Exercising without a gym

[Skunk]

Just an example how fatteningly carbohydratic (lol i just invented a new word lol) milk is, my baby daughter, who drinks nothing but milk, tripled her weight in a single year. So this is what will happen if anyone drinks too much milk hehe.

[Chickenbackside]

Yup. Humans don't need milk after going out of infancy. It just tastes bloody good.

 

Unfermented dairy is full of lactose (sugar), so if have to eat dairy, eat fermented ones, like cheese and yoghurt where the lactose has been eaten up by the bacteria. Or dairy with the lactose mostl removed like butter and ghee.

[Hamburger]

Portion sizes are key.

 

Have to compare 1 cup to 1 cup. Not 1 cup with 100ml or something.

 

Labels usually talk in "per serving". Then you gotta read what they define as "per serving".

tis is wat i gather from mi fringe, a Mag fresh milk and coconut cream. Its carbo content is in?g/ 100ml

 

coconut nut =1.3g

fresh milk= 4.7g

 

mi bad as i misread label. Was reading a link on making of soya milk, so i guess home made soya milk is juz as bad as it is PUFA..............

[Chickenbackside]

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/20...lood-sugar.html

 

 

 

Weight Loss, Cholesterol and Blood Sugar Improvements - What's the Wonder Drug Now?

 

 

While the media is hot and heavy to lead their headlines with junk science complete with amateurish conclusions, a study was quietly published Friday in the journal, Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry - Beneficial effects of ketogenic diet in obese diabetic subjects (abstract) - that's remains ignored.

 

No fanfare, no ballyhoo, in fact, not one headline to call attention to the significant findings, over the course of a year, of a dietary trial in obese subjects with and without type II diabetes.

 

Findings that included:

 

For both groups, diabetic and normal glucose:

Weight loss of 24.55kg in 56-weeks (that's 54-pounds)

Total Cholesterol down 19.3%

LDL down 28.2%

HDL up 52.3%

Triglycerides down 59%

Fasting Blood Glucose down 31%

For those with type II diabetes:

 

Weigth loss of 24.4kg in 56-weeks (that's 53.7-pounds)

Total Cholesterol down 28.5%

LDL down 33%

HDL up 63.4%

Triglycerides down 40.8%

Fasting Blood Glucose down 50.9% (yes, glucose fell more than 50%)

So, what exactly did the researchers have these subjects do that led to such impressive improvements over the course of 56-weeks?

 

Sixty-four subjects were divided into two groups - thirty one had abnormal glucose levels (type II diabetes) and the remaining thirty-three had normal glucose levels. Both groups were instructed to modify their diet to include only 20g of carbohydrate a day from a list of foods allowed along with 5-tablespoons of olive oil on salads, and allowed 80g-100g of protein from meat, eggs, fish, poultry and full-fat cheese each day. No alcohol was consumed by participants. At week 12, participants were allowed to increase carbohydrate to 40g per day. Throughout the 56-weeks some foods were forbidden - flour, bread, rice, macaroni, noodles, honey, sugar, sweets, cakes, potatoes, all fruit juices and all soft drinks.

 

Yes, shocker - the study was designed to measure the effects of a ketogenic diet in subjects with and without type II diabetes.

 

So, with the above findings, it's no wonder this one is being quietly ignored.

 

While the media, government policy makers and leading health organizations keep wishing for negative findings from studies of low carbohydrate diets, the opposite keeps happening - the pile of studies finding significant improvement keeps growing higher and higher.

 

How profound were the changes in real numbers?

 

Those with diabetes had baseline fasting blood glucose levels of 188.64mg/dl; by the end of the trial, at week 56, their fasting blood glucose averaged 87.66mg/dl. Even those with normal blood glucose, who started with a baseline fasting blood glucose of 92mg/dl, saw improvement; at the end of the trial they had a fasting blood glucose of 85mg/dl.

 

There is not one drug on the market today, recommended for those with diabetes, that shows such significant improvement in fasting blood sugar, sustained over a period of more than a year!

 

Oh, but it gets better. Cholesterol improvements in this trial were unmatched by any drug trial.

 

 

Those with diabetes:

 

Baseline Week-56

 

Total Cholesterol 265 190

LDL 203 131

HDL 39 62

Triglycerides 418 89

 

 

Those with normal glucose:

 

Baseline Week-56

 

Total Cholesterol 214 181

LDL 156 109

HDL 47 63

Triglycerides 160 77

 

 

No cholesterol medication reduces LDL by 33% while also increasing HDL by 63.4%; and reducing triglycerides by 59%.

 

If the above finding were for a new drug, not only would the headlines be screaming for everyone with dyslipidemia to be prescribed it immediately, but every last expert in the country would be making the rounds in the media to be heard about this new wonder drug!

 

Sadly this isn't a new wonder drug rich with potential for profits. Instead it's simple dietary therapy, with no bottomline enhancement for anyone, save for a few farmers and ranchers.

