 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / December 2008Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/12/excess-weight -ups-risk-of-death-no-matter-where.html Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects But too much abdominal fat poses a bigger threat, study finds Posted November 12, 2008 By Serena Gordon HealthDay Reporter WEDNESDAY, Nov. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Whether you're shaped like an apple or a pear, if you're overweight, you have a higher risk of dying than someone of normal weight, a new European study says. Related News Diets That Promote Health Keeping Your Brain Fit Good Parents, Bad Results America's Best Hospitals But, those who tend to collect their weight around the middle -- apple-shaped -- face an even higher risk of death than those whose excess weight tends to settle in their hips and thighs -- pear-shaped. "We found that a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of death even for individuals who have the same BMI [body mass index, a ratio of weight to height]," said the study's lead author, Dr. Tobias Pischon, of the German Institute of Human Nutrition. "Therefore, you could say that adipose [fat] accumulation in the abdominal region is even more detrimental than just having an elevated BMI level," he added. Previous research had linked abdominal fat with a higher risk of chronic diseases. But past research generally hadn't assessed the risk of death in those who were overweight and those who were overweight with more abdominal fat, according to background information in the study. The new research, published in the Nov. 13 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, included almost 360,000 people from nine European countries who were part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). In addition to weight information and whether or not the study participants had died, the researchers also adjusted the data for education level, smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity and height. During a follow-up period of almost 10 years, slightly less than 15,000 people enrolled in the study had died. Those with the lowest risk of death were men with a BMI of 25.3 and women with a BMI of 24.3. A body mass index between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight, and a BMI over 30 is considered obese, according to the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Men with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 24 percent increased risk of death compared to normal weight men. And women with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 17 percent increased risk of death compared to their slimmer counterparts, Pischon said. When the researchers factored in abdominal fat, they found that men with the largest waist circumference had more than double the risk of death, and women with the largest waist circumference increased their risk of death by 78 percent. "Having a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of death. This is even true for people who -- in terms of BMI -- would be considered as being normal weight," Pischon said. Dr. Marc Siegel, an internist at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, said, "Fat is a problem. Obesity of all kinds correlates with heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and more. But, abdominal fat is a more rudimentary indicator of risk. "The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel added. > http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/12/excess-weight > -ups-risk-of-death-no-matter-where.html [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel > added. Carbohydrates drive insulin drives fat accumulation. Being fat is merely a consequence of eating carbs. > Men with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 24 percent increased risk of death > compared to normal weight men. But with a quality of life that is twice that of the normal weight men, they are still ahead by 75%. > When the researchers factored in abdominal fat, they found that men with > the largest waist circumference had more than double the risk of death, and > women with the largest waist circumference increased their risk of death by > 78 percent. The largest women are still ahead by 22%, and the largest men by 50%. > "The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat > right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel > added. Eating flavorless food sucks a.s. Exercise sucks a.s... That's a much lower quality of life. I'll gladly trade in some quantity for some quality. Thanks anyhow... Like flavorless steaks smothered in mushrooms and lamb chops seasoned with garlic salt and a tossed salad with ranch dressing and Brussels sprouts in a sauce of cream and cheese. You obviously have never eaten at my house. | Eating flavorless food sucks a.s. Exercise sucks a.s... That's a | much lower quality of life. I'll gladly trade in some quantity for | some quality. Thanks anyhow... > Like flavorless steaks smothered in mushrooms and lamb chops seasoned with > garlic salt and a tossed salad with ranch dressing and Brussels sprouts in a > sauce of cream and cheese. You obviously have never eaten at my house. Brussles sprouts suck a.s. And sticking cream and cheese in the sauce sort of work against the whole healthy part of it, doesn't it? As for salad, yuck. Veggies aren't food, they are what food eats. Having to then smother it with ranch dressing to make it standable also works against the while healthy reason for eating like a rabbit. As for the lamb, if you need to put garlic salt on the meat, obviously you don't like what flavor your meat does have... Having to use spice to cover it up makes me pitty you. Of your list, the ONLY thing mentioned that I don't find physically repulsive is the steak. But I already eat beef, so I don't really understand where you are going with it. No, cream and cheese are good for you, it's the carbs that are bad. Fat good, carbs bad. Get that through your thick head, that's what low carb is all about. || Like flavorless steaks smothered