# Why and how diets damage you. The human body's REAL response to starvation.



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

*The human body's REAL response to starvation/over exercising! 
- Why and how diets damage you.
- Why diets generally "fail" in terms of sustaining weight loss over time*

When we look at what actually happens in the human body in response to starvation/over exercising we can see that the weightloss mantra "eat less, excercise more, burn fat" is far too simplistic - to the point that it barely tells half the story!

In fact what happens is that in additrion to burning fat and carbohydrate energy stores, when the human body experiences dieting/ starvation/over exercising -
1 - it burns muscle tissue - reducing BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate = your "tickover" energy burn rate when you are at rest)
2 - it reduces involuntary movement
3 - it lowers body temperature
4 - it reduces investment in sex 
(e.g. reduced gamete production, amenorrhea = no periods) 

*All of which reduce the total calories burned by the body* - and crucially these effects are cumulative!

The more restrictive (i.e. the lower your calorie intake) your diet and the longer you diet the lower your metabolic rate is driven!

These effects continue after the starvation period is over!
Hence why a return to normal eating results in rapid weight regain, plus extra weight and why the ex-dieter ends up with a higher percentage body fat than before the diet!

evidence from (among others)
the Minnesota Starvation Study - results published in the legendary two-volume, Biology of Human Starvation (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis, 1950).

"*The experiment  the starvation syndrome*

_The 40 young male participants were carefully selected among hundreds of volunteers for being especially psychologically and socially well-adjusted, good-humored, motivated, well-educated, active and healthy. They were put on calorie-restrictive diets of about 1,600 calorie/day, meant to reflect that experienced in war-torn regions, for 3 months. They dieted to lose 2.5 pounds a week to lose 25% of their natural body weight. The calories were more generous than many weight loss diets prescribe today!**
__
What this study was actually studying, of course, was dieting and restrictive eating  our bodies cant tell the difference if theyre being semi-starved involuntarily like war victims or voluntarily. During the 3-month nutritional rehabilitation period after the diet, the men were randomly assigned to various nutritional regimens, with differing levels of calories, proteins and vitamins. The men lived at the lab and everything they ate and did was closely monitored, as was their health with a battery of tests. Daily exercise was walking about 3 miles a day._
...
_Dr. Keys and colleagues painstakingly chronicled how the men did during the 6 months of dietary interventions and for up to a year afterwards. This study scientifically defined for the first time the starvation syndrome._
....
_As the men lost weight, their *physical endurance dropped by half*, their *strength about 10%*, and their *reflexes became sluggish * with the men initially the most fit showing the greatest deterioration, according to Dr. Keys. The mens *resting metabolic rates declined by 40%*, their *heart volume shrank about 20%,* their *pulses slowed and their body temperatures dropped.* They complained of feeling cold, tired and hungry; having trouble concentrating; of impaired judgment and comprehension; dizzy spells; visual disturbances; ringing in their ears; tingling and numbing of their extremities; stomach aches, body aches and headaches; trouble sleeping; hair thinning; and their skin growing dry and thin. Their *sexual function and testes size were reduced and they lost all interest in sex. They had every physical indication of accelerated aging.*"_

There are also *psychological changes* brought about by dieting/starvation:

"_But the psychological changes that were brought on by dieting, even among these robust men with only moderate calorie restrictions, were the most profound and unexpected. So much so that Dr. Keys called it *semistarvation neurosis*. The men became nervous, anxious, apathetic, withdrawn, impatient, self-critical with distorted body images and even feeling overweight, moody, emotional and depressed. A few even mutilated themselves, one chopping off three fingers in stress. They lost their ambition and feelings of adequacy, and their cultural and academic interests narrowed. They neglected their appearance, became loners and their social and family relationships suffered. They lost their senses of humor, love and compassion. Instead, they became obsessed with food, thinking, talking and reading about it constantly; developed weird eating rituals; began hoarding things; consumed vast amounts of coffee and tea; and chewed gum incessantly (as many as 40 packages a day). Binge eating episodes also became a problem as some of the men were unable to continue to restrict their eating in their hunger._
_
These experiences are familiar to those whove spent their lives dieting. In fact, *many of the symptoms once thought to be primary features of anorexia nervosa are actually normal biological responses of undernutrition and restrictive eating,* said David M. Garner, PhD., director of River Centre Clinic in Sylvania, Ohio, in Psychoeducational principles in the treatment of eating disorders (NY: Guilford Press, 1997). It was actually Dr. Keys research that first evidenced the role of dieting in increasing risks for eating disorders._"

from:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-weve-came-to-believe-that.html
more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment

Other references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_response

To sum up - *dieting is phsyiologically and mentally damaging to the human body.*

Notes:

{** perspective - this "dreadful" starvation of 1,600cals a day that caused these men so many problems is nearly THREE TIMES the calorie allowance my most recent ex-BBW ex-gf was and is eating on her then and current quest to lose weight. And this is on a "doctor prescribed" diet! This shows just how incredibly divorced from the actual science of human biology at least some of the "medical establishment" has become!}


----------



## Russell Williams (Jul 28, 2009)

[ 
evidence from (among others)
the Minnesota Starvation Study - results published in the legendary two-volume, Biology of Human Starvation (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis, 1950).

