[PBS] "Fat: What no one is telling you"

Gang,

I watched the PBS show named in the subject header last night. It
presented a pessimistic view of dieting. It said that there are 400
(+?) human genes involved with energy regulation and seemed to hint
that if you've got a lot of the genes that promote storage of energy
turned on it would just be impossible to loose weight. It kept going
back to an interview of a woman who's in television, walking fast on a
treadmill while she talked, out of breath, and conveyed the fact that
she's dieting hard and spending endless time on the treadmill but not
loosing weight. It even said that only 5% of people who have gastric
bypass surgery go on to attain their ideal weight. But also, it showed
a young man who was very overweight and had the surgery, and who went
on to lose 147 pounds - and I suspect he was still loosing when taping
ended. He looked a lot better and was very happy.

It occurs to me that my own weight loss might not be so much of an
accomplishment after all. The show said that people who are fat as
children go on to have a craving for food the rest of their lives (if
they diet, IIRC). I was very thin as a child - you could see my ribs
protruding untill I was about 12 or so. So, I guess that with 12 years
of being voraciously hungry and starved by my mother I've paid my dues
and can look forward to a lifetime of being able to eat enough to feel
satisfied and maintain a healthy weight. If so, it was a good deal, 12
years for ~64. But it still seems terribly unfair.

If anybody who's having a lot of trouble with their diet wants to talk
about it, I'm sure listening. I think the lap band is a really good
idea (it's a band that goes around your stomach. It causes you to feel
full with much less food than it would take without the band, and
after you've lost as much weight as you'd like it can be let out to
allow the stomach to accomodate more food (but still not the amount it
would without the band), so you can maintain that weight - this said
with that caveat about the 5%).

I ate out tonight, just about half and hour ago. I had a big meal, and
to be honest, I don't feel, like, really awesome because I'm full. I
think I could have just had 3 rice cakes (135 calories) and I'd be
just as happy. What I'm doing here is trying to un-program the belief
that full = happy, and introduce the belief that I can be just as
happy with eating less.

Sean, still trying to figure out the magic combination of words that
gets a reply
--
"As soon as I figure this out, I'm in there!"
-- Chris Rock

Sean wrote:
> Gang,
>
> I watched the PBS show named in the subject header last night. It
> presented a pessimistic view of dieting. It said that there are 400
> (+?) human genes involved with energy regulation and seemed to hint
> that if you've got a lot of the genes that promote storage of energy
> turned on it would just be impossible to loose weight. It kept going
> back to an interview of a woman who's in television, walking fast on a
> treadmill while she talked, out of breath, and conveyed the fact that
> she's dieting hard and spending endless time on the treadmill but not
> loosing weight. It even said that only 5% of people who have gastric
> bypass surgery go on to attain their ideal weight. But also, it showed
> a young man who was very overweight and had the surgery, and who went
> on to lose 147 pounds - and I suspect he was still loosing when taping
> ended. He looked a lot better and was very happy.
>
> It occurs to me that my own weight loss might not be so much of an
> accomplishment after all. The show said that people who are fat as
> children go on to have a craving for food the rest of their lives (if
> they diet, IIRC). I was very thin as a child - you could see my ribs
> protruding untill I was about 12 or so. So, I guess that with 12 years
> of being voraciously hungry and starved by my mother I've paid my dues
> and can look forward to a lifetime of being able to eat enough to feel
> satisfied and maintain a healthy weight. If so, it was a good deal, 12
> years for ~64. But it still seems terribly unfair.
>
> If anybody who's having a lot of trouble with their diet wants to talk
> about it, I'm sure listening. I think the lap band is a really good
> idea (it's a band that goes around your stomach. It causes you to feel
> full with much less food than it would take without the band, and
> after you've lost as much weight as you'd like it can be let out to
> allow the stomach to accomodate more food (but still not the amount it
> would without the band), so you can maintain that weight - this said
> with that caveat about the 5%).
>
> I ate out tonight, just about half and hour ago. I had a big meal, and
> to be honest, I don't feel, like, really awesome because I'm full. I
> think I could have just had 3 rice cakes (135 calories) and I'd be
> just as happy. What I'm doing here is trying to un-program the belief
> that full = happy, and introduce the belief that I can be just as
> happy with eating less.
>
> Sean, still trying to figure out the magic combination of words that
> gets a reply
> --
> "As soon as I figure this out, I'm in there!"
> -- Chris Rock
>
I saw the show. They actually attributed a great deal of the problem to
an environment of abundant high calorie food and minimal exertion
which activates the body's get fat response.

