Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 2003
Weight Loss Aids, Pills, etc....
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Shashay Doofray - 21 Nov 2003 07:38 GMT Hi y'all. Yep, I am still here, lurking, trying to find some information that will help. Here is my question....
Why does everybody have such a negative attitude toward weight loss aids? It seems that every time it is mentioned you all react with great disdain.
It reminds me of the lady who was having a 14 pound baby and EVERYBODY told her she was a terrible mother for not wanting to do it without any pain medication. That somehow it wasn't a pure experience if she used medication or an epidural.
There are things out there (there must be) that will help in our quest for weight loss. Why is the only acceptable way of losing this weight through the pain and agony of doing it the "hard way"? Does it make us better people? Improve our Karma? Make us appreciate being skinny more?
Why is ok to use drugs to improve your sex life (Viagra), or stop a headache/toothache/muscle ache, or to stop your nose from running when you have a cold, but it's NOT ok to use chemicals to HELP lose weight? It sounds like a HUGE double standard to me. Why is the only acceptable method pain and suffering? I don't get it.
-- *..? ???)) -:?:- ?.?? .????)) ((??.?? .?? -:?:- *Shashay* -:?:- -:?:- ((??.??*
RLW - 21 Nov 2003 08:18 GMT "Shashay Doofray" :
> Hi y'all. Yep, I am still here, lurking, trying to find some information > that will help. Here is my question.... > > Why does everybody have such a negative attitude toward weight loss aids? > It seems that every time it is mentioned you all react with great disdain. Well, I don't know about everyone else, but I have taken duromine (i.e. phentermine). I never actually used up my 30 day supply, because I didn't notice any difference in my eating patterns, though it did make me slightly more energetic during exercise. Only very slightly.
I suspect the reason many people have a negative reaction to them is because they may aid in weight loss, but they don't help you maintain it. You can't keep taking them forever, and as soon as you stop, if you haven't fixed the old, bad habits then the weight will just come back on. Sooner or later you have to learn to live without them. You might as well save your money and do it on your own from the start.
Aside from that, the pills have negative side effects for many people. They're expensive. I think they may have some value for people who are going through stressful patches which would otherwise cause them to eat bad foods or neglect their exercise routines. But, to extend your analogy, if you had a perpetual headache, you wouldn't keep taking painkillers, you'd get to the root of the problem. Weight loss drugs don't fix the root cause of obesity.
Rowena.
273/213/150
> It reminds me of the lady who was having a 14 pound baby and EVERYBODY told > her she was a terrible mother for not wanting to do it without any pain [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ((??.?? .?? -:?:- *Shashay* -:?:- > -:?:- ((??.??* Patricia Heil - 21 Nov 2003 13:27 GMT You know that ads promising magic are lies right? We are tired of scammers lying to us. We want good health. You can't get good health from a pill, you only tinker with problems.
For life long good health, you need to exercise and eat right. Anybody who tells you differently, watch out because if they are not selling you crap up front, they will once they think you are convinced they are trustworthy.
Ignoramus15351 - 21 Nov 2003 13:49 GMT > Hi y'all. Yep, I am still here, lurking, trying to find some information > that will help. Here is my question.... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > sounds like a HUGE double standard to me. Why is the only acceptable method > pain and suffering? I don't get it. Shashay, good question.
Personally, if there was a wonder pill that would make me want to eat exactly as I need to maintain my weight, and which definitely had no side effects, I would gladly take that pill. (I no longer need to lose weight but I maintain it).
Unfortunately, I am not aware of such a pill. If you say "there must be one", maybe you can point it out to us. My guess is that it was a wild assed guess of yours and you would not be able to find such a pill.
I know what caused my weight gain. I ate too much, wrong food and I did not exercise enough. Once I fixed it, I lost 47 lbs in 100 days, magically. Since I fixed this problem, I am not regaining either. Naturally, I know well tat if I started eating too much or exercising too little, I would regain weight as well.
If I took some magic pill that would cause me to lose weight, went off the pill, I would regain unless I adopted healthier attitude.
