TexasCHLforum.com

I really like Terry Wahls MD approach to paleo. She had MS and was wheelchair bound for four years. This is a 17 min story of her life and what she did

http://youtu.be/KLjgBLwH3Wc

Tracker wrote:My vice is having a glass or two of wine at night I tend to snack on starch when I do. That's all it takes for the weight loss to stop, I'm good with diet the rest of the day, minimal carbs. To lose weight all I have to do is cut out the wine in the evening.

I know a lot of folks that drink a glass of red wine at night for their heart. My doctor wanted me to do the same, but I do not drink alcohol.

If your vice is the taste and flavor I guess grape juice. I know that I found diet Cokes make me crave carbs.

Since I elected to forgo the wine my doctor has me taking Resveratrol twice a day. He says it is the same health benefit as the wine. I buy it at the health food store.

So if some have considered red wine for health you might consider Resveratrol.

carlson1 wrote:

Tracker wrote:My vice is having a glass or two of wine at night I tend to snack on starch when I do. That's all it takes for the weight loss to stop, I'm good with diet the rest of the day, minimal carbs. To lose weight all I have to do is cut out the wine in the evening.

I know a lot of folks that drink a glass of red wine at night for their heart. My doctor wanted me to do the same, but I do not drink alcohol.

If your vice is the taste and flavor I guess grape juice. I know that I found diet Cokes make me crave carbs.

Since I elected to forgo the wine my doctor has me taking Resveratrol twice a day. He says it is the same health benefit as the wine. I buy it at the health food store.

So if some have considered red wine for health you might consider Resveratrol.

I used to drink diet cokes, not every day but weekly. When I changed my diet to paleo/primal I lost my desire for them. Sometimes I wonder if the wine recommendation is a result of the so called "French Paradox." Despite eating more saturated fat (a lot of butter) the French have a low rate of obesity and low cardio diseases. IIRC It was thought that wine was preventing cardio disease. Now there's better evidence that the saturated fat they eat doesn't no cause cardio diseases.

I was drinking over 12 diet Cokes a day and sometimes more. I cut them cold turkey and had withdrawals like an addict of narcotics.

carlson1 wrote: had withdrawals like an addict of narcotics.

I bet you did.

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs and my wife has lost 26lbs so far. Slow process, but with God all things are possible. We just keep fighting a little at a time. No drugs or surgery.

Carlson's Theology:
1. I didn't get fat overnight so thus I will not become skinny overnight.
2. You can't out run a fork.
3. Everyone is on a diet rather it is a good diet or a bad diet.
4. Lack of prayer is failure at the table.

This is what we have been doing. . .
Eat Every Day:
Fruits
Whole Grains
Leafy Greens
Nuts
Vegetables
Green Tea

Three Times A Week:
Oily Fish
Yogurt
Broccoli
Sweet Potato
Avocado

One Time Weekly:
Red Meat
Pasta
Dessert

Never:
Fast Foods
Soft Drinks
Processed Meals
Canned Soups

That's fine. Now, just to satisfy us "Calories in vs level of exertion out" nuts, what was the percent reduction in calories?

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs and my wife has lost 26lbs so far. Slow process, but with God all things are possible. We just keep fighting a little at a time. No drugs or surgery.

Carlson's Theology:
1. I didn't get fat overnight so thus I will not become skinny overnight.
2. You can't out run a fork.
3. Everyone is on a diet rather it is a good diet or a bad diet.
4. Lack of prayer is failure at the table.

This is what we have been doing. . .
Eat Every Day:
Fruits
Whole Grains
Leafy Greens
Nuts
Vegetables
Green Tea

Three Times A Week:
Oily Fish
Yogurt
Broccoli
Sweet Potato
Avocado

One Time Weekly:
Red Meat
Pasta
Dessert

Never:
Fast Foods
Soft Drinks
Processed Meals
Canned Soups

That's fine. Now, just to satisfy us "Calories in vs level of exertion out" nuts, what was the percent reduction in calories?

I have no clue and could care less. The weight is coming off, the number on the scale is going lower, the HDL went up, the LDL went down, triglyceride went down, and I have cut my insulin by 310 units. By the way that is the NUMBERS I am concerned with.

What is your story?

The wife and I gave up soft drinks, fast food and have been focusing on healthier lifestyle for 8 years. So, our approach was that if we develop good habits now, it would apart of our lifestyle as we got older. I feel older everyday...

carlson1 wrote:

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs and my wife has lost 26lbs so far. Slow process, but with God all things are possible. We just keep fighting a little at a time. No drugs or surgery.

