Getting Too Fat to Sail

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

Weeelll… kinda sounds a teensy bit like excuse making to me. There is a plenty of evidence that diet is immensely important. Of course. It is obviously the most important aspect of the equation. However you almost seem to be saying that there is no connection to exercise and that is just nonsense.

Exercise has many benefits. But it has only a limited impact on weight loss.

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

It is extremely well known and demonstrated that exercise reduces the risk of type two diabetes, and helps to manage it as well.

High intensity exercise - weight lifting, high intensity interval training, etc., depletes muscle glycogen. If you're working hard enough to move past the mythical "fat burning zone", you're burning the glycogen that's stored in your muscles, and that can make a significant difference in how energy is partitioned, for the next couple of meals after you've exercised.

If you're insulin resistant, those endless hours of moderate-intensity exercise doesn't do much except make you hungry. They don't help to control insulin levels, and they don't burn fat.

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

I am afraid that poor diet goes hand in hand with extreme laziness in much of the developed world, and the most important factor in that laziness is not that people are unwilling to go to the gym, but that they are unwilling to walk and use their bodies for basic tasks.

People with metabolic syndrome are lethargic because they are literally starving to death, on a cellular level. I know it's hard to grasp that with all that stored fat that they're dealing with severe malnutrition, but it's true
Telling someone who's dealing with these issues that they're lazy, and they just need to eat less and exercise more, is functionally equivalent to telling someone who's spent weeks in a lifeboat without food, that they just need to move more. They have no energy for it.

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

As to your suggestion that exercising actually slows the metabolism… this is absurd and it does the opposite.
Your suggestion that "the cellular environment" is isolated in some magical way from the positive physiological and biochemical effects of exercise, while being somehow open to them (I notice that personal feelings of "starvation" are indicated on this side of your odd equation) on the negative side (exercise makes you fatter?) is equally magical thinking.

Exercise affects the cells only in how it changes the cellular environment. You seem to be operating under the assumption that exercise has the same physiological and biochemical effects on everyone, and that's demonstrably not the case. In many people, exercise will reduce blood sugar levels, and will increase the mobilization of fat from the fat cells. But in a great many people it won't, unless and until they get their insulin levels under control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0

[Blue Crab]

So a baguette a day ain't keeping the doctor away, eh?

[Canibul]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I never chewed nails, but when younger I sure had the other three covered.
Now just caffeine and alcohol, after Retirement, I hope to delete the caffeine.

How did that old line go in WWII about a fighter pilot's breakfast? Something like a Coke, a cigarette and a puke.

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Blue Crab

So a baguette a day ain't keeping the doctor away, eh?

Yep. It ain't keeping the doctor away. You know why? Because carbs turn into sugar when metabolized.

And an apple ain't much better because when we were kids apples had about half the sugar and more fibre than now. They have bred in more sugar and bred out the fibre!

[MarkJ]

Eat real proper food not processed, and research everything

Sent from a stupid phone that replaces words with weird stuff.

[Canibul]

and now I suppose someone will come on here and tell us the fish ain't safe to eat any more either.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Canibul

and now I suppose someone will come on here and tell us the fish ain't safe to eat any more either.

Safe or not..
You will never see on my plate.. 😃

[Lizzy Belle]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

Eat real proper food not processed, and research everything

Read. The. Labels.

People just look at pretty packaging, and buy anything with the right keywords on them.

Example: there's a Dutch brand that sells a lot of juices. Apple juice, orange juice ... It's really just sugar water, but at least it sounds healthy and who has 5 minutes to actually squeeze some oranges for fresh juice?

Their latest hit: "Half Sweet" Apple Juice - juice with "a splash of fresh water".
It actually says so right on the package. What they've done is simple: they watered down the already watery regular juice and it's selling for 150% of the price of their regular juice.
And people are loving it - less sugar! Healthy! It's even got a pretty "healthy choice" logo.

It's just way too easy to con people, I can't even blame the marketeers and food producers. When watering down juice becomes a unique selling point making people willing to pay even more, then people are just asking to be duped, imho.

Originally Posted by Canibul

and now I suppose someone will come on here and tell us the fish ain't safe to eat any more either.

Define 'safe'?

Most of the fish is near depletion, we're catching them way, way faster then they can reproduce to keep healthy numbers swimming in the ocean. But it's safe for you to eat

As to some of the "sustainable fisheries": take one look at how for instance your tilapia is handled and decide for yourself ...

I rarely eat fish anymore, but everybody should decide for themselves. Same with meat and dairy products.

[Jdege]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

Read. The. Labels.

I was having an argument with my cardiac nurse, after I went low-carb and lost ninety pounds in six months.

She told me I needed to avoid saturated fat. I told her that to the contrary, I was intentionally eating saturated fat. A low-carb diet must of necessity be a high-fat diet.

She responded with "at least you're limiting trans-fats?"

"I don't eat any trans-fats."

"You check the labels on everything you eat?"

"I don't eat food with labels."

[Lizzy Belle]

Haha, Jdege, I've had those arguments too

I do eat some foods with labels tho - my coconut oil comes with a label, for instance.
But it's very, very minimal as I mostly eat fresh veggies etc. -- eventho that's not even "natural" anymore these days, as MarkJ pointed out above.

