Diabetes Weight-Loss Study Ends Early With Surprising Result

[Dreamliner]

Saw this when it came out. And interestingly, it accords with the experience of a client I worked with a little over a year ago. She was a very heavy, Type II diabetic who had survived a heart attack. Her doctor read her the riot act and basically ordered her to lose weight.

I received a letter from her doctor directing me to supervise a 1,200 calorie diet and to encourage increased activity. So, I helped my client to configure an eating plan that would have her operating within her calorie allowance and had her on a walking program. I also worked with a registered dietician whose chief recommendation was to have my client eating a half-cup of yogurt before bedtime.

Results: client lost in excess of 10% of her bodyweight in short order. Over a period of 6-8 weeks her daily blood sugar ratings dropped from 400-500 (kid you not) to between 80-120. Her A1C dropped from above 13 to below 10 during that time.

She and I discontinued our working relationship shortly thereafter, but I continued to check on her periodically, at which times she'd enthusiastically report that she was maintaining her weight-loss, within a few pounds, and was walking several miles a day.

Her doctor and dietician were ecstatic. And by every measure, my client was a stunning success story ... until she had another heart attack.

She's fine now. Oh, the study:

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2012/niddk-19.htm

[ATL_Gator]

Glad she is fine.

A couple of thoughts....

Does she have a family history of cardiovascular disease? That is also a semi-rhetorical question. Just because she can answer that question as a "NO" to the best of her knowledge doesn't me that the absolute answer is NO. The history could have been there without people realizing it. If the answer is "yes"... genetics are funny like that, and they can't be beat.

Had she always maintained a "healthy weight" and not gotten very heavy, with Type 2 Diabetes in the first place.. would she have had the first heart attack to begin with? (i.e. did she do the first heart attack to herself)

After the first heart attack, had she maintained the obesity, with all "current" associated problems, and possibly new ones on top of that... then BAM, second heart attack... Is she dead? Could the body in the "compromised" state recover from the stress of a second attack? Or did her "improved capability" aid her surviving attack 2.

In regards to the second attack happening anyway.... Can cardiovascular disease be "undone", or is it like bending metal. Once metal is bent so far as to permanently deform it, it can not be undone. So, once you experience the first heart attack, you are ALWAYS at risk for a second?

[Dreamliner]

Glad she is fine.

A couple of thoughts....

Does she have a family history of cardiovascular disease? That is also a semi-rhetorical question. Just because she can answer that question as a "NO" to the best of her knowledge doesn't me that the absolute answer is NO. The history could have been there without people realizing it. If the answer is "yes"... genetics are funny like that, and they can't be beat.

Had she always maintained a "healthy weight" and not gotten very heavy, with Type 2 Diabetes in the first place.. would she have had the first heart attack to begin with? (i.e. did she do the first heart attack to herself)

After the first heart attack, had she maintained the obesity, with all "current" associated problems, and possibly new ones on top of that... then BAM, second heart attack... Is she dead? Could the body in the "compromised" state recover from the stress of a second attack? Or did her "improved capability" aid her surviving attack 2.

In regards to the second attack happening anyway.... Can cardiovascular disease be "undone", or is it like bending metal. Once metal is bent so far as to permanently deform it, it can not be undone. So, once you experience the first heart attack, you are ALWAYS at risk for a second?

Funny you should ask as she had a family history of both heart disease and diabetes, so you could have predicted both.

She was always overweight as an adult, but she perceived that her pronounced obesity happened fairly precipitously. And evidence is emerging that diabetes and obesity go hand-in-hand, as if they shared a common genetic marker.

In fact, she told me her doctor had her frustrated and hopelessly confused by simultaneously ordering her to lose weight and also warning her that, owing to her diabetes, it would be nearly impossible to lose weight. Maybe he was half-right ?

The badgering to lose weight seems increasingly odd in light of studies that show that obese diabetics seem to survive their diabetes and heart attacks more readily than thin diabetics and heart attack victims do. This is precisely the reason researchers coined the term 'Obesity Paradox' awhile back. In my mind, how much longer should obesity be characterized as a risk when, more and more it seems like obesity (save the upper ranges) appears to be a benefit ?

Where should my client go from here ? In a sense, she's not unlike me with my hypertension. Eating normally, being active, managing stress, etc., can hardly hurt. But in her case, since her mother died in her 50's and father in his 60's, I somehow doubt that she's going to wind up a female Methuselah.

[Gatorrick22]

Is type II diabetes curable?

[Dreamliner]

Is type II diabetes curable?

I may be wrong but I don't think so. There was news recently about very low calorie diets effectively reversing diabetes. But in addition to the study I referenced, subsequent studies appeared to show that symptoms eventually return.

I don't think it's fatalism to acknowledge that many of us have diseases that can't be cured but can perhaps be controlled. I have two of them, asthma and hypertension.

My growing suspicion is that conscious weight-loss may not be the answer for anything. I'm not even sure that it's helpful for the morbidly obese.

To date, I'm aware of no clinical study that shows weight-loss increasing longevity. On the other hand, there is evidence that weight-loss decreases longevity.

I suspect that, end the end, we'd all be healthier and happier if we stopped trying to lose weight.

[Gatorrick22]

I may be wrong but I don't think so. There was news recently about very low calorie diets effectively reversing diabetes. But in addition to the study I referenced, subsequent studies appeared to show that symptoms eventually return.

I don't think it's fatalism to acknowledge that many of us have diseases that can't be cured but can perhaps be controlled. I have two of them, asthma and hypertension.

My growing suspicion is that conscious weight-loss may not be the answer for anything. I'm not even sure that it's helpful for the morbidly obese.

To date, I'm aware of no clinical study that shows weight-loss increasing longevity. On the other hand, there is evidence that weight-loss decreases longevity.

I suspect that, end the end, we'd all be healthier and happier if we stopped trying to lose weight.

That's interesting stuff Dream. I'm currently pursuing a high amino acid diet to see if I can get some of the natural benefits, and that might help my body release some of my own natural made HG. This coupled with a regimented workout/weights and cardio routine for better health.

I've always been in decent shape but lately I've had this little tire in the mid section that just wont go away.

I'll let you know about how it's going.

Also have you heard anything about deer antler velvet? I'm going to try some soon.

[Dreamliner]

That's interesting stuff Dream. I'm currently pursuing a high amino acid diet to see if I can get some of the natural benefits, and that might help my body release some of my own natural made HG. This coupled with a regimented workout/weights and cardio routine for better health.

I've always been in decent shape but lately I've had this little tire in the mid section that just wont go away.

I'll let you know about how it's going.

Also have you heard anything about deer antler velvet? I'm going to try some soon.

I'm afraid I'm not a supplements/extracts/herbs guy. Just a food guy. :wink:

Are you diabetic or afraid you're going to be one ?

[LeafUF]

Rick if you want to release GH I recommend focusing your training on heavy squats and heavy deadlifts. And when you say you are on a high amino acid diet do you just mean high protein or are you supplementing your diet with aminos?

Dont use IGF-1 please. Its snake oil.

[Gatorrick22]

I'm afraid I'm not a supplements/extracts/herbs guy. Just a food guy. :wink:



Are you diabetic or afraid you're going to be one ?

No, I'm lucky I'm not. I'm going to hit the road jack (RUN)...................again. :grin:

I've always been real slim and I'm looking thicker than I like lately. But I also used to run 5 miles a day, so that's probably where my cardio leads me to.

But, you really need to read up on the deer antler velvet extract supplement. The IGF-1 derived from it will surprise you, because it come from the deer antler velvet but it's also exact chemical compound that your liver transforms your GH into.

[Dreamliner]

Sorry, I completely skated across the training and HG part. I was focusing on diabetes. Leaf mentioned deadlifts and squats. There is a widely-touted study showing that multiple sets of deadlifts and squats, done for 10-15 reps, are the best for natural HG production. But it's only percentage points different and hardly anyone trains big lifts for high reps.

[Gatorrick22]

Rick if you want to release GH I recommend focusing your training on heavy squats and heavy deadlifts. And when you say you are on a high amino acid diet do you just mean high protein or are you supplementing your diet with aminos?

Dont use IGF-1 please. Its snake oil.


Both protein and free-forms like Arginine, Ornithine, BCAA and a few others.

I'm glad you mentioned that (squats) Leaf, because that's one of my favorite workouts in the gym. Squatting literally uses all of my muscle groups and it does increase my ........libido ten fold.

As far as IGF-1 goes, here's some interesting reading concerning it and it's real affect on the human body. The IGF-1 sprays are a joke, but the extract is not the same thing.

http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/media/articles/communique/mc2831-0306.pdf

[LeafUF]

Both protein and free-forms like Arginine, Ornithine, BCAA and a few others.

I'm glad you mentioned that Leaf, because that's one of my favorite workouts in the gym. Squatting literally uses all of my muscle groups and it does increase my ........libido ten fold.

As far as IGF-1 goes, here's some interesting reading concerning it and it's real affect on the human body. The IGF-1 sprays are a joke, but the extract is not the same thing.

http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/media/articles/communique/mc2831-0306.pdf

So do you have a GH deficiency that has been diagnosed by a doctor and will be treated with IGF-1 and GH injections? Just reading the last page of that report would have me very skeptical of its benefits and potential side effects.

[Gatorrick22]

Sorry, I completely skated across the training and HG part. I was focusing on diabetes. Leaf mentioned deadlifts and squats. There is a widely-touted study showing that multiple sets of deadlifts and squats, done for 10-15 reps, are the best for natural HG production. But it's only percentage points different and hardly anyone trains big lifts for high reps.

Actually, I was just telling Leaf that that squats are still my favorite workout, by far, for my legs. I still do them and I do feel great after just a few weeks of workouts.

[Dreamliner]

I've experimented with a few supplements, have watched others experiment with many more, read copious studies, and am convinced that good, old-fashioned mechanical stress, AKA, strength training, is the best thing for muscle.

I feel like I'm letting every guy down when I say that. :wink:

[Gatorrick22]

So do you have a GH deficiency that has been diagnosed by a doctor and will be treated with IGF-1 and GH injections? Just reading the last page of that report would have me very skeptical of its benefits and potential side effects.

I'm not going to inject them. I'm going to see what all the fuss with deer antler velvet extract is all about. I'll let you guys know if it helps reduce joint pains I get from time to time.

[Gatorrick22]

I've experimented with a few supplements, have watched others experiment with many more, read copious studies, and am convinced that good, old-fashioned mechanical stress, AKA, strength training, is the best thing for muscle.

I feel like I'm letting every guy down when I say that. :wink:

Not me, that's how I've been doing it all my life, but I have supplemented with simple free-form amino acids from time to time.

All they (amino acids) are is the basic building blocks to protein that require no help from your liver to digest.

[Dreamliner]

Sure, but you get them in your food. Look, I don't tell people not to take supplements For one thing, that approach never seems to work. Telling someone not to take something seems to have the opposite effect.