 

So no headlines, no urgent call to take a look at the data which validates previous studies, no demands for reviewing the evidence; nope, the powers that be will continue along, fingers in ears, singing "La La La" as they hope no one notices the mountain of evidence growing.

 

If you have diabetes, or are at risk for developing diabetes, get to know what a carbohydrate restricted diet is and how to integrate it into your health management, it may save your life.

 

UPDATE 4/24/2007

 

A reader brought to my attention a pretty glaring error in reporting of reduction of triglycerides. I posted the numbers from the full-text above as published - a reduction in triglycerides in those with high blood glucose = -40.8%

 

A review of the actual numbers shows a reduction over the 56-week period from 4.681mmol/l to 1.006mmol/l - a 78.72% reduction in those with high blood glucose; and from 1.827mmol/l to 0.861mmol/l in those with normal blood glucose - a 54.01% reduction.

[Piyopico]

It seems a high protein, moderate fat and low carb/low sugar diet is also pretty healthy.

 

Thoughts?

[Chickenbackside]

I think the biggest factor of a healthy diet is the low carb aspect.

 

The ratio of fat and protein will depend on each person's preference and goals.

 

For me personally, if I eat high protein, I will feel my waistline expanding. If I stuff myself with fat, it's easy to maintain low bodyfat. Whenever I binge on meat a few days in a row (like when I'm overseas) I will easily put on a bunch of body fat. The trick to losing it quickly? I eat lots of butter and coconut oil and minimal protein for a few days. I feel full until I wanna puke and can't eat more than one main meal a day. Confirm lose weight.

 

Whatever it is, as long as carbs are low, the mechanism for fat storage, and hence leading to diseases of civilsation, are severely stunted.

[Hamburger]

http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/20...lood-sugar.html

 

 

 

Weight Loss, Cholesterol and Blood Sugar Improvements - What's the Wonder Drug Now?

 

 

While the media is hot and heavy to lead their headlines with junk science complete with amateurish conclusions, a study was quietly published Friday in the journal, Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry - Beneficial effects of ketogenic diet in obese diabetic subjects (abstract) - that's remains ignored.

 

No fanfare, no ballyhoo, in fact, not one headline to call attention to the significant findings, over the course of a year, of a dietary trial in obese subjects with and without type II diabetes.

 

Findings that included:

 

For both groups, diabetic and normal glucose:

Weight loss of 24.55kg in 56-weeks (that's 54-pounds)

Total Cholesterol down 19.3%

LDL down 28.2%

HDL up 52.3%

Triglycerides down 59%

Fasting Blood Glucose down 31%

For those with type II diabetes:

 

Weigth loss of 24.4kg in 56-weeks (that's 53.7-pounds)

Total Cholesterol down 28.5%

LDL down 33%

HDL up 63.4%

Triglycerides down 40.8%

Fasting Blood Glucose down 50.9% (yes, glucose fell more than 50%)

So, what exactly did the researchers have these subjects do that led to such impressive improvements over the course of 56-weeks?

 

Sixty-four subjects were divided into two groups - thirty one had abnormal glucose levels (type II diabetes) and the remaining thirty-three had normal glucose levels. Both groups were instructed to modify their diet to include only 20g of carbohydrate a day from a list of foods allowed along with 5-tablespoons of olive oil on salads, and allowed 80g-100g of protein from meat, eggs, fish, poultry and full-fat cheese each day. No alcohol was consumed by participants. At week 12, participants were allowed to increase carbohydrate to 40g per day. Throughout the 56-weeks some foods were forbidden - flour, bread, rice, macaroni, noodles, honey, sugar, sweets, cakes, potatoes, all fruit juices and all soft drinks.

 

Yes, shocker - the study was designed to measure the effects of a ketogenic diet in subjects with and without type II diabetes.

 

So, with the above findings, it's no wonder this one is being quietly ignored.

 

While the media, government policy makers and leading health organizations keep wishing for negative findings from studies of low carbohydrate diets, the opposite keeps happening - the pile of studies finding significant improvement keeps growing higher and higher.

 

How profound were the changes in real numbers?

 

Those with diabetes had baseline fasting blood glucose levels of 188.64mg/dl; by the end of the trial, at week 56, their fasting blood glucose averaged 87.66mg/dl. Even those with normal blood glucose, who started with a baseline fasting blood glucose of 92mg/dl, saw improvement; at the end of the trial they had a fasting blood glucose of 85mg/dl.

 

There is not one drug on the market today, recommended for those with diabetes, that shows such significant improvement in fasting blood sugar, sustained over a period of more than a year!

 

Oh, but it gets better. Cholesterol improvements in this trial were unmatched by any drug trial.

 

 

Those with diabetes:

 

Baseline Week-56

 

Total Cholesterol 265 190

LDL 203 131

HDL 39 62

Triglycerides 418 89

 

 

Those with normal glucose:

 

Baseline Week-56

 

Total Cholesterol 214 181

LDL 156 109

HDL 47 63

Triglycerides 160 77

 

 

No cholesterol medication reduces LDL by 33% while also increasing HDL by 63.4%; and reducing triglycerides by 59%.