So... show us the wonder pill that you are talking about!
i
Wendy - 22 Nov 2003 22:45 GMT > Once I fixed it, I lost 47 lbs in > 100 days, magically. Who here got the willies reading this line just before Thanksgiving?
Wendy
jmk - 24 Nov 2003 13:45 GMT >>Once I fixed it, I lost 47 lbs in >>100 days, magically. > > Who here got the willies reading this line just before Thanksgiving? > > Wendy [raising hand]
Also, that's like 3.25 pounds per week. Most people wouldn't consider that a healthy rate of weight loss.
 Signature jmk in NC
Wendy - 24 Nov 2003 13:37 GMT >>>Once I fixed it, I lost 47 lbs in >>>100 days, magically. >> >> Who here got the willies reading this line just before Thanksgiving?
> [raising hand]
> Also, that's like 3.25 pounds per week. Most people wouldn't consider > that a healthy rate of weight loss. It's a man thing.
When I first started the Body for Life program I lost about 15 pounds in the first 12 weeks. My husband lost about 15 pounds in the first six weeks. Then he started gaining muscle while still losing fat. He lost about 20 pounds overall while building muscle: he went from "okay looking" to "drop-dead gorgeous" in 12 weeks. (Look at the BFL pictures - he did that.) Meanwhile, I went from "obese" to "chunky". When the 12 weeks were over he said, "well, that was fun. I lost what weight I want to lose but keeping the body-builder's physique is too much work so I'm going to quit weight-lifting." In the year since then he hasn't regained any of his weight - he's just lost the muscle definition. Meanwhile, I'm still plugging along at about .5 pounds/week on average, working out six days a week, watching everything I eat... while he NordicTracks maybe 20 minutes three times a week and eats anything he fancies...
It's not fair. Wendy
Ignoramus3100 - 24 Nov 2003 14:51 GMT >>>>Once I fixed it, I lost 47 lbs in >>>>100 days, magically. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It's not fair. > Wendy where are his pictures? just curious.
Yeah, life is unfair. I envy people who can eat what they want, whenever they want. Oh well...
I agree that it is a "man thing" and "health thing" to an extent. That losing 47 lbs was less of an accomplishment for me than it would be for, say, you.
i 223/176/180
Wendy - 24 Nov 2003 14:09 GMT > where are his pictures? just curious. He never posted pictures. I meant look at the pictures on the body for life website. Here's one that rather resembles my husband (at that time - now he's more in the middle.)
http://www.bodyforlife.com/finishers/2002/bios/thomas_phillips.shtml
I'm planning on putting up pictures of me soon. Really. Maybe.
Wendy
Ignoramus3100 - 24 Nov 2003 15:16 GMT >> where are his pictures? just curious. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Wendy You have a very impressive husband if he looks similar. Congratulations.
Maybe I should take up something like that challenge. My problem is that no matter what I do, I do not like weightlifting. And I cannot free lift heavy barbells for a certain reason, and I am too lazy (and really do not have time) to go to the gym. I have a kid and already walk 100 minutes per day. I still lift weights and do calisthenics though, more or less every day. But apparently not enough to look like that dude.
i
rosie read and post - 24 Nov 2003 15:28 GMT why are you changing your addy? trying to bypass filters?
Ignoramus3100 - 24 Nov 2003 15:34 GMT > why are you changing your addy? > trying to bypass filters? No, trying to not be findable in google.
It is easy to killfile me. All major newsreaders have killfile capability based on wildcards. For example, in Forte Agent, you could killfile "ignoramus*".
i
Chrys - 24 Nov 2003 15:48 GMT > why are you changing your addy? > trying to bypass filters? Of course he is. He regularly cross posts nonsense to many groups and the only way he can guarantee people reading is to try to evade their killfiles. He hasn't done that too much here, but he routinely does so in alt.support.marriage.
Ignoramus3100 - 24 Nov 2003 15:58 GMT >> why are you changing your addy? >> trying to bypass filters? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > killfiles. He hasn't done that too much here, but he routinely does so in > alt.support.marriage. You just do not know how to use computers... It is very easy to killfile me. check how your newsreader can use "wildcard" entries for killfiling.
