Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

Hello Usual Suspect!

No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise
your metabolic rate".

snip nothing of merit

Easy now Usual Suspect.... ;-)

By definition, any food that raises basal metabolic rate in the body
(ie. sympathetic nervous response) would be considered a stimulant..
This is what is stimulant is, in fact.... This is why I structured the
statement the way that I did. Dont worry, usual suspect, I think
before I speak!..... ;-)

I typed a response to pearl and Rubystars in earlier postings today
that talks allot more on about metabolic definitions, stimulants,
diets, and metabolic enhancers. There seems to be allot of confusion
around in this regard, where in the professional nutrition industry
there is none at all. Please let me know if you have any questions or
I can help explain further!

Jim Carver


usual suspect wrote in message ...
pearl cut-n-pasted:
One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise
your metabolic rate".

snip nothing of merit

Hello Bob!

Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the

You are correct 100%. Moral weakness, which I am sure he was trying
to use as a slang term has nothing to do with loosing. I have worked
as a nutritionist with dozens of people, and have found that we
basically has the same amount of will power no matter what I walk of
life. The trick is trying to understand why are are craving what you
are...

Education, on the other hand, like every other subject in in life, is
exceptionally powerful in dealing with cravings and weight control.
The only problem is that there is so much miss-information out there
that it is just sickening...

common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
fat = terrible.

And you would be right again in this regard. Fat consumption in a
diet is used by the body in its ability to metabolize testosterone,
among other things of course. If you reduce to a low level of fat in
you diet, the biggest thing you will notice the most is a lethargic
feeling and a lack sex drive. This is due to your test.numbers
falling to the floor... Now that sucks, doesn't it??

Also, Please do not think that fat intake = fat absorbed. This is a
classic fallacy that many people fall for. Carbohydrates have a
considerably more amount of energy in the respect of body glucose
uptake, and is always preferred by the body. Once again, people do
not get fat from Low GI carb sources, but rather from high insulin
responses from eating high GI carb sources.

Think about it this way, on a ketonic diet (ie. Atkins, inc), the
approach is to force the body to convert fat to energy as its primary
source. Weight will just shoot off people when doing this…. No, I did
no say it was healthy, though… :-)

Take a look if you are interested in several postings that I have up
on the big.folks and fat.acceptance groups. I think you might be
interested in some of the factual information about how the body
metabolizes foods.

Jim Carver

Bob in CT wrote in message ...
On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355
wrote:

In article , usual suspect wrote:
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too
much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because
you consume
way too many calories.

That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.

Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the
common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
fat = terrible.

Hello Bob!

Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the

You are correct 100%. Moral weakness, which I am sure he was trying
to use as a slang term has nothing to do with loosing. I have worked
as a nutritionist with dozens of people, and have found that we
basically has the same amount of will power no matter what I walk of
life. The trick is trying to understand why are are craving what you
are...

Education, on the other hand, like every other subject in in life, is
exceptionally powerful in dealing with cravings and weight control.
The only problem is that there is so much miss-information out there
that it is just sickening...

common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
fat = terrible.

And you would be right again in this regard. Fat consumption in a
diet is used by the body in its ability to metabolize testosterone,
among other things of course. If you reduce to a low level of fat in
you diet, the biggest thing you will notice the most is a lethargic
feeling and a lack sex drive. This is due to your test.numbers
falling to the floor... Now that sucks, doesn't it??

Also, Please do not think that fat intake = fat absorbed. This is a
classic fallacy that many people fall for. Carbohydrates have a
considerably more amount of energy in the respect of body glucose
uptake, and is always preferred by the body. Once again, people do
not get fat from Low GI carb sources, but rather from high insulin
responses from eating high GI carb sources.

Think about it this way, on a ketonic diet (ie. Atkins, inc), the
approach is to force the body to convert fat to energy as its primary
source. Weight will just shoot off people when doing this…. No, I did
no say it was healthy, though… :-)

Take a look if you are interested in several postings that I have up
on the big.folks and fat.acceptance groups. I think you might be
interested in some of the factual information about how the body
metabolizes foods.

