Best news I've heard all week!!

noonesperfect

:j Apparently we are now being advised that it is a bad idea to try to lose weight through cutting down on food for 4 months of the year. ( in winter ) We are more susceptible to colds and flu if we are trying to exist on fewer calories than our bodies need.

BlondeHeadOn

Phew - thanks for this! I've just deleted 'start a diet on 5th January' off my list of New Years resolutions. I've replaced it with 'start a diet in April' which sounds a lot better!!!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Can't find an excuse to delete my resolution to 'exercise more starting January' though. No evidence that this causes 'flu, I suppose?

angie_loves_veg

BlondeHeadOn ... Ted would give you about a thousand reasons not to exercise if you ask.... (not sure I'd ask actually)...

Noonesperfect - where have you heard this from please?

belfastgirl23

I don't think this applies to people who are cutting back from 2500 calories a day to 1800 but it does probably apply if you're cutting down to 1000 calories to lose that last stubborn 5lbs. Alas this isn't me so I'm going to stick with the resolution!!

Ted_Hutchinson

noonesperfect wrote: »

:j Apparently we are now being advised that it is a bad idea to try to lose weight through cutting down on food for 4 months of the year. ( in winter )

As everyone know there is absolutely no need to cut down on food to lose weight. You simply need to stop eating those foods that increase your appetite and make your body store fat. Foods that disrupt your blood glucose levels and cause your body to make insulin to counter that glucose force fat accumulation.
If you only eat those foods that don't raise blood glucose you lose weight and lose your hunger cravings.

We are more susceptible to colds and flu if we are trying to exist on fewer calories than our bodies need.

But surely you can understand that your body has a natural defence against infection, it is powered by Vitamin D3. While your vitamin D3 level are above 50nmol/l your body can make cathelicidin On the epidemiology of influenza this is an antimicrobial peptide that hunts down the bugs and zaps them.
For the most part UK adults 25(OH)D status never gets above 70nmol/l, it hovers around 50nmol/l for most of the year but in the winter particularly January Feb March April our levels are in the 40nmol/l. range and our ability to zap the bugs is negligible. However those people who have been paying attention to my posts and who have been taking an EFFECTIVE amount of D3 will know the beneficial impact this has on their vulnerability to Upper Respiratory Tract infections. Do be aware it takes 90 days to restore D3 status so it was those people who acted on my posts back in September that will be able to confirm the results.

Skint_Catt

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

As everyone know there is absolutely no need to cut down on food to lose weight. You simply need to stop eating those foods that increase your appetite and make your body store fat. Foods that disrupt your blood glucose levels and cause your body to make insulin to counter that glucose force fat accumulation.
If you only eat those foods that don't raise blood glucose you lose weight and lose your hunger cravings.

But surely you can understand that your body has a natural defence against infection, it is powered by Vitamin D3. While your vitamin D3 level are above 50nmol/l your body can make cathelicidin On the epidemiology of influenza this is an antimicrobial peptide that hunts down the bugs and zaps them.
For the most part UK adults 25(OH)D status never gets above 70nmol/l, it hovers around 50nmol/l for most of the year but in the winter particularly January Feb March April our levels are in the 40nmol/l. range and our ability to zap the bugs is negligible. However those people who have been paying attention to my posts and who have been taking an EFFECTIVE amount of D3 will know the beneficial impact this has on their vulnerability to Upper Respiratory Tract infections. Do be aware it takes 90 days to restore D3 status so it was those people who acted on my posts back in September that will be able to confirm the results.

Do you do ANYTHING except quote Vitamin D as a cure for everything??????????

Ted_Hutchinson

Skint_Catt wrote: »

Do you do ANYTHING except quote Vitamin D as a cure for everything??????????

Are you implying that cathelicidin is available at 25(0H)D below 50nmol/l if so I'd be pleased to see your evidence?

Would having your tyre pressures 66% below the manufacturers specification affect more or less everything about your car's handling and performance.

How stupid do you have to be not to see that running your body at one third of it's natural homeostatic equilibrium is bound to cause problems.

Clearly Skint_Catt hasn't quite grasped that b****ing up the hormonal control sytstem for 200 different enzyme actions in 900 different sites include 36 different organs will have adverse consequences in many different aspects of your bodily functions.

Still who cares if Skint_Catt is too stupid to benefit from the latest scientific evidence.?

noonesperfect

angie_loves_veg wrote: »

BlondeHeadOn ... Ted would give you about a thousand reasons not to exercise if you ask.... (not sure I'd ask actually)...

Noonesperfect - where have you heard this from please?

Friday 2/1/09 Daily Mail. Actually, I got it slightly wrong. people who are dieting take longer to recover from viral infections. It still sounds like good news to me though - pass the biccies :rotfl: :rotfl:

Seriously though, if calories in = calories out there isn't a problem (not till you're menopausal onwards anyway!!:rolleyes: )

jeannieblue

Skint_Catt wrote: »

Do you do ANYTHING except quote Vitamin D as a cure for everything??????????

Its an overlooked vitamin that we need - not the run of the mill Vit D but D3 - and I feel better for taking it.

Diet? You don't need to eat less - ever. Just eat better - forever. The key is moderation. You read the papers each day and see what is good for cancer/weight loss etc. And the next day you read that the same things will cause cancer/weight gain.

Common sense should prevail... we all know what suits us, what is bad for us - personally, and take it from there. Don't be a sheep - know yourself, that is the key.

Ted_Hutchinson

noonesperfect wrote: »

Seriously though, if calories in = calories out there isn't a problem

A tale of two studiesWhile I do accept that expecting readers here to engage their brains may be expecting a lot there is a possibility that reason will prevail.

Google
GLUCOSE CANCER

Does feeding cancer cells unlimited amounts of glucose help or hinder cancer cell proliferation?

You can choose to feed your cancers as you like.

If I have the choice I will starve my cancers.

noonesperfect

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

A tale of two studiesWhile I do accept that expecting readers here to engage their brains may be expecting a lot there is a possibility that reason will prevail.

Google
GLUCOSE CANCER

Does feeding cancer cells unlimited amounts of glucose help or hinder cancer cell proliferation?

You can choose to feed your cancers as you like.

If I have the choice I will starve my cancers.

Obviously I'm not advocating that one can eat as many cakes, fatty meat and junk food as one likes provided enough exercise is taken to burn them off.

The vast majority of people on here will have realised that I meant the daily calorie intake should come from a balanced diet!

Lets face it, the older you get the liklihood of contracting some form of cancer increases.....

Both my parents lived to a good age and never got cancer - they simply ate a balanced diet. That's good enough for me.

(Ted has nothing to say.........;-) )