in mushrooms and lamb chops || seasoned with garlic salt and a tossed salad with ranch dressing and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | repulsive is the steak. But I already eat beef, so I don't really | understand where you are going with it. > No, cream and cheese are good for you, it's the carbs that are bad. Fat > good, carbs bad. Get that through your thick head, that's what low carb is > all about. *laugh* Funny, you say carbs make people fat. Doctors say fat make people fat. You dieting morons can't even agree on the root cause, and they you because an a.shole when it's questioned. And people wonder why I hate skinny people... Gee, I don't know... *smirk* Faulty research, now the newer research supports my view. There are a number of doctors who agree with me, when I told mine I was low carbing she was delighted. You just need to find a smarter doctor who keeps up with the research. | *laugh* | | Funny, you say carbs make people fat. Doctors say fat make people | fat. You dieting morons can't even agree on the root cause, and they | you because an a.shole when it's questioned. And people wonder why I | hate skinny people... Gee, I don't know... *smirk* >> No, cream and cheese are good for you, it's the carbs that are bad. Fat >> good, carbs bad. Get that through your thick head, that's what low [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because an a.shole when it's questioned. And people wonder why I hate > skinny people... Gee, I don't know... *smirk* Dieting morons. Yeah, and aren't you reading and posting here? That would make you what, a dieting genius? >> Funny, you say carbs make people fat. Doctors say fat make people fat. You >> dieting morons can't even agree on the root cause, and they you because an [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dieting morons. Yeah, and aren't you reading and posting here? That would > make you what, a dieting genius? I'm not the one accusing others of not living their own life properly. I'm not the one saying that I can live their life better then they can. I'm not the one pretending to have the answer to problems I never had. What I am, however, is someone who reads the fat acceptance group. A group that is NOT diet related, but is often times flooded by diet posts that are cross posted to several groups at once. If you read a diet group, perhaps you should bitch to your fellow dieters, and encourage them to not cross-post to off-topic groups. Since that concept seems to be above your head, I guess in relative terms that DOES make me a genius... >>> Funny, you say carbs make people fat. Doctors say fat make people >>> fat. You dieting morons can't even agree on the root cause, and they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > group, perhaps you should bitch to your fellow dieters, and encourage > them to not cross-post to off-topic groups. Maybe you should do the same... I'm only cross posting this becasue I can't tell wich rock you lot have crawled out from under into the Weight Watchers group, where we prefer a more ballanced outlook and a better understanding that different folk have different requirements, and there is more than One True Way to our goals... > Since that concept seems to be above your head, I guess in relative > terms that DOES make me a genius... No. It doesn't. It *might* if you only posted to the one group you are interested in and left the rest of us in peace.  SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> What I am, however, is someone who reads the fat acceptance group. A group >> that is NOT diet related, but is often times flooded by diet posts that are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe you should do the same... That's what I'm doing now, bitching at the dieters for posting their sh.t... However, thank you very much for pointing that out. . . . . . >>>> Funny, you say carbs make people fat. Doctors say fat make people >>>> fat. You dieting morons can't even agree on the root cause, and they [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > No. It doesn't. It *might* if you only posted to the one group you are > interested in and left the rest of us in peace. Hi everybody! What's for lunch? >>>>> Funny, you say carbs make people fat. Doctors say fat make people >>>>> fat. You dieting morons can't even agree on the root cause, and [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > What's for lunch? Zero point honme made butternut squash soup and a fresh ciabata roll with olives in... Followed by a locally (organically) grown Egremont Russet. Yum... Lunch for fewer than 4 points. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> What's for lunch? > > Zero point honme made butternut squash soup and a fresh ciabata roll with > olives in... Followed by a locally (organically) grown Egremont Russet. > Yum... Lunch for fewer than 4 points. *laugh* "We don't count calories" - Weight Watchers... Instead, they count "points". Correct me if I'm wrong, but each point is worth a calorie range, yes? I *THINK* each point is worth a block of 50 calories, such that if a food item is worth 50 or 99, it's worth 1 point, and from 100 to 149 it's worth 2 points. So, instead of counting calories, you count points. But each point is worth calories, so you do count calories but just call them by a different name. But hey, that's just nit picking on my part... My bad. >>> What's for lunch? