Dieting and Exercise Aren't Effective Fat Loss Tools

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.

That previous way of thinking is flawed!

I'm overweight so I'm going to over eat because someone just told me I'm fat?

Sorry but it's just an excuse, I'm sick and tired of seeing or hearing about fat people who moan about their weight and then tuck into a donner kebab, bowl of ice cream and a box of chocolates, if it's that much of a problem to someone then they should do something about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no where near perfect and drink/ smoke way more than I should do, I know I'm not living a healthy life (especially considering that I used to weight train, do Boxing, Martial arts, run and cycle) but I'm not sitting here complaining about anything, I accept the consequences of my actions.

I'll change my lifestyle when I get around to it although circumstances at the moment have contributed to the way I'm living but I'll still admit it's no excuse.

Addictions are just as much psychological as they are physical and if over weight people need to address them then fine, but I don't like anyone making excuses....

Just to clarify to those who believe caffeine is healthy....it is NOT. It has been proven numerous times that caffeine spikes insulin levels, period, which is why diabetics should stay very far away from caffeine. It makes no difference where the caffeine source comes from, whether it is coffee, tea, or chocolate - it is all the same. So, to those who would argue that these items are healthy, are not aware of the affects on the insulin levels within the body. While it is true that these items do carry health benefits, the promoters of these health benefits are speaking to the general public and not those who may have diabetic issues, overweight issues, heart disease issues, or even cancers or tumors. Caffeine also has been proven to increase the instances of tumors and cysts, and even aids in the over-acidification environment in which cancers grow. The pH levels of coffee, tea, and chocolate within the body are extremely acidic and immediately shows up in the blood stream after ingestion. 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. Cholesterol is a good thing....but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing! The acidity in the standard American diet (to include caffeine laden items), is enough to eat through our blood vessels, and if it weren't for the cholesterol, we'd all be dead from over-acidity. All the heart disease in the world is caused by none other than an over-acidic diet. Reverse the diet, and the plaque will be removed by the body all on its own. Once that's done, no more heart disease! Also, no more obesity, since obesity is also the body's self-defense mechanism to rid itself of harmful acids and by-products that it can't use....it literally stuffs the trash away into the fat cells.

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.

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.

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.

it literally stuffs the trash away into the fat cells.

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.

Iv been on a low calorie Shake diet for almost 2 weeks now.

The first week i lost 8 kg.

Training 4 times a week..

So unless i magically loss weight.. Dieting and Exercise does work if you do it right.

If you wish to lose weight then try A dairy free and animal free ie Vegan diet - I guarantee you will loose weight and gain health.
Even Billy Boy Clinton tried a Vegan Diet and lost much weight and said he felt great.
I have beeen Vegan for 30 years and now a days there are so many Vegan alternatives.
No need to eat ones fellow beings or steal their produce.
Humans are weird in that they are the only species that drink Milk in maturity.
We all are taught it is perfectly normal to eat fellow beings and their products - Yes I agree it is normal but it is Not Natural and causes untold harm to the body.
By the way I am no supporter of Clinton the politician

Eating and sitting on your butt are clearly the effective fat loss tools, by your logic. That's hard to argue.

There are other factors involved in weight loss, but what you eat and exercise are tools for weight loss.

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.

All the blood from the intestines goes right to the liver via the hepatic portal vein. Just thought I'd mention that.

reply to post by ghaleon12


No. That's not my logic. And yes, I understand that a healthy diet and proper exercise can and will induce fat loss. Thanks for reading the thread title!

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

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.

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.

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!

I'm still looking for the passage on caffeine and insulin, but here is another reason why caffeine is no good:

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!

Quotes taken from "The pH Miracle for Weight Loss" by Robert O. Young, PhD

reply to post by ghaleon12


Right, right! What I failed to mention is that the liver purges itself of toxins.

Thanks for clarifying!

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.

It's certainly not the most sound and reasonable. It's nice. But, he could very well be, and it seems like he is, making a huge mistake that is often made with in the nutrition science field. When one is so intent on proving a hypothesis, the blinders turn on and the whole picture is missed. I'm not saying his observations are wrong, just that his hypothesis and applications may be. It's another cause and effect issue.