Jim Carver

Bob in CT wrote in message ...
On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355
wrote:

In article , usual suspect wrote:
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too
much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because
you consume
way too many calories.

That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.

Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the
common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
fat = terrible.

Jim Bard burbled across the ether:
Thank you, Deb. I was going to ask if the world's problems have been
solved yet, and then go back to sleep.

I wouldn't have even known this thread existed if these posts were still
being crossposted.

Nfilter is great like that.

--
revek www.geocities.com/tanirevek/LowCarb.html
NFILTER/NEWSPROXY with FAQ and sample filters available he
www.geocities.com/tanirevek/usefulfiles.html
'The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the ocean searching for a
suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make its home for life.
When it finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain any
more...so it eats it. It's rather like getting tenure.' - Michael
Scriven

"usual suspect" wrote in message
snip
Please stop giving Lesley more kooky sites to link.

Sorry. *L*

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Rubystars wrote:
...
I think some people have more of a natural tendency than others. This
can be
seen in families who don't have bad eating habits but still nearly every
member of the family is big, even the young children. My sister had a
friend
whose family was like that. They were all huge (not fat, huge), even
though
they were all trying very hard.

Were they working out, and had they always been active?

The ones who could did.

It could have been a gland problem that ran
in the family, etc. They said the doctor had said they had thyroid
issues.

Some thyroid issues are organic (even genetic), but it's often a case of a
gland
responding to diet and exercise factors of an individual.
Regular exercise and a high-fiber diet can help maintain thyroid
function and prevent constipation.
http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/h/hypothyroidism.htm

That's good to know.

Studies have also shown that more intense exercise relates to greater
improvement in thyroid function than moderate exercise.



...
Metabolism is NOT a constant for any individual: if
you exercise more and are otherwise more active, you
burn more calories. If you burn more calories than you
take in, you lose weight. It's a medical and logical
NECESSITY.

That's true. People can increase their metabolism, or decrease it, but I
think some people have a higher natural metabolism than other people,
and so
there is a different range available for different people.

It fluctuates depending on age, physical activity level, etc. Someone who
becomes more active later in life may have a higher BMR than when he or
she was
a sedentary young person. Again, exercise is the key to improving BMR and
keeping weight off.

Yup.

-Rubystars

"Jim Carver" wrote in message
om...
Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in
this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when
dealing with nutrition.. :-)

Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in
health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie,

Oh boy, are you way off base! She's a self-deluded pseudoscientist at best,
at worst, a deliberate fraud. She practices "reflexology" for a variety of
ailments.

-Rubystars

"Jim Carver" wrote in message
om...
Hello again Rubystars!

So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes
is
helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them
every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I
switched
over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know
it's
helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the
caffeine part was helping.

I thought this question would be coming. This was reason I put in the
NOTE statement in the last posting about noting that all stimulants
are not the same.... :-)

To answer your question. Unfortunately, no... Caffeine, by itself,
does not provide much of an elevated metabolic rate increase, but is
OK as an appetite suppression substance. To be effective, though,
about 100mg (ie A large cup of coffee) is required. With your Diet
Coke approach, you are only getting 31mg per 8oz serving.

Ok. Thanks for the info.

Now, one thing that I got allot of, even from some doctors, is that
metabolic raising substances simply do not work. I find this very
comical in that metabolic enhancers was whole reason the amphetamine
class of stimulants were created. (ie. Remember the 70's when doctors
would just prescribe a "wonder pill" to solve any overweight
problems?)

I was born in 78, so memories of the 70s are pretty much non-existent for
me. *L* I do remember all the dexatrim commercials I saw growing up though.
I also remember this thing that was being advertized and came in a packet
that people were supposed to sprinkle over their food before they ate it. It
was probably the same kind of thing.

Amphetamines were so powerful, in fact, and addictive for
that matter, that the FDA decided that they were a little too risky
for most people to mess with... I certainly see and respect their
position on this matter... Just to note, I support the FDA on most of
their stances...

Just so that you can build some respect for some in the industry in
reference to metabolic enhancing products, the lets talk about the
most famous of them all, being the ECA stack.