For example, I am using slrn and I killfile M u based on wildcard entries. Have not seen his posts in a while.
i 223/176/180
JR - 25 Nov 2003 10:16 GMT > Maybe I should take up something like that challenge. My problem is > that no matter what I do, I do not like weightlifting. You're probably never going to look like that guy, and neither am I (not sure I want to) but you could give weightlifting a try for a while. I didn't like it in the beginning either.
> And I cannot > free lift heavy barbells for a certain reason, and I am too lazy (and > really do not have time) to go to the gym. I am at the gym at 5:30 AM every day (well, not weekends). It is the ONLY time that I can go and not have it interfere with the rest of my life and family.
It just depends on what you want to do...
Ignoramus16936 - 25 Nov 2003 13:52 GMT >> Maybe I should take up something like that challenge. My problem is >> that no matter what I do, I do not like weightlifting. > > You're probably never going to look like that guy, and neither am I > (not sure I want to) but you could give weightlifting a try for a > while. I didn't like it in the beginning either. Well, not only I did give it a try, I continue some weightlifting and do calisthenics every day. (pullups, pushups, crunches, that sort of thing). I sort of like calisthenics, but not weightlifting.
>> And I cannot >> free lift heavy barbells for a certain reason, and I am too lazy (and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time that I can go and not have it interfere with the rest of my life and > family. That's great that you do it. I rise at 5:08 myself.
> It just depends on what you want to do... Absolutely. I think that I do kind of okay, not superior to you in any sense, but I think that what I do works at least enough for me to keep in not too shameful shape.
i 223/176/180
janice - 24 Nov 2003 16:54 GMT >It's a man thing. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >It's not fair. > Wendy I've noticed at all the slimming clubs I've been to over the years any men in the class seem to lose at a much faster rate than the women, and also they seem to be able to stick at it with more determination and for longer. It seems some men don't find it as difficult - I know there are exceptions and we've seen one or two here who have had a real struggle with losing and regaining. janice
Ignoramus3100 - 24 Nov 2003 14:23 GMT >>>Once I fixed it, I lost 47 lbs in >>>100 days, magically. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Also, that's like 3.25 pounds per week. Most people wouldn't consider > that a healthy rate of weight loss. Surprisingly, I agree. On balance, considering all that I know about weight loss, I lost weight a little bit too quickly. So far, I see no ill effects of such quick weight loss, but I probably took risks that I should not have.
I also did not intend to lose weight that quickly, I thought that my weight loss phase would end around november.
During weight loss, I thought about this too and decided that since I was not too hungry and felt great, that there was no need to try to slow down my weight loss. I exercised a lot and I ate quite a bit of food -- 1900 calories per day or so, according to my approximate calculations. So I was not starved of nutrients of any kind and much of my calorie deficit came from increased exercise. So I decided, instead of wasting my time meticulously counting calories every day to make sure I have a small deficit, to continue doing what was working well and have a larger calorie deficit but not bother with daily calorie counting.
At some point around 178 lbs, I basically hit a wall and stopped losing. [my plan was to get to 175 lbs]. I decided not to force myself at that point and have remained at 176-178, for almost three months already, occasionally hitting 175.
I feel that 2 lbs per week is a recommendation that is geared towards safety, for people who are either in poorer health than myself, or for those lazy ones who try to lose weight too fast by eating much less than normal, rather than through increased exercise. Anyway, it is better to be safe than sorry and if I was to give someone advice, I would suggest to go slowly.