But other than creatine, most supplements don't really do what they say they're supposed to do. Take whey protein, for instance. Yes, it does induce protein synthesis. No, there is no hard evidence that protein synthesis actually promotes muscle growth long-term.

Remember that Placebo Effect is a powerful phenomenon. My wife where's those stupid copper bracelets. She acknowledges that it's probably bullshit, but swears that she feels better when she wears them.

[Gatorrick22]

Sure, but you get them in your food. Look, I don't tell people not to take supplements For one thing, that approach never seems to work. Telling someone not to take something seems to have the opposite effect.

But other than creatine, most supplements don't really do what they say they're supposed to do. Take whey protein, for instance. Yes, it does induce protein synthesis. No, there is no hard evidence that protein synthesis actually promotes muscle growth long-term.

Remember that Placebo Effect is a powerful phenomenon. My wife where's those stupid copper bracelets. She acknowledges that it's probably bullshit, but swears that she feels better when she wears them.

:laugh::laugh: Those damn copper bracelets.

I do take in some creatine, but not that much and not the monohydrate crap. I do beaf protein and it works. I've worked out without aminos and I've worked out with them, and I can tell you that the size and strength difference is not something that a placebo affect can explain.

It's as real as the difference between a skinny dude that is lean but skinny, seemingly okay, versus a dude that's built and muscular.

I buy only the highest quality American made amino acids...... and they do work.

[LeafUF]

Monohydrate is the only one that isn't crap. Where do you get your supplement info from?

http://examine.com/supplements/Creatine/

[Dreamliner]

No, nobody's noticeably bigger because of supplements. And this is especially true for the skinny guy.

[Dreamliner]

Diabetes and the Obesity Paradox:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/diabetes-and-the-obesity-paradox/

[Gatorrick22]

Monohydrate is the only one that isn't crap. Where do you get your supplement info from?

http://examine.com/supplements/Creatine/

Creatine monohydrate causes bloating because it's stores water in the muscles, hence the word "monohydrate." This gives you that bloated fat-man look that gives you what they call "wet muscles" that make you look like the Pillsbury dough boy. This I know to be true first hand.

I use Creatine Ethyl Ester, but Creatine Alpha Ketoglutarate, and Creatine Ethyl Ester Malate (CEEM) are far superior types of creatine because they don't hold water and they give you that lean "dry muscle" look I want.

Here's where I go to buy.

http://nutrabio.com/Products/creatine_ethyl_ester_malate.htm

[LeafUF]

http://www.utulsa.edu/academics/colleges/college-of-engineering-and-natural-sciences/departments-and-schools/Department-of-Chemistry-and-Biochemistry/Research/analysis-of-creatine-ethyl-ester.aspx

The analysis differs with what you know to be true. This is one of many studies you will find recommending people stick with the "tried and true" monohydrate.

[LeafUF]

And from the examine link I supplied before.

16.5. Creatine Ethyl Ester

Creatine ethyl ester increases muscle levels of creatine to a lesser degree than creatine monohydrate.[26] It may also result in higher serum creatinine levels[405] due to creatine ethyl ester being converted into creatinine via non-enzymatic means in an environment similar to the digestive tract,[406][407] and at equal doses to creatine monohydrate ethyl ester has failed to increase water weight after 28 days of administration (indicative of muscle deposition rates of creatine, which are seemingly absent with ethyl ester).[408]

Creatine ethyl ester is more a pronutrient for creatinine rather than creatine,[406] and was originally created in an attempt to bypass the creatine transporter, and is currently being studied as treatment for situations in which there are a lack of creatine transporters (alongside cyclocreatine as another possible example);[409] its efficacy may rely on intravenous administration, however.

Creatine Ethyl Ester (CEE) may legitimately be the only available form of creatine which actually doesn't confer any benefits following oral ingestion

For the general population, supplementation creatine ethyl ester is likely to have negligible effects. Direct studies on creatine ethyl ester show it less effective than creatine monohydrate, on par with placebo.[26]

Creatine ethyl ester is 82.4% creatine by weight, and thus would give 8.24g of active creatine for a dosage of 10 grams.[256]

[ATL_Gator]

I may be wrong but I don't think so. There was news recently about very low calorie diets effectively reversing diabetes. But in addition to the study I referenced, subsequent studies appeared to show that symptoms eventually return.

I don't think it's fatalism to acknowledge that many of us have diseases that can't be cured but can perhaps be controlled. I have two of them, asthma and hypertension.

My growing suspicion is that conscious weight-loss may not be the answer for anything. I'm not even sure that it's helpful for the morbidly obese.

To date, I'm aware of no clinical study that shows weight-loss increasing longevity. On the other hand, there is evidence that weight-loss decreases longevity.

I suspect that, end the end, we'd all be healthier and happier if we stopped trying to lose weight.

BUT...

When I was 265, I had hyper-tension (per my doctor). For 3-4 tests by my doctor (and some on my own) spaced a month apart, I ran upper 140's / mid 90's. I was on medication to control it. Took Lisinopril (sp?) for 6 months and had to stop due to experiencing an unwanted side effect (chronic dry cough). Switched to Norvasc 10mg and was on that for 3-4 years.

I am not currently taking any medication, and haven't for almost 5 years.

Am I not cured of that condition? At least for the short term? At one point in near history, I needed assistance to manage my BP, now I no longer need it.

I recognize that I may suffer hyper-tension again in the future simply due genetics (like I say, can't beat em)... but that doesn't change the notion that I do not need assistance at this time.

-----

And I sternly disagree with your last statement, if only on the happiness part alone.

Comparing my happiness now at 190-195 vs my happiness at 265... VASTLY different. I was miserable when I was heavy. Sure, there were things that would temporarily overcome the misery and give me joy, but in large part and most of the time, I was not happy. What's worse, I have noticed that I eat significantly different when I am not happy.

[Gatorrick22]

And from the examine link I supplied before.

If that test tells you one thing and you believe it then good for you, but I know what it did to me and I'll never again use the monohydrate formula. I hate that Pillsbury dough-boy look of wet muscles. I think it's designed for skinny guys that want to bulk-up fast.

[LeafUF]

If that test tells you one thing and you believe it then good for you, but I know what it did to me and I'll never again use the monohydrate formula. I hate that Pillsbury dough-boy look of wet muscles. I think it's designed for skinny guys that want to bulk-up fast.

Haha your mind is pretty much made up and no matter what I say you will tell me that I am wrong and the studies are wrong and your experience is the truth. Its your money so feel free to keep spending it how you see fit. I'm sure the guy at gnc appreciates it.

[Gatorrick22]

Haha your mind is pretty much made up and no matter what I say you will tell me that I am wrong and the studies are wrong and your experience is the truth. Its your money so feel free to keep spending it how you see fit. I'm sure the guy at gnc appreciates it.

If a doctor tells you how a medicine/supplements are supposed to act in your body and it doesn't, but instead does nothing close to what they told you, are you then wrong or is you doctor wrong?

I'd get a second opinion before I ever go against what my body is telling me. Doctors are wrong much, much, more often than some people think.

[LeafUF]

Of course you should do what you feel is best for you. But you are making claims that are false to the majority of the population. Based on scientific studies done on individuals cee was shown to be less effective than monohydrate and on par with placebo. Further the bloating you so worry about has been shown to not be an issue for those who keep their diet in check. I don't know a single respected trainer that would recommend any form of creatine other than mono. I'll keep taking my mono.

[Gatorrick22]

Of course you should do what you feel is best for you. But you are making claims that are false to the majority of the population. Based on scientific studies done on individuals cee was shown to be less effective than monohydrate and on par with placebo. Further the bloating you so worry about has been shown to not be an issue for those who keep their diet in check. I don't know a single respected trainer that would recommend any form of creatine other than mono. I'll keep taking my mono.

Optimum Nutrition (Monohydrate Creatine)

The most basic and least expensive form of creatine. Monohydrate is onsidered as the original creatine, useful for beginners and those who have not tried a creatine product yet. Some bloating may occur and a loading phase is recommended to achieve maximum resaults. Optimum Nutrition Creatine is a cost effective, plain and simple product that just works. Optimum Nutrition is a top brand when it comes to bodybuilding supplements.


Look CRT is good for strength and power but you will get wet muscles from it. I have never said it doesn't work, but it doesn't work the way I'd like it to work. That's why I don't use the oldest form of creatine anymore. It's how my body is affected that concerns me personally. So if it's good for you and you like it then fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong about how it affects my body personally, because you don't know a thing about me or what it's affects are on me.

In the end I ran out of my last bit of CRT two years ago and I'm done with it and the other rendition of it for now. I'll just stick to my beef protein and amino acids to supplement my nutritional needs.

[LeafUF]

Look CRT is good for strength and power but you will get wet muscles from it. I have never said it doesn't work, but it doesn't work the way I'd like it to work. That's why I don't use the oldest form of creatine anymore. It's how my body is affected that concerns me personally. So if it's good for you and you like it then fine, but don't tell me I'm wrong about how it affects my body personally, because you don't know a thing about me or what it's affects are on me.

In the end I ran out of my last bit of CRT two years ago and I'm done with it and the other rendition of it for now. I'll just stick to my beef protein and amino acids to supplement my nutritional needs.

So its ok for you to tell me how something will effect me and others yet I cant tell you that you are wrong about that? Look you are so misguided on creatine that I swear you get all of your information from a supplement company trying to sell you the latest and greatest formula for top dollar.

The fact is that creatine works because it draws water into your muscles. And having water in the muscles does not make them look less defined or make you look bloated. Intramuscular water does not have the same effect as subcutaneous water. Creatine does not cause you to hold water under the skin where it would cause you to look bloated or soft.

I work with people who compete in bodybuilding men and women and even the females are taking creatine monohydrate. They do not look doughy. They look ripped and muscular. Just as I do not have whatever the eff you think wet muscles describes. I imagine if I had a bloating problem you wouldnt be able to use my veins like a road map.

So, tell you what you stop telling me that creatine monohydrate is crap and I will stop trying to tell you that other forms are just overpriced less effective wastes of money. And by the way I am the only one here backing up anything I say with actual evidence, to which you completely dismiss based on a supplement companies description and your personal experience which could have had countless other variables involved.

[Gatorrick22]

So its ok for you to tell me how something will effect me and others yet I cant tell you that you are wrong about that? Look you are so misguided on creatine that I swear you get all of your information from a supplement company trying to sell you the latest and greatest formula for top dollar.

The fact is that creatine works because it draws water into your muscles. And having water in the muscles does not make them look less defined or make you look bloated. Intramuscular water does not have the same effect as subcutaneous water. Creatine does not cause you to hold water under the skin where it would cause you to look bloated or soft.

I work with people who compete in bodybuilding men and women and even the females are taking creatine monohydrate. They do not look doughy. They look ripped and muscular. Just as I do not have whatever the eff you think wet muscles describes. I imagine if I had a bloating problem you wouldnt be able to use my veins like a road map.

So, tell you what you stop telling me that creatine monohydrate is crap and I will stop trying to tell you that other forms are just overpriced less effective wastes of money. And by the way I am the only one here backing up anything I say with actual evidence, to which you completely dismiss based on a supplement companies description and your personal experience which could have had countless other variables involved.

