Exercising without a gym

[Skunk]

bought mascarpone cheese and ate it straight out of the packet. It's very high fat. Yuck!!! Couldn't get in more than 2 teaspoons, felt like retching LOL....at least that would kill my appetite for dinner LOL

[Nolicense]

bought mascarpone cheese and ate it straight out of the packet. It's very high fat. Yuck!!! Couldn't get in more than 2 teaspoons, felt like retching LOL....at least that would kill my appetite for dinner LOL

 

aiyoh, that is used for tiramisu.. how to be yuck?

just substitute the lady finger bread sticks with pork rinds, sprinkle coffee and coco dust, add some wine.. shiok

[Piyopico]

I am on to this paleo diet for health reasons. Not trying to lose weight cos I am not overweight. Got my wife on it too. Makes it much easier to coordinate meals as we both go for the same diet.

 

Me only 59kg at 1.72M. My wifey is 48kg at 1.63M. Letz see how this diet works out for "slim" people like us. Will keep you guys updated.

 

At the same time I have managed to convince my mom to go on high fat, high protein and near zero carbs diet. She has Type 2 diabetes. I guess this is the way to go for a possible "cure". Heard CBS mentioned his mom has gotton rid of her diabetic condition from such a diet. I hope it works for my mom too. Will update you guys.

 

Am still a bit confused about the overall diet. Paleo diet seems to take in a lot of fruits and vegetable and these do contain quite a bit of sugar. I will get my mom to avoid sugar religiously but I am wondering why you guys avoid sugar so much. The Paleo website does recommend lots of fruits and vegetable........

 

Anyone care to comment?

 

 

 

 

 

[Skunk]

Am still a bit confused about the overall diet. Paleo diet seems to take in a lot of fruits and vegetable and these do contain quite a bit of sugar. I will get my mom to avoid sugar religiously but I am wondering why you guys avoid sugar so much. The Paleo website does recommend lots of fruits and vegetable........

 

Anyone care to comment?

 

While bro CBS was the one who introed the paleo diet to us, (i've never heard of it before this, though i was on the slightly similar Atkins Diet many years ago), I believe most of us are not as paleo as he is LOL....my diet is definitely not paleo, i would only describe it as "zero-carb carnivorous". http://www.dirtycarnivore.com/ even among those doing paleo or neanderthin, i believe there is much variation, as every person's body responds differently.

 

I had been on a US-based diet forum http://forum.lowcarber.org/ and there were so many reports of people gaining weight on excessive cheese, while i would lose much weight the moment i whack lots of brie. And there are others who propose counting calories, while i actually tend to lose more when i ate above 2500 calories a day. Just some examples. Healthwise, there is even more variation...there are some who got sick the moment they introduced nightshade plants (brinjal and friends) into their diet, some had no probs with it. Only shows the diversity of our needs.

 

But one thing is certain: excessive carbohydrates are bad for health. The small amount in some fruits and vege won't harm us, but in the large amounts we have been eating in rice, noodles and bread, will kill us one day. Yesterday's news report: China is facing diabetes epidemic. See what rice does to us!!

[Chickenbackside]

At the same time I have managed to convince my mom to go on high fat, high protein and near zero carbs diet. She has Type 2 diabetes. I guess this is the way to go for a possible "cure". Heard CBS mentioned his mom has gotton rid of her diabetic condition from such a diet. I hope it works for my mom too. Will update you guys.

 

Am still a bit confused about the overall diet. Paleo diet seems to take in a lot of fruits and vegetable and these do contain quite a bit of sugar. I will get my mom to avoid sugar religiously but I am wondering why you guys avoid sugar so much. The Paleo website does recommend lots of fruits and vegetable........

 

Anyone care to comment?

Using low carb to "cure" (you never really cure it cos as soon as you eat in a way that spikes your blood sugar, it comes back) is not new. Many docs have been using this approach for years.

 

The problem with MOST docs is that they treat the symptoms and not the root of the problem. No surprise really.

 

Eating low carb to control blood glucose is treating the root of the problem.