As for thanksgiving, I plan to cook the usual thanksgiving feast, turkey and all, but eat not much more than normally. When I overeat, I feel very terribly and it is just not worth it.
i 223/176/180
Chris Braun - 25 Nov 2003 03:15 GMT >I feel that 2 lbs per week is a recommendation that is geared towards >safety, for people who are either in poorer health than myself, or for >those lazy ones who try to lose weight too fast by eating much less >than normal, rather than through increased exercise. Anyway, it is >better to be safe than sorry and if I was to give someone advice, I >would suggest to go slowly. Apart from my first couple of weeks of dieting, I've never averaged more than 2 lbs. per week. My average over the 16 months or so I've been dieting is around 1 1/4 lbs. per week -- somewhat less lately. I don't think a significantly greater weight loss rate would be attainable for me while maintaining adequate energy for work and exercise. My calorie level has been on the order of 6.5 to 8.5 calories per pound of bodyweight (lower ratio at the start, higher now, as I've not cut calories proportionately to my weight), and I exercise (fairly serious lifting and cardio for a woman my age) 5x/week. I don't think pushing it any more would be a very good idea. And I've not been in a hurry anyway. I mean, it's not like someday I'll get to a magic weight and then just stop doing all this stuff.
People lose at different rates for a whole lot of reasons.
Chris
Ignoramus3100 - 25 Nov 2003 03:59 GMT >>I feel that 2 lbs per week is a recommendation that is geared towards >>safety, for people who are either in poorer health than myself, or for [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Chris I agree with you completely.
Here's my weight log, not so well kept in the beginning. You can see that my weight loss has been uneven. 20 lbs first month, 8 lbs second month, 12 lbs third month.
i
Jun 1: 223
Jul 1: 203
Jul 26: 195
Aug 1: 195
Aug 10: 190
Aug 12: 188 Aug 18: 187 Aug 21: 186
Aug 23: 185 Aug 25: 184.5 Aug 26: 185
Sep 1: 183 Sep 3: 182 Sep 6: 183 Sep 5: 182 Sep 9: 180 Sep 13: 178 Sep 14: 179 Sep 18: 178 Sep 20: 177 Sep 24: 176 Sep 25: 177 Sep 26: 176.6 Sep 27: 176.6 Sep 28: 177.6 Sep 29: 177.6 Sep 30: 178 Oct 1: 177.6 Oct 2: 177.8 Oct 3: 176.6 Oct 4: 177.8 Oct 5: 176.2 Oct 6: 178 (ate salty stuff) Oct 7: 177.8 Oct 8: 176.4 Oct 9: 176.4 Oct 11: 175.6 Oct 12: 176... Oct 13: 177.8 Oct 14: 176.4 Oct 15: 177.0 Oct 16: 176.0 Oct 17: 176.8 Oct 18: 176.2 Oct 19: 176.4 Oct 20: 176.0 Oct 21: 176.4 Oct 22: 175.6 Oct 23: 176.0 Oct 24: 176.0 Oct 25: 176.4 Oct 26: 177.4 Oct 27: 175.8 Oct 28: 175.6 Oct 29: 176.4 Oct 30: 176.0 Oct 31: 176.8
Nov 1: 176.8 Nov 2: 178.6 Nov 3: 176.0 Nov 4: 176.0 Nov 5: 176.4 Nov 6: 176.0 Nov 7: 177.4 Nov 8: 176.6 Nov 9: 176.3 Nov 10: 177.8 Nov 11: 175.0 Nov 12: 177.4 Nov 13: 177.4 Nov 14: 177.8 Nov 15: 177.4 Nov 16: 177.8 Nov 17: 176.6 Nov 18: 176.8 Nov 19: 176.4 Nov 20: 176.4 Nov 21: 177.8 Nov 22: 177.4 Nov 23: 177.3 Nov 24: 176.4
i
Jayjay - 21 Nov 2003 14:18 GMT >Hi y'all. Yep, I am still here, lurking, trying to find some information >that will help. Here is my question.... > >Why does everybody have such a negative attitude toward weight loss aids? >It seems that every time it is mentioned you all react with great disdain. First you have the over the counter "diet aids". These generally contain either chromium, or some sort of ECA stack. The thing about these is 1. Marketing promises vast amounts of weight loss with no effort necessary. 2. Since they are "herbal" medicines they are not regulated by the FDA. That means their ingredients don't have to follow any guidelines.
3. The thermogenic effects of these "fat burners" are actually very minimal. that means they may increase your metabolism - but not by much. They don't really help you all that much.
