I was looking as cnn.com today and decided to check out the Dr. Gupta section. There's a fit top-10 list there today, which I will paste here, thanks to cnn...


FIT NATION CHECKLIST

1. Learn your family health history
2. Make fitness fun
3. Get at least 30-minutes of exercise daily
4. Drink water
5. Be a role model for children
6. Take the stairs
7. Be consistent
8. Do the math
9. Eat a healthy breakfast
10. Involve the whole family

This is so vague that I am unsure if there is anything here to talk about. Isn't this the stuff we've been hearing all our lives? Or am I just being too skeptical? I can see the importance of #3 and #4, but that's it. If I tried to "Involve my entire family," for instance, I'd never get anything done, let alone eat sensibly! The other questions just beg the question, "Do what?"

I agree, it is pretty much the same stuff we have heard over and over all our lives, nothing new.
Perhaps rearraged, and given an official CNN stamp, but same old same old.

It goes along with something I have said for a long time. I don't think the issue with people being over weight is lack of knowledge, it is lack of drive / motivation to start and stay on a plan.

Sure, plenty of us have been on other plans that don't work, I am not talking about those that tried something that does not work for them, I am talking about the larger number of people that are overweight or complain about being overweight, yet do nothing to change it, or do something for an unrealistic short period such as a day or a week and expect drastic weight loss.

I think the hardest part of weight loss is finding the motivation and strength (will power) to finally start it, and to stay on it, and that is a very hard thing for someone to teach.

I wish I knew how to teach it, for I would be rich.

You and me both! But, luckily, to use an old cliche, the best things in life are free. You and I read enough and had an open mind enough to counter all the standard weight-loss dogma out there, to an extent. And I consider us fortunate to be able to do that. I wonder and worry that some people may be following the current trends/fads and never getting any results simply because of the sheer difficulty of following a low-fat plan. In fact, we know that's happening, it may have happened to all of us at some point, and the problem becomes how to share this info with others in a "digestible" way. My wife, who I consider to be much more intelligent than me, simply cannot get beyond the fat=fat myth. It's more than knowledge here: it's an emotional thing we're dealing with. It's been so ingrained as to become part of some delusional psyche. Of course, my wife is thin and that feeds her conviction. There are other health issues however, and if I were to eat like her I'd be hungry all the time.

Maybe at this point in time, people just don't want to hear alternative viewpoints. Maybe the key is to slowly whittle away the myths. But the fat=fat myth is going to be especially hard, as it goes right up against much "common-sense reasoning" as Garfinkle (Word file) would say.

Part of the problem is the lack of a reliable level-headed source of information on diet. It's common-knowledge here that the USDA food pyramid reflects commercial considerations (e.g. Walter Willett in Eat Drink & Be Healthy said the food pyramid is 'wishy-washy... scientifically unfounded... misinformation' and he's a system insider). But when you do go beyond that and start doing your own research you then come across this host of experts Atkins v Ornish v Fuhrman v Cordain v Fallon in a debate tainted with personal comments. The only people likely to wade through this are the ones with some strong motivation.

Feels like we need a widely-available source of food information that somehow transcends individual diet gurus, is not co-opted by the food corporations, and is not ruled by inertia. Actually this forum fulfils those criteria, except that it's only used by a tiny number of people.

When I hear people tell me that fat = fat, I always tell them that they are right, but do you know why? I then usually say, that fat can only = fat if your body has either A, a tremendous amount of it, a.k.a. more than enough to fill your daily requirements and then it will store the rest, or B, if you have fat and then carbs & sugar in which your body will burn those first and store the fat.

But if I am not mistaken here, even if you eat no fat at all in your diet, can’t your body convert carbs into fat and store it, if it has extra?



Has your wife always been thin or has she lost weight eating low fat?
For those that are genetically disposed to being thin, cannot be a good example of what one might eat to being thin. I have a friend that can eat anything and tons of it and remains thin. Obviously that does not mean that eating cake and ice cream is now healthy for you since he can eat it and be thin. So really when it comes to weight loss I really only listen to those that have achieved it.