 

Eating high, or even moderate, carbs, then using insulin or metformin or whatever to clean up the mess later is just treating the symptoms.

 

Paleo just so happens to fix metabolic syndrome, which includes diabetes. Our bodies have not evolved to process the amounts of carbs (remember the term "carbs" include sugar) that is common in today's typical human diet. The inflammatory effects of hydrogenated seed oils bring health detriment to yet another level.

 

If you have time, listen to these podcasts. Learn it from the doctors who use the low carb method and why it works:

 

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownot...in-episode-319/

 

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownot...ta-episode-303/

 

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownot...es-cure-ep-254/

 

 

 

 

I have trawled the internet and have seen many versions of "paleo".

 

On one extreme, some people reenact paleo. They eat only raw grass fed beef and eat nuts that they collect and de-shell themselves, camp out in the widerness...etc. They do not eat any fruits except wild grown ones and do not use soap to wash up.

 

On the other extreme, some people look for alternatives to sugar, like Stevia or Truvia, and make "paleo" tiramisu with it. Or they drink Coke Zero all day long and eat huge amounts of fruits and nuts.

 

For me, the only thing I am interested in is health. I'm not interesting in eating or acting like a caveman. It just so happens that eating in a way that humans have eaten for most of our existence seems to have the most evidence that it is best for human health. Otherwise we would have become extinct.

 

Looking at the condition of health of all civilised nations around the world, it seems to be going in that direction (extinction that is). Obesity, diabetes, hypertension, cancers... are spreading like a plague. It never used to be like that if you look into history.

 

And if you do some research, you will notice that it all came from Ancel Keys and his lipid hypothesis. He made everyone in the world afraid of fat and cholesterol, which led to the invention of franken-foods like margarine and soyabean oil.

 

After reading about all sorts of "paleo" diets and lifestyles, the best one I have come across is Dr Kurt Harris' method. He doesn't care whether something is paleo or not. As long as it is beneficial for health, eat it. But he named his method "Panu", which is short for PaleoNutrition because it so happens that it is what fits in the mould most of the time.

 

Explore his site. It is a treasure trove of good healthy advice. Every single thing he writes is gold: http://www.paleonu.com/

 

 

 

Here's a perfect writeup by him on the what the definition of "paleo" should be:

 

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/...-principle.html

 

 

The Only Reasonable Paleo Principle

SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 2010 AT 6:25PM

 

 

Ok, that will be seen as dogmatic, but I can

[Chickenbackside]

While bro CBS was the one who introed the paleo diet to us, (i've never heard of it before this, though i was on the slightly similar Atkins Diet many years ago), I believe most of us are not as paleo as he is LOL....my diet is definitely not paleo, i would only describe it as "zero-carb carnivorous". http://www.dirtycarnivore.com/ even among those doing paleo or neanderthin, i believe there is much variation, as every person's body responds differently.

 

I had been on a US-based diet forum http://forum.lowcarber.org/ and there were so many reports of people gaining weight on excessive cheese, while i would lose much weight the moment i whack lots of brie. And there are others who propose counting calories, while i actually tend to lose more when i ate above 2500 calories a day. Just some examples. Healthwise, there is even more variation...there are some who got sick the moment they introduced nightshade plants (brinjal and friends) into their diet, some had no probs with it. Only shows the diversity of our needs.

 

But one thing is certain: excessive carbohydrates are bad for health. The small amount in some fruits and vege won't harm us, but in the large amounts we have been eating in rice, noodles and bread, will kill us one day. Yesterday's news report: China is facing diabetes epidemic. See what rice does to us!!

I don't know whether I'm VERY paleo or not lah.

 

All I know is I eat in a way that my blood sugar stays pretty level.

 

To do that, the only carbs I allow in unlimited quantities are dark green leafy veges and cruciferous veges. Carbs that I consume in moderate quantities are nuts and berries. Carbs that I try to eat in small are dairy products (except butter).