I would suggest you do some research on fat burners.... http://www.drumlib.com/dp/index.htm#ECA is a good place to start.
The thing about alot of the over the counter types is they contain ingredients that can be harmful to people when not taken under doctors supervision. Also, usually once the body gets used to the stuff being in your system you don't feel the effects of the drug (the "extra energy", etc) so people will take a higher dose - unsafe dosages, which then lead to other health related problems (and death).
Then tehres the fact that some of the ingredients used can cause heart problems and death in some people. There are too many medical conditions that can be affected w/ these herbal stimulants.
Now that leads us into the Medically prescribed drugs. They too can have alot of the same effect on metabolism and energy as the over the counter. But you must be under doctors supervision. Well, alot of doctors will try to get you to lose weight naturally before resorting to pills. Alot of insurance plans won't cover the cost of the pills, and they aren't cheap either.
And finally - the key ingredient. They may help you lose weight but they don't teach you how to maintain weight loss. For many people who use drugs to help them lose weight, they will be on them for the rest of their life. That is a pretty expensive way to live.
There's alot more that could be said - but this is at least a start.
Do some research on them.
Chrys - 21 Nov 2003 15:49 GMT > Now that leads us into the Medically prescribed drugs. They too can > have alot of the same effect on metabolism and energy as the over the > counter. But you must be under doctors supervision. Well, alot of > doctors will try to get you to lose weight naturally before resorting > to pills. Alot of insurance plans won't cover the cost of the pills, > and they aren't cheap either. Not to mention that just because something is prescribed by a doctor doesn't mean it's safe. Some prescription drugs have ended up causing huge health problems even though they had been approved by the FDA and were taken under medical supervision.
Jayjay - 21 Nov 2003 15:56 GMT >> Now that leads us into the Medically prescribed drugs. They too can >> have alot of the same effect on metabolism and energy as the over the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >huge health problems even though they had been approved by the FDA and >were taken under medical supervision. Phen/Fen
A Ross - 21 Nov 2003 17:21 GMT > Hi y'all. Yep, I am still here, lurking, trying to find some > information > that will help. Here is my question.... > > Why does everybody have such a negative attitude toward weight > loss aids? I have nothing against them, but I hear that they work best if used with an exercise and diet program--that oughta give you a clue. Like the cellulite creams that "work best when applied after vigorous exercise."
I lost my last 20 some pounds without spending a dime making somebody else rich. I'm pretty proud of that. I understand that some folks need extra help, and medically supervised programs and prescriptions are great for them. But the stuff advertised on TV and in tabloid mags smacks of snake oil and con jobs.
As always, my opinion, and ymmv.
Amy
janice - 21 Nov 2003 17:55 GMT I think it's because most of the products that are peddled don't actually achieve what they claim to do. A lot of products seem to specify in the small print that they work in conjunction with a calorie controlled diet, with exercise, or whatever, so why do we need them if diet and exercise work on their own as we know they do? I've never seen a product (not that I look at them that often) that I believed could actually deliver weight loss in a healthy way without the "pain" of dieting. Can you give any examples? Promising weight loss without effort is one of the easiest ways to get people's attention and get them to part with their money, which means it's a good bandwagon to jump on if you want to make easy money quickly. This is surely one of the areas where "if something seems to good to be true it probably is" applies in a big way. janice
>Hi y'all. Yep, I am still here, lurking, trying to find some information >that will help. Here is my question.... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >sounds like a HUGE double standard to me. Why is the only acceptable method >pain and suffering? I don't get it. Nancy 8 03 - 21 Nov 2003 18:12 GMT I've tried pills in the long run they never worked I lost weight but sooner or later you have to stop taking them. I'm not speaking for anyone else but maybe they're speaking from experience too when they say pills aren't the way to do it. But If you think pills will help you I say go for it. Just make sure what you take is safe and realize you still have to learn good eating habits along the way.
Paul - 21 Nov 2003 18:22 GMT Hello List,
Just wanted to reply to some of these questions...