An interesting area was that surgery is paradoxically effective. People
not only can't eat as much but don't want to. They mentioned in passing
some nerve that gets cut.

Of course there were the obligatory calls for more money for schools so
they could restore PE. That segment was sponsored by the teacher's union.

The net was that people are getting really fat, and no one knows why for
sure, or how to stop the process. And poor us, it is all beyond our
control pretty much. woe is us.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:45:33 -0500, Del Cecchi wrote:

> The net was that people are getting really fat, and no one knows why for
> sure, or how to stop the process. And poor us, it is all beyond our
> control pretty much. woe is us.

Imagine that, a TV show that pathetically sympathizes the concept of no
accountability.

On 12 Apr 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Sean wrote:

> I watched the PBS show named in the subject header last night. It
> presented a pessimistic view of dieting. It said that there are 400
> (+?) human genes involved with energy regulation and seemed to hint
> that if you've got a lot of the genes that promote storage of energy
> turned on it would just be impossible to loose weight. It kept going
> back to an interview of a woman who's in television, walking fast on a
> treadmill while she talked, out of breath, and conveyed the fact that
> she's dieting hard and spending endless time on the treadmill but not
> loosing weight. It even said that only 5% of people who have gastric
> bypass surgery go on to attain their ideal weight. But also, it showed
> a young man who was very overweight and had the surgery, and who went
> on to lose 147 pounds - and I suspect he was still loosing when taping
> ended. He looked a lot better and was very happy.
>

I watched, as did my husband. I do agree that it presented a
pessimistic view of losing fat. It also seemed to present a rather
favorable view on surgery as the option for weight loss.

The woman you speak of was a stand-up comic... and they showed
pictures that indicated she HAD in fact, lost a great deal of weight
by her efforts, hard though they might be. Did you not catch where she
put on an old jacket worn at her high weight and it engulfed her?
There were also plenty of before pictures and after... it's just that
she still had fat to lose. But certainly, she'd taken a lot of weight
off with diet and exercise!


> It occurs to me that my own weight loss might not be so much of an
> accomplishment after all. The show said that people who are fat as
> children go on to have a craving for food the rest of their lives (if
> they diet, IIRC). I was very thin as a child - you could see my ribs
> protruding untill I was about 12 or so. So, I guess that with 12 years
> of being voraciously hungry and starved by my mother I've paid my dues
> and can look forward to a lifetime of being able to eat enough to feel
> satisfied and maintain a healthy weight. If so, it was a good deal, 12
> years for ~64. But it still seems terribly unfair.
>

I'm not entirely buying this premise of unending hunger that makes
permanent weightloss so difficult. I think what makes keeping the
weight off so difficult is that our *bad* habits, the ones that got us
fat over the years, are very ingrained and are reverted to extremely
easily, especially in times of stress. Or in some cases, simply when
people believe they can *stop* the diet.

Even with the knowledge that I revert easily, there are times, when I
am tired, that all I want is some quick fast food. And to be honest, I
don't even like the TASTE of it that well, it's just that it's FAST
and CONVENIENT if I am tired and my feet hurt.

At any rate, I'm currently in the weight loss process, and I can
honestly say that I am rarely hungry in a physical sense. But I am
also careful to not do too large a calorie deficit either. The
question in my mind is will this change, as I get to lower weights and
therefore need to take in fewer calories? I'm hoping that I can keep
my activity level up, so the change will be less drastic. Certainly,
with less weight on my joints, it should be easier to be more active!

I was slightly plump as a child... so maybe I can look forward to a
ton of food cravings as my future. Hope not though. I am actually the
kind of person who tends to forget totally about food until I am
ravenous, I was a breakfast skipper extraordinaire.


> If anybody who's having a lot of trouble with their diet wants to talk
> about it, I'm sure listening. I think the lap band is a really good
> idea (it's a band that goes around your stomach. It causes you to feel
> full with much less food than it would take without the band, and
> after you've lost as much weight as you'd like it can be let out to
> allow the stomach to accomodate more food (but still not the amount it
> would without the band), so you can maintain that weight - this said
> with that caveat about the 5%).
>

I did think the show focussed a bit too much on surgery, but they did
bring up the idea that the reason it works for so many is that some
nerves are cut in the process that seem to control the hunger
response. If that's so, it might be nice if they could simply isolate
those nerves and lay off all the stomach manipulation. Should make the
recovery easier and the surgery less risky. Though making the stomach
smaller might still be needful. Not all hunger is physical in nature,
some is emotional. I'm not sure any surgery is going to help with that
though.

