lipoproteins.
The level of LDL in the blood gives a better approximation of heart attack risk than total cholesterol. If you're living the average Western lifestyle and you have high LDL, your risk of heart attack is up to twice the risk of someone who has low LDL. LDL particle number has more predictive value than LDL cholesterol concentration. The latter is what's typically measured at the doctor's office. For example, in the EPIC-Norfolk study (free full text), patients with high LDL cholesterol concentration had a 73% higher risk of heart attack than patients with low LDL. Participants with high LDL particle number had exactly twice the risk of those with low LDL number. We'll get back to this phenomenon in a future post.
In the same study, participants with low HDL had twice the heart attack risk of participants with high HDL. That's why HDL is called "good cholesterol". This finding is fairly consistent throughout the medical literature. HDL is probably the main reason why total cholesterol doesn't associate very tightly with heart attack risk. High total cholesterol doesn't tell you if you have high LDL, high HDL or both (LDL and HDL are the predominant cholesterol-carrying lipoproteins). Also from the EPIC-Norfolk study, participants with high triglycerides had twice the risk of heart attack as participants with low triglycerides. Triglycerides and HDL are inversely related to one another, that is, if a person has high HDL, they're likely to have low triglycerides, and vice versa. This has also been consistent between studies.
Together, this suggests that the commonly measured lipoprotein pattern that associates most tightly with heart attack risk in typical Western populations is high LDL (particularly LDL particle number), low HDL and high triglycerides.
In the next post, I'll slice up the lipoproteins even further and comment on their association with cardiovascular disease. I'll also begin to delve into how diet affects the lipoproteins.
Heart Attack Mortality vs. Total Mortality
We've been sternly warned that high serum cholesterol leads to heart attacks and that it should be reduced by any means necessary, including powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs. We've been assailed by scientific articles and media reports showing associations between cholesterol and heart disease. What I'm going to show you is a single graph that puts this whole issue into perspective.
The following is drawn from the Framingham Heart study (via the book Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, by Dr. Harumi Okuyama et al.), which is one of the longest-running observational studies ever conducted. The study subjects are fairly representative of the general population, although less racially diverse (largely Caucasian). The graph is of total mortality (vertical axis) by total cholesterol level (horizontal axis), for different age groups:
If you're 80 or older, and you have low cholesterol, it's time to get your affairs in order. Between the age of 50 and 80, when most heart attacks occur, there's no association between cholesterol level and total mortality. At age 50 and below, men with higher cholesterol die more often. In the youngest age group, the percent increase in mortality between low and high cholesterol is fairly large, but the absolute risk of death at that age is still low. There is no positive association between total cholesterol and mortality in women at any age, only a negative association in the oldest age group. Here's more data from the Framingham study, this time heart attack deaths rather than total mortality (from the book Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, by Dr. Harumi Okuyama et al.):
Up to age 47, men with higher cholesterol have more heart attacks. At ages above 47, cholesterol does not associate with heart attacks or total mortality. Since the frequency of heart attacks and total mortality are low before the age of 47, it follows that total cholesterol isn't a great predictor of heart attacks in the general population. These findings are consistent with other studies that looked at the relationship between total cholesterol and heart attacks in Western populations. For example, the observational arm of the massive MRFIT study found that higher cholesterol predicted a higher risk of heart attack in men age 35-57, but total mortality was highest both at low and high cholesterol levels. The "ideal" cholesterol range for total mortality was between 140 and 260 mg/dL (reference). Quite a range. That encompasses the large majority of the American public.
The Association Between Blood Cholesterol and Heart Attacks is Not Universal
The association between total cholesterol and heart attacks has generally not been observed in Japanese studies that did not pre-select for participants with cardiovascular risk factors (Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, by Dr. Harumi Okuyama et al.). They also aren't observed on Kitava, where no one seems to have heart attacks or stroke regardless of cholesterol. This suggests that total blood cholesterol as a marker of heart attack risk is not universal. I suspect it would not necessarily apply to someone eating an atypical diet.
Subdividing Cholesterol into Different Lipoprotein Particles Improves its Predictive Value
So far, this probably hasn't shocked anyone. Even entrenched proponents of the lipid hypothesis admit that total cholesterol isn't a great marker. Researchers long ago sliced up total cholesterol into several more specific categories, the most discussed being low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). These are tiny fatty droplets containing fats, cholesterol and proteins. They transport cholesterol, fats, and fat-soluble vitamins between tissues via the blood.
The LDL and HDL numbers you get back from the doctor's office typically refer to the amount of cholesterol contained in LDL or HDL per unit blood serum, but you can get the actual particle number measured as well. One can also measure the level of triglyceride (a type of fat) in the blood. Triglycerides are absorbed from the digestive tract and manufactured by the liver in response to carbohydrate, then sent to other organs via lipoproteins.
The level of LDL in the blood gives a better approximation of heart attack risk than total cholesterol. If you're living the average Western lifestyle and you have high LDL, your risk of heart attack is up to twice the risk of someone who has low LDL. LDL particle number has more predictive value than LDL cholesterol concentration. The latter is what's typically measured at the doctor's office. For example, in the EPIC-Norfolk study (free full text), patients with high LDL cholesterol concentration had a 73% higher risk of heart attack than patients with low LDL. Participants with high LDL particle number had exactly twice the risk of those with low LDL number. We'll get back to this phenomenon in a future post.
In the same study, participants with low HDL had twice the heart attack risk of participants with high HDL. That's why HDL is called "good cholesterol". This finding is fairly consistent throughout the medical literature. HDL is probably the main reason why total cholesterol doesn't associate very tightly with heart attack risk. High total cholesterol doesn't tell you if you have high LDL, high HDL or both (LDL and HDL are the predominant cholesterol-carrying lipoproteins). Also from the EPIC-Norfolk study, participants with high triglycerides had twice the risk of heart attack as participants with low triglycerides. Triglycerides and HDL are inversely related to one another, that is, if a person has high HDL, they're likely to have low triglycerides, and vice versa. This has also been consistent between studies.
Together, this suggests that the commonly measured lipoprotein pattern that associates most tightly with heart attack risk in typical Western populations is high LDL (particularly LDL particle number), low HDL and high triglycerides.
In the next post, I'll slice up the lipoproteins even further and comment on their association with cardiovascular disease. I'll also begin to delve into how diet affects the lipoproteins.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)