Carlson's Theology:
1. I didn't get fat overnight so thus I will not become skinny overnight.
2. You can't out run a fork.
3. Everyone is on a diet rather it is a good diet or a bad diet.
4. Lack of prayer is failure at the table.

This is what we have been doing. . .
Eat Every Day:
Fruits
Whole Grains
Leafy Greens
Nuts
Vegetables
Green Tea

Three Times A Week:
Oily Fish
Yogurt
Broccoli
Sweet Potato
Avocado

One Time Weekly:
Red Meat
Pasta
Dessert

Never:
Fast Foods
Soft Drinks
Processed Meals
Canned Soups

That's fine. Now, just to satisfy us "Calories in vs level of exertion out" nuts, what was the percent reduction in calories?

I have no clue and could care less. The weight is coming off, the number on the scale is going lower, the HDL went up, the LDL went down, triglyceride went down, and I have cut my insulin by 310 units. By the way that is the NUMBERS I am concerned with.

What is your story?

My story is this: I believe that when the weight goes down due to eating fewer calories, exerting more, or both, the bad numbers go down, the good numbers up. I plotted this for my case over a period of 3 years (6 blood analyses), and showed the plot to my doctor. He requested permission to show the plot to his non-believing patients. In other words, what was relevant 70 years ago is still valid, despite the yards of dietary shelf space at the book stores and online. That’s my story. Each to his own belief or understanding, though. Free country.

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs

What is your story?

My story is this: I believe that when the weight goes down due to eating fewer calories, exerting more, or both, the bad numbers go down, the good numbers up. I plotted this for my case over a period of 3 years (6 blood analyses), and showed the plot to my doctor. He requested permission to show the plot to his non-believing patients. In other words, what was relevant 70 years ago is still valid, despite the yards of dietary shelf space at the book stores and online. That’s my story. Each to his own belief or understanding, though. Free country.

Dr Peter Attia MD (Stanford medical school and Johns Hopkins residence) is also an undergrad and graduate degrees in engineering. That gives him an advantage over the typical MD in that he actually had to know thermodynamics to get his engineering degrees. Nobody is disputing the energy conservation. But here's what Attia has to say about the whole calories in/out paradigm: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

Basically, it goes like this: the equation X = kcal in - kcal out is descriptive (ie a mathematically correct description). It is not explanatory. It doesn't answer Why questions. That is, the equation does not establish an "arrow of causality."

So I'm going to apply this equation a number of different ways. Each one is mathematically identical.

G = growth
G = Calories in - Calories out.
You have a growing adolescent boy who is eating you out of house and home. Why? What's causing him to do so?

Is he growing because he's in eating more calories then his maintenance needs? Is the arrow of causality this way G <= Calories in - Calories out?
Or
Is he eating more calories then his maintenance because he's growing. Is the arrow of causality this way G => Calories in - Calories out?

I can ask the same question of a pregnant woman: P = Calories in - Calories out. My daughter is pregnant. Where she used to eat like a bird, she now says she's now hungry all the time.

What's going on in the above two equation? Hormones are driving the hunger response and increasing appetite to insure a positive caloric balance.

F = bodyfat
People just assume the arrow of causality is this way: F <= Calories in - Calories out. Maybe that's not true.
Are you getting fat (<=) because you are eating more calories then your maintenance?
Or
Are you eating more calories then your maintenance because you are getting fat (=>)?
If it's this later then what [hormone] is driving fat accumulation and increasing appetite? Insulin.

To quote Attia's link, above:
"What you eat (along with other factors, like your genetic makeup, of course) impacts how your body partitions and stores fat. In case anyone is wondering how I got over 2,000 words into this post without mentioning the i-word, wonder no longer. Insulin, while not the only factor involved in this process, is probably at the top of the list. When you eat foods that have the double whammy of increasing insulin levels AND increasing your cell’s resistance to insulin, your body prioritizes fat storage over fat utilization. Remember the great medical disconnect – no one disputes that insulin is the most singularly important hormone for causing fat cells to accumulate fat. Somehow the dispute centers on what causes people (full of billions of fat cells) to accumulate fat.

All calories are not created equally: The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body."