I still don't think I would ever consider the surgery as an option
myself. My sister-in-law did a weight loss surgery and two years
later, she STILL doesn't feel WELL! Last time I saw her, she was
complaining how easy her nails broke and chipped... and all I could
think was "malnourishment". I might add, she is not a normal weight,
though she did lose a lot of weight, and probably a great deal of it
was muscle along with the fat. She is currently not trying to lose
more weight, but hopefully is maintaining. Hopefully.

My own sister has a friend who did weight loss surgery... though I
don't think it was reversible, like the lap band. She lost weight
initially, could not eat much at once without throwing up. However,
apparently, her need to eat continued, and eventually, she managed to
gain every bit of the weight she lost back, even with the smaller
stomach size.

So the surgery is not a guarantee you can maintain by any means. Nor
is it a guarantee you will lose the hunger to eat.

That said, I lost a cousin to sudden death, and I know she had, at one
point, considered and rejected weight loss surgery. It's possible, if
she had had it, she'd still be with us today. So, while it would not
be my choice, it still may be a good option for some.


> I ate out tonight, just about half and hour ago. I had a big meal, and
> to be honest, I don't feel, like, really awesome because I'm full. I
> think I could have just had 3 rice cakes (135 calories) and I'd be
> just as happy. What I'm doing here is trying to un-program the belief
> that full = happy, and introduce the belief that I can be just as
> happy with eating less.
>

You know what was sad... hubby and I tried to order a MEDIUM pizza
from our favorite quality pizza joint for the first time last night...
figuring that would make enough for a satisfying meal without having
leftovers, like we get with a large size. And they didn't HAVE a
medium size!


Anyway, the show was interesting, and presented a lot of information,
including the fact that we do live in an environment where food is
easy to get, while our bodies evolved in a quite different
environment, where food was hard to come by.


--
Cynthia
262/240.5/152

On Apr 13, 4:11 pm, Cynthia P <nos...@dontwannit.net> wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Sean wrote:
>
> > I watched the PBS show named in the subject header last night. It
> > presented a pessimistic view of dieting.

That's a generalization.
Anyone with a goal in life that is not willing to sustain the steps
toward it has either received a copy of "The Secret" or is on a
permanent Soma holiday.

If you don't take care of your teeth, they may rot. If you don't bathe
regularly and ongoing you will be dirty and may smell bad. If you gain
weight easily and are unable or unwilling to do what is required to
deal with it you are not only a pessimist but likely a fat one.

In todays's society and pop culture, the obese are swimming against
the tide oif trans fats and double sized portions (or worse).

But there are ear plugs and blinders to drown out a way of life that
is rapidly killing us prematurely.

March to your own drum and march faster. Do it at least three times a
week for twenty minutes or more. Strap on a pedometer instead oif a
feed bag and don't always swallow what you are fed by CNN. They often
blather on 24/7 often about nothing.

If we were guided by statustics, we wouldn't make any efforts in any
area.

Diva
Happiness requires real choices

On Apr 13, 8:45 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Sean wrote:
> > Gang,
>
> > I watched the PBS show named in the subject header last night. It

> I saw the show. They actually attributed a great deal of the problem to
> an environment of abundant high calorie food and minimal exertion
> which activates the body's get fat response.

I forgot to say that one of the psychologists on the show said that
the bright lighting and bright colors in a mall's food court both make
you want to eat more, and the tempo of the music can actually make you
eat faster. Growing up the conventional wisdom was that if you ate
slowly you feel more full. It could be that the mall designers made it
that way so that you would get into the habit of eating a lot there
and then associate the food court with being full and go back to it
often.

I've decided that while eating out I don't particularly feel full, so
I might just as well eat a small meal, for all the benefit it brings.

> An interesting area was that surgery is paradoxically effective. People
> not only can't eat as much but don't want to. They mentioned in passing
> some nerve that gets cut.

I read in "You: On A Diet" that since they remove part of the stomach
during gastric bypass surgery, there is less of a hormone that causes
hunger to be secreted.

> Of course there were the obligatory calls for more money for schools so
> they could restore PE. That segment was sponsored by the teacher's union.