Monsanto, anyone?

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by Lizzy Belle

Monsanto, anyone?

Mix 1 cup Monsanto with 1/2 cup Organic High Fructose Corn Syrup...

One of the huge problems the USA government has is that thousands of square miles of middle America is planted with corn and soy beans. Change the dietry guidelines (happening this month) and lots of farmers go broke!

[Sea Dreaming]

Originally Posted by Jdege

I was having an argument with my cardiac nurse, after I went low-carb and lost ninety pounds in six months.

She told me I needed to avoid saturated fat. I told her that to the contrary, I was intentionally eating saturated fat. A low-carb diet must of necessity be a high-fat diet.

She responded with "at least you're limiting trans-fats?"

"I don't eat any trans-fats."

"You check the labels on everything you eat?"

"I don't eat food with labels."

My BF had a raging debate with his doc over statins. Jim simply refused. Instead he went high fat low carb and his cholesterol fell significantly. When he went back to his doc, his doc said she had now read the research on statins and agreed with Jim. Doc and nurses don't know everything!

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Jdege

Exercise has many benefits. But it has only a limited impact on weight loss.



High intensity exercise - weight lifting, high intensity interval training, etc., depletes muscle glycogen. If you're working hard enough to move past the mythical "fat burning zone", you're burning the glycogen that's stored in your muscles, and that can make a significant difference in how energy is partitioned, for the next couple of meals after you've exercised.

If you're insulin resistant, those endless hours of moderate-intensity exercise doesn't do much except make you hungry. They don't help to control insulin levels, and they don't burn fat.



People with metabolic syndrome are lethargic because they are literally starving to death, on a cellular level. I know it's hard to grasp that with all that stored fat that they're dealing with severe malnutrition, but it's true
Telling someone who's dealing with these issues that they're lazy, and they just need to eat less and exercise more, is functionally equivalent to telling someone who's spent weeks in a lifeboat without food, that they just need to move more. They have no energy for it.



Exercise affects the cells only in how it changes the cellular environment. You seem to be operating under the assumption that exercise has the same physiological and biochemical effects on everyone, and that's demonstrably not the case. In many people, exercise will reduce blood sugar levels, and will increase the mobilization of fat from the fat cells. But in a great many people it won't, unless and until they get their insulin levels under control.

Sooo… this from the NIH:

"Physical Inactivity
Many studies have shown that physical inactivity is associated with insulin resistance, often leading to type 2 diabetes. In the body, more glucose is used by muscle than other tissues. Normally, active muscles burn their stored glucose for energy and refill their reserves with glucose taken from the bloodstream, keeping blood glucose levels in balance.

Studies show that after exercising, muscles become more sensitive to insulin, reversing insulin resistance and lowering blood glucose levels. Exercise also helps muscles absorb more glucose without the need for insulin. The more muscle a body has, the more glucose it can burn to control blood glucose levels."

Ergo, not only does exercise help to prevent this prediabetic condition, it helps to treat it. Further, a lack of exercise combined with excessive glucose and glucose precursor ingestion is what normally causes the condition in the first place.

Honestly, I really don't understand what you are attempting to argue for, here.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Canibul

I like your line about any thing with a label is basically bad for you. Makes sense. I mean, if it needs a label to explain the chemicals in it....

I was just reading yesterday what happens in your body for the two hours after drinking a Diet Coke. Scary.

Really? What was this scary effect then?

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I am no nutritionist, but I believe refined sugar to be evil.
I believe in the US there are three basic food groups, sugar, fat and salt. Many years ago I attended a Master fitness trainer workshop in the Army, there i found out that Mcdonalds fries are so golden brown and good because they are sugar coated, and fat is added to the chicken bits whatever they are called.
Some things, like "American" cheese, I will not eat, there is no dairy product in American cheese, it's made from oil. As an experiment I left some out by an ant bed, and ants and other insects ignore it, I guess they don't see it as food?

And George Carlin had it right, what is "cheese food", cheese has to eat?

I like the US. Some parts of it I genuinely love, and some of its people, likewise. However, there is a major problem in the US food industry. It is bad elsewhere, but honestly, it is worse in the US. Sugar is EVERYWHERE and in EVERYTHING. I mean… in the US, if you buy a box of Kellog's Bran Flakes, you are definitely not buying the same product as you buy in Europe. I eat Bran Flakes for breakfast often, when in the UK, when not eating simple porridge. And when I do I eat them with just semi skimmed milk. But the same labelled product in the US is so sweet I simply cannot stomach it. Many things are like that. I tried to drink a Del Monte pear juice a while back when there. I literally had to spit it out at the first sip. When looking at the side of the can, I found that this one can contained 51 grams of sugar. In other words it was a pear flavoured, supersaturated sugar solution. Unbelievable. It seems to me also that fewer people in the US are likely to cook their own food from basic ingredients, and if cooking at all will tend to rely on box or packet bought "mixes" by "Betty Crocker" or "Pilsbury" or whoever. I really don't mean to offend by saying these things, but these are my observations and it seems to me they are directly related to the obesity problem in the US in particular, though it has to be said that this problem is "growing" just about everywhere.