> Hi y'all. Yep, I am still here, lurking, trying to find some information > that will help. Here is my question.... > > Why does everybody have such a negative attitude toward weight loss aids?
>>>>>>>Because weightloss aids usually 1.) can hurt ones health as already proven and 2.) are full of empty promises.
> It seems that every time it is mentioned you all react with great disdain. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the pain and agony of doing it the "hard way"? Does it make us better > people? Improve our Karma? Make us appreciate being skinny more?
>>>>>>>>>I don't think losing weight is pain and agony or " the hard way" it's simply natural, the way it was meant to be, and changing the way our society has conformed to eat habits.
> Why is ok to use drugs to improve your sex life (Viagra), or stop a > headache/toothache/muscle ache, or to stop your nose from running when you > have a cold, but it's NOT ok to use chemicals to HELP lose weight?
>>>>>>>>>I believe that most men who need Viagra (or claim to need Viagra) are needing it because of their diet. Therefore, a healthy diet especially over a good period of time would probably aid a man and woman in their sex life. Can you see how eating affects so amy areas of ones life? Many people who are sick and need medicines are many times in that predicament, due to improper eating and exercise. I'm not saying everyone is in this boat, but most.
It
> sounds like a HUGE double standard to me. Why is the only acceptable method > pain and suffering? I don't get it.
>>>>>>>>>There is no double standard here. Most of us want to be healthy naturally w/o drugs if possible. How much better would you feel knowing you lost the weight by exercising and diet? I know I'd feel better! Most of the people here are use to years of trying to lose weight and have tried many drugs and know that ONE thing they can count on is THEMSELVES and support of others wanting the same thing.
Paul
> -- > *..? ???)) -:?:- > ?.?? .????)) > ((??.?? .?? -:?:- *Shashay* -:?:- > -:?:- ((??.??* DrumLib - 22 Nov 2003 04:20 GMT > Why is ok to use drugs to improve your sex life (Viagra), or stop a > headache/toothache/muscle ache, or to stop your nose from running when you > have a cold, but it's NOT ok to use chemicals to HELP lose weight? It > sounds like a HUGE double standard to me. Why is the only acceptable method > pain and suffering? I don't get it. Oh, you get it, Shashay. Far better than most people. You are absolutely correct that it is a huge double standard. The arguments against diet drugs would sound utterly ridiculous if applied to other chronic diseases. Look at the reasons given for the negative attitude and substitute heart medication' for diet drugs. Can you imagine anyone saying you shouldn't take heart medication' because it's expensive? Or because some people have side effects? Or because heart medications' stop working if you stop taking them?!? Or because they work best if you also make some lifestyle changes?
Another part of the problem is that many people think their personal experiences with weight loss can be applied to everyone. But there are different TYPES of obesity -- just like diabetes. Most people who are moderately overweight don't have a clue what it is like to live with genetic obesity. They don't realize that the genetically obese respond VERY differently to diet and exercise. They haven't read the research that investigated the effect (or lack thereof) of diet and exercise on genetically obese animals. Heck, genetically obese animals didn't obtain normal body composition even when starved/exercised to death. Geez.... The failure of diet and exercise is why obesity scientists looked for metabolic defects and ended up developing thermogenic drugs.
One can debate whether a person with 20 or 30 pounds to lose should take medication, but the attitude that diet drugs are bad' hurts people that have hundreds of pounds to lose because drugs are one of the few things that have a real chance of working. Normal people, even gluttons, do not gain hundreds of pounds. There are too many feedback mechanisms. In cases of morbid obesity, genetic defects are the driving force. Diet drugs/surgery/stomach pacemakers are their best chance to avoid the misery of being crippled by obesity.
So, yes, it is most definitely a horrible and a harmful double standard. My mother has high blood pressure and heart failure. Like obesity, her condition is the result of both genetic and environmental factors. However, unlike obesity, her diseases are widely recognized as REAL diseases, so people accept the fact that she has to take expensive medication for the rest of her life. They also accept the fact that her medications have side effects and substantial risks for a small percentage of people. Nobody in their right mind would tell her to stop taking her heart and blood pressure drugs. And any government that tried to ban her medications would be accused of crimes against humanity.
