Jump to content


Photo

Health Quackery Roundup


  • Please log in to reply
469 replies to this topic

#421 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,001 posts

Posted 30 November 2019 - 1615 PM

You know, I've seen from several folks the argument that a binge/splurge day isn't a bad thing if you're in good shape (in fact, the better shape the more often you can do it).

 

Back when I was down to 10% body fat (I'm working on getting back down there again) I was eating 10% of my calories a week in a single binge meal from a local artisan bakery.  Bloodwork and everything was still great while I was doing it.  Was actually great motivation to keep going (unfortunately it was crazy expensive!).

 

Though, to be fair... most of the guys I've read argue for binging on fruit or slightly less dark chocolate instead of straight sweets.  :lol:


Edited by Skywalkre, 30 November 2019 - 1615 PM.

  • 0

#422 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 04 December 2019 - 2132 PM

Is eating fruits and vegetables even to be considered splurging? we are coming from apes hopping from tree to tree collecting fruits and nuts and then hunter-gatherers.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.newsweek...0-women-1475328

 

 

Well what I have always suspected that dyeing your hair once a week to hide the original hair colour is not a good idea. Those chemical straihgteners and permanent wave also never seemed to healthy as bad as the chemicals smell. But tell that to the womans that insist to turn her blonde locks into straight black hair and also regularly toasts herself in the solarium...


  • 0

#423 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,001 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 0603 AM

Is eating fruits and vegetables even to be considered splurging? we are coming from apes hopping from tree to tree collecting fruits and nuts and then hunter-gatherers.

 

Veggies?  No (well, most of them... splurging on potatoes in whatever form you eat them isn't much better than splurging on sweets).  Fruits?  Very much a possibility.

 

From the experts I've read most fruit has been cultivated over generations to be more sweet than what our ancestors ate.  Couple that to the year-round availability we have due to modern logistics and we have far more access to fruit than our ancestors could have dreamed about (one strategy I've seen several docs/health gurus advocate to counter this - only eat local fruit when in season).

 

I didn't even think I was splurging on fruit half a year ago when I was working on getting back down to 220.  Thinking I had gone the extra mile I was starting to make these veggie smoothies based on a recipe of one of the experts I follow.  The bloody things tasted awful so added a bit more fruit than what she recommended.  Never bothered to look at the numbers.  Only a few months later did I add everything up.  A banana + half an apple + ~4oz of blueberries is nearly 60g of carbs!  The guy I follow mostly now (because doing so has worked just as he called it) is Mark Sisson and the tl;dr version of his weight loss strategy is Intermittent Fasting plus limiting all carbs to 50-100g a day.  When I do that the weight flies off.  When I added in that veggie smoothie my total carb intake for the day basically doubled and the weight stayed put (just as he said it would).

 

I've definitely seen several experts at this point actually recommend to limit fruit intake.  I can see why after my above experience.


Edited by Skywalkre, 05 December 2019 - 0616 AM.

  • 0

#424 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,529 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 0624 AM

60 grams of carbs = 240 calories. To me, it doesn't seem that much of a difference. However, everyone is a little different.


  • 0

#425 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,572 posts

Posted 05 December 2019 - 0918 AM

Calories are calories. What fruit provides is fiber to fill you up faster and reduce the calories actually consumed.
  • 0

#426 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,001 posts

Posted 09 December 2019 - 1011 AM

60 grams of carbs = 240 calories. To me, it doesn't seem that much of a difference. However, everyone is a little different.

For me at the time, despite being fairly active with a job that could be physically demanding, I was only getting 1800-2000 calories a day.  That added fruit was a jump in my calorie intake of over 10% and most of it was from sugar.  As expected (when I finally crunched the numbers), it didn't help me lose any weight.


  • 0

#427 Skywalkre

Skywalkre

    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,001 posts

Posted 09 December 2019 - 1030 AM

Calories are calories. What fruit provides is fiber to fill you up faster and reduce the calories actually consumed.

Not really on both counts.

 

For the latter, take the example from up above of what I was eating.  Those 240 calories were mostly from sugar.  Those fruits added ~7-8g of fiber.  It's better than nothing but hardly offsets the sugar intake (and they didn't stop me from eating more than I was before).

 

As far as calories are calories if that were true then weight loss would simply be eat less.  I've never seen anyone out there simply advocate 'eat less' as a realistic way to lose weight and keep it off.

 

I used to think that way myself.  Years ago there was a famous story of a professor who lost a lot of weight eating nothing but candy bars.  The headlines were only partially true.  He was heavily supplementing his 'diet' with lots of vitamins because eating nothing but candy bars would deprive him of a lot of nutrients he needed.  It's also fairly easy to lose weight quickly (which is all he did) but keeping it off is another matter.

 

Food, and the calories they provide, are ultimately your way of programming your body.  The guy I follow, Mark Sisson, had a blog post on this subject earlier this year.  Here's the link if anyone is interested in reading it:

 

https://www.marksdai...ories-the-same/


  • 0

#428 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,523 posts

Posted 09 December 2019 - 1237 PM

The first thing my dietician told me was to avoid fruit juice. Obviously, that was related as much to the borderline numbers indicating I was heading to type 2 diabetes, but a smoothie is just a faddy version of fruit juice.