What it (CRT) does to/for me is fact, that's all I'm imparting on this "opinion" thread! Now if you want to take this to an accusatory level then let me know.

[LeafUF]

What it (CRT) does to/for me is fact, that's all I'm imparting on this "opinion" thread! Now if you want to take this to an accusatory level them let me know.

Accusatory? What for? You called something crap and said it did all of these negative things then I told you that it wasnt the case and provided information as to why. I have no problem with you choosing anything you think is best for you, the only thing I am trying to get across here is that your experience is not the standard for creatine supplementation within the larger population.

[Gatorrick22]

It sucks!

I'll never use it again. :grin:

[Gatormb]

Good stuff guys. I'm enjoying your comments. Didn't know about this thread.

But I gotta say it......This thread is worthless without pics!:laugh::joecool:

Just some personal observations. I'm a big guy. 58, overweight but built like a tackle. I'm down 35 lbs to a little over 300 eating low carbs and no alcohol in the last two months. Blood sugar has dropped from 140-150 range to 90. Take only a water pill & me form in. BP 117/75.

Doing CLA. Anybody have any comments on it? Seems to be a lot of positive study. Promotes fat metabolism and lean muscle mass. Now starting to add some weight training. Just basics at home using perfect pushup, dumb bells and a 40lb kettle bell.

For somebody like me sugar (carbs) is enemy #1.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

CLA's efficacy is dubious at best. In studies where it's worked, you'd need to spend about $7/day on CLA to get the effects.

Worst yet, the only studies that showed positive effect were backed by a supplement company.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

In fact, there are studies that show it has a negative effect on diabetes and heart disease markers:

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/9/1516.full

My hunch is it probably won't hurt to try it (I have in the past, seemed like a waste when I did), but keep it within reason and don't be afraid to attribute positive markers (weight loss, etc.) to hard work you're doing elsewhere.

[Gatormb]

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/aug2002_cover_cla_01.htm?source=search&key=cla

I consider LEF to be reputable.

In the May 2002 issue of the Journal of Nutrition, a study was done to ascertain the effects of CLA on calorie burning and fat storage in mice. CLA was shown to lower the amount of ingested food that was stored as body fat. CLA also increased the amount of fat excreted in the feces. The study found that CLA induced a reduction in body fat mass on mice fed either a calorie restricted or normal diet. The scientists defined the term "energy expenditure" as being the amount of food ingested minus the food retained on the body carcass and in the feces. CLA-fed mice showed a 74% increase in energy expenditure. The scientists thus concluded that the lower amount of ingested food stored on the body carcass was accounted for by this significant increase in energy expenditure.[21]

This new finding corroborates a study conducted at Louisiana State University where feeding male mice a CLA-enriched diet for six weeks resulted in 43% to 88% lower body fat, especially in regard to abdominal fat. This occurred even if the mice were fed a high-fat diet. The effect was due partly to reduced calorie intake by CLA-supplemented mice and partly to a shift in their metabolism, including a higher metabolic rate.[9]

In a study performed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, mice supplemented with only .5% of CLA showed up to 60% lower body fat and up to 14% increased lean body mass compared to controls. The researchers discovered that CLA-fed animals showed greater activity of enzymes involved in the delivery of fatty acids to the muscle cells and the utilization of fat for energy, while the enzymes facilitating fat deposition were inhibited.[8]

http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Item00819/Super-CLA-Blend-with-Guarana-and-Sesame-Lignans.html?source=search&key=cla

Super CLA Blend with Guarana and Sesame Lignans
1000 mg 120 softgels
Item Catalog Number: 00819

Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) refers to a group of positional and geometric isomers of linoleic acid, which are found primarily in meat and dairy products. CLA has been shown in a number of studies to have a wide variety of benefits with regards to the immune system, cardiovascular protection, blood sugar maintenance, lipid profiles and body composition.89-103

In studies that support the use of CLA in a weight loss program, the amount of CLA used varies from 1.7 to 12 grams per day. Those studies included:

A study that showed a dose of 3.4 g CLA per day for 12 weeks seems to be sufficient to reduce body fat mass (BFM) significantly in overweight and obese humans.97
Another study on human subjects that showed 3.2 g per day of CLA increased lean body mass over a 12 week peri-od.98
A six-month study on healthy or overweight adults showed CLA decreased body fat mass in specific regions of the body for all participants.100
Another six-month study on healthy overweight people showed that supplementation with CLA prevented weight gain dur-ing the holiday season.102 Modest loss in fat mass has been shown using 3.2 grams per day of CLA.103

Sesame lignans have been shown to stimulate fatty acid oxidation in the liver, and help stimulate lipolysis (fat breakdown).104,105

This CLA formulation contains guarana with caffeine.106 Those who are hypersensitive to caffeine should take CLA without guarana.

$30 for 120 1000mg capsules. $1/day

[Dreamliner]

Why are we trying to take weight off of diabetics when there is no tenable link between weight-control and remission, and when we know that weight-loss does not prevent heart attacks and when we know that fat diabetics do better than thin diabetics anyway ?

[Gatormb]

Dream, I agree that weight is not the only factor in diabetes, but to say it is not a factor is false. Got this in an email link today that may shed some light. Yes it is an advertisement on health advice.

http://www.truthaboutabs.com/worst-aging-food.html

Before I tell you why wheat can actually speed up the aging process in your body, let's clarify some simple biochemistry in your body...

This deals with "glycation" in your body, and substances called Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs). These nasty little compounds called AGEs speed up the aging process in your body including damage over time to your organs, your joints, and of course, wrinkled skin.

So with that said, what is one of the biggest factors that increase production of AGEs inside your body? This may surprise you, but high blood sugar levels over time dramatically increase age-accelerating AGEs in your body. This is why type 2 diabetics many times appear that they have not aged well and look older than their real age. But this age-increasing effect is not just limited to diabetics.

So, let's get back to how "whole wheat" relates to this...

Here is a little-known fact that's often covered up by the massive marketing campaigns by giant food companies that want you to believe that "whole wheat" is healthy for you... but the fact is that wheat contains a very unusual type of carbohydrate (not found in other foods) called Amylopectin-A, which has been found in some tests to spike your blood sugar higher than even pure table sugar.

In fact, amylopectin-A (from wheat) raises your blood sugar more than almost any other carbohydrate source on earth based on blood sugar response testing.

This means that wheat-based foods such as breads, bagels, cereals, muffins, and other baked goods often cause much higher blood sugar levels than most other carbohydrate sources. As you know now, the higher your average blood sugar levels are over time, the more AGEs are formed inside your body, which makes you age FASTER.

You've probably heard about the potential health-damaging effects of gluten (also found in wheat) in the news recently, but this blood sugar aspect we just covered is not talked about that often, and is yet another reason to reduce or eliminate wheat-based foods in your diet. Your body will thank you by aging slower and looking YOUNGER! And losing bodyfat is typically a fun side effect of eliminating or reducing wheat in your diet!

[LeafUF]

I hope more people stop eating gluten so I can have it all to myself. Its amazing how many people are self-diagnosing themselves with gluten intolerance. I dated a girl with celiac, trust me, you would know if you had a legitimate gluten allergy.

By all means cut it out of your diets, leave the pastas to me.

[gators04]

Back to the studies. I'm sure there are studies that may highly correlate obesity negatively with longevity because of the negative influence of other factors involved with obesity. Do overweight individuals die younger than thin individuals?? It can be convoluted with so many factors involved with the body, ie, genetics, etc.

[Dreamliner]

Back to the studies. I'm sure there are studies that may highly correlate obesity negatively with longevity because of the negative influence of other factors involved with obesity. Do overweight individuals die younger than thin individuals?? It can be convoluted with so many factors involved with the body, ie, genetics, etc.

(Dream sees opening, others will surely understand), based on the studies, the only negative implication of obesity would appear to be mobility issues, but of course this would only pertain to the fattest of the fat, the people who are so, so very fat that it's literally arduous (and sometimes painful) to move.

The 'negative influences' ascribed to obesity are so-called 'risk factors', which are basically just associations. In other words, there is no evidence that obesity actually causes diabetes, to cite one of the 'risk factors.'

But since we do know that obesity confers protections for diabetics, the question begs: how much longer can we refer to such as a 'paradox' before we finally accept that it's a benefit ?

To bring the subject full-circle, since this is a fitness forum, I think it's safe to say that, other than eating normally, the single best thing a diabetic can do is get some regular exercise.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2002/aug2002_cover_cla_01.htm?source=search&key=cla

I consider LEF to be reputable.

Sure, but LEF did not do the studies.

The initial study was done at the behest of a supplement company. Most non-commercial follow-up studies either showed no effect or negative effect at the levels of the initial study.

The positive rat-based studies were at the equivalent of 22g of CLA a day in a 200lb human. That comes out to a bit more than $1/day.

Like I said, I don't think it'll hurt you to try it, but I have and it's not backed with a lot of sound research, sadly.

The consensus from seventeen published studies in human subjects is that CLA does not affect body weight or body composition. Some detrimental effects of the trans-10,cis-12 CLA isomer have also been reported in terms of altered blood lipid composition and impaired insulin sensitivity.

Read more: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS64_02%2FS00296651050 00212a.pdf&code=96afbcad75f9c025a69d566e33aeaf5e

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Back to the studies. I'm sure there are studies that may highly correlate obesity negatively with longevity because of the negative influence of other factors involved with obesity.

There are myriad studies that support this, yes:

Conclusions: Obesity is an independent risk factor for intensive care unit death and should be regarded as a severe comorbidity in such units.

During follow-up we observed a statistically significant increased risk of mortality from all causes (hazard ratio: 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2, 1.6), cardiovascular disease, and cancer for women in the highest quartile of BMI (in kg/m2), ≥27.77.

In those populations, it seems well accepted that lowest mortality is in the range of BMI between 18.5 and 25 kg.m(-2). When BMI reached values of 30 kg x m(-2) or more, mortality is substantially elevated by about 50-150%.

If you're talking about just health and life, it's OK to be fat, but it ain't OK to be obese.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Some more:

Diabetes:
In the Nurses’ Health Study, which followed 114,000 middle-age women for 14 years, the risk of developing diabetes was 93 times higher among women who had a body mass index (BMI) of 35 or higher at the start of the study, compared with women with BMIs lower than 22. (2)

Cardiovascular disease:
Numerous studies have demonstrated a direct association between excess body weight and coronary artery disease (CAD). The BMI–CAD Collaboration Investigators conducted a meta-analysis of 21 long-term studies that followed more than 300,000 participants for an average of 16 years. Study participants who were overweight had a 32 percent higher risk of developing CAD, compared with participants who were at a normal weight; those who were obese had an 81 percent higher risk. (9)

Stroke:
Ischemic (clot-caused) stroke and coronary artery disease share many of the same disease processes and risk factors. A meta-analysis of 25 prospective cohort studies with 2.3 million participants demonstrated a direct, graded association between excess weight and stroke risk. Overweight increased the risk of ischemic stroke by 22 percent, and obesity increased it by 64 percent.