I'm all for that. But if it's not politically possible I'd like to see
the government promote family's exercising together. When I was in
grade school I used to run at recess. Sometimes it was part of games I
was playing with other kids, other times I would just run and pretend
I was an airplane. Either way, it kept me thin.

> The net was that people are getting really fat, and no one knows why for
> sure, or how to stop the process. And poor us, it is all beyond our
> control pretty much. woe is us.

Yeah, I didn't like that very much.

Sean

On Apr 13, 1:11 pm, Cynthia P <nos...@dontwannit.net> wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Sean wrote:
>
> > I watched the PBS show named in the subject header last night.

> I watched, as did my husband. I do agree that it presented a
> pessimistic view of losing fat. It also seemed to present a rather
> favorable view on surgery as the option for weight loss.
>
> The woman you speak of was a stand-up comic... and they showed
> pictures that indicated she HAD in fact, lost a great deal of weight
> by her efforts, hard though they might be. Did you not catch where she
> put on an old jacket worn at her high weight and it engulfed her?

I did see that. But I thought that the woman on the treadmill was
different from the stand-up comic, because she said that she was in
television. Also that she was upset when the Italian guy said that no
man would want her. I would have thought that the stand-up comic would
respond to that differently. But you might be right.

> There were also plenty of before pictures and after... it's just that
> she still had fat to lose. But certainly, she'd taken a lot of weight
> off with diet and exercise!

They should have emphasized how well she had done, to encourage
others. Every pound you loose means there's less fat to interfere with
the insulin in your blood stream and cause diabetes.

> I'm not entirely buying this premise of unending hunger that makes
> permanent weightloss so difficult. I think what makes keeping the
> weight off so difficult is that our *bad* habits, the ones that got us
> fat over the years, are very ingrained and are reverted to extremely
> easily, especially in times of stress. Or in some cases, simply when
> people believe they can *stop* the diet.

Could you let us know what your subjective expirience of hunger is as
you progress on your diet?

> Even with the knowledge that I revert easily, there are times, when I
> am tired, that all I want is some quick fast food. And to be honest, I
> don't even like the TASTE of it that well, it's just that it's FAST
> and CONVENIENT if I am tired and my feet hurt.

[Grin] Rice cakes are fast and convenient. 1) Go to kitchen. 2) Open
bag. 3) Take rice cakes out. 4) Close bag. 5) Eat rice cakes. 6)
Congratulate yourself on having only eaten (45 X # of race cakes
consumed) calories. Easy.

> At any rate, I'm currently in the weight loss process, and I can
> honestly say that I am rarely hungry in a physical sense. But I am
> also careful to not do too large a calorie deficit either. The
> question in my mind is will this change, as I get to lower weights and
> therefore need to take in fewer calories? I'm hoping that I can keep
> my activity level up, so the change will be less drastic. Certainly,
> with less weight on my joints, it should be easier to be more active!

Dr. Roizen says that each pound of fat lost means you need to eat 3
less calories a day to maintain the same weight or lose at the same
rate. But each pound of muscle added means that you burn 40 to 120
extra calories a day just to maintain it and keep muscle tone up. So
if you loose all the fat that you want to and add between 3 and 7
pounds of muscle you'll be even.

> I did think the show focussed a bit too much on surgery, but they did
> bring up the idea that the reason it works for so many is that some
> nerves are cut in the process that seem to control the hunger
> response. If that's so, it might be nice if they could simply isolate
> those nerves and lay off all the stomach manipulation.

Deenervated tissue wastes away. So just cutting the nerve will lead to
problems, as the area of the stomach served by those nerves
dissappears.

>I'm not sure any surgery is going to help with that
> though.

Yeah, it seems to be a question of whether you are eating to be full,
or eating for the expirience of eating.

> I still don't think I would ever consider the surgery as an option
> myself. My sister-in-law did a weight loss surgery and two years
> later, she STILL doesn't feel WELL! Last time I saw her, she was
> complaining how easy her nails broke and chipped... and all I could
> think was "malnourishment". I might add, she is not a normal weight,
> though she did lose a lot of weight, and probably a great deal of it
> was muscle along with the fat. She is currently not trying to lose
> more weight, but hopefully is maintaining. Hopefully.