I had a co-worker here at work put me down to another co-worker and say, well he won’t eat sugar but somehow thinks eating fat is ok. To which I replied, yea I am strange, I only lost 30lbs doing this, I must be wrong.

Sure, we can all lose weight cutting calories, I would rather just not have to watch my calorie intake and feeling full and healthy doing it.

My wife has never been more than 10% or so over her desired weight. Usually, when she finds here clothes getting tight, she starts on a deprivation scheme that involves only eating things like yogurt and a few spoonfuls of cream cheese a day. I once thought that if I ate exactly what she ate, I would be come thinner! That lasted a couple of hours.

I get the same fat "perturbation" that you get, MeatGood. Somehow, it irks people to think that I'm losing weight eating meats (including the fats) and low-starch veggies. Goes against their "grain" I suppose. They always come back with something like "Yeah, but it's not a healthy way to lose weight," or "You're losing muscle and water."

But, I feel better, I sleep better, I have more energy, I'm losing weight, and I'm getting stronger in terms of weight-lifting and stamina. Muscle and water? I think not.

As "pioneers" of a sort, I think the best thing we do for others is to set a good example. No amount of reason can change an emotion-driven mind. What my friends find most "interesting" about me and my WOE is that I acknowledge both my taste for bread, for instance, and my conviction to give it up (I used to bake a lot). They say things, like "I could never give up bread. How can bread be bad for you?" For me, I have simply taken the emotion out of unnatural food. Yes, I used to love rice pudding. Now, I remember it fondly, but I see it as more of an nostalgic object than something comforting and soothing.

Sadly, I've come to recognize that me, and most people I know were/are emotional eaters. That's a rotten tooth that only the owner can yank out.

I'm always astounded by the amount of emotion people can bring to bear on how OTHER PEOPLE are eating. I work with a woman who very viciously "hoped" that people on Atkins (and any low-carb/high-fat) regime would "get what they deserved!" Her contempt and resentment of someone else's choice was palpable. This is a woman who prides herself on her liberal, progressive, tolerant multicultural embrace of diversity, but a stranger's food choice turned her into a angry fascist.

I was genuinely puzzled by it. I asked her if she was being hounded by someone to change the way she ate, and she said no. Didn't seem to understand why I would ask that.

Sometimes I think humans are just hard-wired for inter-tribal conflict, and as we leave conventional religious beliefs and even national loyalties behind, we're busily finding other outlets for the aggression.

Sometimes I think they worry that if our WOE is proven to be successful and healthy, that someone will tell them they have to give up their Grain and Sugar which they can not imagine doing.

Sometimes I really think that people are more addicted to Grain and Sugar than they think.

It really reminds me of alcohol addiction in some ways. I think more people are addicted to alcohol than society generally thinks, but I don't mean wake up in the ditch addicted, I mean get cravings, seem to have to drink it addicted. A mild addiction, yet an addiction none the less.

But if you tried to take it away from them permanently, I bet you would sure hear them speak up.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the loss of muscle comment from some people, I find that one kind of funny. The last person that made that comment to me, I have not surpassed their daily running distance and speed, I guess that must mean I am becoming weaker.

I agree with you totally though, food is an tied to emotions a lot, heck it is one of our core instincts, to eat to survive.

My wife said to be recently, low carb. eating works great for you, but it doesn't work for everyone, I said, show me one person that has been on low carb, that needed to lose weight, and has not lost weight.
Sure, I grant it that if someone ate huge quantities of meat they would probabily gain weight, but they would kind of have to force themselves to do this for eating meats with fat in them, you feel full sooner and actually end up eating less calories.
Plus after the first week or so, your cravings drop off, so you stop eating for cravings and start eating more because you are actually hungry.

But, I figure she won't listen anyways and end up on something like weight watchers.

They are. Its really sad to see newly diagnosed Celiacs deciding to let their disease progress instead of giving up grains. Some people do go through withdrawl symptoms. Not too surprising I guess given that gliadin breaks down into opiod like peptides that you'd fine in heroine or opium.

I even had some really weird feelings when it came to giving them up permanently.