But nobody gets in trouble for burning witches....
Live Long and Prosper! DrumLib
DrumLib's Health Research Review http://www.drumlib.com Vitamin Price Comparison http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm Disclaimer http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm
Ignoramus29540 - 22 Nov 2003 13:05 GMT DrumLib, are you aware of any drug that actually works for long term weight loss in such individuals as you described?
i
>> Why is ok to use drugs to improve your sex life (Viagra), or stop a >> headache/toothache/muscle ache, or to stop your nose from running when you [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > Disclaimer > http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm Wendy - 22 Nov 2003 22:58 GMT > Why does everybody have such a negative attitude toward weight loss aids? > It seems that every time it is mentioned you all react with great disdain. Well, it's because most people peddling weight-loss nostrums are scamming you. The only over-the-counter weight-loss drug with any scientific efficacy is an ECA stack. Drumlib answered here and Jayjay gave the link to his site so I'll leave that be, but I can tell you that I've been doing an ECA stack on and off for about 9 months.
It's a tiny benefit. I do it mostly for reasons other than the thermogenic effect. Is the risk/cost worth the benefit? It seriously depends on the exact specifics of the case. Ephedrine is an asthma drug, I have asthma. I already take caffeine and aspirin. I sometimes (in specific cases) have a need for a stimulant and my body can handle it. For me the answer is yes, sometimes. For you the answer might be no.
But the fact is, even when I'm doing an ECA stack I don't lose weight unless I work out six times a week and eat a restrained diet. And NO ONE keeps weight off once lost unless they change the habits that made them fat, i.e., they have to eat less and exercise more.
And that gets to the crux of the matter: when you do a risk/benefit analysis of almost ANY weight-loss product or plan, the risks and costs of any of the drugs are so in excess of the teensy benefit they provide, whereas the risks and costs of exercise and eating well are far outweighed by the enormous benefits they provide. So you add it up: big costs/little benefit for drugs, little cost/big benefits for diet&exercise... and voila, we short-cut our answer to say, "skip the drugs, do diet and exercise."
Sorry. I know you don't like that answer. The good news is, though, when you're ready to really do what it takes to lose the weight, that method actually works and is practically free!
-- Wendy
DrumLib - 23 Nov 2003 02:58 GMT > It's a tiny benefit. I do it mostly for reasons other than the > thermogenic effect. Is the risk/cost worth the benefit? It seriously > depends on the exact specifics of the case. How does one calculate the benefit? That part is really hard to figure. From the feedback that I receive, I've come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to determine how effective ECA will be until one actually takes it. The response seems to range from the tiny benefit that you described to ecstatic people who have lost large amounts of weight for the first time in their lives.
Theoretically, since ECA is designed to correct subnormal thermogenic responses, the seriously obese should get the biggest result. But I've seen a lot of exceptions to this rule. It still trips me out when I get an email from a bodybuilder telling me how ECA is great for pre-contest shredding, and then I get an email from someone who says they have about 100 pounds to lose and have been taking ECA for three months and it hasn't done anything. I wish I had the answer....
Live Long and Prosper! DrumLib
DrumLib's Health Research Review http://www.drumlib.com Vitamin Price Comparison http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm Disclaimer http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm
Jayjay - 24 Nov 2003 16:44 GMT >> It's a tiny benefit. I do it mostly for reasons other than the >> thermogenic effect. Is the risk/cost worth the benefit? It seriously [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >they have about 100 pounds to lose and have been taking ECA for three >months and it hasn't done anything. I wish I had the answer.... That makes me wonder just how much an ECA or other diet aid is more of a psychological placebo.
Lets take for example, Anna Nicole. Has lost about 80lbs since last spring. Is now peddling a new diet aid product. The quesiton is - did the diet aid do the work? Or did the fact that she was taking a pill give her the motivation she needed to stay on a diet plan and to exercise.
I mean, in all seriousness - the bottom line for all weight loss is - eat less, exercise more.