I haven't had the surgurey (not heavy enough to qualify for it) but
I've been noticing that my nails are breaking a lot. I do take a
multivitamin. Your sister-in-law could do exercises to bring the
muscle back. I made a mistake when I first started dieting, by not
eating and then going out for hour and a half walks. I estimate that I
lost five pounds of muscle before I figured it out (by measuring my
waist and seeing that it wasn't getting smaller - ergo I wasn't
loosing fat). I'm not sure how I feel about that: my legs are better
proportioned to the rest of my body but it means I have to eat less,
and it will take longer to reach my target weight.

> My own sister has a friend who did weight loss surgery... though I
> don't think it was reversible, like the lap band. She lost weight
> initially, could not eat much at once without throwing up. However,
> apparently, her need to eat continued, and eventually, she managed to
> gain every bit of the weight she lost back, even with the smaller
> stomach size.

That's too bad...

> So the surgery is not a guarantee you can maintain by any means. Nor
> is it a guarantee you will lose the hunger to eat.
>
> That said, I lost a cousin to sudden death, and I know she had, at one
> point, considered and rejected weight loss surgery. It's possible, if
> she had had it, she'd still be with us today. So, while it would not
> be my choice, it still may be a good option for some.

I think all of us by dieting by eating healthy are getting a vast
benefit to our health. Less chance of diabetes and stroke. My doctor
said that eating too much sugar can raise your cholesterol, and then
the heart attack or stoke happens.

> You know what was sad... hubby and I tried to order a MEDIUM pizza
> from our favorite quality pizza joint for the first time last night...
> figuring that would make enough for a satisfying meal without having
> leftovers, like we get with a large size. And they didn't HAVE a
> medium size!

They start at large? That's funny. I mean, I've heard of Dominoes not
having small, but this is an outrageous symptom of America's obesity.

> Anyway, the show was interesting, and presented a lot of information,
> including the fact that we do live in an environment where food is
> easy to get, while our bodies evolved in a quite different
> environment, where food was hard to come by.

I was thinking that it's not so much as we were designed to survive
famine, but we were designed to survive the winter, when plants aren't
producing food.

Sean

On 14 Apr 2007 15:27:50 -0700, Sean wrote:

> On Apr 13, 1:11 pm, Cynthia P <nos...@dontwannit.net> wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Sean wrote:
>>
>>
>> The woman you speak of was a stand-up comic... and they showed
>> pictures that indicated she HAD in fact, lost a great deal of weight
>> by her efforts, hard though they might be. Did you not catch where she
>> put on an old jacket worn at her high weight and it engulfed her?
>
> I did see that. But I thought that the woman on the treadmill was
> different from the stand-up comic, because she said that she was in
> television. Also that she was upset when the Italian guy said that no
> man would want her. I would have thought that the stand-up comic would
> respond to that differently. But you might be right.
>

They probably could have made the connection more clearly, but same
face, same woman. And there would be no reason for the woman on the
treadmill to put on the comic's old jacket if they weren't the same
person, LOL!


> They should have emphasized how well she had done, to encourage
> others. Every pound you loose means there's less fat to interfere with
> the insulin in your blood stream and cause diabetes.
>

I totally agree with that!


>> I'm not entirely buying this premise of unending hunger that makes
>> permanent weightloss so difficult. I think what makes keeping the
>> weight off so difficult is that our *bad* habits, the ones that got us
>> fat over the years, are very ingrained and are reverted to extremely
>> easily, especially in times of stress. Or in some cases, simply when
>> people believe they can *stop* the diet.
>
> Could you let us know what your subjective expirience of hunger is as
> you progress on your diet?
>


Sure thing. However, it probably isn't going to be that bad. I do know
in the past that when I was staggering calories more, there WERE a
fair few days where I ate at a low level, say 1200-1400 calories and
was just fine. Said calories consisted of a lot of nice fibrous
veggies, protein and whole grains.

Anyway, I expect it will be a while before I have anything to report
there. I'm losing at a rough rate of a half a pound to a pound a week.
So it will be some time before my calorie level is much reduced.


> [Grin] Rice cakes are fast and convenient. 1) Go to kitchen. 2) Open
> bag. 3) Take rice cakes out. 4) Close bag. 5) Eat rice cakes. 6)
> Congratulate yourself on having only eaten (45 X # of race cakes
> consumed) calories. Easy.
>


Unfortunately, I do not feel that rice cakes are a particularly
nutritious nor appealing food. They are also pretty much a pure
starch, which I tend to avoid, except after exercise.