Cardiovascular death:
In a meta-analysis of 26 observational studies that included 390,000 men and women, several racial and ethnic groups, and samples from the U.S. and other countries, obesity was significantly associated with death from CAD and cardiovascular disease. Women with BMIs of 30 or higher had a 62 percent greater risk of dying early from CAD and also had a 53 percent higher risk of dying early from any type of cardiovascular disease, compared with women who had BMIs in the normal range (18.5 to 24.9). Men with BMIs of 30 or higher had similarly elevated risks. (11)

Breast cancer:
Encouragingly, the Nurses’ Health Study has found that for overweight women who have never used hormone replacement therapy, losing weight after menopause—and keeping it off—cut their risk of post-menopausal breast cancer in half. (16)

Other cancers:
In an exhaustive review of the data, released in 2007, an expert panel assembled by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research concluded that there was convincing evidence of an association between obesity and cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon and rectum, breast, endometrium, and kidney, and a probable association between obesity and gallbladder cancer. (15)

Fertility:
In the Nurses’ Health Study, infertility was lowest in women with BMIs between 20 and 24, and increased with lower and higher BMIs. (20) This study suggests that 25 percent of ovulatory infertility in the United States may be attributable to obesity.

Asthma & Sleep Apnea:
Asthma and obstructive sleep apnea are two common respiratory diseases that have been linked with obesity. In a meta-analysis of seven prospective studies that included 333,000 subjects, obesity increased the risk of developing asthma in both men and women by 50 percent. (33)

Alzheimer's:
Body weight is a potentially modifiable risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. A meta-analysis of 10 prospective cohort studies that included almost 42,000 subjects followed for three to 36 years demonstrated a U-shaped association between BMI and Alzheimer’s disease.

Skeletal issues:
Osteoarthritis of the knee and hip are both positively associated with obesity, and obese patients account for one-third of all joint replacement operations. (39)

Death in general:
Findings from larger studies that have more accurately accounted for reverse causation and smoking clearly show that increasing weight increases the risks of dying from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and other causes. In a 14-year study of a million-person cohort, researchers restricted their analyses to initially healthy nonsmokers. The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, or other diseases increased as BMI increased above the healthiest range of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. (48)

[Dreamliner]

Relative to normal weight, obese (BMI 30-35) not associated with higher mortality risk:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137

Women over 50, lowest mortality risk at 34.1, upper-range Class I obese:

http://www.healthyweight.net/obesity1.htm#1

According to CDC, among non-smokers under 60, obese (BMI 30-35) 23% lower mortality risk than normal weight. Morbidly obese (BMI 35+) mere untenable risk 12-17%:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/11/fat-and-long-life-obesity-crisis-is.html

Highest BMI's only weakly associated with mortality. Obese diabetics fare better than lean diabetics:

http://www.jabfm.org/content/25/4/422.full

[Dreamliner]

Desperately confused about risk factors:

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/greatest-myth-of-health-risk-factors.html

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Relative to normal weight, obese (BMI 30-35) not associated with higher mortality risk:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137

Tsk, tsk. Can't even read your own link

1.18 (95% CI, 1.12-1.25) for obesity (all grades combined)

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Highest BMI's only weakly associated with mortality.

Nope, well-supported and not even close to being weak.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Aaaannd back to your first link:

Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality.

Durrrr, being obese = not good.

[Dreamliner]

Tsk, tsk. Can't even read your own link

Same study: "Overall Grade I obesity not associated with higher mortality risk."

CDC study: relatively fewer deaths in two heaviest groups (overweight, obese) lower mortality risk than two leanest groups (underweight, normal):

http://www.healthyweight.net/cntroversy.htm

^ Interesting read about the politics-driven nature of obesity research and how it colors findings.

[Dreamliner]

This notion of since obesity is linked with higher rates of diabetes, that the thing to do is simply not to become obese to begin with, is absurd and infantile.

For starters, diabetes, and especially obesity, are highly heritable. There is no more evidence that people eat their way into diabetes than there is that people eat their way into obesity.

Put another way, the man with a BMI of 35 ate his way to a BMI of 35 in the same way that a man with a BMI of 23 ate his way to a BMI of 23. And all told, better to be a diabetic with a BMI of 35:

http://diabetes.webmd.com/20120807/obesity-paradox-thin-not-in-for-type-2-diabetes

Accordingly, since getting fat doesn't cause diabetes, and since the vast majority cannot sustain weight-loss, and since weight-loss does not prevent heart attacks in diabetes, and since fat diabetics live longer than thin diabetics, and since health can be improved through weight-neutral strategies ... you'd be a blithering idiot to badger a diabetic about his/her weight.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Same study: "Overall Grade I obesity not associated with higher mortality risk."

Again, you cannot or will not read it. The actual data shows HIGHER MORTALITY RATE for every single group.

Read it again. A thousand times until you somehow understand it. The data showed higher mortality rate for every single group of obese people than the overweight category.

You have not only made a ludicrous argument, you're actually using contradictory data to support it. It's staggering. I'd let it go, but you're in a position to actually dole out this terrible advice based on a total misunderstanding of all scientific data.

I mean, you realize all of this, right? That you're completely wrong top-to-bottom about obesity and mortality.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Grade 1 Obese: HIGHER mortality than next lowest category

[Dreamliner]

Grade 1 Obese: HIGHER mortality than next lowest category

According to Flegal, 5% lower mortality for BMI 30-35 than normal weight. Women over 50 with BMI 34 longest-lived. Among non-smokers under 60, 23% lower mortality risk for obese than for normal.

Why are you badgering diabetics about their weight ? Do you want to kill them ?

Un-fricking-believable.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

According to Flegal, 5% lower mortality for BMI 30-35 than normal weight.

Changing the argument? Well at least you finally understand the data. (hopefully, we'll see)

Being obese puts you at higher mortality rate than being overweight. If you are obese (in all obesity grades, smoking data removed), you reduce your risk of death by any causes by losing weight. Period.

[Dreamliner]

Changing the argument? Well at least you finally understand the data. (hopefully, we'll see)

Being obese puts you at higher mortality rate than being overweight. If you are obese (in all obesity grades, smoking data removed), you reduce your risk of death by any causes by losing weight. Period.

Not true. Flegal is everywhere! She finds: Grade I obese lives longer. So, obviously these hysterical declarations of risks increasing over BMI 30 are false on their face:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/jaaj-hlo122712.php

And hey, not only is this true of Americans (and Canadians), it's also true of the Brazilians:

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23251690

Diabetics need to lose weight, my ass. What, do you want to kill them ? Thanks!

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Not true. Flegal is everywhere! She finds: Grade I obese lives longer.

This is the opposite of what the study found.

The exact opposite. I'm flabbergasted that you still don't understand the study or the data. God forbid an obese person actually come to you for advice.

[Dreamliner]

This is the opposite of what the study found.

The exact opposite. I'm flabbergasted that you still don't understand the study or the data. God forbid an obese person actually come to you for advice.

What is flabbergasting is, well, several things are flabbergasting where you're concerned ... so I'll take it in installments:

You're confusing the earlier CDC findings with the much more extensive and accurate studies of Flegal and her breakdown of the study therein.

Other studies I've posted are consistent with Flegal's findings that not only do risks not escalate about BMI 30, but the 30-35 category outlives normal weight weight.

You clearly don't like the findings.

You continue to harp on associations.

You have apparently not backed off badgering diabetics about their weight.

Astonishing.

[Dreamliner]

Normal weight diabetics twice the mortality risk as obese diabetics:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13168966-among-diabetics-patients-the-obese-outlive-the-trim?

And some of you still want diabetics to lose weight. Unbelievable. Just un-fricking-believable.

[malligator]

That study finds twice the mortality if you're normal weight at diagnosis. Losing weight post-diagnosis is beneficial.

"Overweight and obesity confers certain protective effects in end-stage renal disease and heart failure. It's called the obesity paradox," Carnethon explained. She added, however, that being overweight or obese is far more harmful than protective overall.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

In addition to failing at science, you're also failing at math, dream.

1300% more likely to be diabetic against 47% less likely to die if diabetic = obesity being more dangerous.

[Dreamliner]

That study finds twice the mortality if you're normal weight at diagnosis. Losing weight post-diagnosis is beneficial.

Correct, twice as likely to die prematurely if you're normal rate. So, we're back to losing weight making zero sense, for multiple reasons.

[Dreamliner]

In addition to failing at science, you're also failing at math, dream.

1300% more likely to be diabetic against 47% less likely to die if diabetic = obesity being more dangerous.

And since there is no credible evidence that obesity causes diabetes, and since fats diabetics fare better than thin diabetics ... was there a point in there somewhere ?

[malligator]

Correct, twice as likely to die prematurely if you're normal rate. So, we're back to losing weight making zero sense, for multiple reasons.

That's not what the article says, but whatever...

[bakaduin]

Dream......

Seriously....

From the very first link you posted to start this thread.

Although the intervention did not reduce cardiovascular events, Look AHEAD has shown other important health benefits of the lifestyle intervention, including decreasing sleep apnea, reducing the need for diabetes medications, helping to maintain physical mobility, and improving quality of life.

But sure obesity does not impact life negatively and losing weight has no positive effect.....

I am going to submit to you a study that in reality puts this obesity thing in black and white. I am submitting it for two reason, one I am a vet so it is no doubt familiar to me, but two because humans are obviously a poor model for this sort of study. You can't put a human in confinement from birth to death to measure longevity but you can for a dog.

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2002.220.1315?journalCode=javma

Two groups of dogs, 48 dogs total, kept from birth to death. One group fed just 25% more than the other for life. Which group do you think lived longer? Which group do you think was hit with disease quicker?

Dogs are not humans obviously but if you could ethically run the same exact study with humans do you honestly think you wouldn't get similar results? OBESITY IS BAD.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

And since there is no credible evidence that obesity causes diabetes

There is so much evidence that diabetes is significantly higher in the obese. I've posted it. Can you not read it or can you not understand it?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

That's not what the article says, but whatever...

He's pretty good at drawing the opposite conclusions as the studies he cites.

[Dreamliner]

That's not what the article says, but whatever...

I'm multi-tasking. I'm reporting the scientific findings and disparaging armchair medical advice at the same time.

[Dreamliner]

He's pretty good at drawing the opposite conclusions as the studies he cites.

What, like reporting the study's findings that fat diabetics outlive thin diabetics ?

Nice catch, Einstein!

[bakaduin]

Come on Dream I am still waiting for your retort to my above post.

[Dreamliner]

Come on Dream I am still waiting for your retort to my above post.

Sorry I missed it. My first point would be that even if weight-loss does help ... the vast majority of people cannot maintain weight-loss. Seriously, there is perhaps no better attested fact in the literature.

And the second point would be that even if people could maintain weight-loss, there is no tenable link between weight-control and remission of Type II diabetes.

