Apple Watch glucose & blood pressure sensors still years away

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 39
    A more savvy CEO would note that brand perception is more important than technological exclusivity. Apple could swap technology rights with Samsung to use their blood pressure sensor and display technology in exchange to access to the A and M series processors.
    I didn’t realize that the CEO of Samsung was on this forum. Welcome!
  • Reply 22 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I have found an effective way of reducing belly fat in a short time. Eating a zero carbohydrates dinner. One can still eat a full meal for lunch. In one week, I was able to lose seven pounds. 

    That initial quick weight loss from a keto type diet is from water loss rather than fat loss.  Meanwhile, as I pointed out, when most Americans say "carbs" they are talking about processed, refined junky food which is always good to eliminate.  Junky food isn't limited to dessert.
    muthuk_vanalingamsflagel
  • Reply 23 of 39
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 
    edited January 11 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 24 of 39
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I have found an effective way of reducing belly fat in a short time. Eating a zero carbohydrates dinner. One can still eat a full meal for lunch. In one week, I was able to lose seven pounds. 

    That initial quick weight loss from a keto type diet is from water loss rather than fat loss.  Meanwhile, as I pointed out, when most Americans say "carbs" they are talking about processed, refined junky food which is always good to eliminate.  Junky food isn't limited to dessert.
    The weight did not come back.
  • Reply 25 of 39
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    Type 2 diabetes is not caused by animal in anyway what so ever.  It's cause because consuming an excessive amount of carbs and sugar.  It is completely reversible by reducing your carb and sugar intake.
    sflagelJaphey
  • Reply 26 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
  • Reply 27 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Dibiase said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    Type 2 diabetes is not caused by animal in anyway what so ever.  It's cause because consuming an excessive amount of carbs and sugar.  It is completely reversible by reducing your carb and sugar intake.
    That's one way.
    But in Type 2 Diabetes blood glucose levels are high because insulin resistance has blocked insulin from being able to move glucose out of the blood and into the muscles where it is needed for energy (it's why runners "carb load" before a race -- to load up their muscles with glycogen).  Switching from healthy unprocessed plant foods to high fat animal products only makes the core of the problem (insulin resistance) worse -- while masking the symptoms.

    Again, its important to treat those symptoms if you have them.   But better to fix the cause of the problem.

    Type 2 Diabetes should really be renamed "Insulin Resistant Diabetes" then people (and physicians) might actually reverse the condition instead of resorting to a lifetime of pills to mask its symptoms.

    But, the same is true for most of our western "chronic age related diseases":  Populations who don't live our western lifestyle simply don't get our western diseases.   Colin Campbell studied rural China before its industrialization and out of hundreds of thousands of death certificates there were no cases of heart disease.  But today, Type 2 Diabetes in China is rising to western levels -- and I'm sure heart disease will follow, it just takes longer.  I guess that's our revenge for "taking our jobs".  Enjoy that KFC & BigMacs China!
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 39
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,712member
    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  
    Biggest piece of ignorant crock I have read in years. 
    Japhey
  • Reply 29 of 39
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 
    edited January 11
  • Reply 30 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 31 of 39
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    edited January 12
  • Reply 32 of 39
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    Sorry to say this, but this statement "It seems that weight gain is a one way street" is total BS. I don't usually use such strong words, but can't resist it when such silly claims are made. With a healthy lifestyle, anyone can reduce weight and keep it that way for the rest of the life. George is absolutely spot on with his posts related to Lifestyle and how it impacts Health.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 33 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    The trouble with engaging in "Battle of the articles and studies" is that you can prove anything with "a study".  The Tobacco industry pioneered those efforts when they paid researchers to conduct studies proving that cigarettes were healthy.  Today, the food industry continues and expands on the same techniques  -- and the media is happy to sell newspapers and clicks using their latest claims.

    Rush Limbaugh did the same:  It is accurate to say that he spoke truth.  It is equally accurate to say he only spoke those parts of the truth that supported his agenda.