Also from Attia's blog: The great medical disconnect
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the- ... disconnect
"here is probably no greater disconnect in medicine than the root cause of obesity. Even if you think you already know the answer to this “obvious” question, it’s still worth reading on. The reason this question matters, of course, is clear to everyone. Obesity (and more broadly the syndrome we define as metabolic syndrome) predisposes us to virtually every disease afflicting us in the modern age. Above is a simple graphic from the journal Nature showing the linkage between obesity and all of its sequela.

When you are obese, your risk of disease goes up. This is not disputed. Here is where the controversy starts…what actually makes us obese?

Obesity is a disorder of fat accumulation – fat cells accumulate too much fat, relative to how much fat the body breaks down. Conventional wisdom, however, says obesity is a disorder of eating too much and/or exercising too little. These are not the same thing.

Let’s turn to a well-respected source of medical information, Lehninger’s Principles of Biochemistry (the so-called “bible” of biochemistry)......"

Tracker wrote:

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:

rdcrags wrote:

carlson1 wrote:Me and my wife started September 1, 2015 with a new life. I have lost 49lbs

What is your story?

My story is this: I believe that when the weight goes down due to eating fewer calories, exerting more, or both, the bad numbers go down, the good numbers up. I plotted this for my case over a period of 3 years (6 blood analyses), and showed the plot to my doctor. He requested permission to show the plot to his non-believing patients. In other words, what was relevant 70 years ago is still valid, despite the yards of dietary shelf space at the book stores and online. That’s my story. Each to his own belief or understanding, though. Free country.

Dr Peter Attia MD (Stanford medical school and Johns Hopkins residence) is also an undergrad and graduate degrees in engineering. That gives him an advantage over the typical MD in that he actually had to know thermodynamics to get his engineering degrees. Nobody is disputing the energy conservation. But here's what Attia has to say about the whole calories in/out paradigm: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter

Basically, it goes like this: the equation X = kcal in - kcal out is descriptive (ie a mathematically correct description). It is not explanatory. It doesn't answer Why questions. That is, the equation does not establish an "arrow of causality."

So I'm going to apply this equation a number of different ways. Each one is mathematically identical.

G = growth
G = Calories in - Calories out.
You have a growing adolescent boy who is eating you out of house and home. Why? What's causing him to do so?

Is he growing because he's in eating more calories then his maintenance needs? Is the arrow of causality this way G <= Calories in - Calories out?
Or
Is he eating more calories then his maintenance because he's growing. Is the arrow of causality this way G => Calories in - Calories out?

I can ask the same question of a pregnant woman: P = Calories in - Calories out. My daughter is pregnant. Where she used to eat like a bird, she now says she's now hungry all the time.

What's going on in the above two equation? Hormones are driving the hunger response and increasing appetite to insure a positive caloric balance.

F = bodyfat
People just assume the arrow of causality is this way: F <= Calories in - Calories out. Maybe that's not true.
Are you getting fat (<=) because you are eating more calories then your maintenance?
Or
Are you eating more calories then your maintenance because you are getting fat (=>)?
If it's this later then what [hormone] is driving fat accumulation and increasing appetite? Insulin.

To quote Attia's link, above:
"What you eat (along with other factors, like your genetic makeup, of course) impacts how your body partitions and stores fat. In case anyone is wondering how I got over 2,000 words into this post without mentioning the i-word, wonder no longer. Insulin, while not the only factor involved in this process, is probably at the top of the list. When you eat foods that have the double whammy of increasing insulin levels AND increasing your cell’s resistance to insulin, your body prioritizes fat storage over fat utilization. Remember the great medical disconnect – no one disputes that insulin is the most singularly important hormone for causing fat cells to accumulate fat. Somehow the dispute centers on what causes people (full of billions of fat cells) to accumulate fat.

All calories are not created equally: The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body."

Also from Attia's blog: The great medical disconnect
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the- ... disconnect
"here is probably no greater disconnect in medicine than the root cause of obesity. Even if you think you already know the answer to this “obvious” question, it’s still worth reading on. The reason this question matters, of course, is clear to everyone. Obesity (and more broadly the syndrome we define as metabolic syndrome) predisposes us to virtually every disease afflicting us in the modern age. Above is a simple graphic from the journal Nature showing the linkage between obesity and all of its sequela.

When you are obese, your risk of disease goes up. This is not disputed. Here is where the controversy starts…what actually makes us obese?

Obesity is a disorder of fat accumulation – fat cells accumulate too much fat, relative to how much fat the body breaks down. Conventional wisdom, however, says obesity is a disorder of eating too much and/or exercising too little. These are not the same thing.