 

Rice, bread, noodles, potatoes, pasta, cakes, sweets, soft drinks, beer, bananas..etc are totally out. I used to get tempted in the beginning, but not anymore.

 

But I guess even if I allow some of the no-no carbs into my diet, I will not suffer much consequence. Why? Because I exercise pretty hard and pretty often.

 

But the last thing I want to do, is to undo all the effort of my exercise by eating crap. Which is the exact opposite of the approach of many people. Many people exercise like mad so that they can eat crap.

 

I think maybe that's why I can eat a whole duck, or 2 pork throtters at a time and still not put on any weight. And I think the reason my appetite is so huge is because I exercise hard and often.

 

I bet if I stop exercising, my appetite would reduce drastically.

 

But I digress.

 

You're perfectly right in saying all of us are different. The most important thing is to take responsibility of our own health and find out what works for us individually. Some people are just more metabolically gifted than others.

 

We already know what the basic biochemistry is, so that serves as the perfect starting point. As for the nitty gritty details, it takes time and experimentation to find out what works for each of us.

 

But good health simple cannot be achieved if it is not even a priority in one's consciousness. People have to WANT to be healthy and be willing to do what it takes to be healthy.

 

Sadly, human nature is often short sighted. That's why everyone would rather depend on doctors and drugs to save them when they're sick instead of not getting sick in the 1st place.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Chickenbackside

[Chickenbackside]

More mainstream catching on: http://www.slate.com/id/2248754

 

 

End the War on Fat

It could be making us sicker.

By Melinda Wenner Moyer

 

 

Thirty years ago, America declared war against fat. The inaugural edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published in 1980 and subsequently updated every five years, advised people to steer clear of "too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol," because of purported ties between fat intake and heart disease. The message has remained essentially the same ever since, with current guidelines recommending that Americans consume less than 10 percent of their daily calories from saturated fat.

 

 

But heart disease continues to devastate the country, and, as you may have noticed, we certainly haven't gotten any thinner. Ultimately, that's because fat should never have been our enemy. The big question is whether the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, due out at the end of the year, will finally announce retreat.

The foundation for the "fat is bad" mantra comes from the following logic: Since saturated fat is known to increase blood levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol, and people with high LDL cholesterol are more likely to develop heart disease, saturated fat must increase heart disease risk. If A equals B and B equals C, then A must equal C.

 

 

Well, no. With this extrapolation, scientists and policymakers made a grave miscalculation: They assumed that all LDL cholesterol is the same and that all of it is bad. A spate of recent research is now overturning this fallacy and raising major questions about the wisdom of avoiding fat, especially considering that the food Americans have been replacing fat with—processed carbohydrates—could be far worse for heart health.

 

 

Last year, Ronald Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, teamed up with researchers in Sweden to tease out some of the more nuanced characteristics of LDL cholesterol and its role in heart health. The term "LDL cholesterol" refers to the cholesterol housed in low-density lipoprotein particles, and these particles come in a range of sizes. Krauss and his colleagues analyzed the LDL particles they found in blood samples taken a dozen years earlier from 4,600 Swedish men and women and discovered that concentrations of the small- and medium-sized LDL particles best predicted whether the subjects later developed heart disease. Larger LDL particles, they noted in their study, which was published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, were essentially neutral with regard to the subjects' heart health.

 

 

This finding is particularly interesting in light of what Krauss had uncovered years earlier: Men who switch from a low-saturated-fat diet to one high in saturated fat experience an increase in total blood LDL cholesterol, as expected. But the change is mostly the result of a spike in the concentration of large LDL particles, not small. In other words, saturated fat consumption typically boosts the number of particles that Krauss has shown to be harmless.

 

 

Blood tests for LDL cholesterol might not even be a dependable indicator of your risk of heart disease. Take, for instance, the infamous Women's Health Initiative hormone trials. Though women on hormone replacement therapy experienced overall drops in LDL cholesterol, they did not suffer fewer heart attacks. The finding initially baffled trial investigators, but further analysis revealed that the women's LDL particle concentrations had remained exactly the same. Recently, researchers including James Otvos, a biochemist at North Carolina State University, have reported that cholesterol tests—the kind most doctors administer—accurately predict heart disease risk only about 70 percent of the time, because they ignore particle size. (Otvos' company, LipoScience, plans to start selling particle-based cholesterol tests to doctors' offices later this year.)