    The easiest way to learn about  healthy lifestyles it is to watch "Forks Over Knives" or "The Game Changers".  Or, read "the Blue Zones" & "the China Study"   Neither deals directly with weight loss.  But they get the idea across.
    edited January 12 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 34 of 39
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 671member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    Sorry to say this, but this statement "It seems that weight gain is a one way street" is total BS. I don't usually use such strong words, but can't resist it when such silly claims are made. With a healthy lifestyle, anyone can reduce weight and keep it that way for the rest of the life. George is absolutely spot on with his posts related to Lifestyle and how it impacts Health.
    I am just giving a summary of the content of these studies in The Biggest Loser. I would be careful full with claims such as “anyone can….” unless you have done it, know a lot of other people who have done it, or have some evidence that it’s possible. Sadly, the most evidence points in the other direction, everyone knows that diets fail and that most people gain their weight back. Blaming the individual is easy, but more curious is the one that wonders WHY they cannot maintain “a healthy lifestyle”. 
    Most smokers are able to quit, it’s hard and they may indulge every once in a while, but most can do it. That does not seem to be the case for overweight people. 
  • Reply 35 of 39
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 671member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    The trouble with engaging in "Battle of the articles and studies" is that you can prove anything with "a study".  The Tobacco industry pioneered those efforts when they paid researchers to conduct studies proving that cigarettes were healthy.  Today, the food industry continues and expands on the same techniques  -- and the media is happy to sell newspapers and clicks using their latest claims.

    Rush Limbaugh did the same:  It is accurate to say that he spoke truth.  It is equally accurate to say he only spoke those parts of the truth that supported his agenda.

    The easiest way to learn about  healthy lifestyles it is to watch "Forks Over Knives" or "The Game Changers".  Or, read "the Blue Zones" & "the China Study"   Neither deals directly with weight loss.  But they get the idea across.
    I am not suggesting a battle. I just recommend reading them as they put a new spin on things. It does not offer solutions, it does not tell people to stay fat. But it starts peeling the onion on why most people (that lose weight through calorie  reduction) gain their weight back. 
    I will review the articles/books you mentioned. I really would like to see data that shows that, and how, people lose weight whiteout calorific reduction by switching the types of food. I hear a lot about this theory but haven’t seen data - hope your books have it. 

  • Reply 36 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    Sorry to say this, but this statement "It seems that weight gain is a one way street" is total BS. I don't usually use such strong words, but can't resist it when such silly claims are made. With a healthy lifestyle, anyone can reduce weight and keep it that way for the rest of the life. George is absolutely spot on with his posts related to Lifestyle and how it impacts Health.
    I am just giving a summary of the content of these studies in The Biggest Loser. I would be careful full with claims such as “anyone can….” unless you have done it, know a lot of other people who have done it, or have some evidence that it’s possible. Sadly, the most evidence points in the other direction, everyone knows that diets fail and that most people gain their weight back. Blaming the individual is easy, but more curious is the one that wonders WHY they cannot maintain “a healthy lifestyle”. 
    Most smokers are able to quit, it’s hard and they may indulge every once in a while, but most can do it. That does not seem to be the case for overweight people. 

    As Einstein pointed out:  Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

    Eating / Doing the same things (just less of them) is not likely to yield different results -- particularly when it violates one of the body's core directives:  Don't starve


    muthuk_vanalingamsflagel
  • Reply 37 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    The trouble with engaging in "Battle of the articles and studies" is that you can prove anything with "a study".  The Tobacco industry pioneered those efforts when they paid researchers to conduct studies proving that cigarettes were healthy.  Today, the food industry continues and expands on the same techniques  -- and the media is happy to sell newspapers and clicks using their latest claims.

    Rush Limbaugh did the same:  It is accurate to say that he spoke truth.  It is equally accurate to say he only spoke those parts of the truth that supported his agenda.

