Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
I was reading something the other day about how in the late 80's through the 90's, it was taught in medical school to stop approaching or scolding patients about their weights, because it could create tension between doctor and patient, and, create emotional distress further causing possible eating disorders. My dad remembers when he was growing up how you could not go to the doctor overweight without the doctor saying "hey, you're fat. you need to drop that weight".
It seems in the past couple of years that this mentality of not bringing up weight issues is starting to fade away. And I do think it's time. Doctors, of all people should tell their obese patients that something must be done and continue to encourage the means to change. But it's the approach, the doctor must work on, when dealing with their patients. I think that a doctor to not say anything at all is irresponsible. I know that most fat acceptance groups would disagree with my line of thinking.
Originally posted by Gseven
This, in turn, causes the body to go into a defense mode and utilize cholesterol to "pad" the walls of blood vessels and arteries to protect them.
it literally stuffs the trash away into the fat cells.
Originally posted by Gseven
There is quite a bit of alternative health research to suggest that the only place where caffeine can and should be used is through the rectum in an enema. The caffeine travels quickly through the intestinal walls and into the kidneys, bypassing all other major organs, and allowing the kidneys to purge themselves directly into the colon. (I believe I have this correct). While most would scoff and laugh at this notion, it is a much harder task to consider the science behind it that makes it extremely valuable.
Can you please explain how this happens? Because, as far as I know, cholesterol doesn't "pad" the walls of blood vessels and arteries. In fact, atherosclerosis happens in random areas along arterial walls. So, there is no "coating" or "padding" of anything.
Fat cells aren't dump trucks. Extra junk isn't just stuffed inside them when there is an abundance. As far as caffeine and insulin.....the data are all over the place, which suggests there are other factors involved. It reminds me of how researchers initially assumed dietary sodium causes hypertension. It really doesn't.
Weighing too much is NOT about fat. We've been focused on low-fat everything for a couple of decades now, and look where that has gotten us. Nor is it about calories, carbs, or cholesterol. Collectively, we've tried all that, too, and still we, as a nation, are fatter than we've ever been. That will never change until we grasp what's really at the heart of the matter: acid. The body retains fat as a protection against the overproduction of acids produced by the typical American diet. Some of these acids are eliminated through the bowels, urinary tract, and skin, but whatever is left must be buffered, or neutralized. Excess acid in the body starts to break down cells in your tissues and organs - pretty much the same way acidic steak sauces tenderize meat. Cell breakdown sends the body into self-preservation mode; it uses dietary and body fat in a desperate attempt to protect itself, no matter what the cost. Fat can bind up acids. Ask any plastic surgeon: The fat they liposuction out of their patients is brown and black because of all the acids it contains. (One of our associates, who is a plastic surgeon, put this to the test by sending samples of liposuctioned fat in for analysis; the lab reports concluded it was indeed full of acid.) In the short term, this is good news: your body is protecting itself from immediate damage those acids. The bad news: Over the long term, those fat/acid deposits create a whole bunch of health problems.
The over-acidification of the body sets in motion a destructive cycle of imbalance, overweight, and disease. It's the symptoms we're all looking at, but a cause we are only beginning to understand. Too much acid in the body robs the blood of oxygen, and without oxygen, the metabolism slows. Food digests more slowly, inducing weight gain and sluggishness, and worse still, causing the food to ferment (rot!). Fermentation creates yeast, fungus, and mold throughout the body. These are all living organisms, so they need to "eat", and when they overgrow in an acidic body they feed on YOUR nutrients, reducing the chemical and mechanical absorption of everything you eat by as much as 50 percent. Because they eat, they also produce waste products, and these wastes, called exotoxins and mycotoxins, can be very damaging to your cells...
...Without enough nutrients, your body cannot build tissue or produce alkaline buffers, hormones, or hundreds of other chemical components necessary for cell energy and organ activity. In this situation, rather than providing energy, our food remains stagnant in the body and leads to further acidification - a vicious cycle. And the result is unwanted weight gain as as fatigue and illness. The bottom line: You are not overweight, you are overacidic. Your fat is actually saving your life. Without that fat protecting the cells, tissues, and organs of your body from acids, you would be dead. Similarly, the cholesterol that's long been associated with overweight is also bringing you a benefit: The plaque buildup protects your arteries from acids that could otherwise eat holes right through them.
Fat has two functions in the body that are particularly important for achieving and maintaining your ideal weight, [one is mentioned in the above quote]....one way fat helps to neutralize acid is actually by creating cholesterol. When acids build up in the body, it signals the liver to use fat to make cholesterol. The more acidic the body, the more cholesterol is made. Specifically the liver (which is responsible for 80 percent of our cholesterol - what we get from our diets accounts for only 20 percent) makes LDL cholesterol, famous as "bad" cholesterol because it makes up the plaque inside your arteries that can eventually impede blood flow. The plaque is actually protective, however, saving your arteries from the ravages of of acids. Without it, without the cholesterol, the acids could burn holes right through the arteries throughout your circulatory system, and you could bleed to death. Turns out cholesterol is your friend, too. Ultimately, the buildup of too much plaque does become dangerous in and of itself, fulfilling the promise of cholesterol's bad reputation: high risk of heart attack and stroke. The real problem, however, is not the cholesterol, but the acid!
One milligram of caffeine, injected directly into the bloodstream, can kill you. So there's enough in 1 ounce of milk chocolate to do in six people. and enough in a cup of strong coffee to off two hundred more. That ought to give you enough second thoughts to eliminate this addictive poison from your diet...research has shown that cancer cells can live indefinitely in coffee!