_The 40 young male participants were carefully selected among hundreds of volunteers for being especially psychologically and socially well-adjusted, good-humored, motivated, well-educated, active and healthy. They were put on calorie-restrictive diets of about 1,600 calorie/day, meant to reflect that experienced in war-torn regions, for 3 months. They dieted to lose 2.5 pounds a week to lose 25% of their natural body weight. The calories were more generous than many weight loss diets prescribe today!**
__


When I was in college the minister of the church I attended had been a participant in this experiment. He was a conscientious objector and chose to participate in this experiment in hopes that would help people who had been starving. When I knew him he was fatter than the average person. He introduced me to the civil rights movement and the idea of nonviolently striving for social change and in particular to strive for equality of access. He strove for equality of access for black people and I came to realize that it was also proper to strive for equality of access for fat people.

Russell Williams_


----------



## joswitch (Jul 28, 2009)

Russell Williams said:


> [
> evidence from (among others)
> the Minnesota Starvation Study - results published in the legendary two-volume, Biology of Human Starvation (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis, 1950).
> 
> ...


_

That's cool bit of back story there Russel! Ta!  Much kudos to the fellas who put their health and sanity on the line in this experiment (which helped find out the best way to re-feed victims of WWII)._


----------



## 1300 Class (Jul 28, 2009)

First of all, as an academic you should start by defining your terms and usage of them, particularly in reference to how you are applying them. 

Point one: Not all 'diets' are bad. 
Point two: Starvation and diets are not in equilibrium with one another in terminology or definition, unless you manipulate the terminology of the two to mean the same thing, as you have down here. 
Point three: Dieting alone without an ancillary activities will not work or will be effective in achieving the goal, simple as that. Junk/fad diets are just as bad for your health as other bad eating habits. 

Bad diets are bad diets, just as bad ordinary eating habits are bad ordinary eating habits, whether the end goal is weight loss, maintenance or gain. Simple as that. 

What your trying to say is inherently misguided, whether by mistake or intent. I agree with you that starvation diets are bad. 
However that does not equate to all diets, which your definition seems to be any sort of control of intake of food or calories are bad. 



> To sum up - dieting is physiologically and mentally damaging to the human body.


Incorrect. Placing people specifically on a starvation diet _is physiologically and mentally damaging to the human body_. All because an individual say for example doesn't eat this or that for reasons X, Y or Z, does not automatically equate to badness. 



> over exercising!


This hasn't been discussed at all in your 'evidence'. 



> The calories were more generous than many weight loss diets prescribe today!**





> allowance my most recent ex-BBW ex-gf was and is eating on her then and current quest to lose weight.


Many means one does it now? Wow! One basic, possibly bad and more than likely wrongful experience does not equate to "many..."



> This shows just how incredibly divorced from the actual science of human biology at least some of the "medical establishment" has become!}


As a fellow academic, I just want to say that your case is pretty weak at the moment, as your argument seems to be resting on evidence that is not strictly convincing or directed towards your central argument. Starvation diets are bad and will have negative consequences, yes. However your application of this to the wider spectrum seems to be misapplied with significant generalizations. This is like using a sole extreme example from any area of research to justify a broad streak of argument in that area, which makes for a weak case.


----------



## Sugar (Jul 28, 2009)

joswitch said:


> *The human body's REAL response to starvation/over exercising!
> - Why and how diets damage you.
> - Why diets generally "fail" in terms of sustaining weight loss over time*
> 
> ...



So...um...I guess our date to my Weight Watchers meeting is off the table?


----------



## joswitch (Jul 29, 2009)

Lucky said:


> So...um...I guess our date to my Weight Watchers meeting is off the table?



Lolzeroony!


----------



## joswitch (Jul 29, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> First of all, as an academic you should start by defining your terms and usage of them, particularly in reference to how you are applying them.
> 
> Point one: Not all 'diets' are bad.
> Point two: Starvation and diets are not in equilibrium with one another in terminology or definition, unless you manipulate the terminology of the two to mean the same thing, as you have down here.
> ...



Long post.

You've largely missed the point with your "don't condemn all diets".

I know what you're getting at here and you're splitting hairs.
Sure, someone with a peanut allergy will (very rightly) be on a 
peanut-free "diet". 
Someone with coeliac disease will be on a wheat-free "diet".
etc. etc.

But! These articles are aimed at the layperson. And what most people 
think of as "dieting" is *reduced calorie intake - below recommended 
norms* (allowing for a little "wiggle room" for individual variation) 
*i.e. partial starvation aiming at weight loss. *

so there's your definition^

So in this context there is no difference between "dieting" and 
semi-starvation. And I'd've thought the context of my article made that 
clear, which is why I didn't bother "defining terms".

And I wrote /over excercising for sake of thoroughness because over-excercise is one way in which people can and do put themselves in caloric deficit.