Let’s turn to a well-respected source of medical information, Lehninger’s Principles of Biochemistry (the so-called “bible” of biochemistry)......"

My 1st comment (page 3 of this thread) began with a statement that a small percentage of the population suffer from aberrations causing the inability to control excessive weight. The thyroid is usually singled out as the source of the difficulty. The word “metabolism” is usually thrown as well. That leaves the rest of us to consider. On page 4, when “brain chemistry” was mentioned by someone, I acknowledged that the brain controls everything pertaining to bodily functions. No argument there, either. But, we must acknowledge that brain control includes having the will to eat less and/or exercise more, and not just give it lip service. I also routinely concede that changing the kinds or types of solid and liquid intakes for whatever fad-like reason someone may have, can result in weight loss. But, I maintain that when it does, it is because the calories were incidentally reduced or that there was additional exertion involved. That’s why I asked if you made that calculation in the interest of science. I am not criticizing your beliefs on the subject.

I believe in exercise, but that plays a small part in loosing weight or at least for me. To date I am down 63lbs since September 1, 2015 (81lbs total) and I have not exercised a lick. I am disable and spent 6 years in a wheel chair and didn't think I would ever walk again. I gained a lot of weight (122lbs) while I was not mobile, but being immobile was not the only issue it was the wrong food I was eating and that wrong food I believed also caused depression.

It is not all about burning what you put in.

It's about hunger regulation. You can eat foods that will increase your appetite. Your cells also develope mitcondra for burning fat if you restrict high glycemic foods. It takes about 3 weeks. In trials, people on an Atkin's diet (actually a Banting that dates back to the 1800s) your told you can eat as much as you want. You can eat to satiety. Isn't that what dieter's want in the end? But when you count the calories most of them are eating while losing weight they are actually cutting back on total calories...until their weight normalized. Who cares? I for one don't. I have no interest in counting calories.

What we care about is the homeostate. Do you consciously regulate you body temp to 98.6 degrees or do you think unconsciously rely on your endocrine system to do that for you? Can yo upset that homeostasis? Sure.

From a survival POV it makes sense to have some body fat. But too much that it affects my mobility is not good. So is there a hormonal homeostasis system regulating body weight? Yeah, it's the interplay between leptin and insulin.

If the average male body only stores ~1600 calories of glycogen (glucose polymer), 400 of which is in the liver to regulate blood sugar, does it make sense you need to eat 1600 calories of carbs each day? Are you really burning through those each day to survive? Those 1200 calorie of glycogen are stored in mostly muscle cells and are there for flight or fight...for quick burst of energy so you wouldn't become tiger food.

It makes more sense to use fat for fuel most of the time. If the bulk of you daily calories had to come from carbs you'd have little time for anything else, let alone develop culture. As someone who knows something about edible wild plants starchy carbs are few and far between. Hunting Animals, esp the fatty organ parts, have way more bang for the buck relative to time/calories expended.

It comes down to figuring out what a natural diet is for humans. Being able to omnivorous That's harder to tease out. Cows OTOH are easier. If I put my cattle in a pin and feed them an unnatural diet of starch grains they are going to put on fat. (Plus their essential fat composition will change to predominantly Omega 6 at the expense of Omega 3). But if I take those cattle out of the lot and put them back on their natural diet of grass their homeostasis is going to regulate their hunger and they will lose weight. Their weight will normalize. They aren't counting calories. There's no conscious accountant in their head going "this many calories in these many calories out." Why would humans be any different?

If you look at a graph of rising US obesity it begins in 1980... Right after the Federal government, in all its wisdom, instituted the dietary guidelines. We were told to cut fat consumption and increase carbs. Food manufacturers came out with fat-free snacks, with added sugar. It had the effect of increasing insulin (which also stresses the pancreas likely leading to increase in type 2 diabetes rates) which is the fat storage hormone once you've topped of your 1600 calore glycogen tank. Many of use can top that off with a latte and bagel for breakfast.

carlson1 wrote:I believe in exercise, but that plays a small part in loosing weight or at least for me. To date I am down 63lbs since September 1, 2015 (81lbs total) and I have not exercised a lick. I am disable and spent 6 years in a wheel chair and didn't think I would ever walk again. I gained a lot of weight (122lbs) while I was not mobile, but being immobile was not the only issue it was the wrong food I was eating and that wrong food I believed also caused depression.

It is not all about burning what you put in.

And there is a lot of good researched argument to back that up.