Originally posted by Gseven
I will quote my source and ask you for yours. To say that fat cells aren't dump trucks that don't store extra stuff is ignoring the glaring fact that that's EXACTLY what they do - store extra fat, in addition to acids. So forget my over-simplification of what I tried to convey, because I'm neither a doctor nor a walking encyclopedia. I will quote a passage from a book written by a doctor who has spent decades researching this very topic, and is the most sound and reasonable scientific explanation of how and why certain foods affect us. The proof is in the test results, the cures, and the blood, and you can see it with your own eyes on a microscope...this isn't just hearsay and anecdotal evidence.
According to the National Council Against Health Fraud, a 2005 MEDLINE search indicated that Young had not published any research in recognized scientific journals, and that none of his graduate degrees was from an accredited educational institution.
Live blood analysis lacks scientific foundation, and has been described as a fraudulent means of convincing patients to buy dietary supplements and a medically useless "money-making scheme". Live blood analysis has been described by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as an "unestablished laboratory test", or test that is not generally accepted in laboratory medicine.
In 1995, Young allegedly drew blood from two women, told them they were ill, and then sold them herbal products to treat these illnesses. He was charged with two third-degree felony counts of practicing medicine without a license, but pled guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge. Young argued that he had never claimed to be a medical doctor, that the women had entrapped him by asking to be part of his research, and that he "looked at the women's blood and simply gave them some nutritional advice."
In 2001, Young was again charged with a felony in Utah, after a woman suffering from cancer alleged that he told her to stop chemotherapy and use one of his products to treat her cancer instead. Subsequently, when an undercover agent visited Young, he allegedly analyzed her blood and prescribed a liquid diet. The case was taken to preliminary trial, but charges were dropped after the prosecutor stated that he could not find enough people who felt cheated by Young. Young himself dismissed the arrests as "harassment", and stated that they were a factor in his move to California, "in part because the legal climate here is more tolerant for dietary researchers such as himself."
Originally posted by Gseven
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
That, apparently, would indeed be the same Robert Young. I was aware that his research has been poked, prodded, and harassed by God knows who over the years, but I was not aware of any legal issues. Although, this sort of situation neither alarms nor surprises me. Most medically educated people who go off the main path DO get harassed and hunted down ruthlessly if they aren't following the rules dictated by the American Medical Association, or whomever calls the shots. As far as an accredited degree....that I don't know anything about. Only in American can someone go through years and years of schooling to be educated, only to have someone else deem your education unworthy because it wasn't done at an institute that is recognized by the big boys.
My opinions are not based solely on his work, as I have read and compiled numerous articles and documentation that clearly outlines the adverse effects that animal proteins have on the human body.
Our bodies were never designed to digest meat, and that is evident by just comparing our digestive tracts to those in the animal kingdom. Ours is very clearly one that fits into the plant eating category.
All meat eaters have very short digestive systems, UNLIKE ours.
There are numerous "real" doctors in the medical field who have clearly made the connection between cancers/disease and animal proteins.
Granted, there will always be those who don't agree, but I can tell you, with emphatic certainty, that I have never felt better in my life, thought more clearly, or had spontaneous healing of issues as I did when I abstained from meats, dairy, sugars, and processed foods (basically, everything that has an acidic pH).
So all the documented evidence in the world doesn't matter to me....I've experienced it. I know how it feels, and that's all I need. For me, that is enough!
Objective: To establish in children whether inactivity is the cause of fatness or fatness the cause of inactivity.
Design: A non-intervention prospective cohort study examining children annually from 7 to 10 years. Baseline versus change to follow-up associations were used to examine the direction of causality.
Setting Plymouth, England.
Participants: 202 children (53% boys, 25% overweight/obese) recruited from 40 Plymouth primary schools as part of the EarlyBird study.
Main: outcome measures Physical activity (PA) was measured using Actigraph accelerometers. The children wore the accelerometers for 7 consecutive days at each annual time point. Two components of PA were analysed: the total volume of PA and the time spent at moderate and vigorous intensities. Body fat per cent (BF%) was measured annually by dual energy x ray absorptiometry.
Results: BF% was predictive of changes in PA over the following 3 years, but PA levels were not predictive of subsequent changes in BF% over the same follow-up period. Accordingly, a 10% higher BF% at age 7 years predicted a relative decrease in daily moderate and vigorous intensities of 4 min from age 7 to 10 years (r=−0.17, p=0.02), yet more PA at 7 years did not predict a relative decrease in BF% between 7 and 10 years (r=−0.01, p=0.8).
Conclusions: Physical inactivity appears to be the result of fatness rather than its cause. This reverse causality may explain why attempts to tackle childhood obesity by promoting PA have been largely unsuccessful.
The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of a protein-rich diet in comparison with a conventional protein diet on weight loss, weight maintenance, and body composition in subjects with the metabolic syndrome.
Obese subjects received instructions for an energy-restricted diet with a calorie deficit of 500 kcal/day and were randomly assigned to either high-protein (1.34 g/kg body weight) or conventional protein (0.8 g/kg body weight) diets for 12 months. Protein-enriched meal replacements were used to enrich one arm of the diet with protein throughout the study. In all, 67% of the participants completed the 1-year study.
Subjects following the high-protein diet lost more body weight and more fat mass compared with those on the conventional protein diet, whereas the loss of fat-free mass was similar in both diet groups. Biochemical parameters associated with the metabolic syndrome improved in both diet groups. Improvements were modestly greater in subjects with the high-protein diet. After 12 months of treatment, 64.5% of the subjects in the high-protein diet group and 34.8% of the subjects in the conventional diet group no longer met three or more of the criteria for having the metabolic syndrome.
Individuals with the metabolic syndrome achieved significant weight loss while preserving fat-free mass when treated with an energy-restricted, high-protein diet that included nutrient-dense meal replacements, as compared with the results for conventional protein intake. An intervention with a protein-enriched diet may have advantages for the management of the metabolic syndrome. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.