 

 

LDL particles are not the only factor in fat's exoneration. Large population-based studies are, too. A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, based on data collected from 82,802 women, found that the subjects who consumed the highest percentage of their daily calories from fat (including saturated fat) did not experience an increased risk of developing heart disease later in life. In fact, women who ate the highest amounts of vegetable fat—from foods like olive oil and nuts—had lower risks of heart disease than women on low-fat diets. A meta-analysis co-authored by Krauss and published in the March 2010 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition compared the reported food intakes of nearly 350,000 men and women with their cardiovascular health years later and also found no connection between saturated fat intake and heart or vascular disease.

 

 

Ultimately, saturated fat—named because it contains no double bonds, so all of its carbon atoms are saturated with hydrogen atoms—may be neutral for the heart. Meanwhile, some mono-unsaturated fats (which have one double-bond and are found in many nuts) and some poly-unsaturated fats (which have multiple double bonds and are found in fatty fish) could be good for the heart. For instance, a meta-analysis published in PLoS Medicine this month reports that the substitution of polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat can cut heart disease risk.

 

 

If saturated fat doesn't adversely affect cardiovascular health, what does? Sorry, Nabisco: We should be giving a closer look to foods with a high glycemic index—a measure that reflects a food's influence on blood sugar levels, based on how quickly it is digested and absorbed. Typically, that means carbohydrates like cereal, bread, chips, and cookies.

 

 

In a 2000 study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Harvard researchers compared the food intakes of 75,521 women with their health over the course of a decade and found that the quintile of women who ate food with the highest glycemic load—a measure that incorporates portion size—had twice the risk of developing heart disease than the quintile who ate food with the lowest glycemic load. A 2008 meta-analysis of 37 studies reported a significant association between intake of high glycemic index foods and increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, gallbladder disease, and breast cancer. Some studies suggest, however, that the bad effects of high-G.I. foods can be tempered by pairing them with low-G.I. foods. For instance, a piece of white bread smeared with peanut butter may be healthier than a piece of white bread alone.

 

 

The link between carbohydrates and heart disease is also supported by LDL particle data. In a 2008 study published in Nutrition Research, researchers reported that subjects who followed high-fat, low-carb diets for eight weeks experienced a 46 percent drop in blood concentrations of small LDL particles, while those who followed a high-carb, low-fat diet experienced a 36 percent spike in them. What's more, processed carbohydrates lower "good" HDL cholesterol, whereas saturated fat increases it.

 

 

Just as different fats affect the body in dissimilar ways, it seems that sugars are not all created equal. Though fructose actually has a lower glycemic index, it may be a bit less healthy than glucose, a sugar with the same chemical formula but a different structure. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose; high-fructose corn syrup is typically 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose.) Research published by Peter Havel, a professor of nutrition at the University of California-Davis, suggests that compared with glucose, fructose incites less of an insulin response, which ultimately results in lower circulating levels of the appetite-suppressing hormone leptin and higher levels of the appetite-boosting hormone ghrelin—so fructose may make you hungrier.

 

 

It could also put you at greater risk of heart disease and diabetes. When overweight people supplemented their diets with drinks sweetened either with fructose or with glucose for 10 weeks, fructose drinkers ended up with higher concentrations of small LDL particles in their blood after they ate. They also experienced, on average, a 20 percent drop in insulin sensitivity—low insulin sensitivity is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes—over the course of the experiment compared with the glucose drinkers. (Havel believes that the glycemic index is ultimately flawed and that a "fructose index" might be a better nutrition metric.)