No, fat cells aren't dump trucks for extra calories. There are hormones and enzymes that regulate lipolysis and lipogenesis.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


We can agree to disagree. He is a well educated Doctor with thousands upon thousands of patients and subscribers to his methods with testimonials that have done far more to carry this beyond a mere hypothesis. The scientific proof he presented in his books is pretty cut and dry. But I'm not here to sell a book, nor am I here to argue....I just passed on what I know and believe based on my own experiences. If folks don't agree, it's a free world. No harm done.

Peace out.

reply to post by Gseven


I think lowering acidity is great. And consuming more vegetables and fruits is also great. And avoiding meat because of its acidity is ridiculous. If you're countering it with copious vegetables and moderate fruit intake, meat consumption isn't a problem. Hell, even just a few servings of vegetables is enough to counter the acidic nature of meat.

And, are you talking about the Robert Young accused of practicing medicine without a license?

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.[11][21] 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."[11]

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."[21]

en.wikipedia.org...

This guy is absolutely incredible.

In any case...blood acidity does NOT regulate fat deposition. Extra calories don't just pour into the fat cells. That's like saying cholesterol causes heart disease.

Thanks for posting this thread so late.

I have lost 1/2 stone by cutting down on my afternoon meal [to fruit] , and eating less meat. But I believe the person who posted this more than my weighing scales.

Agree that there is a balance here, reduce food and get more exercise [the latter for me is not a problem].

I lost the weight after Drs advice - due to high blood pressure reading which is all about salt [and probably my casual approach to crisps]. The body is generally extremely effective at rebalancing itself at whatever you throw at it. Ypou eat less, it rebalances. There are exceptions - salt is a massive one - the body is designed to eek every microgram of salt out of food, so if you have crisps every day, it is gluttonous to the [okay my] body.

Those undergraduate lectures in biochemistry were useful after all

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


They either are, or aren't, effective weight loss tools. Clearly they are, so your title is wrong. I've read the thread and I already posted earlier, thanks for reading the post.

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. This only adds to the pH issues. 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!

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.

That's to keep greedy bastards like Robert Young from profiting off of consumer ignorance.

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.

That's great. I can provide just as many, if not more, data showing the healthy effects of animal proteins.

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.

So, all of the paleo/anthropological evidence to suggest otherwise is just wrong? Not to mention the longest living people on earth, often referred to as centenarians, are omnivorous.

All meat eaters have very short digestive systems, UNLIKE ours.

We're not carnivorous; we're omnivorous. And the evolutionary evidence is clear (along with the biochemical/physiological evidence), we are meant to consume copious amounts of animal products supplemented with plant foods. We, unlike ruminants, don't have the digestive system to process plant products (chlorophyl, fiber).

There are numerous "real" doctors in the medical field who have clearly made the connection between cancers/disease and animal proteins.

Try and find some that don't have clear connection to the PCRM.

Oh, BTW, those same "doctors" have purposefully omitted data that contradicts their ideology. See T. Collin Campbell.

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).

Your anecdotes hold no weight compared the mountain of evidence to the contrary. However, have you ever thought about simply eliminating sugars and processed foods? How can you possibly know if meat and dairy are causing the problem if you haven't even controlled for that? This is exactly why I hardly ever take one's anecdotes to heart.

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!

I'm glad. Hope you stay healthy.

reply to post by ghaleon12


My title is right in the context of the OP.

Watch...

Traveling to the moon is impossible

That could qutie possibly be a title in a thread here on ats in which the op describes how traveling to the moon is impossible in an airplane....or is impossible with 1960's technology.

See, the thread title is designed to get you to click it. It's then YOUR responsibility to read the OP and understand that the title is not wrong given the context of the thread.

Fatness leads to inactivity, but inactivity does not lead to fatness: a longitudinal study in children (EarlyBird 45)

Abstract

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.

And, another recent study published in June of this year....

Enhanced weight loss with protein-enriched meal replacements in subjects with the metabolic syndrome

Abstract
Background
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.

Methods
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.

Results
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.

Conclusions
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.

What that means? Two groups of obese subjects ate isocaloric (calorically identicle) diets, each maintaining a 500 calorie deficit. One group's diet was high protein, the other's was moderate. The results...

The high protein group lost more fat mass than did the moderate group independent of caloric intake.

That's right...consuming the same amount of calories, one group of individuals lost more weight than the other. Hmmmm....

justa heads up[ new people posting in this thread.
OP can and will ignore all scientific data that doesnt support his own beliefs.
figured i can save alot fo you some time and energy trying to prove otherwise commonely accepted facts to someone who refuses to listen.
better off yelling at a wall .