Finally, why are we imploring diabetics to accomplish the highly improbable, i.e., maintaining weight-loss, when we know that diabetics can very often control their blood sugar through weight-neutral strategies such as intuitive eating and exercise ?

[Juggernautz]

~

[orangeblueorangeblue]

What, like reporting the study's findings that fat diabetics outlive thin diabetics ?

Nice catch, Einstein!

Failing at math again, dream.

[Dreamliner]

Failing at math again, dream.

You're clearly running out of steam. This is because you know very well that since obesity has not been shown to cause the diseases associated with obesity, that the 'health risks' you continually harp on amount to a red-herring.

[MeyerIsBack]

You're clearly running out of steam. This is because you know very well that since obesity has not been shown to cause the diseases associated with obesity, that the 'health risks' you continually harp on amount to a red-herring.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/05/02/study-finds-direct-link-between-obesity-heart-disease
"By doing epidemiological studies combined with genetic analysis, we have been able to show in a group of nearly 76,000 persons that a high BMI is enough in itself to damage the heart," Borge Nordestgaard, chief physician at Copenhagen University Hospital, said in a university news release.

[Dreamliner]

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/05/02/study-finds-direct-link-between-obesity-heart-disease

That's what you get with epidemiological studies, correlations. Ask orangeblueorangeblue what he thinks about correlations.

Does it really matter how your numbers measure up ?

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-it-really-matter-how-your-numbers.html

[orangeblueorangeblue]

You're clearly running out of steam.

I really don't need steam, the notion that obesity leads to a higher rate of mortality is almost universally accepted.

You continue to fail to understand what you're reading. Which would be fine, but you're going to give some obese person some awful, awful advice.

[MeyerIsBack]

That's what you get with epidemiological studies, correlations. Ask orangeblueorangeblue what he thinks about correlations.

Does it really matter how your numbers measure up ?

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-it-really-matter-how-your-numbers.html

Here is another study based on military applications in Sweden.


Making a startling comparison that likens obesity's risks to those of smoking, a large European study spanning decades has found that young men who were overweight at age 18 were as likely to die by age 60 as were light smokers, while obese teens were, like heavy smokers, at double the risk of dying early.

While obesity is linked to a slew of health problems, the new findings fly in the face of numerous recent studies showing that people who are merely overweight may not be at higher risk of premature death than those of normal weight.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/health/03iht-03obesity.20568470.html

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Yes, as I mentioned in the other thread, the "obesity paradox" is really more of a "slightly overweight paradox."

Obesity = higher mortality rate. That's Dream's science failure.

Dream's math failure is best illustrated as follows:

Given two groups of 100 people, we'll say the following two things are true:

1. People with obesity tend - at a normalized (and generous) 90% greater rate - to develop diabetes, heart disease and cancers.
2. People who are obese tend to survive diabetes, heart disease and cancers at a 20% greater rate than do their skinny counterparts.

Group 1 decides "let's true to be thin, it's probably healthier."

Group 2 decides "hey, being fat helps you survive those afflictions, let's get obese"

20 people in Group 1 get sick, but are 20% more likely to die than ...

the 38 people in Group 2

Who dies more?

(hint: it's the obese group)

[Dreamliner]

I really don't need steam, the notion that obesity leads to a higher rate of mortality is almost universally accepted.

You continue to fail to understand what you're reading. Which would be fine, but you're going to give some obese person some awful, awful advice.

Might I remind you that you, YOU were the one who presumed to lecture us, early and often, on the fallacious appeal to correlation.

You. :ninja:

[Dreamliner]

Yes, as I mentioned in the other thread, the "obesity paradox" is really more of a "slightly overweight paradox."

Obesity = higher mortality rate. That's Dream's science failure.

Dream's math failure is best illustrated as follows:

Given two groups of 100 people, we'll say the following two things are true:

1. People with obesity tend - at a normalized (and generous) 90% greater rate - to develop diabetes, heart disease and cancers.
2. People who are obese tend to survive diabetes, heart disease and cancers at a 20% greater rate than do their skinny counterparts.

Group 1 decides "let's true to be thin, it's probably healthier."

Group 2 decides "hey, being fat helps you survive those afflictions, let's get obese"

20 people in Group 1 get sick, but are 20% more likely to die than ...

the 38 people in Group 2

Who dies more?

(hint: it's the obese group)

Flegal: 25,000 excess deaths attributed to obesity, 33,000 to being underweight. Relatively fewer deaths in two heaviest groups (overweight, obese) than in two leanest groups (underweight, normal).

Reminder: You.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

1. Not attributed to.

2. Flegal: All obesity groups had higher mortality rates than the group below obese.

Reminder: you haven't understood anything you've read.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality.

[Dreamliner]

1. Not attributed to.

2. Flegal: All obesity groups had higher mortality rates than the group below obese.

Reminder: you haven't understood anything you've read.

1. Yes, all about her.

2. Yes, above Grade I obese (a place you said was dangerous to be) almost as many excess deaths as underweight, but not enough to write home about, certainly not enough for people like you to badger fat people into doing something all the studies suggest that they are highly unlikely to do, maintain weight-loss.

You can't read a study. All you can read is an abstract. But you do know how to appeal to correlations (while castigating others for using them).

[Dreamliner]

Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality.

Uh-oh, the font is getting bigger again. Weak argument, yell loud.

Earlier we heard forebodings from you about going over BMI 30.

Reminder: you.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Dream: Look, Flegal says it's ok to be obese.

Flegal: Learn to read, dream.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality.

This is the person you're citing when you say the exact opposite. Please, please do not give any advice to obese people until you recognize that you're completely wrong about this.

[Dreamliner]

This is the person you're citing when you say the exact opposite. Please, please do not give any advice to obese people until you recognize that you're completely wrong about this.

I didn't say she didn't. You are disagreeing with what she did say (and may be killing people in the process).

Flegal: 111,000 deaths attributed to obesity (without any credible evidence that anyone dies of being fat, per se, but rather from diseases associated with obesity).

86,000 fewer deaths in overweight category, overweight category included among obese. Thus, 25,000 excess deaths due to obesity, fewer than are attributed to being underweight.

Broken down by category: overweight 6% lower risk, Grade I obese 5% lower risk (yet you said ...).

Broken down further: women over 50 with BMI 34 lived longest of all (yet you said ...). Among non-smokers under 60, obese live longer than normal weight (yet you said ...).

Statistics Canada: Grade I obese live longer, Grade II obese live longer, Morbid obese no statistical difference (yet you said ...).

Brazil study: Grade I obese live longer (yet you said ...).

Norway Study: morbidly obese women live longer than normal weight men (yet you said ...).

Obesity Paradox: myriad studies (over decades) show obesity confers certain immunities for any number of medical conditions.

Further: studies show that obesity is HIGHLY heritable.

All studies show: vast majority cannot maintain weight-loss, majority end up heavier than when they began.

Other studies: weight-loss associated with risk for hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, eating disorders, premature death.

Your best bet: counsel people to choose their parents more wisely so as to conform to your crude and churlish sensibilities.

[bakaduin]

Oh Dream.....your arguments for obesity get further from reality with every post.

[yellowgator]

I have a lady on Visalus who also has Type II Diabetes. She has currently on the 90 Day Challenge to fight obesity and diabetes. She had a doctors visit a few days ago and was told she was doing a phenomenal job in just a month. The objective of this company is to fight such problems in America. This is the reason I signed up to promote and use this product. I hate seeing where we are heading and want to change the world one shake at a time. Stop eating fast food and start putting healthier meals in your body. If you have any questions check my site out or email me.

http://bbvhardwork.bodybyvi.com/challenge

yellagator@gmail.com

GO GATORS!!!

[MeyerIsBack]

The objective of this company is to fight such problems in America.

Wait... what? This is a MLM company selling a mixture of sucralose and soy powder at like a 1000% markup.

[yellowgator]

Yes its a MLM company with results. Sucralose=artificial sweetener (Splenda). The shake will provide 20-25 grams of protein (soy protein), a full serving of fiber, calcium, prebiotics, digestive enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and more, all for around 240 calories. If we compare that to an ‘average’ breakfast of a bagel with cream cheese, small orange juice and coffee with non-fat milk, you can see we provide more nutrition for less calories. The ‘average’ breakfast can add up to around 720 calories, and a whopping 880mg of sodium. So by having a shake, you’ll fuel your body, help keep your blood sugar level, and save calories to help you keep the weight off. We also recommend it for those people that don’t eat breakfast (almost 40% of adults don’t eat breakfast). By not eating breakfast, the metabolism can slow and you may end up eating more calories per day while slowing the body’s fat burning system. Your body is like a car, it cannot run without fuel and it cannot be ‘trained’ to do without. So the shake once a day helps keep the metabolism going, keeps you energized, and helps cut calories.

[MeyerIsBack]

By not eating breakfast, the metabolism can slow and you may end up eating more calories per day while slowing the body’s fat burning system. Your body is like a car, it cannot run without fuel and it cannot be ‘trained’ to do without. So the shake once a day helps keep the metabolism going, keeps you energized, and helps cut calories.

Wait... what? Says who?

Anyways, the point is that it is a bunch of cheap ingredients sold at a massive premium. MLM is a whole different discussion but there is a reason they don't sell this product through traditional avenues.

[LeafUF]

You are really shilling for the SOY protein? Are you effing serious? That is the last protein I would recommend to anyone.

Oh and by the way I deadlifted 335x5 this morning on an empty stomach after training 3 clients.

[LeafUF]

Bodybyvi, Shakeology, Isagenix = Overpriced scams with armies of marketers trying to rip you off.

[MeyerIsBack]

You are really shilling for the SOY protein? Are you effing serious? That is the last protein I would recommend to anyone.

Oh and by the way I deadlifted 335x5 this morning on an empty stomach after training 3 clients.

How did you do that with no fuel in your car? I am pretty sure having a cloned website on BodyByVi makes him an authoritative source on metabolism.

[Dreamliner]

BodyByVi = another scam.

[Gatormb]

If you want a meal replacement shake try www.idealshape.com

Half the price and you're not paying for mlm black BMW's.

BTW BodyByVi is the same folks as P90X. That's where they get the 90 challenge from.

[Dreamliner]

Why would anyone want to replace a meal with a shake ? Is the shake incredibly tasty, I mean tastier than steak and potatoes ? Tastier than carrot cake ?

[LeafUF]

The only reason should be convenience. I would much rather eat a meal but sometimes it's easier to have a shake.

[Dreamliner]

I can understand that.

[ATL_Gator]

I would wager that a lot of people (not all) don't actually replace a single meal, yet drink the shakes anyway.

[Dreamliner]

I'll bet that a lot of people just think that drinking the shake is going to magically improve their health.

[ATL_Gator]

Not sure I would have gone with "improve their health" at the end...

"look like Arnold at Mr. Olympia" may have been a better fit. :)

[MeyerIsBack]

People are just believing all the extraordinary claims told to them by the sales reps. I am astounded at how many people buy into this stuff.

[Dreamliner]

Well, it's no different than people believing that they eat their way into diabetes.