    The easiest way to learn about  healthy lifestyles it is to watch "Forks Over Knives" or "The Game Changers".  Or, read "the Blue Zones" & "the China Study"   Neither deals directly with weight loss.  But they get the idea across.
    I am not suggesting a battle. I just recommend reading them as they put a new spin on things. It does not offer solutions, it does not tell people to stay fat. But it starts peeling the onion on why most people (that lose weight through calorie  reduction) gain their weight back. 
    I will review the articles/books you mentioned. I really would like to see data that shows that, and how, people lose weight whiteout calorific reduction by switching the types of food. I hear a lot about this theory but haven’t seen data - hope your books have it. 

    Think about it:  Calorie reduction violates the body's core directive to not starve.  There is no way it can work for long.

    There are a number of reasons why eating only whole, unprocessed plant foods generate weight loss in those who are overweight:   caloric density, a healthy microbiome, not flooding the system with fats & sugars that the body has to stuff away somewhere, non-addictive, non-compulsive eating, lower levels of inflammation, metabolic changes, hormonal changes and likely a LOT more.

    The fact is:  we evolved from the plant eating apes and that is how our body is designed.  It makes sense that our natural diet would produce the best results.  But, our food industry, particularly since the 70's is designed to pump us full of high fat, sugar, salt and manufactured chemicals and processed & refined "food"  to entice us to eat more and more and more.  And, since our so called health care system thrives on the diseases caused by those foods, they aren't going to lift a finger or whisper a word.

    If you want more evidence check out Dean Ornish.   He started out proving with randomized controlled studies showing how heart disease could be prevented and reversed.  But he evolved into realizing (and demonstrating) that almost all of our chronic, age related diseases have a common cause:   Lifestyle.
    (and yes, obesity is a disease).

    muthuk_vanalingamsflagel
  • Reply 38 of 39
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    Sorry to say this, but this statement "It seems that weight gain is a one way street" is total BS. I don't usually use such strong words, but can't resist it when such silly claims are made. With a healthy lifestyle, anyone can reduce weight and keep it that way for the rest of the life. George is absolutely spot on with his posts related to Lifestyle and how it impacts Health.
    I am just giving a summary of the content of these studies in The Biggest Loser. I would be careful full with claims such as “anyone can….” unless you have done it, know a lot of other people who have done it, or have some evidence that it’s possible. Sadly, the most evidence points in the other direction, everyone knows that diets fail and that most people gain their weight back. Blaming the individual is easy, but more curious is the one that wonders WHY they cannot maintain “a healthy lifestyle”. 
    Most smokers are able to quit, it’s hard and they may indulge every once in a while, but most can do it. That does not seem to be the case for overweight people. 
    I was thinking of addressing this point "Sadly, the most evidence points in the other direction", but then figured out that George has addressed it brilliantly in post #33. I couldn't have said it better.

    Coming to other points: "
    unless you have done it" - No, I never got into overweight situation. I know few of my friends who have reduced weight and never put up weight again, with a healthy lifestyle.

    The important question is - What is a healthy lifestyle?
    1. Good Food habits (I know this is at a very high level and is not helpful. But George has mentioned about the good food habits in multiple posts and they are worth reading again)
    2. Proper sleep
    3. Proper exercise
    4. Healthy Mind

    Lot of people who are serious about weight reduction does not focus on Points 2 & 3 (sleep and exercise) above. But even more importantly, mental health is extremely important aspect for a healthy life (weight is just one data point related to health of an individual) which is never spoken about. Unless a person focuses on all 4 aspects, he/she will continue to have health issues.
    sflagelGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 39 of 39
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    sflagel said:
    A glucose monitor would be fantastic. A vibrate or beeping when insulin levels spike would deter a to of people from eating excessive carbs and sugar.

    As more and more research shows, once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to keep it by swiping down your metabolism PERMANENTLY, even after you gain your lost weight back. The only way to be healthy is to stay healthy and a glucose monitor can do wonders for this.

    Except that Type 2 diabetes is caused by animal fat -- either the type you eat or that which you wear.  Avoiding carbohydrates is merely treating the symptoms -- as is taking your doctor's pills.  Treating those symptoms is important, but ultimately fruitless because the disease itself chugs along just fine.