However, I have learned to keep convenience foods about! The fridge is
rarely empty of things like roasted turkey breast, cottage cheese,
fruit, skim mozzarella sticks, bagged spinach, eggs, peanut butter,
nuts and the like. So most days, if things go weird and I need to
throw together a snack quick, I can.



> Dr. Roizen says that each pound of fat lost means you need to eat 3
> less calories a day to maintain the same weight or lose at the same
> rate. But each pound of muscle added means that you burn 40 to 120
> extra calories a day just to maintain it and keep muscle tone up. So
> if you loose all the fat that you want to and add between 3 and 7
> pounds of muscle you'll be even.
>

Well, I am doing everything I can to add muscle!


>> I did think the show focussed a bit too much on surgery, but they did
>> bring up the idea that the reason it works for so many is that some
>> nerves are cut in the process that seem to control the hunger
>> response. If that's so, it might be nice if they could simply isolate
>> those nerves and lay off all the stomach manipulation.
>
> Deenervated tissue wastes away. So just cutting the nerve will lead to
> problems, as the area of the stomach served by those nerves
> dissappears.
>

I see.

>>I'm not sure any surgery is going to help with that
>> though.
>
> Yeah, it seems to be a question of whether you are eating to be full,
> or eating for the expirience of eating.
>

Honestly, I think a lot of overweight folks often eat for the
experience of eating. I'm no exception to that, though that need
doesn't come upon me as often these days. Still, I've certainly done
it when bored.


>> I still don't think I would ever consider the surgery as an option
>> myself. My sister-in-law did a weight loss surgery and two years
>> later, she STILL doesn't feel WELL! Last time I saw her, she was
>> complaining how easy her nails broke and chipped... and all I could
>> think was "malnourishment". I might add, she is not a normal weight,
>> though she did lose a lot of weight, and probably a great deal of it
>> was muscle along with the fat. She is currently not trying to lose
>> more weight, but hopefully is maintaining. Hopefully.
>
> I haven't had the surgurey (not heavy enough to qualify for it) but
> I've been noticing that my nails are breaking a lot. I do take a
> multivitamin. Your sister-in-law could do exercises to bring the
> muscle back. I made a mistake when I first started dieting, by not
> eating and then going out for hour and a half walks. I estimate that I
> lost five pounds of muscle before I figured it out (by measuring my
> waist and seeing that it wasn't getting smaller - ergo I wasn't
> loosing fat). I'm not sure how I feel about that: my legs are better
> proportioned to the rest of my body but it means I have to eat less,
> and it will take longer to reach my target weight.
>

The healthier I've been eating, the more I've noticed my nails are
better. I take a multi-vitamin, plus some extra E and C.

My sister-in-law *could* work on the muscle thing, but I doubt she
will, which is too bad as I think not doing so may backfire on her
later.


>> So the surgery is not a guarantee you can maintain by any means. Nor
>> is it a guarantee you will lose the hunger to eat.
>>
>> That said, I lost a cousin to sudden death, and I know she had, at one
>> point, considered and rejected weight loss surgery. It's possible, if
>> she had had it, she'd still be with us today. So, while it would not
>> be my choice, it still may be a good option for some.
>
> I think all of us by dieting by eating healthy are getting a vast
> benefit to our health. Less chance of diabetes and stroke. My doctor
> said that eating too much sugar can raise your cholesterol, and then
> the heart attack or stoke happens.
>


No kidding. Healthy diet and activity can go a long way towards fixing
many ills. My husband is starting to see a lower resting heart rate
and lower blood pressure.


>> You know what was sad... hubby and I tried to order a MEDIUM pizza
>> from our favorite quality pizza joint for the first time last night...
>> figuring that would make enough for a satisfying meal without having
>> leftovers, like we get with a large size. And they didn't HAVE a
>> medium size!
>
> They start at large? That's funny. I mean, I've heard of Dominoes not
> having small, but this is an outrageous symptom of America's obesity.
>


They had what they call personal pizzas... by the diameter, it looked
like it would be a little too much for one person, but not enough for
two. And the cost for ordering two of them was considerably more than
just ordering the large. Nevertheless, I may persuade hubby to try it
just so we can see.

But yeah, no medium size, just small, large and extra large.

Sad, eh?


>> Anyway, the show was interesting, and presented a lot of information,
>> including the fact that we do live in an environment where food is
>> easy to get, while our bodies evolved in a quite different
>> environment, where food was hard to come by.
>
> I was thinking that it's not so much as we were designed to survive
> famine, but we were designed to survive the winter, when plants aren't
> producing food.
>

Could be.