[MeyerIsBack]

Maybe a little different

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I make some delicious shakes.

[Gatormb]

Well, it's no different than people believing that they eat their way into diabetes.

Well I gained weight and blood sugar went to 263, AC1 of 8.1, BP 135/90

Just got my annual physical results yesterday after dropping 37 lbs while watching carbs and no alcohol for 2.5 months.

Sugar: 98
AC1: 5.6
BP: 117/75

Not bad for a 300 lb'er. 40 to go! Yipee! Exercise starts as soon as the gout leaves the big toe. Watch out!!:whoa:

[Dreamliner]

Well I gained weight and blood sugar went to 263, AC1 of 8.1, BP 135/90

Just got my annual physical results yesterday after dropping 37 lbs while watching carbs and no alcohol for 2.5 months.

Sugar: 98
AC1: 5.6
BP: 117/75

Not bad for a 300 lb'er. 40 to go! Yipee! Exercise starts as soon as the gout leaves the big toe. Watch out!!:whoa:

That's great! Stomach-stapling and stomach-decapitation will also bring down blood sugar, as will starving. Still doesn't prove that people eat their way into diabetes. If that was the case, how do we explain all the skinny diabetics ?

[MeyerIsBack]

That's great! Stomach-stapling and stomach-decapitation will also bring down blood sugar, as will starving. Still doesn't prove that people eat their way into diabetes. If that was the case, how do we explain all the skinny diabetics ?

But if a bunch of people are able to reverse diabetes or control their blood sugar by losing weight, why does it matter what you consider the 'root' cause? I can not for the life me figure out what you are arguing.

[Dreamliner]

But if a bunch of people are able to reverse diabetes or control their blood sugar by losing weight, why does it matter what you consider the 'root' cause? I can not for the life me figure out what you are arguing.

How could you have missed my argument ? It's basically: (1) obesity does not cause diabetes (2) losing weight doesn't prevent heart attacks (3) no tenable link between weight-loss and remission of Type II diabetes.

But if any diabetics want to lose weight, more power to them. I'll just sit back and watch them gain the weight back.

I just don't understand why they would want to torture themselves though, especially since most find they can control their blood sugar via weight-neutral strategies.

[Dreamliner]

Also, I don't buy this dismissive, "Hate the sin, love the sinner" rhetoric from the pudge police. Since weight-control is so difficult for so many, and can lead to even more serious problems long-term, a war on fat amounts to a war on fat people.

[MeyerIsBack]

Also, I don't buy this dismissive, "Hate the sin, love the sinner"
What 'sin' are you talking about? Eating? Being Obese? Drawing terrible conclusions? This entire argument is about whether being fat is unhealthy. If you conclude that I hate the 'sin' because I think that being obese is unhealthy (based on many provided reputable sources) then your logic is flawed.

rhetoric from the pudge police.
WTF? Seriously? Why do you insist on injecting absurd insinuations into a discussion that has produced nothing of that which you are suggesting.

Since weight-control is so difficult for so many
This is the only thing I remotely agree with you about. However, we do have different solutions.


, and can lead to even more serious problems long-term, a war on fat amounts to a war on fat people.

You are a master at putting words in people's mouth and drawing extremely flawed conclusions. The wheels continue to spin and I continue to get sucked in. I need to stop.

[Dreamliner]

What 'sin' are you talking about? Eating? Being Obese? Drawing terrible conclusions? This entire argument is about whether being fat is unhealthy. If you conclude that I hate the 'sin' because I think that being obese is unhealthy (based on many provided reputable sources) then your logic is flawed.


WTF? Seriously? Why do you insist on injecting absurd insinuations into a discussion that has produced nothing of that which you are suggesting.


This is the only thing I remotely agree with you about. However, we do have different solutions.



You are a master at putting words in people's mouth and drawing extremely flawed conclusions. The wheels continue to spin and I continue to get sucked in. I need to stop.

You think being fat is unhealthy. That's the 'sin' in the analogy. Of course you're mistaken in your assumption. Turns out that being fat is not unhealthy. Being unhealthy is unhealthy. These days BMI is being used as a proxy for health. It's foolish and misguided and is harming people in the process.

Yes, I'm ridiculing people who want to badger people into losing weight. I call them the pudge police. I have a few other choice names as well. But they might get me banned.

And whereas you continue to feign confusion, I know you're not really confused. If weight-loss is stressful and/or harmful (it is), then asking people to lose weight is not doing them any great favors. I call it warring on fat people. I'm asking people to stop the hate.

[MeyerIsBack]

I say being obese is unhealthy (based on numerous reputable studies) in a discussion about dangers/perceived dangers of being obese.

you conclude: I am badgering fat people to lose weight (where are the fat people I am badgering?) -> I am the pudge police -> I am not a 'friend of fat people' -> I am waging war on fat people -> I hate fat people

Therefore, a person either ignores/rejects the overwhelming scientific evidence that states that obesity is unhealthy or they hate fat people.

DreamLogic:
citing scientific evidence = hating fat people

Seems legit :/

[Dreamliner]

I say being obese is unhealthy (based on numerous reputable studies) in a discussion about dangers/perceived dangers of being obese.

you conclude: I am badgering fat people to lose weight (where are the fat people I am badgering?) -> I am the pudge police -> I am not a 'friend of fat people' -> I am waging war on fat people -> I hate fat people

Therefore, a person either ignores/rejects the overwhelming scientific evidence that states that obesity is unhealthy or they hate fat people.

DreamLogic:
citing scientific evidence = hating fat people

Seems legit :/

If there is zero evidence that obesity causes the diseases that it is blamed for, how can you say that being obese is unhealthy unless you have no regard for critical thinking ?

And if obesity is highly heritable, more so than any attribute other than fat, how can you expect someone to change their inherited shape absent malice ?

And if all the studies show the vast majority cannot maintain weight-loss, how can you expect people to maintain weight-loss and not come across as the crazy dude who hangs out outside of 7-11's talking to himself ?

[MeyerIsBack]

If there is zero evidence that obesity causes the diseases that it is blamed for, how can you say that being obese is unhealthy unless you have no regard for critical thinking ?

With this logic, there are a whole lot of people (like every doctor and every scientist that has ever studied obesity) much smarter than me and you that have 'no regard for critical thinking'.

And if obesity is highly heritable, more so than any attribute other than fat, how can you expect someone to change their inherited shape absent malice ? Do you believe the stuff you write? Do you expect me too?

And if all the studies show the vast majority cannot maintain weight-loss, how can you expect people to maintain weight-loss and not come across as the crazy dude who hangs out outside of 7-11's talking to himself ?
How does this change the fact that obesity is unhealthy?

[ATL_Gator]

Dream, your rhetoric is getting old. I don't know what has happened to you, but this "it isn't your fault" and "you can't maintain it, so don't do it in the first place" really gets on the verge of pissing me off. So much I really consider not even coming around anymore. Anyway, some of your arguments that you litter every single thread with seem QUITE wrong.

Anyway.

Agreed: BMI is a horrible measure for an individual in regard to health, at that instant in time. SIMPLY having high BMI does not instantly make one unhealthy, just as eating a McDonalds double quarter pounder with cheese and a super-sized fry doesn't INSTANTLY make one fat.

Anymore, that is about where it stops.

-------------

Obesity is hereditary? WTF is that? Eating a 3rd bag of ho-ho's after 5000 calories of other food is GENETIC?! You are kidding right? Eating more than is needed is LEARNED. IMO, that is the single GREATEST reason why fat kids have fat parents. It has little to do with what genetic markers they have and a whole lot to do with how the parents have taught the kids to eat (fast, and a lot), when they have taught their kids to eat (often), and what they have taught their kids to eat (crap). A fat kid with TWO fat parents (and potentially 4 fat grandparents)... that kid is taught to be fat. Nothing more, nothing less. I will buy the idea that there is nothing the kid can really do about it, given the circumstances, but that doesn't make it genetic.

Do I neglect that there are cases where obesity IS actually passed from parent to child? NO. There are cases where that is true, but from what I understand, these are NOT normal. These hereditary conditions are rare. Start talking probabilistics (sp?), what are the chances that two people with the same gene anomaly have a kid together and pass that anomaly along? That probability is ESPECIALLY worse if the anomaly is a RECESSIVE gene. Is this the case for 33% of the kids out there?

Beyond that, when I was at my heaviest (BMI 33.1, Body fat percentage north of 40 more than likely... obese by all means)... I was by far the fattest of any known relative. Well more than my parents, and grandparents. Who then did I inherit my fatness from? I want somebody besides myself to blame!

-------------

Inability to maintain weight loss. I take this one personally. Reading this comment aggravates me the most, as I have gone through major weight loss, and maintained it. Also plan on it.

Why is it so irritating? For me, I was fat due to ignorance. I liked eating crappy food and a lot of it. I would not go as far as saying that I flat out didn't know about calorie content and whatnot, but I was just not thinking about it. I CHOSE to be ignorant about it. (again, personal choice).

Know what else I chose to do? I chose to spend a lot of time in front of the computer and the TV. I chose to stay inside and sit on the couch. I chose to drive a short distance instead of walking. I chose the easy route in a majority of the things I wanted to do. WHY? So I can get them done faster and I can get back to sitting on the couch watching TV or go spend hours sitting at the computer playing videogames (MMORPGs and FPS).

Since then, I have made a choice to be more aware about things. Does it mean that things are easy? No. A lot of times they are not. However, those hard decisions lead to make other things that I like to do easier. Like playing and being active with my kid.

To say that I WILL not maintain this means that I must first make the DECISION to CHOOSE to eat more and be less active. MENTAL DECISION FIRST.

Do I always maintain the lightest I have ever been in my adult life? Nope. However, that is because I CHOOSE to eat more and/or be less active than what is required to maintain that... for me. It is by choice, and therefore technically under my control.

--------------

We are living longer than ever inspite of being fatter than ever. You ALWAYS make this comment as if being fatter and/or diseased EQUATES to living longer without consideration of medical advancements OR the FACT that if you actively have a condition, you are going to the doctor more.

Here are some stats over the last 50 years.

Data after the year:
- Life Expectancy
- Physicians per 1000 people
- Health expenditure ($) per capita

2010: 78.2 - 2.42 - $8,360
2005: 77.3 - 2.67 - $6,250
2000: 76.6 - 2.58 - $4,700
1995: 75.6 - 2.00 - $3,700
1990: 75.2 - 1.80
1985: 74.5 - 1.70
1980: 73.6 - 1.50
1970: 70.8 - 1.20
1960: 69.7 - 1.10

Yes, life expectancy is on the rise... but why are there more doctors? Why are we spending more and more at the doctors every year? Is it because in the 60's, doctors were WAY overworked and there was a huge NEED for more doctors? Bull crap. IMO, it is because we are getting fatter and more unhealthy, thus more doctors are needed to prescribe us things.

Those stats don't even account for the advancements in medical technology. I.E. surgeries to fix things are less invasive, thus less risky. We are also getting better at major fixes, like transplants. IMO, as technology gets better, people dying from minor things goes down to nearly nothing. That means, it is major things that ends up killing us.