 

 

In any case, it seems that processed carbohydrates are America's most deserving nutritional enemy. And our misguided war against fat has just made us more addicted to them, because when people cut out fat, they typically turn to "diet" foods high in carbs—SnackWells, Baked Lays, even low-fat Jif, which contains the same number of calories as the regular version, with less peanut butter and more "corn syrup solids." That's not to say that all carbs are bad; fiber is a carbohydrate, and an important one. And there is still a lot left to be desired about certain fats. Trans fats really are bad for you, and foods very high in omega-6 polyunsaturated fats—such as corn oil and margarine—are not particularly healthy, either. But overall, Americans could stand to start replacing carbs with fat. More bacon, fewer Bacos.

 

 

Will this new research on fat and carbs will be reflected in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines? According to Meir Stampfer, a Harvard professor of nutrition and epidemiology who worked on the 2000 guidelines, scientists on this year's committee know perfectly well what the evidence says. But few researchers want to shake the status quo or risk confusing the public. Robert Post, deputy director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, admits that when it comes to nutritional recommendations, "simple messages, few messages, targeted messages, are very important." Ultimately, then, policymakers have to choose between keeping the message consistent and actually getting it right.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Chickenbackside

[S4vtec]

Man, i forgotten how rice and bread taste like..... none since January ....

[Skunk]

On one extreme, some people reenact paleo. They eat only raw grass fed beef

 

While cooking enhances digestibility, it also destroys many nutrients. I would eat raw food whenever possible, in a good Jap restaurant, or the fish i catch while fishing (so i know it's super fresh) or maybe my bait even. Raw live prawns are really yummy. If the catch is no good, i would pop one or 2 in my mouth as a snack :)

 

The last time i caught a squid on a kelong, straightaway i tore it up with my teeth and ate it. All the other M'sian anglers (it was a kelong in M'sia) were stunned and started walking away in horror LOL. Very yummy.

[Nolicense]

went to poly clininc to do lipid panel test.

made to do the run around. only doctor can order the test and it was in a basic package of everything including ECG, but I told the doctor I only wanted the lipid panel.

 

anyway cost like $9.60 for consultation of like 3 minutes and waiting to see the doctor was like 1.5 hours. Lab test was $7.35.

next week to collect the results, must make another appointment, another $9.60.

 

Doctor ask why don't do diabetes test also? i said i not overweight, i don't drink soft drinks and cut out a lot of sugar. so I am sure i am not diabetic. :)

 

update next week.

 

Edited March 30, 2010 by Nolicense

[Nolicense]

Bro CBS, I have a question. I know for a fact that you need to fast 8 to 10 hours before the blood test. But i have spoken to some people and even doctors, that fasting is not a accurate way to do blood test for lipid panel and blood sugar. reason is that under normal conditions, people eat every day, they won't fast for no reason. what we should capture is the normal day to day levels of blood sugar and lipids. fasting just bring everybody to a baseline for comparison, some people are more insulin sensitive and you cannot know this after 8 hours of fasting.

 

I feel there is something very wrong with the way the blood test requires this fasting period. your thoughts?

[Chickenbackside]

Bro CBS, I have a question. I know for a fact that you need to fast 8 to 10 hours before the blood test. But i have spoken to some people and even doctors, that fasting is not a accurate way to do blood test for lipid panel and blood sugar. reason is that under normal conditions, people eat every day, they won't fast for no reason. what we should capture is the normal day to day levels of blood sugar and lipids. fasting just bring everybody to a baseline for comparison, some people are more insulin sensitive and you cannot know this after 8 hours of fasting.

 

I feel there is something very wrong with the way the blood test requires this fasting period. your thoughts?

I think the reason for this practice is to establish a baseline.

 

The best way to monitor blood glucose is with a glucometer 1 hour after every meal. But unless you have been diagnosed as a diabetic, it is unlikely that you will go through the trouble of pricking your finger a few times a day.

 

So with this practice of measuring fasting blood glucose, it is easy for anyone to implement. I think it's more for consistency rather than absolute accuracy.

 

A diabetic will have a fasting blood sugar of >200mg/dL while a normal person would have a fasting blood sugar of <100mg/dL.

