Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

"Jim Carver" wrote in message
snip

Thanks for all the info, Jim.

-Rubystars

pearl wrote:
...
Even MORE interestingly (from the above link, dummy):
Dr Davey said: "Despite this, we still need to be extremely careful in
interpreting these results as we only sampled a small number of
patients.

"Further studies on larger groups of patients will need to be carried
out before we will know if this treatment is fully effective.

Not just 'effective',- "fully effective".

Your point being?

"Similarly we have no idea how long the treatment benefits will last
over a longer period."

"a longer period"- than "at least three weeks".

Ipse dixit. They can't even be sure that it's effective for three bloody minutes
until they do a broader study, nitwit.

Lesley does not comprehend science at all.

If tosspot quackpots like you and wendy had your way, dismissing
such techniques as 'BS' and 'quackery', this research wouldn't even
be carried out!

Neither of us stands in the way of others to prevent them from doing whatever
they want to do. If people are willing to pay you €20

And more.

If they're gullible enough to fork it over, more power to ya.

to rub their smelly feet,

That isn't what I do.

Yes it is.

more power to you.

Thanks.

NP

I'm all for free enterprise.

First and foremost, eh, nudge nudge wink.

Profit makes stuff happen.

I'm also for free speech,

Without fear of harassment for stating personal opinions?

Free speech for those (like you) with loony ideas, free speech for sensible and
rational people (like me) who explain why others' ideas are loony. It's a two
way street. Do you not believe everyone has the same rights?

and I
intend to use mine to argue against public funding in my nation for sham
alternative healing studies.

How very ignorant.

Of you? Yes, it is. Your ignorance can be dispelled, just as it was in the polar
fountain threads.

Thank goodness scientific researchers know better.

There's nothing scientific about what happened, and the caution employed by Dr
Davey is noted: it was done on a very small group and the doctor has no way of
knowing how long the perceived benefits will last.

'The therapy led to improved muscle and limb movement, and increased
ability to feel sensations.

Neither of which addresses the points I made.

...
It also was not a double blind study. Funny how double blind studies have a way
of debunking this kind of crap.

Funny how you never fail to come up with a load of absolute crap.

I think the same about you when you grossly misrepresent the findings of studies
and CONTINUE spewing your interpretation even when the very researchers issue
statements saying that media types have distorted their findings (e.g., when you
claimed fat was addictive though the researchers later said that was NOT their
findings).

Rubystars wrote:
...
I think that people have a right to spend their money as they will, if they
earned it, so no, I won't stand in their way of getting "alternative
medicine." I do have a problem with the quacks/snake oil peddlers/bee pollen
pushers who are conning people though.

Shining colored light on people, having them eat pure white gold, rubbing
their feet, sticking needles into them, or doing any of that stupid crap
isn't going to help anyone. I'm really angry with all the people who are
taking advantage of gullible people and taking away hard earned money.

I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund some of
these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of real
health care.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Rubystars wrote:
...
I think that people have a right to spend their money as they will, if
they
earned it, so no, I won't stand in their way of getting "alternative
medicine." I do have a problem with the quacks/snake oil peddlers/bee
pollen
pushers who are conning people though.

Shining colored light on people, having them eat pure white gold,
rubbing
their feet, sticking needles into them, or doing any of that stupid crap
isn't going to help anyone. I'm really angry with all the people who are
taking advantage of gullible people and taking away hard earned money.

I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund some
of
these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of
real
health care.

Yes, I don't understand that at all! You'd think insurance companies would
be the first ones that would want to keep their costs down. It doesn't make
any sense at all!

And federal agencies should really have higher standards.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
...
I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund some
of
these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of
real
health care.

Yes, I don't understand that at all! You'd think insurance companies would
be the first ones that would want to keep their costs down. It doesn't make
any sense at all!

I can understand why they do it (two reasons). First, market demand. A lot of
people don't know the history of chiropractic or reflexology, so they demand it;
what's a company to do if that's a criterion that their market desires? Second,
and a point I've never dismissed, a lot of patients are happier with the
touchy-feely stuff and a couple massages or foot rubs can be cheaper than
sending someone to specialists. Still, if I were running an insurance company,
it'd focus on education and prevention, including teaching people about quackery
and why they should avoid it.