Of the two options below, which do you think would produce the longest number of years lived with a major problem that can't be avoided. Lets say... breast cancer in a woman. The onset of this cancer occurs at age 50.

1. Woman is healthy and in normal weight and never has any physical signs of ailment, so never goes to the doctor. Ends up going to see a doctor at age 57 because she hasn't felt good for about 5 or 6 days (unrelated to the cancer). Doctor decides to do some blood tests, notices something severely elevated. Further investigation reveals advanced stages of breast cancer.

2. Woman is unhealthy and obese. Goes to doctor all the time for knee and ankle pain (100% weight related), and high blood pressure (quite possibly due to the constant pain). Due to pain management program and blood pressure meds, doctor runs blood tests 2x per year. Also, the doctor pesters the crap out of the woman about annual breast examination. Woman doesn't want to, but grows tired of hearing about it from the doctor every 3-6 months. 6 months after her 50th birthday, doctor notices an anomaly in a test result. Further examination reveals the breast cancer, in the early stage.

Option 2 right? I most certainly would hope so. But why? Is it BECAUSE option 2 was fat and unhealthy in general? Or is it because option 2 is actively going to the doctor and detected the problem early?

Lets toss in option 3. Healthy normal weight woman goes to the doctor 1x per year for a checkup. Gets full out bloodwork and examination. Examination 1 month past 50th birthday doesn't reveal anything. Examination 1 month past 51st birthday reveals the breast cancer, still in the early stage.

Would you still chose option 2?

That said,

I would bet the ratio... $ spent by "normal weight" people at the doctor : $ spent by overweight and obese people at the doctor is VERY low. Lets guess maybe 0.1:1 (that may be high). Normal weight people with nothing to complain about probably don't go to the doctor. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Right? Do you take your car into the mechanic if it is running perfectly? I don't.

Change the above ratio in favor of the healthy... lets say 0.3:1,... I would now bet that "normal weight" people will outlive the overweight by a longshot. Reason, I feel that the biggest problem that "normal weight" people face is finding problems too late. Early detection of manageable problems would go through the roof, thus one would live longer... at a normal weight.

-------------

/sigh

That is enough. For now, possibly forever. Who knows.

[Dreamliner]

Well, glad to see we agree on BMI which, by the way, is how they track the phony 'obesity epidemic.' To the rest of your diatribe - and I can't believe it's me using the word ' 'Meh.'

First of all, LOL at your 'largess' in acknowledging the possibility of 'some' obesity stemming from heredity. Obesity is, in fact, the most heritable physical attribute, save height. Or haven't you noticed that when you give a population free access to food, that they come in all shapes and sizes ?

You may have eaten your way, like a barnyard sow, to your former, corpulent self. But you have no cause to project that upon other fat folks. Guess what ? Hunger and satiety are also heritable. One man eats his way to a BMI of 42 via the same mechanisms another man eats his way to a BMI of 23.

Yes, yes, you've lost a lot of weight. And I can appreciate that even short-term loss was no mean task for you. But I'm the guy people who want to lose weight come running too. And based on the studies, and experience, I can no longer get behind an endeavor which, statistically speaking, is almost certain to lead to frustration and failure, just because some guy I know from Gator Country lost a bunch of weight.

Proposition: you do what you want to do. I do what I want to do. Further: you are free to blame yourself for your obesity. Please do not presume to blame others for theirs.

Your theories on longevity are muddled. All shapes and sizes are living longer. We KNOW that overweight and moderately obese people are living longest of all. And we know that obesity offers protective benefits. Hence, the term "Obesity Paradox."

This correlation with increasing costs and longevity is tendentious. The Americans who really appear to be shelling out are the so-called 'worried well.' Another factor in increasing cost: millions of Americans are being diagnosed with the 'disease' of having a higher-than-average BMI and then given medications they probably don't need.

Finally, your scenario assumes, as I understand it, that the obese person will receive greater medical attention vis-a-vis their obesity than the normal weight person.

Problem: there is ample evidence that obese persons receive LESS medical attention that those of normal weight. Indeed, I can't say I can blame them for not going to the doctor. Who wants to be badgered about their weight all the time ?

[Gatormb]

Certainly obesity is not the only cause of diabetes but it is a major cause.

The science, as I understand it, is the following in layman's terms: Someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong.

When we eat carbs, the body releases insulin to bring sugar levels down. If those carbs are not used as energy the insulin stores them as fat. Eventually, in some people, either the body becomes insulin resistant or eventually the pancreas gets overworked and stops producing insulin in advances stages. High levels of sugar are brutal on the internal organs and nerves (especially in the feet).

Here's (sort of) an explanation that explains the process in a supplement description. From the Life Extension foundation.

HCA (hydroxycitric acid) is a close relative of citric acid, the agent that gives citrus fruits their characteristic tart flavor. HCA is obtained as a 50% standardized extract of Garcinia cambogia, a small fruit from southern India, where it has been used for centuries as a food preservative, flavoring agent, and digestive aid. HCA is a safe, natural supplement for weight management.92

When calorie intake exceeds the body’s energy needs, the excess glucose is converted into glycogen, which is stored in the liver and muscles for future conversion into energy. Weight gain occurs after the body’s capacity for glycogen storage is reached. At this point, glucose from excessive calorie intake is converted into acetyl coenzyme A via a metabolic pathway involving the enzyme ATP-citrate lyase and then into fat molecules, which are stored in fat cells. HCA is a competitive inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase, a key enzyme which facilitates the synthesis of fatty acids, cholesterol and triglycerides. HCA may reduce the synthesis of fatty acids in humans during a persistent excess of energy intake as carbohydrate.93

It has been suggested that HCA promotes weight loss by increasing serotonin levels, reducing hunger and appetite, and suppressing carbohydrate conversion into fat by inhibiting ATP-citrate lyase,94-100* thus regulating fat and obesity related genes.101 HCA may also attenuate the increases in oxidative stress, and insulin resistance.102

http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Item01675/HCA.html?source=search&key=GARCINIA%20CAMBOGIA

[MeyerIsBack]

Well, glad to see we agree on BMI which, by the way, is how they track the phony 'obesity epidemic.' To the rest of your diatribe - and I can't believe it's me using the word ' 'Meh.'



BMI being an imperfect measurement does not change the fact that people are getting fatter.

[Dreamliner]

Certainly obesity is not the only cause of diabetes but it is a major cause.

The science, as I understand it, is the following in layman's terms: Someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong.

When we eat carbs, the body releases insulin to bring sugar levels down. If those carbs are not used as energy the insulin stores them as fat. Eventually, in some people, either the body becomes insulin resistant or eventually the pancreas gets overworked and stops producing insulin in advances stages. High levels of sugar are brutal on the internal organs and nerves (especially in the feet).

Here's (sort of) an explanation that explains the process in a supplement description. From the Life Extension foundation.

HCA (hydroxycitric acid) is a close relative of citric acid, the agent that gives citrus fruits their characteristic tart flavor. HCA is obtained as a 50% standardized extract of Garcinia cambogia, a small fruit from southern India, where it has been used for centuries as a food preservative, flavoring agent, and digestive aid. HCA is a safe, natural supplement for weight management.92

When calorie intake exceeds the body’s energy needs, the excess glucose is converted into glycogen, which is stored in the liver and muscles for future conversion into energy. Weight gain occurs after the body’s capacity for glycogen storage is reached. At this point, glucose from excessive calorie intake is converted into acetyl coenzyme A via a metabolic pathway involving the enzyme ATP-citrate lyase and then into fat molecules, which are stored in fat cells. HCA is a competitive inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase, a key enzyme which facilitates the synthesis of fatty acids, cholesterol and triglycerides. HCA may reduce the synthesis of fatty acids in humans during a persistent excess of energy intake as carbohydrate.93

It has been suggested that HCA promotes weight loss by increasing serotonin levels, reducing hunger and appetite, and suppressing carbohydrate conversion into fat by inhibiting ATP-citrate lyase,94-100* thus regulating fat and obesity related genes.101 HCA may also attenuate the increases in oxidative stress, and insulin resistance.102

http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Item01675/HCA.html?source=search&key=GARCINIA%20CAMBOGIA

Thanks, but this has already been discussed ad nauseum. Obesity does not cause diabetes. Yes, obesity is associated with higher rates of diabetes, but that's just an association (thin people get diabetes too), and so it's not even accurate to point to indirect cause.

Moreover, the carb-insulin hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked. I mean THOROUGHLY debunked.

[bakaduin]

Debating with you Dream is like debating with a brick wall. You post "studies" and then extrapolate facts that aren't there. You act like obesity is a good thing.

Like I said, the perfect study to refute you already exists and it was done in dogs.

https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_220_9_1315.pdf

It is intuitive and obvious. It is a LIFELONG STUDY. Something that could never be done in humans. It is a study where every single calorie is measured. Read the results. Eat more, gain more weight, shorter lifespan, more disease. The obvious way to refute the study is saying that it is in dogs and not humans. I maintain you could never ethically do such a study in humans. Furthermore do you honestly think that the results wouldn't be the same?

Being obese is not a good thing. Losing weight is a good thing. Keeping weight off is difficult, nobody is going to say it isn't but it is doable and it will greatly improve your quality of life (as is pointed out in other studies YOU posted in this thread).

[MeyerIsBack]

First of all, LOL at your 'largess' in acknowledging the possibility of 'some' obesity stemming from heredity. Obesity is, in fact, the most heritable physical attribute, save height. Or haven't you noticed that when you give a population free access to food, that they come in all shapes and sizes ?
Is this not a contradiction? Is it assumed that we have no free will? You must realize that absent certain behaviors obesity is not possible. What other 'inherited traits' can be controlled solely with behavior?

You may have eaten your way, like a barnyard sow, to your former, corpulent self.
This coming from the guy who insists that we are badgering fat people. Seriously?

But you have no cause to project that upon other fat folks. Guess what ? Hunger and satiety are also heritable. One man eats his way to a BMI of 42 via the same mechanisms another man eats his way to a BMI of 23.

I would love to see a study that confirms that a variance of hunger and satiety is inherited.


Proposition: you do what you want to do. I do what I want to do. Further: you are free to blame yourself for your obesity. Please do not presume to blame others for theirs.
There really is little blame being thrown around. There is an acknowledgement that weight is the result of behavior.


Your theories on longevity are muddled. All shapes and sizes are living longer. We KNOW that overweight and moderately obese people are living longest of all. And we know that obesity offers protective benefits. Hence, the term "Obesity Paradox."

I provided a comprehensive study that confirmed the complete opposite. In fact, obesity at age 18 coincided with premature death at the same rate as heavy smokers.

[Dreamliner]

BMI being an imperfect measurement does not change the fact that people are getting fatter.

So ? And ?

[Dreamliner]

Debating with you Dream is like debating with a brick wall. You post "studies" and then extrapolate facts that aren't there. You act like obesity is a good thing.