--
Cynthia
262/240.5/152

On 14 Apr 2007 15:03:55 -0700, Sean wrote:

> I forgot to say that one of the psychologists on the show said that
> the bright lighting and bright colors in a mall's food court both make
> you want to eat more, and the tempo of the music can actually make you
> eat faster. Growing up the conventional wisdom was that if you ate
> slowly you feel more full. It could be that the mall designers made it
> that way so that you would get into the habit of eating a lot there
> and then associate the food court with being full and go back to it
> often.

Food marketers spend zillions of dollars to get you to eat more food. They
have become experts over time, especially the FF industry. Nothing new,
it's ages old going back to the pyramid of eating driven by the Ag
industry.

On Apr 14, 7:37 pm, Cynthia P <nos...@dontwannit.net> wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2007 15:27:50 -0700, Sean wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 1:11 pm, Cynthia P <nos...@dontwannit.net> wrote:
> >> On 12 Apr 2007 20:30:46 -0700, Sean wrote:
>
> >> The woman you speak of was a stand-up comic... and they showed
> >> pictures that indicated she HAD in fact, lost a great deal of weight
> >> by her efforts, hard though they might be. Did you not catch where she
> >> put on an old jacket worn at her high weight and it engulfed her?

I do remember seeing that...

> They probably could have made the connection more clearly, but same
> face, same woman. And there would be no reason for the woman on the
> treadmill to put on the comic's old jacket if they weren't the same
> person, LOL!

....I just didn't remember that it was the woman on the treadmill.

> > Could you let us know what your subjective expirience of hunger is as
> > you progress on your diet?
>
> Sure thing. However, it probably isn't going to be that bad. I do know
> in the past that when I was staggering calories more, there WERE a
> fair few days where I ate at a low level, say 1200-1400 calories and
> was just fine. Said calories consisted of a lot of nice fibrous
> veggies, protein and whole grains.
>
> Anyway, I expect it will be a while before I have anything to report
> there.

When I was in Air Force Basic training I lost two inches off of my
waistline in 8 weeks. The people in the Air Force designed it to take
weight off. I think I was 15 pounds below what I was used to, and
after I got out of basic I was so increadibly hungry. I put the weight
right back on.

What we had to do that made us loose weight was to march a certain
distance to and from meals, drink two glasses of water with every
meal, be more physically active, and run every morning, starting with
1/4 mile and increasing 1/4 mile per week till we got to 1 1/2 miles
per day. I also was a partial vegetarian at the time, so I was not
eating any red meat. This meant that certain meals consisted of water,
potatoes, and vegetable only. Although I don't think potatoes are good
for dieting.

Since I've started dieting I've gone back to drinking two glasses of
water with every meal. Helps fill you up and, if you're at all
thirsty, it satiates that thirst so that you don't confuse it for
hunger. Tomorrow I'm going to ask my doctor about any role that water
plays in fat metabloism.

> > [Grin] Rice cakes are fast and convenient. 1) Go to kitchen. 2) Open
> > bag. 3) Take rice cakes out. 4) Close bag. 5) Eat rice cakes. 6)
> > Congratulate yourself on having only eaten (45 X # of race cakes
> > consumed) calories. Easy.
>
> Unfortunately, I do not feel that rice cakes are a particularly
> nutritious nor appealing food.

"Bread is the staff of life." But, point taken.

> > Dr. Roizen says that each pound of fat lost means you need to eat 3
> > less calories a day to maintain the same weight or lose at the same
> > rate. But each pound of muscle added means that you burn 40 to 120
> > extra calories a day just to maintain it and keep muscle tone up. So
> > if you loose all the fat that you want to and add between 3 and 7
> > pounds of muscle you'll be even.
>
> Well, I am doing everything I can to add muscle!

That's good. I calculated wrong before. I was saying "you could eat
the amount that it takes to maintain your current weight". But that's
not useful because you aren't eating to maintain your current weight,
you're eating to lose. So, after you've reached your target weight,
the amount of additional muscle you'll have to add to be able to eat
the amount of food that maintained 262 pounds is between ( ( 262 -
152 ) X 3 ) / 40 = 8.3 pounds, and ( ( 262 - 152 ) X 3 ) / 120 = 2.75
pounds.