And federal agencies should really have higher standards.

Government is more often a problem than a solution. That especially includes its
efforts in the health care sector.

(Jim Carver) wrote in message . com...
Hello Again Ralph!!

"Jim Carver" is clueless as to the fact that amphetamines were
developed in Germany in the 1920 -30s several decades before anyone
had heard of "metabolic rate", much less the idea of enhancing it.
Their use in weight control began when it was noticed that they
suppress appetite, sort of.

Ralph, just like a bunch of other doctors friends that I have,
including sometimes one of my brothers, you are lending advise on a
subject that you know very little about in a practical way....

The US and much of the modern world is facing an epidemic of
obesity. Lots of people are struggling, some people are desperate.
Others see the opportunity to get rich without working.
Human metabolic systems are both more simple and more complicated
than you let on. They are simple in that they do what they are
designed to do without the need of a lot of conscious input from us if
we create the right conditions. If one can grasp the basic principles
and the needed conditions, there is no reason to delve into details.
And the systems themselves are obviously far more nuanced and
complicated than science, conventional or otherwise, has any idea
about. I doubt if even 1/3 of the relevant hormones/neurotransmitters
have been identified.
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.
2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.
3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
muscle groups as possible.
4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.
5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

Consider the Amish. They all move about constantly. They deny
themselves "labor saving" devices. They all burn 4-5000 calories a
day. They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins. They
cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.
Our bodies are way smarter than any of us. We do not need experts.
There are only a few things people need to know and do.
Beyond this, there a vast amount of irrelevant crap floating around
being pimped by hustlers of various sorts.
Choosing to lead a more physically active lifestyle forces a much
larger increase in calorie burn than the marginal increases in
basal/resting/thermogenic metabolic rates that can be achieved by any
means at all.
This is the core of the matter regardless of which one of us is in
better shape or if I am a nice person or not.
And everyone heard it all for free.



Yes,
you are correct, amphetamines were "discovered" in the 1920's..... In
addition, at that time ketogenic diets were also "developed" in the
1920's as a way to control seizures in children only later to be
replaced by more effective medications. Does this make the Atkins
concept incorrect?? No... Millions would completely disagree with
you.. It is just as effective...

In discussion of stimulants, you are also lending advise on a subject
that it is clear you have very little experience in the real world
on.... Yes, ECA stacks and other metabolic enhancers do work... Just
accept it.... You can dispute it until the cows come home, but it is
fact.... Not only this, but if used properly, they are highly
effectively...

When you are this ignorant about a subject, it means little when
something seems "comical" to you.

Ignorant on this subject??? Easy there my little pop belly doctor
friend... ;-)

Ralph, if I and thousands of other fitness professionals are so
"ignorant" on this subject, then why don't we discuss your physical
fitness level shall we?? The only thing that I know about you so far
from you is that you "ran some marathons" in the past...

Also, why dont we do this ?? Pick any 30K in the US. .. (Including
the classic Boston)... I will personally go to any marathon of your
choosing, and we can run it together and see who is in better physical
shape??? As a matter of fact, after the run we will post the time
results on this group? Come on, it will be fun... Also, just to level
the playing field even further, I wont even carb load before hand...
:-)

Also, care to provide your Height / Weight / BF% numbers??? If you
are as knowledgeable as you say, lets see what kind of results are you
getting my little friend???... Yep... Thought so... :-)

Jim Carver


(Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com...
(Jim Carver) wrote in message . com...
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.

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?)

"Jim Carver" is clueless as to the fact that amphetamines were
developed in Germany in the 1920 -30s several decades before anyone
had heard of "metabolic rate", much less the idea of enhancing it.
Their use in weight control began when it was noticed that they
suppress appetite, sort of.
When you are this ignorant about a subject, it means little when
something seems "comical" to you.

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. 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". 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?? :-)
======================================

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. 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.

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. 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...

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...

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.. :-)
======================================

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...

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)
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!! :-)

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...

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.
======================================

OK. Should I try a metabolic enhancer right now?
======================================
Personally, I wouldn't. Not until we know a little more about how
everything will shake out in the industry. Let some of those "amateur
scientists", who I admit are a critical part of science in general,
play for a while until some sort of standard principle is agreed upon.