(NOTE: Unfortunately, though, the Ephedra part of this stack was
banned by the FDA earlier this year, but you will see that knowing its
history will be helpful to you in looking at how the next generation
products work...)

What is an ECA stack, and how/why did it work?
======================================
The ECA stack as most people know it, actually stands for
Ephedra/Caffeine/Asprin. This blend was effectively brought to us by
the body building community in trying to develop ways for them to "cut
down" when preparing for competitions. No, not all body builders are
meat heads. Some are actually very intelligent! Did it work?? You
betcha it did... Very effective, and here is why..

I don't want to bring the whole "body enzyme" thing into the picture,
because I think it probably would just zone out most people, so I will
describe the process in a easiest manner possible. If you are looking
for a more textbook explanation of exact chemical releases and enzyme
blocking involved, let me know, and I can explain further. For now,
though, I will just keep it simple to understand...

Basically, Ephedrine (which is the active ingredient in Ephedra)
stimulates the autonomic nervous system in many ways. In fact,
ephedrine is one of main drugs asthma sufferers use everyday. When
you blend ephedrine with caffeine, though, the two mimic the effects
of true amphetamines, which as you know now are very powerful
stimulants.

Sounds like it would be dangerous for ephedra users who gave into the
occasional craving for a piece of chocolate cake or a candy bar (Almost
Everyone!) or drank coffee in the morning. So could that explain some of the
health problems.

The thing to understand the most, though, is that when
adding these two stimulants together, there is an increased release of
a body chemical called "nor-ephinephrine".

Isn't epinephrine the same as adrenalin, or is that something different?

In addition, something
called the "beta-2-androgenic receptors" in the body is stimulated.
OK other than those two techno jargon words, that isn't too bad is
it??... Now lets look at what the Aspirin is for??

Well, the aspirin side of the "ECA stack" has been and continues to be
a little controversial. Basically, aspirin was added to the stack
about 11 years ago and they were using it to block an additional body
enzyme to aid its "effectiveness", so to speak, of the overall
process. Once again, if you want a more technical description of why,
let me know. Primarily the reason most companies left Aspirin in was
due to the fact that it was noticed that it was very effective in
going at abdominal fat sections. Why, this is, no one really knew for
sure, but the speculation was that it was due to the fact that
thinning the blood helps get additional blood supply to abdominal fat
section area.
I personally think this is a little "magic fluff" for
my tastes, but most body builders swear by it, and who am I to
disagree with the people that know it best?? :-)

I'd rather trust objective results than subjective observations, personally.

======================================

OK. If Ephedra was effect, why was it banned by the FDA?
======================================
Several reasons. Some of which were political in nature. It seems
there is allot of bad blood between the FDA and the largest supplier
of ephedra for normal consumers being Metabolife. Historically over
the last decade, it seems that the FDA has a track record of not
liking the herbal market simply due to the fact that congress never
gave them much authority over it.

The herbal market is also overrun with pseudoscientists making all kinds of
claims for herbs that can't be substantiated. I believe there really are
benefits to be gained from some herbal remedies, but there's so much bad
information that it's very hard to filter the truth from the "traditions."
and even things that pill pushers made up.

If you don't like this, then I
would encourage you to contact your senator and congressmen and state
your opinion. This track record is clearly established, and certainly
goes against the intent of what congress was trying to do when then
pass a bill that essentially created the herbal market... Overall,
though, this is still a small reason to the overall pictu

Banning Reasons:
1) Ephedra was primarily banned because of abuse by people that would
simply use it only and not improve anything else on the nutritional
and diet side. Not smart, because an ECA stack is certainly too
strong a stimulant blend to use for people who are not used to working
out regularly in intense manners.

Yeah, I think a lot of people who use Ephedra like substances think it's a
*substitute* for self control and regular exercise.

2) Because of the increased "metabolic rate", its use would hamper
your body's ability to regulate body temps. This is normally not an
issue, but if you are on high doses and then go out into 96F
weather, you can get into a heat stroke situation very rapidly.

Sounds pretty dangerous in a place like Texas or Florida.