People get weird about diets. I remember my Mom seemed to have this notion that if food tasted too good it must be bad for you. Of course, animal rights people actually do have strong feelings about eating animals, so perhaps that is where some of that comes from. I've had extraordinary amounts of pressure applied to me to eat food I couldn't eat when I was dieting. I hated that. And I hear stories from celiacs being told "you can have one bite!" when it'd make them sick for days on end.

People are psychotic about food.

I strongly believe that food addictions share many similarities with alcohol addiction. Being within the former group and having friends and family members in the latter, I can safely say that some of the overcompensating and coping measures taken by both "drug-type" addicts are very similar.

Given that, however, some people seem to do fine with grains and sugar, just as some seem to do well with only moderate or light drinking. I would think that these folks are near the edges of the bell curve, though. I mean, look at our obesity rate. And the same for alcoholism - the only real difference between the two is that you can SEE a fat person walking down the street; an alcoholic can hide the physiological effects of their vice for much longer than an overeater can. I'm convinced the "alcohol" problem is much bigger than it seems.

I wonder how many of us (who are losing weight), before we started on our current path, justified our bad eating habits by telling ourselves repeatedly that we would eat better "tomorrow"? I assure you, alcoholics say the same thing to themselves.

On my way to work yesterday morning I stopped by Whole Foods Market for a cup of coffee. I parked right in front and couldn't help but notice the advertisements on their front windows. One in particular caught my eye. It was of a breakfast composed almost entirely of their 365 brand products.

Cereal
Granola "cookie" bars
Milk
Orange juice

We all know the problem with this type of breakfast. But the underlying message is clear. There is a product to sell, all nicely packaged in some percentage post-consumer recycled cardboard. I can imagine a time in the not-so-distant future, when all of our food will be in a box, can or plastic. That's the real alarm bell for me.

Just look at what may happen to almonds in CA:

http://www.livingtreecommunity.com/..._extinction.asp

Just a quick quote from the article:

To be understood properly, this must be seen in the perspective of a deep trend in the food industry:- Before long, it seems, all the food sold in the United States will be genetically modified, irradiated, pasteurized, homogenized, hydrolyzed and packaged for a two-year shelf life and it will all be labeled as “All Natural”. It’s no wonder, then that the United States population demonstrates the lowest levels of mental and physical health of any advanced nation. (Mike Adams, The Big Almond Atrocity, NewsTarget.com)

It is also no wonder they have the most advanced health care system in the world, they get a ton of practice.

I emailed the Almond Board to register my view when I first saw this. Nothing unpleasant about the email, just a plain statement that I wanted to eat raw almonds, not pasteurized ones, and that if they did feel the need to pasteurize the almonds then OK but why not label them as such so that people have a choice.

No reply. And I assume my opinion is worth zero to them. It's exactly the same with GM food, there are plenty of people who would like to avoid it, but people aren't even given the choice. The only guaranteed way to do that now is to buy organic. (Although it's also true that only certain foods have been GM-ed, so if you know which are which, you can still buy non-organic and know it's not GM).

I haven't read this whole thread, but I just wanted to comment that in Europe, GM foods are labelled. And future "cloned" foods will be too. I shudder at the thought. Why not here? Government is in bed with the companies they are supposed to be regulating. Meat too. When US companies butcher meat for EU consumption, they slow down production so that basically poop doesn't end up in the meat. Not so for US meat because basically companies are allowed to inspect themselves.

If you modified even one gene in a human, that would create a monster. Who knows what vast implications it has. People eat monsters every day. But as soy is proving to be, a gm food may not really be food.

Let me step down off my soap box now...

To the contrary, your soapbox needs to be heard! Let it out, Lucysdream!

Hmmm, this has got me to thinking, and it's bringing out my "community development" alter-self. I wonder if there's anything we could do as a group that might help influence decisions in a positive way. Pauleo, as a lover of almonds, I really appreciate your time and effort it took to send that message. I wonder if we all started doing it if it might have an impact. I mean, after all, we are a "tribe" unto ourselves, so-to-speak.