For me, portion control is the key, but it should be obvious that the starting point is a healthy balance. If you cut too much of one thing, eg like Atkins, then you're not really doing yourself long term favours.

On the other hand, if you're dying of lard, then maybe getting the weight off and sorting the nutrition afterwards works, too.
  • 0

#429 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,529 posts

Posted 23 December 2019 - 0552 AM

Just found this. May be useful to some of us this winter, everything you wanted to know about the color of snot  :blink: 

 

 https://www.google.c...EbvH16foLsteTM:


  • 0

#430 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,017 posts

Posted 06 January 2020 - 1810 PM

Gotterdamurung of the Calories

https://www.1843maga...-lcR6WStzv45wgE

"A calorie of carbohydrate and a calorie of protein both have the same amount of stored energy, so they perform identically in an oven. But put those calories into real bodies and they behave quite differently. And we are still learning new insights: American researchers discovered last year that, for more than a century, weve been exaggerating by about 20% the number of calories we absorb from almonds."
  • 0

#431 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 06 January 2020 - 1843 PM

Is eating fruits and vegetables even to be considered splurging? we are coming from apes hopping from tree to tree collecting fruits and nuts and then hunter-gatherers.

 
Veggies?  No (well, most of them... splurging on potatoes in whatever form you eat them isn't much better than splurging on sweets).  Fruits?  Very much a possibility.
 
From the experts I've read most fruit has been cultivated over generations to be more sweet than what our ancestors ate.  Couple that to the year-round availability we have due to modern logistics and we have far more access to fruit than our ancestors could have dreamed about (one strategy I've seen several docs/health gurus advocate to counter this - only eat local fruit when in season).
 
I didn't even think I was splurging on fruit half a year ago when I was working on getting back down to 220.  Thinking I had gone the extra mile I was starting to make these veggie smoothies based on a recipe of one of the experts I follow.  The bloody things tasted awful so added a bit more fruit than what she recommended.  Never bothered to look at the numbers.  Only a few months later did I add everything up.  A banana + half an apple + ~4oz of blueberries is nearly 60g of carbs!  The guy I follow mostly now (because doing so has worked just as he called it) is Mark Sisson and the tl;dr version of his weight loss strategy is Intermittent Fasting plus limiting all carbs to 50-100g a day.  When I do that the weight flies off.  When I added in that veggie smoothie my total carb intake for the day basically doubled and the weight stayed put (just as he said it would).
 
I've definitely seen several experts at this point actually recommend to limit fruit intake.  I can see why after my above experience.

 
You gave me something to think about. And true, todays fruits are manmade through selective breeding seriously increasing sugar content in most fruits. My intake outside christmas season is maybe one or two apples a day (or equivalent) on average. Juices if any mostly as flavouring for water. I drink mostly water or tea nowadays, so sugar intake is vastly reduced from when i was younger.  During christmas season I eat mandarines by the crate. I just cannot help it. but maybe only one choclate santa per year. So I guess it is still better to eat fruit than chocolate.  :D


 




Gotterdamurung of the Calories

https://www.1843maga...-lcR6WStzv45wgE

"A calorie of carbohydrate and a calorie of protein both have the same amount of stored energy, so they perform identically in an oven. But put those calories into real bodies and they behave quite differently. And we are still learning new insights: American researchers discovered last year that, for more than a century, weve been exaggerating by about 20% the number of calories we absorb from almonds."

 
That proteins, carbohydrates and fats behave differently is nothing new (low-carb and Atkins diets and such build on this), but a lot of dietary research has to be redone. I always found it odd, that the three groups were always mixed together indiscriminately. I mean, just look at how proteins (e.g. egg or meat), fats (olive oil, butter) and carbohydrates (sugar, bread) react while cooking them.  Sure, just burning a substance and get a caloric reading is easy. But easy and simple is most of the time under complex and thus wrong. BLoody complex nature.

Edited by Panzermann, 06 January 2020 - 1850 PM.

  • 0

#432 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,017 posts

Posted 06 January 2020 - 2001 PM

And then there is individual variances such as genetics and gut flora.  They pointed out that it could take someone from 8-80 hours to pass their food.    :o


  • 0

#433 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,515 posts

Posted 06 January 2020 - 2300 PM

I've read some convincing stuff that, for modern sedentary humanoids, glycemic index is huge.

 

Not surprised at all about the absorption/conversion efficiency thing. When it comes to good stuff, like protein, its all about bioavailability. Calcium supplements supposedly need some vitamin D, plus utility is purported to be better if taken before bedtime.

 

We honkies have an adaptation to milk products, and I've recently read that the traditional Asian diets of rice, rice, and more rice are a genetic adaptation. Which means trying to gain the benefits of an Asian diet by prescribing it to other ethnicities is stupid.