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > *laugh* > "We don't count calories" - Weight Watchers... They don't claim that. They just make it easier. > Instead, they count "points". Correct me if I'm wrong, but each point > is worth a calorie range, yes? I *THINK* each point is worth a block of > 50 calories, such that if a food item is worth 50 or 99, it's worth 1 > point, and from 100 to 149 it's worth 2 points. No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that still have a calorific value in the strictest sense. Most are vegetables with a high fiber content to help offset the calorific value. Points are calculated using both calories and saturated fats per 100g, in food where points are allocated (I think they may also include fiber in the calculations in the USA, but I'm not sure). Fats and pure sugar are given a much higher points per 100g ratio than fruit and vegetables and lean meats, for example. Fruits and things like potatoes have a lower point score than bread per 100g. > So, instead of counting calories, you count points. But each point is > worth calories, so you do count calories but just call them by a > different name. But hey, that's just nit picking on my part... My bad. Indeed. It's designed to get you away from strict calorie counting and work on a balanced diet, as well as being designed to make it easy for everyone to work with, including the number-challenged like myself. There is also the Core plan, where you don't count points at all. If it works for you, use it. There is no one true path to a healthy weight range for your skeletal frame and activity level. I like WW and it suits *me* to do things this way. I'd suggest folk wanting to shed weight try it. I lost 5 stone following WW, and kept all of it off for over three years. Health issues and stress have meant I've drifted a bit in the last few months, and now need to shed the last stone again, but that is MY responsibility. WW works - it's people who don't. Stress nibbling and lack of regular exercise due to various ills mean I'm not as lean and fit as I need to be to maintain constant pain at a bareable level. With a bit of luck, that is behind me and I can now get back to where I'm happy with my weight. I feel at my best at about 10 stone. Much more than that and the joint pain intensifies, especially in the knees. Much less and I look gaunt and skinny. Bleargh to both! I'd never tell anyone that it's the ONLY way to do things, but the low fat diet certainly suits my battered innards (I'm wheat intollerant and can no longer process fats properly), and the general philosophy of moderation in all things combined with healthy exercise* and varied and interesting food, keeps me out of the wheelchair. Long may that continue! *I walk and I swim. On a good day in the pool I can do 1600m (about an imperial mile) in slightly under an hour. On a REALLY good day' I'll walk 8 miles along Hadrian's Wall or The North Downs Way, or do 80 lengths (2,000m)in the pool . On a bad day I'm lucky to get my head off the pillow. I try to take one decent walk and 3 swimming sessions per week. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! > No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that still > have a calorific value in the strictest sense. But are "0" points because they are less then 50. > Points are calculated using both calories and saturated fats per 100g, in > food where points are allocated (I think they may also include fiber in the > calculations in the USA, but I'm not sure). That makes it sound like an actual formula. But take a look at the prepared dinners/lunches they sell at the grocery store. 0 to 49 calories is 0 points, 50 to 99 calories is 1 point, 100 to 149 is 2 points, etc. I have yet to find a single "Weight Watchers" food product sold at the stores, that does not follow the above pattern. If you are aware of one, please let me know because I would love to be proved wrong. >> No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that >> still have a calorific value in the strictest sense. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That makes it sound like an actual formula. It is. > But take a look at the > prepared dinners/lunches they sell at the grocery store. 0 to 49 > calories is 0 points, 50 to 99 calories is 1 point, 100 to 149 is 2 > points, etc. I have yet to find a single "Weight Watchers" food product > sold at the stores, that does not follow the above pattern. If you are > aware of one, please let me know because I would love to be proved wrong. Why on earth should I waste my time looking at those? I cook real food from raw ingredients every day. I weigh the ingredients that need weighing and point them according to the published points list. I don't even keep a few handy in the freezer for days I can't cook: I have home made portions of things cooked previously in there instead (there are three of us: lots of recipes are for 4 portions, so the last one gets frozen). I use WW recipes or adaptations of other recipes or methods of cooking classic dishes that I point according to the weight of the ingredients using the lists. I've adapted a lot of my own recipes to low fat cooking methods and worked out the points per portion. Food is only partly about fuel/calories. Much to do with food is to do with physical sensation as you eat (the smell, the texture, the blending of flavours, the feeling of satisfaction after eating good food well prepared), the social interaction (both during cooking and during the meal: I often cook 'socially' - while friends and family are there, helping, watching, nattering... ), and nurturing. I don't make my own pasta very often, or tomato puree (though hubby and son do make their own tomato ketchup from raw tomatoes and things, including home made red wine vinegar!), but other than those and the occasional tin of soup or tomatoes, most of the food in this house starts as raw ingredients (I'm reminded of a friend who reported that her daughter's boyfriend complained 'There's nothing to eat in this house! It's all INGREDIENTS!' She and I have twin cupboards, I think). I don't make my own sausages because it's messy and we have several excellent and prize-winning butchers close by who make their own (if you want to see where the pork sausages come from, wander out into the orchard and make friends with the Saddlebacks rooting amonst the tree... ), and I don't make my own venison burgers. The other burgers we buy are locally made lamb burgers (I don't eat those because the fat content is too high for me) or Aberdeen Angus steak burgers. Other things I make rather than buy include Christmas puddings and cakes, shortbread, mincemeat, rumtopf, jam, lemon curd, mayonaise, cakes, pesto, tapinade, marzipan, a few pickles and cutneys (we eat very little of those), sloe and damson gins, macaroons, custard (from eggs, not the powder type), meat balls, fishcakes, curry pastes (you get the most wonderful aromas as you roast and grind your own spices), and marinades. I've even been known to buy liver and lights and make my own haggis (but I draw the line at tripe and sauerkaut: the first if foul and the second a waste of a good cabbage). If son & friends want pizza for lunch on a Warhammer day, I make that, crust and all. I'm more a Jamie Oliver/Nigella Lawson type of a cook than a Delia Smith sort. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> That makes it sound like an actual formula. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why on earth should I waste my time looking at those? For starters, it proves that the "formula" argument is bullshit. I doubt very much that their prepared meals follow a complex formula to calculate their point value, and the pattern of calories to points that I mention is "just a fluke". Unless you wish to argue that there is two different point scales, one for pre-packaged food and another for home made food, I see no way to accept both your argument and what I have actually seen on nutrition labels required by federal law... Sorry, but I will decide to believe what I actually see. > I weigh the ingredients that need weighing and > point them according to the published points list. Ever consider the possibility that your list is probably based on calories? >>> That makes it sound like an actual formula. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Ever consider the possibility that your list is probably based on calories? Calories plus grams of sat fats (plus fiber in the USA). I enter the data for any food I know these per 100g OR per measured portion and can calculate the points value at the press of a button. So, if the Kcals for a portion is 194, and the sat fats is 3, the portion has 3.5 points. Likewise, if something is 345 Kcals and 16g of sat fats per 100g, then I know that the points value is 9 per 100g. Once I know the portion size of the food, I can work out the points value of the portion and decide if I want it or if I'd rather have something like an apple. Say the portion size is 25g for a snack bar with those values per 100g (this is fairly typical), then my bar is worth 2.25 points. As we only count halves, this would count as 2.5 points. I'd probably rather have the apple, for half a point. Apples are generally much nicer than commercial snack bars, especially our locally grown ones. It's hard to beat the smell, taste and texture of a new season Egremont Russet from that orchard out the back... It's sometimes fun to work out the points value of a food and then work out how much more and much better food you can have for fewer points. A slice of Starbucks fairly ordinary passion cake is 12 points. I work on 18 points a day. No way am I going to waste all those points on that chunk of artificial cake like substance when I can have two home cooked meals, a skinny latte from a DECENT coffee shop, plus a lovely fresh fruit salad for less than that, leaving me plenty of points to go home and have venison casserole, fresh veg, new potatoes and a banana the size of a Zeppelin! The points system just makes it easier for me to calculate what I need for the day, and to work out my food treats if I want one. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>>> That makes it sound like an actual formula. >>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > The points system just makes it easier for me to calculate what I need > for the day, and to work out my food treats if I want one. I know lots of folks who agree with you - that it's a sensible, easy to manage lifestyle thingee. Good for you! How's the "Troll Soup" anyway? :-) >>>>> That makes it sound like an actual formula. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > How's the "Troll Soup" anyway? :-) DEEELisshhuss, my precious... And filled with nice spicey flavours. The cauldron is emmitting toothsome aromas... We're having a low fat adaptation of a midiaeval dish for dinner tonight: Blamanger* of Capons** served with what the son & heir to the fambly debts terms 'mediaeveval peas in sludge!' He shovels it down at lightening speed. *Mediaevil spelling, not mine. **Actually chicken breasts as I don't have access to proper capons. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>>>>> That makes it sound like an actual formula. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > *Mediaevil spelling, not mine. > **Actually chicken breasts as I don't have access to proper capons. My cauldron is more Calphalon, but, it's all the same. So, I see you make your own pesto. Me, too. How do you save it? Or do you just make some of this stuff in season. I freeze fresh pesto and it seems to be ok. I have frozen basil leaves, too, but that isn't entirely satisfactory. >>> How's the "Troll Soup" anyway? :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > freeze fresh pesto and it seems to be ok. I have frozen basil leaves, > too, but that isn't entirely satisfactory. I can get fresg growing basil plants for the kitchen all year round in the supermarket, so I tend to make what I need when I want it. If I have 'spare' pesto, I just pop it in the freezer in a mini freezer box. When I've been planning ahead, I'll make a batch and freeze it in ice cube trays, pop the cubes out, and put them in a ziplock style bag for use as and when... I do the same with grated fresh ginger and chillis. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>>> How's the "Troll Soup" anyway? :-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I do the same with grated fresh ginger and chillis. Yeah, like I said, I have some air-tight containers I freeze pesto in and it seems to do OK. I have a tuna pesto pasta salad recipe that I crave at various times a year and although it's best fresh, I can live with it from the freezer. Same with roasted green chilis - I used to get a bag of them fresh from the roaster. Wonderful things. >> For starters, it proves that the "formula" argument is bullshit. I doubt >> very much that their prepared meals follow a complex formula to calculate >> their point value, and the pattern of calories to points that I mention is >> "just a fluke". <<snip>> > Calories plus grams of sat fats (plus fiber in the USA). I enter the data > for any food I know these per 100g OR per measured portion and can calculate > the points value at the press of a button. Then you ARE saying that the above mentioned distribution of points relative to the pure caloric content of the food product is "just a fluke"... It's calculated using all sorts of things, and it's just a weird coincidence that it follows the pattern of just the calories alone. Come on, say it... "It's just a weird coincidence"... Too bad I don't believe in pure coincidence. > Then you ARE saying that the above mentioned distribution of points > relative to the pure caloric content of the food product is "just a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Too bad I don't believe in pure coincidence. No, it's simpler than that - The WW point system punishes low carb and rewards low fat, therefore almost all packaged food that lists its point value is low fat food. Go low fat and it gets close to points being based on calories. Should there be an alternate point system that punishes low fat and rewards low carb? That depends on how many WW folks would want to chose low carb if they had the choice. >> Then you ARE saying that the above mentioned distribution of points >> relative to the pure caloric content of the food product is "just a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > fat and rewards low carb? That depends on how many WW > folks would want to chose low carb if they had the choice. Many do. You just calculate the points the same way and do what you need. If you cut out all the carb points you can eat other stuff instead. Just remember that low carb does NOT automatically mean high fat. You can spend the points on whatever you like. If I wanted to, I could spend my daily allowance on chocolate and eat nothing else but zero point salads and vegetables that day. *I* wouldn't as it would be a one way ticket to 24 hours of agony talking to God on the Great White Telephone followed by weeks of lesser evils, but if that's the way it grabs you - The good thing about the WW system is that it's flexible. One can go low fat, low carbs, gluten free, vegetarian, lactose free, whatever... Many do and shed the weight they want to shed, and keep it off for years. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! > The good thing about the WW system is that it's flexible. One can go low > fat, low carbs, gluten free, vegetarian, lactose free, whatever... Many do > and shed the weight they want to shed, and keep it off for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_Watchers A clinical study involving Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers and The Zone diets, published in 2005, reported that among the Weight Watchers participants the average net weight loss in a one-year period was 3.0 kilograms (6.6 lb).[citation needed] However, the study only included two months of maximum effort, letting the participants decide their level of adherence for the following ten months.[citation needed] Weight Watchers was the third most effective diet in terms of weight loss --- Do you really consider 6.6 lbs a year "shedding" weight? That's only 0.55 lbs a month, or 54.5 days per pound. >> The good thing about the WW system is that it's flexible. One can go >> low fat, low carbs, gluten free, vegetarian, lactose free, whatever... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > level of adherence for the following ten months.[citation needed] Weight > Watchers was the third most effective diet in terms of weight loss Not my experience. I lost an average of a pound a week and totaled 70lbs. I took it of slowly, as WW prefers. They advocate between half a pound and a pound and a half per week. All but a pound or so of it stayed off for two years. It's only the last few months I've slipped, partly through physical problems preventing exercise as regularly as I'd like, partly directly caused by one of the health issues, and partly stress eating worrying about several family members and friends with serious health and other problems. There are lots of folk in the group who have remained at or very close to (within five pounds either side of) their goals for 5-10 years. WW always stresses that the journey to your goal weight should be taken slowly and is a learning process as much as a weight loss process. They also stress that this is a *life long commitment*, involving embracing a lifestyle change, the re-education of both mind and body into new habits of both eating and exercise, and that those who are MOST successful and keep the weight off long term or forever are those who keep following the program. You cannot expect the weight to stay off if you go back to slobbing on the sofa and stuffing excess amounts of junk food. The point with any of these is not looking at it as 'a diet'. That way madness lies... Think of it as the way you like to eat and exercise. Find the exercise you like (for me that's swimming and walking, which also fit with the health issues), and do that. Combine it with the right amounts of food in a varied diet and there's no problem maintaining the goal weight. Some months you may be up a little, some down... Life's like that. At the moment I'm up more than I'm happy with, and the help and support and encouragement of the group meeting each week is something I find really useful. I never expected to feel like that, and thought I'd soon develop into a 'weigh-in-and-run' type, but the folks are fun and the group a huge help and support when things are not going to plan. If I hadn't kept going all these months, I'm damned sure I'd be up further than I am. It's too easy to lose track if you don't make yourself accountable. Right, I'm off to take me nightly cocktail of pills and potions. Tomorrow I have a busy day in the