 

If the above finding were for a new drug, not only would the headlines be screaming for everyone with dyslipidemia to be prescribed it immediately, but every last expert in the country would be making the rounds in the media to be heard about this new wonder drug!

 

Sadly this isn't a new wonder drug rich with potential for profits. Instead it's simple dietary therapy, with no bottomline enhancement for anyone, save for a few farmers and ranchers.

 

So no headlines, no urgent call to take a look at the data which validates previous studies, no demands for reviewing the evidence; nope, the powers that be will continue along, fingers in ears, singing "La La La" as they hope no one notices the mountain of evidence growing.

 

If you have diabetes, or are at risk for developing diabetes, get to know what a carbohydrate restricted diet is and how to integrate it into your health management, it may save your life.

 

UPDATE 4/24/2007

 

A reader brought to my attention a pretty glaring error in reporting of reduction of triglycerides. I posted the numbers from the full-text above as published - a reduction in triglycerides in those with high blood glucose = -40.8%

 

A review of the actual numbers shows a reduction over the 56-week period from 4.681mmol/l to 1.006mmol/l - a 78.72% reduction in those with high blood glucose; and from 1.827mmol/l to 0.861mmol/l in those with normal blood glucose - a 54.01% reduction.

i wonder if those diabeticl still take their medication during on trial? or r they off it completely

[Chickenbackside]

Doesn't matter.

 

At the end of 56 weeks (slightly more than a year), they CAN stop their medication. Average fasting glucose for all the type 2 diabetics in the trial was 87.66mg/dl, which means they are normal already.

 

Exactly the same experience as my dad, except he got to a normal fasting glucose and HbA1C within 6 months with strict low carb.

[Hamburger]

Doesn't matter.

 

At the end of 56 weeks (slightly more than a year), they CAN stop their medication. Average fasting glucose for all the type 2 diabetics in the trial was 87.66mg/dl, which means they are normal already.

 

Exactly the same experience as my dad, except he got to a normal fasting glucose and HbA1C within 6 months with strict low carb.

reason for askin tis is bcos, 2 wks ago i half mi medication n blood sugar went up by 1 unit(5+ -> 6+). Monitored for lasts 2 wks and has dropped back by 0.2/wk. Mayb e body is adapting itself from less drug

[Hamburger]

i m still feelin so full now aft mi lunch @ old airport rd hawker ctr. Its e most cow i ve ever eaten in a dy.... . was recom by a fren so went there check it out. Its a beef soup wif a diff. I ate 1 serving of braised muscle, 1 bowl of soup of tendon n stomach & another bowl of indian style cow soup, machiam like kamping soup xcept its beef. Taste really gd compare to others n not ex at all . its at #01-62, so bros n sis, go get ur cow now .

 

 

[Somewhat1975]

Can a High Fat Diet Beat Cancer

 

The women's hospital at the University of W

Edited May 7, 2010 by Somewhat1975

[Nolicense]

anybody read the article by andy ho in ST?

 

seems very lay and inconsequential.. but misinforms. anyway, pay no heed to a non-expert trying to give advice.

even experts get it wrong if they do bad research.

 

i think he got mixed up between low carb and atkins. dumb.

[Skunk]

i think he got mixed up between low carb and atkins. dumb.

 

Atkins is low carb, but not all low carb is Atkins.

 

[Xtrocious]

anybody read the article by andy ho in ST?

 

seems very lay and inconsequential.. but misinforms. anyway, pay no heed to a non-expert trying to give advice.

even experts get it wrong if they do bad research.

 

i think he got mixed up between low carb and atkins. dumb.

 

I did - it's a waste of newspaper real estate...

 

Then again, I just read the ST for fun and use the paper to pick up after my dogs...

 

 

[Ahleon]

Skunk...check ur msg box...

[Hamburger]

I did - it's a waste of newspaper real estate...

 

Then again, I just read the ST for fun and use the paper to pick up after my dogs...

wow, tis is really pathetic n down right humiliating. i at most use it to clean my fish tank .........

[Ender]

I did - it's a waste of newspaper real estate...

 

Then again, I just read the ST for fun and use the paper to pick up after my dogs...

 

Didn't know much about this writer andy ho, until I google his name.. Wah this guy apparently writes alot of things he doesn't understand.. Alot of site condemn him..

[Chickenbackside]

Funny how he based most of his article on the Scientific American article, which I posted a few pages back, BUT left out the part about LDL particle size, which totally discredits him in my eyes.

 

That is the key to explaining why the lipid hypothesis is BS, but hey, he left it out so that he can serve his literary motives.

 

As they say, nutrition and health is a soft science. The researches and writers simply do not have the same standards as physics or chemistry researchers.