Is the pill a true thermogenic miracle (not for me) or is it a motivator to help people stay on track?
MH - 24 Nov 2003 17:10 GMT > That makes me wonder just how much an ECA or other diet aid is more of > a psychological placebo. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pill give her the motivation she needed to stay on a diet plan and to > exercise. The paycheck was the biggest motivator. : )
> I mean, in all seriousness - the bottom line for all weight loss is - > eat less, exercise more. Always.
Martha
DrumLib - 25 Nov 2003 02:54 GMT jjf_71@notmail.com (Jayjay) wrote in message
> That makes me wonder just how much an ECA or other diet aid is more of > a psychological placebo. No, obesity scientists have been measuring the thermogenic defect and the methods of correcting it for decades in their laboratories. If the effect is psychological, generations of obesity scientists have been walking down the wrong path and the pharmaceutical industry has been wasting billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars during the last two decades in their quest to develop selective beta-3 thermogenic drugs.
When ECA doesn't work, it's a good bet that some genetic/biochemical defect is short-circuiting it. My post on the interaction between obesity genes and dietary fat expresses the basic idea: http://tinyurl.com/wepg
In addition, you really can't lump "diet aids" together. Ephedrine/caffeine has a large body of legitimate scientific research behind it, but most of the other diet aids have little more than speculation based on one aspect of its mode of action. Sophisticated marketing is not the equivalent of science.
> Lets take for example, Anna Nicole. Has lost about 80lbs since last > spring. Is now peddling a new diet aid product. The quesiton is - > did the diet aid do the work? Or did the fact that she was taking a > pill give her the motivation she needed to stay on a diet plan and to > exercise. I don't know enough about Anna Nicole or her products to comment. All I can tell you is that she's got the right name (Ana) for successful weight loss ;-)
> I mean, in all seriousness - the bottom line for all weight loss is - > eat less, exercise more. > > Is the pill a true thermogenic miracle (not for me) or is it a > motivator to help people stay on track? I would not call it a motivator or a miracle, although in some individuals (like me) the effect appears miraculous. In the context of the history of obesity research, I would call it an especially important piece of the puzzle. Now I'm not at all shy about criticizing the pharmaceutical industry when I think they are being dishonest with obese people or supplement consumers. But quite frankly their pursuit of obesity drugs reflects an honest attempt to beat a legitimate disease. Obesity scientists have not been looking to prey upon fat people seeking a quick fix. Historically, scientists were shocked at how genetically obese animals were so amazingly resistant to the effects of diet and exercise. It defied common sense, but these animals were kept under conditions where, unlike humans, there was no way that they could "cheat." This led to decades of research aimed at understanding this phenomenon. Eventually it became clear that they needed to develop not a single "miracle pill" but a number of drugs designed to treat the numerous genetic/biochemical defects involved in obesity.
Anyone who really wants to understand this disease would be well advised to ignore the popular literature and go to the medical library and learn the history of obesity research. Scientists do not keep reinventing the wheel, so ideally one should go back about 80-100 years to get the big picture of how the research evolved. But here is a good jumping-in point:
Alonso LG, Maren TH. "Effect of food restriction on body composition of hereditary obese mice." Am J Physiol, 1955, Vol 183, Pg 284-290. "The adult male and female obese pair-fed with lean for a period of 7 months kept a fat concentration characteristic of the obese. The data show that decreasing the food intake in the adult obese male by 32% does not radically decrease the excess fat depots. A decrease of 47% in the food of the adult obese female decreases the body fat by 39%, but there is still two and one half times as much fat as in the lean mouse eating the same food . . . these animals metabolize their food in such a manner that more fat is deposited per gram of food intake than is the case for lean mice."
Please keep this in mind the next time the state wants to take a genetically obese child away from his/her parents.
Live Long and Prosper! DrumLib
DrumLib's Health Research Review http://www.drumlib.com Vitamin Price Comparison http://www.drumlib.com/bestprice.htm Disclaimer http://www.drumlib.com/terms.htm
|
|
|