    Those who eat healthy, fiber filled diets either do not gain weight  or, if they are overweight, they usually lose the fat when they start eating healthy.  Unfortunately, most Americans think eating healthy means only two slices of pizza and a 12 ounce CocaCola.  Then, once their microbiome is totally trashed and they're coming down with the Standard American Diseases from their Standard American Diet, they blame it on "age" or "metabolism".

    In America, its normal to sicken and die from our normal lifestyle.
    People become I overweight because of excessive carbs and sugar. Then it’s almost impossible to lose it - there were some shocking articles in the New York Times about metabolism, scientifically tested, it really it open my eyes. And made me feel quite sad for anybody who wants to lose weight.
    I meant to say that a glucose monitor can provide the type of alarm that may scare people from indulging in sugar (pizza and coke) in the first place, thus allowing them to never gain weight in the first place. 

    The meal I'm eating right now is probably 70% "carbs" (maybe more).  But I could eat it till my stomach exploded and not get fat.   It is pretty much impossible to get fat on it because, very simply, you fill up before you fatten up. 
    Why?  Because not one of gram of those "carbs" is processed or refined.  Every single gram is a whole, unprocessed plant food filled with nutrients and fiber rather than calories.  It not only feeds a healthy microbiome but, the whole meal, while filling is less that 500 calories.  So not only is it low-calorie it promotes the microbiome that helps keep you thin.

    It's called "caloric density" (Calories per pound of food).  A pound of the much maligned white potato for instance will fill you up but, at 300 calories per pound, they're almost impossible to get fat on:  How many pounds can you eat?  the average person eats about 3 pounds of food a day -- if it's all white potato that's less than a 1,000 calories.  You're not getting fat on 1,000 calories a day.
    (But soak that potato in 4,000 calorie per pound oil and it's an entirely different outcome)

    But we think "carbs" are "bad".  That's because 90% of the "carbs" Americans eat are processed and refined.  White sandwich bread for example is stripped of its fiber and nutrients and is almost all calorie.  And, to make it worse, it is almost unpalatable without smearing it with some kind of fat or sugar -- so we blame "carbs".

    Further, Americans have a fixation with protein and think they have to eat dead animals to get enough.  So, when they eat that quarter pounder and get fat, they blame the bun that it's on.   While that bun (made with white, processed flour) is part of the problem it is far from the only problem with that meal. 

    "Carbs" is a meaningless term and is typically bandied about by those trying to prove a point.  In truth there are very healthy foods high in carbs and there are very unhealthy (processed) foods high in carbs.  Americans tend to eat the latter then blame "carbs" --- when the problem is they're eating processed & refined foods loaded up with fat, sugar and salt to make them palatable.  But they call that junk "carbs".  It should be called what it is:   "junk food".

    I totally agree. But the glucose monitor does not measure carbs intake. It measures spikes in blood sugar. So it would not beep when you ate potatoes; but it would beep if you ate too many refined sugars and refined carbs. It measures the outcome of what you eat, not what you eat. 
    This I think would be very helpful to refrain users from eating the wrong, sugar spike inducing foods (whatever they are). 

    True!  Good point!
    But it is equally important to avoid the foods & lifestyle that create insulin resistance because then any kind of "carb" -- good or bad, healthy or unhealthy becomes bad.

    I listened to an old debate with Dr. Atkins.  He freely admitted that his carb-free diet was based on the premise that everybody was insulin resistant (which is a state of disease).
    Yes. But again, I think a glucose monitor can go a long way to help people avoid insulin resistance, by warning them when their blood is out of whack. 
    But, and I cannot stress this enough after reading those NYT articles: the most important thing is to keep your kids off sugars. Once you are overweight, your body will fight tooth and nail to stay fat. 
    Better than counting calories, avoiding carbs etc. arguably, this should not be necessary if people just ate well, but then again, for some reason people buy sleep trackers, step counters, and all kinds of things to tell them what they should already know. And it helps some of them. 
    I sure would love to have one, if only to check whether it is is an important data point. 