Even
more frustrating to medical professionals, was the fact that when a
person did develop a heat stroke condition and were admitted into the
emergency room, they were almost powerless to do much about it other
than put the person in a tub of ice and hope for the best. I
certainly can understand how frustrating this must have been...

Yeah

3) Like most good solutions, as soon as one good product comes out, a
large number of imitation products also came on the market. They also
were making all sorts of bogus claims about their product trying to
get an "edge" on the competition. Funny thing was, though, they all
were working off the same principles and typically the same dosages...

Well that's how things like that go. Heck, there's even a large
"homeopathic" market in which the pills might not even contain one molecule
of the so-called therapeutic substance because of heavy dilution beyond what
Avogadro's number allows.

Was Ephedra that dangerous??
======================================
No.. If used properly it was not.. Most knowledgeable fitness
professionals agree to this fact. Interestingly enough, the Chinese
has used it for over 4000 years with little to no problems. I must
admit that more than one of Chinese immigrant has chuckled at me in
discussing Ephedra... "Stupid Americans" as they say it.. :-)
======================================

The problem is people want a pill to do their work for them rather than with
them. They thought Ephedra was that pill.

What is industries "new product" now that Ephedra is gone?
======================================
As of now, the jury is still out on where we go from here. Some
companies just increased the caffeine amounts. No smart, as this just
give people the shakes and creates a mild case of paranoia at large
dosages of caffeine...

Yeah too much caffeine at once is no fun.

Some, have replaced Ephedra which its "sister" herb being Green Leaf
Extract. Even though so far Green Leaf Extract looks promising,
because of the higher dosage required, it has been noticed to show
some issues on liver function tests. (ie. Slight liver damage)

Yuck.

Not too nice to think about, but remember that the liver is the only
organ in the body that can regenerate itself..... That certainly is
no excuse to abuse it, though. That's just not nice!! :-)

Bones can regenerate, but I guess they're not considered organs. I've heard
of hearts growing blood vessels to compensate for blockages, etc.

Also, another herb called Bitter Orange Extract is now being tried to
replaced ephedra, but it also seems to have allot of the same issues
as Green Leaf...

Thanks for the warning. I'm not planning to get any chemical aids right now,
but it's good to know about the risks at any rate.

Finally, I should bring up Ginseng as another option. When people
talk about ginseng, though, they are talking about energy enhancing.
Also there are several different forms of ginseng, but the Korean
Panax Ginseng is clearly the best from an energy standpoint.

Have there been legit peer reviewed studies on it?

snip

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" wrote in message ...

nothing of merit

Jim Carver wrote:
Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in
this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when
dealing with nutrition.. :-)

That foot-rubbing skank is among the most clueless people on our planet. Indeed,
she thinks our planet is hollow and inhabited by "Lemurians" who are channeled
by overweight housewives from Marin County.

One of her most comprehensive posts on the matter can be found at:
http://snipurl.com/516b

BTW, the Gardner "patent" to which she refers was for an illuminated globe. But
then again she also believes in chemtrails, UFOs, leprechauns (to be fair, she's
agnostic -- can't decide either way), etc. She's a flake. Her other nyms are
Lotus and lilweed. Search the latter at Google and you'll find her ex's posts,
too. He's a skinhead, and so is she.

Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in
health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie,

Neither, lol! Review her posts at AAEV on feed:beef ratios. Note how many
revisions her math endured -- none of which ever accounted for birth weight or
weight from grazing.

Feed:beef-related threads: http://snipurl.com/6cmm

most people, on
the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of
journals,

She doesn't read those types of journals. She searches the web for stuff that
reinforces her kooky beliefs, like foot massage as a cure-all.

(ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you
really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for
anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl
referenced:

She referenced an abstract. She lacks the educational background to comprehend
even the abstracts, much less studies. BTW, you're coming across as a nitwit for
using the words "journal study" together. Journals don't usually *run* studies;
they publish them for peer review.

...
I am very appreciative that you sent this journal,

Abstract. It's not an article, it's not the study report. She doesn't know
anything about medical science. Her training was not at university; she learned
to rub feet from New Agers.

snip of weird and pedantic sophistry