 

But throw a a plate of pasta at a normal person, and his blood sugar may well rise to >200mg/dL an hour after eating it. But it doesn't mean that the person is diabetic.

[Skunk]

went to poly clininc to do lipid panel test.

made to do the run around. only doctor can order the test and it was in a basic package of everything including ECG, but I told the doctor I only wanted the lipid panel.

 

anyway cost like $9.60 for consultation of like 3 minutes and waiting to see the doctor was like 1.5 hours. Lab test was $7.35.

next week to collect the results, must make another appointment, another $9.60.

 

Doctor ask why don't do diabetes test also? i said i not overweight, i don't drink soft drinks and cut out a lot of sugar. so I am sure i am not diabetic. :)

 

update next week.

 

I'm very interested to know also hehe. This morning i shed another 200grams hehe.

 

[Nolicense]

OOT..

 

this paleo diet claims that man evolved from millions of years of natural selection. agriculture and industrialisation changed the way we eat lately in the last 10,000 years. I tried to explain this to my parents but they refuse to believe.

Why? they claim the earth was made 6000 years ago. (again its a religion BS) and bread is a symbol of faith. bread must be good.

i know its OT, but this being the case, i guess there is no way people of a certain religion will believe in the paleo/panu diet.

if you believe in the paleo diet, then you cannot believe in this religion, its evident.

[Hamburger]

Aspartame is bad, we all noe. But there r times where we really feel like drinking diet coke aft a hot & spicy meal. So e qns is: Does it cause insulin spike like sugar?? Whether it is cancer causing agent is another story.

 

Why I ask?? Cos i succumbed to a can aft a meal of curry fish head n mutton curry... . Will also b goin for blood test in a few days time, hope tis has no bearing on e test

[Chickenbackside]

Believe in the results.

 

Can't get results if don't try.

 

Since they won't try, you gotta show them results.

 

If still not convinced, nothing else you can do.

[Skunk]

OOT..

 

this paleo diet claims that man evolved from millions of years of natural selection. agriculture and industrialisation changed the way we eat lately in the last 10,000 years. I tried to explain this to my parents but they refuse to believe.

Why? they claim the earth was made 6000 years ago. (again its a religion BS) and bread is a symbol of faith. bread must be good.

i know its OT, but this being the case, i guess there is no way people of a certain religion will believe in the paleo/panu diet.

if you believe in the paleo diet, then you cannot believe in this religion, its evident.

 

I'm religious, that doesn't mean I don't believe in science, nor does believing in science means I must renounce my religion. Religion concerns itself with human behaviour and morality, Science concerns itself with observation, learning and innovation. They must not be allowed to overlap.

 

No human can possibly stay alive in the belly of a whale for 3 days, nor can a human fit into the stomach of most whales, does it mean the Book of Jonah is false?

 

The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "Biblos", meaning "library". In every library, there's fiction and non-fiction. Yes, large parts of the Bible is fictional. That doesn't mean it doesn't tell the Truth about God's relationship with Man. Just as there's no 3 little pigs and a big bad wolf, this children's story still fulfills an important purpose in teaching morals and morality.

 

So far, it's plain obvious that large parts of Genesis, Jonah and many other parts are purely fictional. So what, it still serves to teach us something. Not science, but something else.

 

Those who use religion to explain science, or try to use science to explain religion, understand neither.

[Skunk]

Aspartame is bad, we all noe. But there r times where we really feel like drinking diet coke aft a hot & spicy meal. So e qns is: Does it cause insulin spike like sugar?? Whether it is cancer causing agent is another story.

 

Why I ask?? Cos i succumbed to a can aft a meal of curry fish head n mutton curry... . Will also b goin for blood test in a few days time, hope tis has no bearing on e test

 

1 glass or 2 won't cause cancer and definitely doesn't cause insulin spikes. Unless u drink 100 litres everyday then maybe get cancer LOL. Every time go car showroom and smell the new car smell also can get cancer LOL