I started a new job recently. While I was eating lunch the day of the orientation, a woman told me about a former co-worker who had lost 89 pounds in
3 months taking an herbal supplement that only cost $60 a month.
Because she had been taking a medication, she gained 50 pounds. She had done everything right with diet and exercise because her boyfriend is a
personal trainer, so when she found out about this herbal stuff her co-worker had taken, she was really excited to try it but couldn't afford it at
the time. So, I tell her to email me the name of the website so I could try it out myself, since I've gained weight from taking muscle relaxants and
pain killers over the years and am suffering the same problems with diet and exercise (when you workout pouring sweart 3 - 4 hours a day nearly every
day of the week and do not lose a pound or any body mass, there is an issue).
She also said the most critical and difficult period is the first 3 days due to the severe cramping, as the herbs are literally scraping the crap
caked onto your intestines from all the processed foods we've been eating for decades off the intestinal lining. Once you pass that phase, it's all
down hill.
One of the ingredients she said it contains is Senna.
Does anyone have any idea what this product is called? It seems like it's a really intensive colon or digestion cleanse versus a diet or weightloss
aide, but weight loss is a definite positive side effect.
Thanx!
Dieting and Exercise Aren't Effective Fat Loss Tools, page 24
privacy
reply posted on 27-10-2010 @ 11:51 AM by crankyoldman
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
Thanks for the thread. After reading your post, I examined the concept deeper and found the corresponding "syndrome x" as a guide to diet changes. In three weeks my body has completely morphed following the protocols in that diet.
Will it work for everyone, no, nothing ever does. But it is surely worth looking into as an alternative to something that isn't working.
Cheers for the persistence Devo.
Thanks for the thread. After reading your post, I examined the concept deeper and found the corresponding "syndrome x" as a guide to diet changes. In three weeks my body has completely morphed following the protocols in that diet.
Will it work for everyone, no, nothing ever does. But it is surely worth looking into as an alternative to something that isn't working.
Cheers for the persistence Devo.
reply posted on 6-12-2010 @ 06:00 PM by DevolutionEvolvd
If you want clarifcation of the concept I've been describing, you can visit Gary Taubes new blog: www.garytaubes.com...
...saying obesity is caused by a caloric surplus is like saying atherosclerosis causes heart disease. This is tautological reasoning, and it's ridiculous.
Metabolism is the net product of anabolism ( biosynthesis; the synthesis of molecules from smaller ones; the growth of tissue) minus catabolism (the breakdown of tissue/large molecules into smaller ones). These processes are regulated by hormones.
Do teenage girls going through puberty become fatter because they're eating too much? Hell no. They eat because they're becoming fat. And even if they don't eat enough, which can be the case with highschool girls, they'll still store fat. And what would you say if I went around saying teenage boys grow taller during puberty because they eat too much? You'd laugh.
Fat deposition is anabolic. So is growing tall. Fat mobilization is catabolic. So is muscle loss.
I remember when I was a teenager I would sleep as much as possible and people would see how much I ate and say, "Just let 'em eat. He's a growing boy!"
I was eating and sleeping because I was growing, not the other way around. When calories are being allocated to anabolic (tissue building) functions that either burn calories (bown growth - vertical) or store calories (fat deposition) and a caloric defecit is maintainted, the body adjusts by making you hungry or by making you tired. It's important not to confuse cause and effect.
But now imagine that instead of talking about why we get fat, we’re talking about a different system entirely. This kind of gedanken (thought) experiment is always a good way to examine the viability of your assumptions about any particular problem. Say instead of talking about why fat tissue accumulates too much energy, we want to know why a particular restaurant gets so crowded. Now the energy we’re talking about is contained in entire people rather than just the fat in their fat tissue. Ten people contain so much energy; eleven people contain more, etc.. So what we want to know is why this restaurant is crowded and so over-stuffed with energy (i.e., people) and maybe why some other restaurant down the block has remained relatively empty — lean.
If you asked me this question — why did this restaurant get crowded? — and I said, well, the restaurant got crowded (it got overstuffed with energy) because more people entered the restaurant than left it, you’d probably think I was being a wise guy or an idiot. (If I worked for the World Health Organization, I’d tell you that “the fundamental cause of the crowded restaurant is an energy imbalance between people entering on one hand, and people exiting on the other hand.”) Of course, more people entered than left, you’d say. That’s obvious. But why? And, in fact, saying that a restaurant gets crowded because more people are entering than leaving it is redundant –saying the same thing in two different ways – and so meaningless.
Now, borrowing the logic of the conventional wisdom of obesity, I want to clarify this point. So I say, listen, those restaurants that have more people enter them then leave them will become more crowded. There’s no getting around the laws of thermodynamics. You’d still say, yes, but so what? Or at least I hope you would, because I still haven’t given you any causal information. I’m just repeating the obvious.
This is what happens when the laws of physics (thermodynamics) are used to defend the belief that overeating makes us fat. Thermodynamics tells us that if we get fatter and heavier, more energy enters our body than leaves it. Overeating means we’re consuming more energy than we’re expending. It’s saying the same thing in a different way. (In 1954, the soon-to-be-famous — and often misguided, although not in this case — nutritionist Jean Mayer said that to explain obesity by overeating was about as meaningful as explaining alcoholism by overdrinking, and merely reaffirmed, quite unnecessarily, the fact that the person saying it believed in the laws of thermodynamics.) Neither happens to answer the question why. Why do we take in more energy than we expend? Why do we get fatter?
...saying obesity is caused by a caloric surplus is like saying atherosclerosis causes heart disease. This is tautological reasoning, and it's ridiculous.
Metabolism is the net product of anabolism ( biosynthesis; the synthesis of molecules from smaller ones; the growth of tissue) minus catabolism (the breakdown of tissue/large molecules into smaller ones). These processes are regulated by hormones.
Do teenage girls going through puberty become fatter because they're eating too much? Hell no. They eat because they're becoming fat. And even if they don't eat enough, which can be the case with highschool girls, they'll still store fat. And what would you say if I went around saying teenage boys grow taller during puberty because they eat too much? You'd laugh.
Fat deposition is anabolic. So is growing tall. Fat mobilization is catabolic. So is muscle loss.
I remember when I was a teenager I would sleep as much as possible and people would see how much I ate and say, "Just let 'em eat. He's a growing boy!"
I was eating and sleeping because I was growing, not the other way around. When calories are being allocated to anabolic (tissue building) functions that either burn calories (bown growth - vertical) or store calories (fat deposition) and a caloric defecit is maintainted, the body adjusts by making you hungry or by making you tired. It's important not to confuse cause and effect.
edit on 6-12-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)
: 
Conclusive Evidence That "ALL" Vaccines Are Very Harmful Even Causing Death
Posted 17 days ago with 57 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 57 member flags
Making a Killing: The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging - Full Movie
Posted 13 days ago with 10 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 10 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Doctors Save 16-month Old Baby with Smallest Artificial Heart Transplant
Science & Technology: 1 hours ago
Science & Technology: 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Code Name** Stellar Wind. Objective** Infiltrate All. Chances For Sucess** High.
General Conspiracies: 10 hours ago, 16 flags
General Conspiracies: 10 hours ago, 16 flags
As Commandos Raid Tampa, US State Dept Demands Power to Declare War?
New World Order: 11 hours ago, 12 flags
New World Order: 11 hours ago, 12 flags
How many Vietnam Veterans does it take to screw in a Light Bulb?
General Chit Chat: 17 hours ago, 11 flags
General Chit Chat: 17 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.033 seconds
Page processed in: 0.109 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.033 seconds
Page processed in: 0.109 seconds