    The trouble with the theory that once you are fat your body keeps you fat (aside from being mostly bullshit) is that it is exactly the excuse that fat people look for.  True, muscle burns more calories than fat, but that isn't enough to keep you fat once you adopt a healthy lifestyle.

    The truth is:  If you eat today's Standard American Diet -- especially if you don't exercise -- it is almost impossible to not gain weight.  And, you tend to stay fat because most diet plans are based on the starvation model (eat less) and THAT is what your body fights -- because it was designed to fight starvation.  So your weight goes up and down till you give up and assume you'll always be fat.

    Eating less (or preferably no) processed foods (which the Atkins folks call "Carbs") is a good start.   But it isn't sufficient.  It's half of the problem.  The other half is fat:  The Atkins folks claim we substituted "carbs" for fat.  We didn't.  We just eat more of both!

    Starting with your gut, your body needs what it was designed to process:  Whole, unprocessed, high fiber plant foods:  Veggies, Whole Grains, beans and fruit.  They are high in nutrients (including protein) but lower in calories.  People who eat that way lose weight -- and often (usually?) the pills they were taking to treat the effects from their Standard American Diet.  The closer you get to eating that way the healthier you will be and the less likely you'll be overweight. 

    (But, yeh, if your body is in insulin resistance from excess animal fat it will have trouble processing any kind of carbs correctly.  And that is what Dr Atkins was trying to address with his diet.   And maybe that's what the NYT's articles were addressing as well?)
    I think you’d enjoy reading those articles. Easy to find - two articles about long term studies on contestants in The Biggest Loser (so yes, it’s about calorie reduction to lose weight). It claims that resting metabolism reduces drastically when you start losing weight and never recovers(!). It seems that weight gain is a one way street - like stretched skin it does not revert. 
    Have you for articles that show weight reduction by changing foods and without calorie reduction, including speed of reduction, testing metabolism, and long-term success? Would love to read those. 
    Sorry to say this, but this statement "It seems that weight gain is a one way street" is total BS. I don't usually use such strong words, but can't resist it when such silly claims are made. With a healthy lifestyle, anyone can reduce weight and keep it that way for the rest of the life. George is absolutely spot on with his posts related to Lifestyle and how it impacts Health.
    I am just giving a summary of the content of these studies in The Biggest Loser. I would be careful full with claims such as “anyone can….” unless you have done it, know a lot of other people who have done it, or have some evidence that it’s possible. Sadly, the most evidence points in the other direction, everyone knows that diets fail and that most people gain their weight back. Blaming the individual is easy, but more curious is the one that wonders WHY they cannot maintain “a healthy lifestyle”. 
    Most smokers are able to quit, it’s hard and they may indulge every once in a while, but most can do it. That does not seem to be the case for overweight people. 
    .... Unless a person focuses on all 4 aspects, he/she will continue to have health issues.

    ... Or develop them.  
    It's why we call them "age related chronic diseases".   After years and decades of being pounded with abuse the body's organs and systems start to crap out -- slowly, surely and steadily.  It's been shown that heart disease starts when we are young:   autopsies of our soldiers in the Vietnam war showed atherosclerosis already developing in their arteries.  Most cancers have been growing for years and decades before our 'early detection' systems find them.  And the nasty effects of diabetes like retinopathy, nephropatyhy and neuropathy take years to develop.

    As for exercise, it's one of the most important things anybody over 60 or so can do.  They call it sarcopenia and blame it on aging.   But not being able to get out of a chair really sucks.  Walking (or running) a few miles and doing a few squats each day can make a lot of difference in how a person ages.  But too often seniors are told to avoid injury.

    Youth is the greatest conman ever:   We live the most unhealthy of lives and usually remain relatively healthy -- until a few decades later when we pay the price for all that unhealthy living and the only thing keeping us going at all are a dozen or so pills from our doctor.
    muthuk_vanalingamsflagel
Sign In or Register to comment.