  • 0

#434 Stefan Fredriksson

Stefan Fredriksson

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,121 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 2012 PM

I can recommend "The Gane Changers", available on Netflix. A take on where we get our proteins from.

Not related to the above:
Since June this year, I have skipped candy, candy-bars, buns, cookies and similar. I have not changed anything else, alcohol, snacks, etc.
I am sure there are other health benefits, but there is one quite notable difference, my hunger profile. Before, I got hungry and had to eat "now".
Now when I start feeling hungry, I can easily wait up to 60-90 minutes without feeling low on energy, or any other downs.
  • 0

#435 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 2045 PM

Not surprising as the carbohydrate cache runs low and you get the munchies because of the drop. When your body is accustomed to not have so many sugars easily avaiable it adjusts to it and processes starch for example, which takes longer. Sweets and sweet "soft" drinks are really evil, because they target our fruit eating ancient gatherer brain, that craves honey and sweet ripe fruit, because they were the most rare of foods avaiable. Good for you to have adjusted your habits. And only because you cut down on sugars does not mean you lose in fun and enjoyment. :)

 

 

 

 

 

And then there is individual variances such as genetics and gut flora.  They pointed out that it could take someone from 8-80 hours to pass their food.    :o

 

A thing I have noticed with myself. I go to the toilet about every one and a half days on average. It weirds some people out, that I do not go daily for "big business". *shrug* I go when I have to not when a schedule says so.

 

Though 80 hours would be really exceptionally long.  :blink:


  • 0

#436 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    purposeful grimace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,515 posts

Posted 07 January 2020 - 2255 PM

I feel sorry for your plumber.


  • 0

#437 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,017 posts

Posted 08 January 2020 - 1012 AM

Not surprising as the carbohydrate cache runs low and you get the munchies because of the drop. When your body is accustomed to not have so many sugars easily avaiable it adjusts to it and processes starch for example, which takes longer. Sweets and sweet "soft" drinks are really evil, because they target our fruit eating ancient gatherer brain, that craves honey and sweet ripe fruit, because they were the most rare of foods avaiable. Good for you to have adjusted your habits. And only because you cut down on sugars does not mean you lose in fun and enjoyment. :)
 
 
 
 
 


And then there is individual variances such as genetics and gut flora.  They pointed out that it could take someone from 8-80 hours to pass their food.    :o

 
A thing I have noticed with myself. I go to the toilet about every one and a half days on average. It weirds some people out, that I do not go daily for "big business". *shrug* I go when I have to not when a schedule says so.
 
Though 80 hours would be really exceptionally long.  :blink:

Have you tried a soluble fiber supplement?
  • 0

#438 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,831 posts

Posted 08 January 2020 - 1249 PM

CES 2020: The bandaid for your taint promises to fix premature ejaculation

https://www.cnet.com...367186

 

:lol:


  • 0

#439 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,879 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1458 PM

A supposed human  cooling is occurring

 

https://scienceblog....nIngtWQ6P4KlyXo

 

 

Since the early 19th century, the average human body temperature in the United States has dropped, according to a study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

“Our temperature’s not what people think it is,” said Julie Parsonnet, MD, professor of medicine and of health research and policy. “What everybody grew up learning, which is that our normal temperature is 98.6, is wrong.”

That standard of 98.6 F was established by German physician Carl Reinhold August Wunderlich in 1851. Modern studies, however, have called that number into question, suggesting that it’s too high. A recent study, for example, found the average temperature of 25,000 British patients to be 97.9 F.

In a study published today in eLife, Parsonnet and her colleagues explore body temperature trends and conclude that temperature changes since the time of Wunderlich reflect a true historical pattern, rather than measurement errors or biases. Parsonnet, who holds the George DeForest Barnett Professorship, is the senior author. Myroslava Protsiv, a former Stanford research scientist who is now at the Karolinska Institute, is the lead author.


Edited by lucklucky, 20 January 2020 - 1458 PM.

  • 0

#440 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,879 posts

Posted 20 January 2020 - 1502 PM

High blood pressure? Turn up your thermostat   https://www.medicaln...es/322851.php#4

 

According to a recently published study, living in a cooler house might be a risk factor for hypertension. The authors believe that the temperature of the home should be discussed with people who are at risk.

 

Senior study author Dr. Stephen Jivraj, from UCL's Institute of Epidemiology & Health Care, explains.

"Our research," he says, "has helped to explain the higher rates of hypertension, as well as potential increases in deaths from stroke and heart disease, in the winter months, suggesting indoor temperatures should be taken more seriously in diagnosis and treatment decisions, and in public health messages."

The researchers believe that the new study provides strong enough evidence to be used to advise certain patients with hypertension.

"We would suggest that clinicians take indoor temperature into consideration, as it could affect a diagnosis if someone has borderline hypertension, and people with cooler homes may also need higher doses of medications."

Study co-author Hongde Zhao

From the data collected, the scientists could not ascertain the perfect temperature to keep one's home. However, the authors suggest that 21°C, as a minimum, would be advisable.

 


  • 0