Does Exercise Really Keep Us Healthy?

Ted_Hutchinson

jinny wrote: »

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/thyroid
Just read this and feel quite angry that I have been thinking that low fat spreads were doing me good. I have a underactive thyroid condition stabled with medication but 4 stone overweight and probably heading for a diabetic future. Where can I get reasonably priced lard or coconut oil from, I do like olive oil would that help?

I buy my coconut oil from coconoil in a 2litre container for £75 it works out about £3.50 for a pot. I put the drum into the airing cupboard overnight and fill up my pots then put the bulk container in a cool place till I need to refill again.
It would help if you had some friends who are also into coconut oil as you have to be a big user to justfy buying it the way I do.

You can get coconut oil from Indian type corner shops that are in Asian areas of town or supply Asian cookery type ingredient. The stuff I bought was about £1.50 a pot maybe £2 depending. It wasn't as coconuty tasting as the organic stuff from the health food shop.

This bulk organic coconut oil from coconoil is as good as the best organic I've eaten but less than half the price.

You may be better off rendering your own If you have a local farmer's market I'd ask there. You may find people selling rare breeds pork products will be glad to dispose of the some of the more fatty parts for a reasonable price.

I've been scrounging marrow bones for stock and not had to pay for them so far.

Ted_Hutchinson

Ephemera wrote: »

A low calorie diet in association with moderate, regular exercise does work. Well, it does for me.

That may indeed be the case for you but for most people it clearly does not work as most people don't enjoy eating less food than they hunger for.

We would not be in the position we are now with diabetes if everyone found it easy to eat less food.

I didn't eat big meals or puddings or sweets but I was getting fatter year on year because I can't exercise. Using my brains I found out that you don't need to eat less food to lose weight. Nor is it necessary (however desirable) to exercise in order to lose weight.

You simply need to understand what foods cause weight gain by predisposing your body to accumulate fat rather than burning it.
The point is your body does not NEED carbohydrates.
It is Carbohydrates that cause glucose levels to rise,
this forces higher insulin levels
and while insulin levels are high the body has to store glucose in fat cells.
So the fat you have previously accumulated stays locked up in fat cells.

I don't see what the problem is with eating low carbohydrate foods. It was done for years. Diabetic Cookery 1917 Oppenhiemer From the early 1900s, prior to the discovery and utilization of insulin therapy, experts recommended a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet for the treatment of diabetes.

It is not clear that medication therapy (including insulin) is superior to a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet for glycemic control and avoidance of long-term complications. The evidence from the latest studies shows those using a low carbohydrate diet appear to have better health markers overall.

A Tale of 2 Studies sets it out fairly clearly.

Ephemera

I didn't say anything about eating less food....just fewer calories...!

I eat a relatively low-carb diet anyway, and most of the carbs I eat are from fruit and grains.

As a society we do seem to be enamoured with the 'low fat good, sugarfree good' 'diet' culture, while at the same time hawking high-fat and sugar 'convenience' foods. Our bodies are still playing genetic 'catchup' with our highly-refined Western diets, I try to ensure I eat as much 'natural' food as possible - steamed veg, fresh fish and lean, well raised meat, fruit, nuts and seeds, as 'old' a diet as I can buy and prepare. In the main, anyway.

Again, I'm talking from personal experience, and wouldn't dream of forcing my ideas on anyone. I've discovered what works for me, personally, and from what I understand of how the body works, genetics and how our ancestors used to eat.

Ted_Hutchinson

Ephemera wrote: »

I didn't say anything about eating less food....just fewer calories...!

But why not just reduce those calories that come from carbohydrates?
It's the carbohydrate that causes you to have hunger pangs. Reduce the carbs and you reduce the cravings therefore you eat less and don't feel hungry.

I eat a relatively low-carb diet anyway, and most of the carbs I eat are from fruit and grains.

But fructose is one of the worst foods for driving weight gain, it leads Directly to leptin resistance and grains are simply glucose in disguise, as far as your body is concerned if it ends with OSE it's treated as sugar. You don't need it. Avoid it and you won't feel so hungry and you won't store fat.