If you want to try being one of these "amateur scientists", though, I
say go for it!! This risk profile is not too bad? Below is a good
link if you are interested. Also, just to let you know, most body
builders swear by products from a company called Ergopharm, (ie. Go
Patrick A. Go!!? Sorry, inside joke?) so if you do decide to go this
route, you might want to try their metabolic enhancer product. I
think it is called ErgoLean MC, but I am not sure and I know nothing
more about it.

Additional Quality herbal link:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/goalherbal.htm
======================================

Jim Carver


======================================
"Rubystars" wrote in message . com...
"Jim Carver" wrote in message
snip explanation
Helpful?

Yes, thanks.

Got any addition questions on this subject or something
else?

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.

-Rubystars

Ralph DuBose wrote:
...
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.

Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).

2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.

This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
becoming problematic than diet alone will.

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
muscle groups as possible.

This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.

4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.

I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
carbs, and avoid the latter.

5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.

IOW, two simple rules:
1. Exercise regularly.
2. Eat a well-balanced diet.

That's all.

Consider the Amish.

No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still
stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
Those all play a role in their health data.

They all move about constantly.

No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.

They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.

Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
rather than walking.

They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.

According to whom?

They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.

Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.

They
cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.

Bull****ing****! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
them instead:

Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.

I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!

Source for Amish healthy study data:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
...

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Rubystars wrote:
...
I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund
some
of
these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of
real
health care.

Yes, I don't understand that at all! You'd think insurance companies
would
be the first ones that would want to keep their costs down. It doesn't
make
any sense at all!

I can understand why they do it (two reasons). First, market demand. A lot
of
people don't know the history of chiropractic or reflexology, so they
demand it;
what's a company to do if that's a criterion that their market desires?
Second,
and a point I've never dismissed, a lot of patients are happier with the
touchy-feely stuff and a couple massages or foot rubs can be cheaper than
sending someone to specialists. Still, if I were running an insurance
company,
it'd focus on education and prevention, including teaching people about
quackery
and why they should avoid it.

So basically sugar pills are cheaper than real medicine, and often effective
because of the placebo effect right?

Still, if I was working at an insurance company, I'd be worried that some
chiropractor would twist someone's spine and cause permanent injury, or that
someone might take an herbal remedy that's dangerous.

And federal agencies should really have higher standards.

Government is more often a problem than a solution. That especially
includes its
efforts in the health care sector.

Still, I think that people have a right not to have their tax dollars used
for such stupidity.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
...
So basically sugar pills are cheaper than real medicine,

Yes. Hard to sue the HMO for bad sugar, too.

and often effective
because of the placebo effect right?

It doesn't even have to be effective if the person taking it is happy with it
and thinks it's working. That's the beauty of the placebo effect.
*any* effect that seems to be a consequence of administering a placebo;
the change is usually beneficial and is assumed result from the person's
faith in the treatment or preconceptions about what the experimental
drug was supposed to do; pharmacologists were the first to talk about
placebo effects but now the idea has been generalized to many situations
having nothing to do with drugs

Still, if I was working at an insurance company, I'd be worried that some
chiropractor would twist someone's spine and cause permanent injury, or that
someone might take an herbal remedy that's dangerous.

That opens those practitioners to liability, NOT the insurance company or HMO.
Since HMOs/PPOs usually don't have alternative therapy quacks on staff, they pay
outside their care network for that.

...
Still, I think that people have a right not to have their tax dollars used
for such stupidity.

I agree, but it's not the only stupidity the government funds.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...ts_pigbook2004

usual suspect wrote in message ...
Ralph DuBose wrote:
...
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.

Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).

2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.

This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
becoming problematic than diet alone will.


Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.
Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
always happen every bit helps.


More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
muscle groups as possible.

This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.

4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.

I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
carbs, and avoid the latter.

5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.

IOW, two simple rules:
1. Exercise regularly.
2. Eat a well-balanced diet.

That's all.

Consider the Amish.

No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still

My information about them might be out of date or even some what
flawed. However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.
It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.

..
stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
Those all play a role in their health data.

They all move about constantly.

No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.

They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.

Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
rather than walking.

They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.

According to whom?

They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.

Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.

They
cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.

Bull****ing****! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
them instead:

Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.

I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!

Source for Amish healthy study data:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
...