Like I said, the perfect study to refute you already exists and it was done in dogs.

https://www.avma.org/News/Journals/Collections/Documents/javma_220_9_1315.pdf

It is intuitive and obvious. It is a LIFELONG STUDY. Something that could never be done in humans. It is a study where every single calorie is measured. Read the results. Eat more, gain more weight, shorter lifespan, more disease. The obvious way to refute the study is saying that it is in dogs and not humans. I maintain you could never ethically do such a study in humans. Furthermore do you honestly think that the results wouldn't be the same?

Being obese is not a good thing. Losing weight is a good thing. Keeping weight off is difficult, nobody is going to say it isn't but it is doable and it will greatly improve your quality of life (as is pointed out in other studies YOU posted in this thread).

There is a brick wall of sorts, but I'm not it. Weight-loss, per the HUMAN studies suggest neither remission nor prevention of heart attacks. And even if it did, we're still left with the almost singular inability to maintain weight-loss.

So here you sit, an animal doctor, expecting to people to undertake interventions that very rarely work and may indeed kill them.

Anything else you want to do to fat people ?

[Dreamliner]

[QUOTE=MeyerIsBack;6464490]Is this not a contradiction? Is it assumed that we have no free will? You must realize that absent certain behaviors obesity is not possible. What other 'inherited traits' can be controlled solely with behavior?


This coming from the guy who insists that we are badgering fat people. Seriously?



I would love to see a study that confirms that a variance of hunger and satiety is inherited.


There really is little blame being thrown around. There is an acknowledgement that weight is the result of behavior.

Yes, of course there is free will. Fat people just want to be fat (sarcasm).

Do you EVER pay attention ? This is what ATL says about himself. Remember: you're (B).

And I'd love to see a study that shows that some people are fatter than others because they just suck more.

There is also an acknowledgement that this persistent, ugly bias against fat folks is a behavior.

And yet fat people are out-living skinny people. But this is not the issue for you. If you were convinced that being fat wasn't unhealthy, you still wouldn't like their fat.

[bakaduin]

There is a brick wall of sorts, but I'm not it. Weight-loss, per the HUMAN studies suggest neither remission nor prevention of heart attacks. And even if it did, we're still left with the almost singular inability to maintain weight-loss.

So here you sit, an animal doctor, expecting to people to undertake interventions that very rarely work and may indeed kill them.

Anything else you want to do to fat people ?

I'm not arguing with you about the heart attacks. You are making blanket statements that nobody should have to lose weight because being obese/overweight isn't a medical problem. From your own article that started this thread:

Although the intervention did not reduce cardiovascular events, Look AHEAD has shown other important health benefits of the lifestyle intervention, including decreasing sleep apnea, reducing the need for diabetes medications, helping to maintain physical mobility, and improving quality of life.

Those are 4 pretty clear and pretty important health benefits to losing weight.

I also take offense to your idea that just because most people put the weight back on that nobody should try to lose it. If 100 obese folks lose weight and even just 15 keep it off that is 15 people who will have an improved quality of life (according to YOUR study). If people took your attitude all 100 would continue to be obese.

[LeafUF]

Serious question, does this board have a mod? I swear every single thread is covering the same topic. Kinda makes the section pretty silly and useless, right?

[MeyerIsBack]

Yes, of course there is free will. Fat people just want to be fat (sarcasm).
Translation: Everybody gets whatever they want regardless of their behavior.

DreamLogic :/


Do you EVER pay attention ? This is what ATL says about himself. Remember: you're (B).

Translation: Dreamliner is going to ignore the fact that he is the only person badgering fat people while blaming others of doing it.


And I'd love to see a study that shows that some people are fatter than others because they just suck more.
Translation: There is zero evidence that a variance in hunger and satiety is heritable


There is also an acknowledgement that this persistent, ugly bias against fat folks is a behavior.
Translation: There is no sane argument against the fact that a persons weight is a direct result of their behaviors.


And yet fat people are out-living skinny people. But this is not the issue for you. If you were convinced that being fat wasn't unhealthy, you still wouldn't like their fat.
translation: falling back to your default argument of wild and baseless accusations.

[Dreamliner]

I'm not arguing with you about the heart attacks. You are making blanket statements that nobody should have to lose weight because being obese/overweight isn't a medical problem. From your own article that started this thread:


Those are 4 pretty clear and pretty important health benefits to losing weight.

I also take offense to your idea that just because most people put the weight back on that nobody should try to lose it. If 100 obese folks lose weight and even just 15 keep it off that is 15 people who will have an improved quality of life (according to YOUR study). If people took your attitude all 100 would continue to be obese.

Are we going to have to get our buddy orangeblueorangeblue in here to set you straight on correlations ?

And I can see you're still deeply entrenched in the much-mistaken notion that obesity is harmful.

Finally, I don't give a f*** what grownups do. If they want to lose weight, then watch it come back (and quite likely wind up heavier than when they began), they are free to knock themselves out.

[Dreamliner]

Translation: Everybody gets whatever they want regardless of their behavior.

DreamLogic :/



Translation: Dreamliner is going to ignore the fact that he is the only person badgering fat people while blaming others of doing it.


Translation: There is zero evidence that a variance in hunger and satiety is heritable


Translation: There is no sane argument against the fact that a persons weight is a direct result of their behaviors.


translation: falling back to your default argument of wild and baseless accusations.

Translation: somebody can't stop hating fat people.

[Dreamliner]

Serious question, does this board have a mod? I swear every single thread is covering the same topic. Kinda makes the section pretty silly and useless, right?

I hear you. And you're just here trying to help people lose weight, right ? :wink:

[bakaduin]

Are we going to have to get our buddy orangeblueorangeblue in here to set you straight on correlations ?

And I can see you're still deeply entrenched in the much-mistaken notion that obesity is harmful.

Finally, I don't give a f*** what grownups do. If they want to lose weight, then watch it come back (and quite likely wind up heavier than when they began), they are free to knock themselves out.

Did you not read the quote from the study YOU posted. It says it right there in black and white? Oh wait...so if a study says something negative about obesity it is a "correlation" but if it says something in your favor its a fact of the study?

Now I'm clear.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Did you not read the quote from the study YOU posted.

...

"Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality."

There's really absolutely no room for confusion there, or so I thought.

[MeyerIsBack]

Translation: somebody can't stop hating fat people.

When you have no answer for all of your nonsensical claims, you can always fall back to wild and baseless accusations. Well played , dreamliner... well played :/

[Dreamliner]

Did you not read the quote from the study YOU posted. It says it right there in black and white? Oh wait...so if a study says something negative about obesity it is a "correlation" but if it says something in your favor its a fact of the study?

Now I'm clear.

One reason I'm okay with obesity is that it is obviously not killing people. The question is, why are you not okay with it (since it's obviously not killing people) ?

[Dreamliner]

...

"Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality."

There's really absolutely no room for confusion there, or so I thought.

Flegal: Grade I Obese 5% lower mortality risk. Overall, 25,000 excess deaths (wrongly, I would contend) attributed to obesity, with 33,000 deaths being attributed to being underweight.

Can we shift to a skinny crisis now ? The current phony crisis is getting old.

[bakaduin]

One reason I'm okay with obesity is that it is obviously not killing people. The question is, why are you not okay with it (since it's obviously not killing people) ?

"Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality."

You know mortality means killing people right?

[Dreamliner]

"Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality."

You know mortality means killing people right?

I'm breaking it down for you. Rather, CDC senior research scientist is breaking the studies down for you. Further:

*Women over 50 with BMI 34 (upper-range Grade I obese) longest-lived of all.

*Among non-smokers over 60, obese live longer than normal weight.

Additionally, I cited the Brazil study which showed Grade I obese living longer than normal weight.

Moreover, I cited the Statistics Canada study showing Grade I AND Grade II living longer.

I also cited the Norway Study showing morbidly obese women living longer than normal weight men.

Add the niggling detail that there is no credible evidence of obesity causing the diseases it is blamed for and therefore no one is actually dying 'from being fat.'

Now, stop being a hit-and-run artist. You posed a seemingly rhetorical question, on the 'Business Proposition' thread, and I answered it. This is you off-and-running to the next taunt.

[JohnC1908]

I make some delicious shakes.

Care to share a recipe or two?

[Dreamliner]

I'm moving to Charlotte in a couple of weeks. Friend of mine up there says that a restaurant there makes the best shakes ever. Says it's basically ice cream, in a cup, and they give you a straw. Says he has no idea why they give you a straw.

[bakaduin]

I'm moving to Charlotte in a couple of weeks. Friend of mine up there says that a restaurant there makes the best shakes ever. Says it's basically ice cream, in a cup, and they give you a straw. Says he has no idea why they give you a straw.

Cabo Fish Taco and BBQ King in Charlotte are both quality food. Tons of restaurants in Charlotte.

[Dreamliner]

Thanks! Not big on fish tacos but am interested in sampling authentic Carolina BBQ.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Care to share a recipe or two?

Sure.

First step is always use almond milk. In addition to being lighter in calories, it's creamier and makes a thicker shake.

Either stock up on frozen fruits or freeze your own. I almost never use banana, but it's usually a "stock" fruit to make the shakes creamier. That said, it tends to dominate the flavor of most shakes, so I only do it when going for tropical.

Here's an example favorite:

8-10 oz of almond milk
2 scoops of ON vanilla ice cream protein
1.5 cups of frozen fruit
some honey and/or 1 packet of splenda
10-15 almonds

blend er up for about a minute.

Comes out to:

55g protein
8g fat
25g carb (mostly sugar)

I usually put in some fiber as a filler, too. I'll rarely say no to a steak, but there are times when this could compete with just about anything else.

[LeafUF]

Almonds seems interesting. Never seen that before.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Almonds seems interesting. Never seen that before.

A big part of my veggie intake comes from green shakes now, but a green shake is pretty gross unless you have a quality blender (BlendTech or Vitamix).

Some of my favorites:

4-6 oz water (or sub in some almond milk)
Big ole handful of spinach
about 1/2 cup frozen pineapple
1/2 naval orange or 1 tangerine
Vanilla grass-fed whey (optional for a protein kick)
1 tbs coconut oil or 1/4 avocado (optional for some quality fat)

I'm w/ OBOB on bananas, but for the recipe above, 1/4 of a frozen banana is not bad at all. I wouldn't do banana and avocado together though. Too much emulsification going on.

Otherwise, I like to mix spinach with citrus, carrot, and ginger.

Beets (with the greens included) actually blend up pretty nicely, and they pair nicely with cherries. Add some almond milk and vanilla protein powder and it's a pretty tasty carb bomb.

Occasionally, I'll make some V-8 type of stuff to get concentrated veggie power.

Greens - spinach or kale
carrot
celery
tomato
seaweed
1 clove of garlic
small chunk of ginger
1/2 - 1 habanero

A few other lessons learned:

- don't add too many ingredients
- don't use apples for whole juice (they're just not good blended)
- don't use anything too seedy or grainy (like pomegranate or raspberry)
- avoid using cabbage