Our bodies are still playing genetic 'catchup' with our highly-refined Western diets, I try to ensure I eat as much 'natural' food as possible - steamed veg, fresh fish and lean, well raised meat, fruit, nuts and seeds, as 'old' a diet as I can buy and prepare. In the main, anyway.

Well I'm with you on that. but remember the fruit we eat now bears little or no relationship to the fruit that was available to early man. All our varieties now are selected for extra sweetness and each year that passes the sweetest varieties predominate.

Again, I'm talking from personal experience, and wouldn't dream of forcing my ideas on anyone.

Indeed not who can force anyone to read posts. If you don't have the sense to understand the science then there's no point in reading any of my posts.

from what I understand of how the body works, genetics and how our ancestors used to eat.

And that is precisely why foods that have only relatively recently come into our diet should probably be avoided like the plague. This presentation sets it out in great detail

/Micheal Pollan Google lecture also puts this into perspective

brokeinwales

I eat a relatively low-carb diet anyway, and most of the carbs I eat are from fruit and grains.

I'm pretty sure I would find it impossible, or at least unpleasant, to go down to the tiny (or virtually non-existent) level of carbs a lot of teh low-carb diets suggest. I always found the Atkins diet claim that "you can enjoy all teh foods you love and still lose weight" a bit silly - all very well if the foods you love are meat, cheese, eggs, cream and the like (but you still can't eat chocolate sweets and chips, which I believe are the things most people have problems with!), but personally I think it sounds kinda gross...
I also don't like the idea of any diet which places rigid bans on certain types of food, because it makes them more difficult to stick to. (I must say, the only people I ever meet who follow highly restrictive diets of any kind are overweight, and tend to go back to being overweight - whereas slim people who stay slim tend to not follow diets at all and just eat a generally balanced diet with a few treats. It all boils down to "Only fat people go on diets.").

The diet I eat and the exercise I do I do mainly because I enjoy them and they make me feel good, and having a bar of chocolate every now and then does me more good than harm in that respect - I know that if I sat around doing nothing and drinking buckets of offal I'd feel dreadful, and in the real world it really doesn't get much more scientific than that for me. Although if anyone fancies a bit of anecdotal evidence: I've had a BMI of between 19 and 21 since I was sixteen, I generally have plenty of energy, I have pretty good skin, I rarely fall ill, and thre's nothing medically wrong with me (well, nothing diet related anyway!). I figure I must be doing something right with my eat a well balanced diet, do plenty of exercise and get a good nights sleep plan. If eating low carb, taking vitamins, sitting in mud baths, or living off watermelon alone does the same for other people, y'know - well, more power them. There's a lot of information out there, some of it conflicting - ultimately you have to figure out what's best for you yourself. Your body doesn't generally lie.

Ted_Hutchinson

brokeinwales wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I would find it impossible, or at least unpleasant, to go down to the tiny (or virtually non-existent) level of carbs a lot of teh low-carb diets suggest.

But there is no need to eliminate all carbohydrates. Only the ones that disrupt blood glucose and cause raised insulin.

I always found the Atkins diet claim that "you can enjoy all teh foods you love and still lose weight" a bit silly - all very well if the foods you love are meat, cheese, eggs, cream and the like (but you still can't eat chocolate sweets and chips, which I believe are the things most people have problems with!), but personally I think it sounds kinda gross...

And I think the risk of diabetes and Alzheimer's that result from continually disrupting blood glucose levels equally gross. The brain in the age of old: the hippocampal formation is targeted differentially by diseases of late life. This study shows clearly the mechanism by which glucose triggers cognitive dysfunction. All that is being proposed is that we eat mainly those foods our DNA evolved to cope with. In fact if you use the Question Would my great grandmother recognise this as food and reject anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognise you'd have a reasonable diet. It's all the modern junk crap that needs ditching. We really truely do not need Dunkin doughnuts or the diseases they cause.

I also don't like the idea of any diet which places rigid bans on certain types of food, because it makes them more difficult to stick to.