> > Deenervated tissue wastes away. So just cutting the nerve will lead to
> > problems, as the area of the stomach served by those nerves
> > dissappears.
>
> I see.

You know, now that I've thought about this overnight, I wonder if
denervated (which is the correct spelling) muscle is the only tissue
that wastes away, due to it's not being stimulated by the nerves to
have muscle tone. Of course, the stomach has muscle in it.

> But yeah, no medium size, just small, large and extra large.
>
> Sad, eh?

Very. On two different levels. One is the implied greed it attributes
to the customers, and the other is wrecking the English language. A
high crime, that.

> Cynthia
> 262/240.5/152-

On 15 Apr 2007 17:30:23 -0700, Sean wrote:


> When I was in Air Force Basic training I lost two inches off of my
> waistline in 8 weeks. The people in the Air Force designed it to take
> weight off. I think I was 15 pounds below what I was used to, and
> after I got out of basic I was so increadibly hungry. I put the weight
> right back on.
>
> What we had to do that made us loose weight was to march a certain
> distance to and from meals, drink two glasses of water with every
> meal, be more physically active, and run every morning, starting with
> 1/4 mile and increasing 1/4 mile per week till we got to 1 1/2 miles
> per day. I also was a partial vegetarian at the time, so I was not
> eating any red meat. This meant that certain meals consisted of water,
> potatoes, and vegetable only. Although I don't think potatoes are good
> for dieting.
>

Yowza! I'd say you were justifiably hungry! Probably would've helped
to have gotten more protein in, as that tends to help stave off
hunger.


> Since I've started dieting I've gone back to drinking two glasses of
> water with every meal. Helps fill you up and, if you're at all
> thirsty, it satiates that thirst so that you don't confuse it for
> hunger. Tomorrow I'm going to ask my doctor about any role that water
> plays in fat metabloism.
>

Go for it... I drink a 16 ounce glass with all my meals too. And I'm
eating 5-6 small meals a day.


--
Cynthia
262/240.5/152

On Apr 16, 1:56 am, Cynthia P <nos...@dontwannit.net> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2007 17:30:23 -0700, Sean wrote:
>
> > When I was in Air Force Basic training I lost two inches off of my
> > waistline in 8 weeks. The people in the Air Force designed it to take
> > weight off. I think I was 15 pounds below what I was used to, and
> > after I got out of basic I was so increadibly hungry. I put the weight
> > right back on.
>
> > What we had to do that made us loose weight was to march a certain
> > distance to and from meals, drink two glasses of water with every
> > meal, be more physically active, and run every morning, starting with
> > 1/4 mile and increasing 1/4 mile per week till we got to 1 1/2 miles
> > per day. I also was a partial vegetarian at the time, so I was not
> > eating any red meat. This meant that certain meals consisted of water,
> > potatoes, and vegetable only. Although I don't think potatoes are good
> > for dieting.
>
> Yowza! I'd say you were justifiably hungry! Probably would've helped
> to have gotten more protein in, as that tends to help stave off
> hunger.

I used to be a partial vegetarian because of my religion. Then I
ditched the religion and became _much_ happier. Heavier, though. But
now I'm going to have it both ways.

I heard that red meat increases the risk of colon cancer. But I only
have it about three times a month anyway.

Sean

On 16 Apr 2007 18:56:49 -0700, Sean wrote:


>>
>> Yowza! I'd say you were justifiably hungry! Probably would've helped
>> to have gotten more protein in, as that tends to help stave off
>> hunger.
>
> I used to be a partial vegetarian because of my religion. Then I
> ditched the religion and became _much_ happier. Heavier, though. But
> now I'm going to have it both ways.
>

Yes, that can make it more difficult, depending on how strict a
vegetarian you were.

> I heard that red meat increases the risk of colon cancer. But I only
> have it about three times a month anyway.
>

I wouldn't worry about it, that's a pretty low rate of consumption.

We eat a variety, lean pork, lean beef, chicken, turkey, and FISH. I
love fish and seafood and am inclined to order it whenever I get the
chance if we eat out.

--
Cynthia
262/240.5/152

On Apr 17, 2:13 pm, Cynthia P <nos...@dontwannit.net> wrote:

> We eat a variety, lean pork, lean beef, chicken, turkey, and FISH.

My doctor is always telling me to eat fish. I always tell him that I
take capsules with omega-3 fatty acids (promotes heart health). But
I'm thinking of taking his advice in addition to doing that.

Sean