sewing room (I have a silk gown and a Regency hat to complete before Sunday after noon, a toile for a waistcoat to do for 3pm, a skirt to make up, several large boxes of fabric to haul up the ladder onto the loft, and a London School of Fashion student with me for the day!) followed by an hour in the pool... SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>> The good thing about the WW system is that it's flexible. One can go >>> low fat, low carbs, gluten free, vegetarian, lactose free, [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > fabric to haul up the ladder onto the loft, and a London School of > Fashion student with me for the day!) followed by an hour in the pool... You type A's are fun to watch. :-) >>>> The good thing about the WW system is that it's flexible. One can >>>> go low fat, low carbs, gluten free, vegetarian, lactose free, [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > :-) Catch me as I whizz past! :D It's been a good day so far... Student's jacket toile sorted, customer's waistcoat toile made and fitted, hat fabric presses, and rather than any sewing yesterday, himself and I re-upholstered the draftsman's chair in the conservatory, as the upholstery tacks had arrived. I'm now swithering between sewing up the student's skirt (need to cut a stay and the lining for that) and pleating the silk for the other customer's hat. Both such lovely fabrics and designs it's hard to choose! Both are 'on stage' on December 3rd, so I don't want to hang about. Waistcoat fer retired Navy gent needs to be done for next Friday too... I'd better get me menus planned for the week: that way I can extract the shopping list from the Excel sreadsheet, send himself to do the shopping, and not have to think about food until it's time to start cooking each day. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>>>> The good thing about the WW system is that it's flexible. One can >>>>> go low fat, low carbs, gluten free, vegetarian, lactose free, [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > shopping, and not have to think about food until it's time to start > cooking each day. I can sew a button on, so there. pffft! I'm thinking it's bean soup with some onion, carrots, celery and ham/smoked sausage in it for dinner. I need to start it so it cooks all day. > I can sew a button on, so there. One of last week's projects: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3143/3026873197_d91a2be8e1.jpg?v=0 And a previous adventure: http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk/KatePages/Costuming/Katherine_of_Aragon/k atherine_of_aragon_project.htm > pffft! (Giggle) It's what I do these days. > I'm thinking it's bean soup with some onion, carrots, celery and > ham/smoked sausage in it for dinner. I need to start it so it cooks all > day. Sounds lovely. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> I can sew a button on, so there. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And a previous adventure: > http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk/KatePages/Costuming/Katherine_of_Aragon/k atherine_of_aragon_project.htm Good Lord. Just seeing the pictures gives me a headache - all that work! whew!! :-) >> pffft! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > Sounds lovely. It was very good, but now is gone. > Good Lord. > > Just seeing the pictures gives me a headache - all that work! Hell of a lot less work than teaching, where I regularly clocked up a 90 hour week during term time, what with all the preparation, marking, meetings, chasing bits of paper and other crap piled on top of the actual classroom bit (which was the best bit, most of the time). Mind you, I het to have a bit of a relapse next month, where I'm in school for a week with a herd of sewing machines, teaching the kids to sew. :) SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> Good Lord. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > school for a week with a herd of sewing machines, teaching the kids to > sew. :) I've got a button that's coming off here. Can you fix it for me, please? >>> Good Lord. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Can you fix it for me, please? I don't do mending or alterations, sorry. :) SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>>> Good Lord. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I don't do mending or alterations, sorry. :) OK, I gotta tell you that my button fell off, my pants loosened and started to fall and when asked what happened i blurted "It's all Kate's fault!" So there. You've got a lotta explaining to do. >>>>> Good Lord. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You've got a lotta explaining to do. <Sends Hoots needle & thread via Magic Scanner> SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>>>>> Good Lord. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > <Sends Hoots needle & thread via Magic Scanner> Oh, it's way past that time. I need you to explain to the people who were there when it popped. Ha! >>>>>>> Good Lord. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Ha! Too much cake? ;) I'm suffering that way myself this month... SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>>>>>>> Good Lord. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > I'm suffering that way myself this month... Too much Thanksgiving. It's an American tradition to stuff a turkey then ones self. Far be it for me to break with tradition. >>> That makes it sound like an actual formula. >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > their point value, and the pattern of calories to points that I mention is > "just a fluke". Actually their prepared meals do follow the same formula as all other foods. I've calculated them out myself to insure that the points value is correct for the listed nutrition information. There have been a couple of times when they changed the recipe, updated the nutrition info and missed correcting the points value. > Unless you wish to argue that there is two different point scales, one for > pre-packaged food and another for home made food, I see no way to accept > both your argument and what I have actually seen on nutrition labels > required by federal law... As I stated, I've made the calculations and the formula is the same. It works for both prepackaged and homemade meals. It is a function of calories, fat (increases the point value), and fiber (decreases the point value but there is a limit on the effect of the fiber). > Sorry, but I will decide to believe what I actually see. You can find the equation by Googling it. Since you probably will not believe me or anyone else, find the equation and run the calculations yourself. If you don't believe that the equation you find using Google is correct, then wade through the copyright/patent information. >> I weigh the ingredients that need weighing and point them according to >> the published points list. > > Ever consider the possibility that your list is probably based on > calories? I've run ingredients through the equation and get the same as the published list of points. If you do not believe me, get the equation and test it yourself. A teaspoon of cooking oil is less than 50 calories but the point value is greater than 0. The formula is designed to favor low calorie, high fiber items like fruits and vegetables. >>>> That makes it sound like an actual formula. >>> It is. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > yourself. A teaspoon of cooking oil is less than 50 calories but the point > value is greater than 0. I've done the same with WW recipes, and found they are very accurately calculated. I've not yet come accross a WW recipe that was inaccurate, nor one that didn't work. (I've come across a couple that I didn't much like, but that's a different matter entirely!) > The formula is designed to favor low calorie, high fiber items like fruits > and vegetables. Absolutely! And it makes it easy to count the point value of anything from single ingredients like butter (1 point per 5g teaspoonful) or carrot (zero points) to completed ready made items like a bought cake or a ready meal. SignatureKate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons http://www.katedicey.co.uk Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >>> No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that >>> still have a calorific value in the strictest sense. [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > I'm more a Jamie Oliver/Nigella Lawson type of a cook than a Delia Smith > sort. Geez, Kate, you're making me hungry... :-) I got tired just looking at your list of "stuff". I admit - I don't make my own chutney. But I don't make my own sauerkraut, either. >>>> What's for lunch? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They don't claim that. They just make it easier. I make it easier too. By not eating any carbs. I don't need to count zilch. I can eat as much as I want. I never go hungry. I even forget to eat sometimes. I'm always satisfied with the food I eat. And I still lose fat all the while. >> Instead, they count "points". Correct me if I'm wrong, but each point >> is worth a calorie range, yes? I *THINK* each point is worth a block [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > the pillow. I try to take one decent walk and 3 swimming sessions per > week. >>>>> What's for lunch? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >eat sometimes. I'm always satisfied with the food I eat. And I still >lose fat all the while. You're lucky. Most people I have seen eating as much as they want of everything except carbs get sluggish and gain weight. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) > Like flavorless steaks smothered in mushrooms and lamb chops seasoned with > garlic salt and a tossed salad with ranch dressing and Brussels sprouts in a > sauce of cream and cheese. You obviously have never eaten at my house. You almost had a believer out of me until you mentioned “garlic salt”. Good lamb chops deserve fresh garlic along with a little olive oil, salt and pepper. Broil up them little bastards and that’s some good sh.t. As for the Brussels sprouts they got to be crisp when served because otherwise the limp slimy leaves are revolting. Ragnar I have never made a limp slimy leafed Brussels sprout, that comes from overcooking which is a kitchen sin I do not commit. I am a lazy cook, though, and the garlic salt makes a fine quick lamb chop. | You almost had a believer out of me until you mentioned “garlic salt”. | Good lamb chops deserve fresh garlic along with a little olive oil, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | | Ragnar The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>, >The largest women are still ahead by 22%, and the largest men by 50%. hoe f.ck . I die. Feeeeeeeeeeed me the BIG BREAST ....! Louise > The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Louise That's some clear-headed thinking. I like the cut of your jib. > http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/12/excess-... > -ups-risk-of-death-no-matter-where.html [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > overweight, and a BMI over 30 is considered obese, according to the U.S. > National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The above would seem to be in contradiction of the attention grabbing headline, since men with a BMI that puts them in the overweight group had the lowest risk of death, And the study from a couple years ago showed that people who were modestly overweight, but not obese had the longest lifespan. The debate goes on. > Men with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 24 percent increased risk of death > compared to normal weight men. And women with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel > added. > The above would seem to be in contradiction of the attention grabbing > headline, since men with a BMI that puts them in the overweight group > had the lowest risk of death, And the study from a couple years ago > showed that people who were modestly overweight, but not obese had the > longest lifespan. The debate goes on. I think the issue is one of getting adequate nutrition (vitamins/minerals/etc). People generally eat poorly so being "modestly overweight" means you are likely getting more vitamins & minerals than skinny people but the down side is you're getting more calories. At some point the excess calories overcomes the better nutrition. This same issue holds true for having a heart attack. Modestly overweight people are more likely to survive a heart attack than skinny people. However, eating well, like paleo, is going to prevent the heart attacks in the first place and I "speculate" that it will increase longevity and heart attack survivability. SignaturePramesh Rutaji p297tongue6221@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > showed that people who were modestly overweight, but not obese had the > > longest lifespan. The debate goes on. On of the causes of aging seems to be insulin levels. To cut insulin levels you don't automatically end up very thin, but ending up very thin but still healthy does take low insulin levels. > I think the issue is one of getting adequate nutrition > (vitamins/minerals/etc). People generally eat poorly so being "modestly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > same issue holds true for having a heart attack. Modestly overweight > people are more likely to survive a heart attack than skinny people. I think parts of it are simpler than this. Being sick is one reason for being skinny. In a society where unlimited food is available being overweight but healthy takes less effort than being skinny but healthy. These two combine to push the statistics for skinniness to appear riskier. I think this is a large effect - I know a fair number of skinny people who are that way because they can't gain but not that many people who are skinny because they chose to be skinny in a healthy fashion. Also as in your example of a catastrophic illness or injury, a skinny person has less reserves so a moderately overweight person has a better chance of living through the ordeal. I think this is a much smaller effect but it seems to be the heart attack example case. > However, eating well, like paleo, is going to prevent the heart attacks > in the first place and I "speculate" that it will increase longevity and > heart attack survivability. Same comment for low carbing. Folks who were once in the categories beyond regular overweight often end up in the moderately overweight category after a long time of low carbing. This is likely true of paleo folks as well. I wonder the size of this effect in the population. So what about the observation that lifespan is externded by eating 30% less calories and ending up skinny? My theory is that for humans the biggest effect is the insulin level so similar benefits will come from low carbing without losing that much weight. I have no idea how my theory would be tested though. Feed monkeys higher calories of low carb food and see how long they live? But monkeys are evolved to be fruit eaters so how valid would that data be for humans? Maybe do it on pigs who have metabolisms closer to the current state of human evolution? > Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects > But too much abdominal fat poses a bigger threat, study finds Above association may be linked to environmental pollutants since they tend to be lipophilic and stored in fatty tissues such as adipose. See below. Abdominal fat is a bigger threat because that is primarily where ingested pollutants get stored. > "The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat > right, exercise and reduce stress ... In addition, avoid ingesting, breathing and contacting pollutants. Animal based dietary fat is the most common source. ----------------- White adipose tissue: storage and effector site for environmental pollutants. White adipose tissue (WAT) represents a reservoir of lipophilic environmental pollutants, especially of those which are resistant to biological and chemical degradation - so-called persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Large amounts of different congeners and isomers of these compounds exhibit a variety of adverse biological effects. Interactions among different classes of compounds, frequently with opposing effects, complicate hazard evaluation and risk assessment. WAT is the key organ for energy homeostasis and it also releases metabolites into the circulation and adipokines with systemic effects on insulin sensitivity and fuel partitioning in muscles and other tissues. Its beneficial role is lost in obesity when excessive accumulation of WAT contributes to severe diseases, such as diabetes. POPs may crossroad or modulate the effect of endogenous ligands of nuclear transcription factors, participating in differentiation, metabolism and the secretory function of adipocytes. These mechanisms include, most importantly: i) endocrine disrupting potency of POPs mixtures on androgen, estrogen or thyroid hormone metabolism/functions in WAT, ii) interference of dioxin-like chemicals with retinoic acid homeostasis, where impact on retinoid receptors is expected, and iii) interaction with transcriptional activity of peroxisome proliferator- activated receptors is likely. Thus, the accumulation and action of POPs in WAT represents a unitary mechanism explaining, at least in part, the effects of POPs in the whole organism. By modulating WAT differentiation, metabolism and function, the POPs could affect not only the physiological role of WAT, but they may also influence the development of obesity-associated diseases. PMID: 16925464 ----------------- Common Mito Toxins Metals Mercury (fish, analgams) Aluminum (cooking ware) Arsenic Cadmium Lead Manganese Fluoride (city water) Thallium Pesticides Organochlorines: DDT, lindane, chlordane, endrin, etc. Organophosphates: parathion, etc. DEET Pyrethroids Rotenone Herbicides Paraquat PCBs Dioxin PAH and PM Smoking Vehicle exhaust Ethanol, Toluene, Benzene Trans fatty acids Hydrogenated oils Drugs H2-receptor antagonist, cimetidine, ranitidine Antibiotics, chloramphenicol, tetracyclines Phthalates (plasticizers) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.