No one is banning certain foods, only cutting down those that cause the most damage. Once you lose your wheat addiction and your hunger cravings you no longer will find such a way of eating at all difficult.

It all boils down to "Only fat people go on diets."

But I don't think of my new way of eating as a diet. I haven't regained any weight and in fact am a tad lighter than my target weight. I've no problems sticking to it, well apart from a few drinks over the top over xmas but that's fairly reasonable.

know that if I sat around doing nothing and drinking buckets of offal I'd feel dreadful,

Now who has ever suggested that. Don't you think you are somewhat exaggerating?

and in the real world it really doesn't get much more scientific than that for me.

I suspected that you weren't particularly familiar with any real science.

Your body doesn't generally lie.

Indeed not.

I'm still wearing my 32 inch waist trousers and believe it or not I've even had to buy smaller shoes. Now I really didn't think my feet were fat but yesterday in TKMAX I got 2 pairs of ECCO shoes both smaller than I'd ever bought before. Now down to a six and a half whereas before I used to be pleased if I could get into a seven and a half, most of my shoes are in fact 8's.

Look UK Adult Vitamin d status
Disease incidence by Vit d status that 54ng level is 135nmol/l
So at the moment most UK adult have just one third of the vitamin d that their bodies naturally would acquire if we lived as we evolved. Our pale hairless bodies evolved to give us an evolutionary advantage at this latitude. That advantage was the ability to store vitamin d. Storage of D3 only occurs above 100nmol/l that is why taking an effective amount of Vitamin d improves your resistance to disease and increases fertility. It's a pity you don't make any attempt whatsoever to understand what you are writing about.

pillypilla

I agree. However (must be the New Year!) today I was reading about a guy called Loren Cordain who wrote The Paleo Diet, I also read lotsa reviews etc, on his book and this topic in general (basically it involves eating like a hunter-gatherer from the Paleolithic period, so no carbs!) and everything seems positive, it even sounds, in theory, very logical. So I went ahead and ordered it from Amazon, so I'll take a look and, as I don't do diets, am not over-weight or diabetic, will read the philosophy in more depth and perhaps partially follow it. Giving up complex carbs completely scares me but I'll certainly eat less and more meat and veg sounds healthy and doable to me.
It was also the fact he (and the testamonials) spoke about the fact that it also clears the skin (never seem to be without at least 1 spot on my face!) and that there IS a link between diet and acne/bad skin. This is a total contradiction to what I have personally been told for the last 20yrs by GPs and Dermatologists, they said it was just a myth, but it would seem some people are more sensitive to certain foods and it shows on their skin.
I also purchased The Metabolic Typing Diet, cos that seems fascinating also. It's just about turning everything we have always been told is "healthy and balanced" e.g, the food pyramid, on it's head and challenging the authorities who dictate all this to us. I mean, who really believes the "one size fits all" nutritional advice we've been given, to date? It's a bit like the "you need to drink 2 ltr of water" nonsense. We believe these people, unquestioningly, but it can sometimes be to our detriment.:rolleyes:

pillypilla

I meant that I agree with a lot of brokeinwales" comments:o Ted beat me to it! Just too damn slow at typing! LOL :rotfl:

Ted_Hutchinson

pillypilla wrote: »

I meant that I agree with a lot of brokeinwales" comments:o Ted beat me to it! Just too damn slow at typing! LOL :rotfl:

You can listen to his explanation of how diet may cause certains conditions here

I think it's likely that Wheat is the main culprit but there are other major contributors to ill health High Fructose Corn syrup is on the list along with anything ending in OSE. as are vegetable oils with a high omega 6 level corn oil, sunflower oil, soya oil, peanut oil.

pillypilla

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

You can listen to his explanation of how diet may cause certains conditions here

I think it's likely that Wheat is the main culprit but there are other major contributors to ill health High Fructose Corn syrup is on the list along with anything ending in OSE. as are vegetable oils with a high omega 6 level corn oil, sunflower oil, soya oil, peanut oil.

Thanks, very interesting lecture.