Many - means many - here's four popular semi-starvation diets. Some of which are Very Low Calorie Diets (VLCDs)

*Lighter Life* - is the diet I mention above - thousands of people have been / are on it in the UK.

from: http://www.everydiet.org/diet/very-low-calorie-diets

"*Optifast*
Available at hundreds of clinics in the US and Canada. However many find it difficult to complete the program

*The Cambridge Diet*
Used in the UK, this diet has an even lower daily calorie level (400-600) and is a high protein, low fat, low carb diet.

*Medifast*
This has been used by (apparently) over 1 million people, and is endorsed by John Hopkins University. Its a meal replacement plan around the 800-1000 calories mark (which puts it outside the strict definition of a VLCD). It will put the body into a mild state of ketosis.


----------



## katorade (Jul 29, 2009)

Can we stop saying dieting is synonymous with starvation? It sounds(and is) ridiculously ignorant.


----------



## mossystate (Jul 29, 2009)

katorade said:


> Can we stop saying dieting is synonymous with starvation? It sounds(and is) ridiculously ignorant.



A-Freakin-Men.

Scare tactics, of the like that fat people get all the time from ...cue scary music...the Other Side.


All of it treats fat people like we are a bunch of fucking morons.


----------



## bigmac (Jul 29, 2009)

katorade said:


> Can we stop saying dieting is synonymous with starvation? It sounds(and is) ridiculously ignorant.



I'm going to have to disagree with you if by dieting you mean reducing ones daily caloric intake with the intent of loosing weight. By necessity all weight loss diets are starvation to varying degrees. Your body does not make any distinction between a self-inflicted calorie deficit (i.e. dieting) or a calorie deficit imposed by dire circumstances (i.e. drought, flood, war, no money for food ...).

Regardless of the cause any calorie deficit that lasts more than a few days will result in the body doing what evolutionarily it must to survive. From decreasing activity to save energy in response to a mild deficit to catabolizing all non-essential tissue to save the brain and vital organs in extreme cases.


----------



## 1300 Class (Jul 30, 2009)

If you want to make this argument this way, fine by me. You're the one who will look foolish I suppose, so no skin off my nose. 

My opinion of this argument is that, to the average person it looks like "_Diets = starvation_ it makes people saying it appear either as a bunch of raving fatties or obesity apologists." And thats something the Size Acceptance movement can't be seen as, if it wants to make headway in its goals. To the average Janet and John out there, it just looks like a lot of pathetic whinging about food and dietry which reinforces already negative stereotyping about fat people who would rather stuff their faces without care.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Jul 30, 2009)

This is like the exact same thread.


----------



## katorade (Jul 30, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you if by dieting you mean reducing ones daily caloric intake with the intent of loosing weight. By necessity all weight loss diets are starvation to varying degrees. Your body does not make any distinction between a self-inflicted calorie deficit (i.e. dieting) or a calorie deficit imposed by dire circumstances (i.e. drought, flood, war, no money for food ...).
> 
> Regardless of the cause any calorie deficit that lasts more than a few days will result in the body doing what evolutionarily it must to survive. From decreasing activity to save energy in response to a mild deficit to catabolizing all non-essential tissue to save the brain and vital organs in extreme cases.



I think you have a poor definition of starvation in your dictionary. Reducing one's caloric intake does not equal starvation unless it falls below levels the body requires to function. Like I said in the other thread, most sound diets have people eat close to or at the recommended level of calories the average human needs to THRIVE, not just survive. There is also the added recommendations of exercise to burn, rather than store consumed calories.

That is the body's natural state. Typically, people that go on a diet for weight loss are either eating more calories than recommended, not doing enough activity for their caloric intake, or are not eating a diet that is balanced and are metabolizing it poorly.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 30, 2009)

mossystate said:


> A-Freakin-Men.
> 
> Scare tactics, of the like that fat people get all the time from ...cue scary music...the Other Side.
> 
> ...



Putting my interpretation out there, complete with breakdown of evidence and link to original source - so you can read and make up your own mind is the *opposite* of "treat(ing) fat people like we are a bunch of fucking morons."


----------



## joswitch (Jul 30, 2009)

katorade said:


> Can we stop saying dieting is synonymous with starvation? It sounds(and is) ridiculously ignorant.



I've already answered this in the other thread (post 72).

And No. Words have meaning. and the evidence shows that semi-starvation diets are EXACTLY that. They cause the same harmful changes in the body (rate depending partly on severity of deprivation) as starvation by other means.

Q.E.D.

Let's call a spade a spade.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 30, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I'm going to have to disagree with you if by dieting you mean reducing ones daily caloric intake with the intent of loosing weight. By necessity all weight loss diets are starvation to varying degrees. Your body does not make any distinction between a self-inflicted calorie deficit (i.e. dieting) or a calorie deficit imposed by dire circumstances (i.e. drought, flood, war, no money for food ...).
> 
> Regardless of the cause any calorie deficit that lasts more than a few days will result in the body doing what evolutionarily it must to survive. From decreasing activity to save energy in response to a mild deficit to catabolizing all non-essential tissue to save the brain and vital organs in extreme cases.



YES! Someone gets it! 

*does dance of joy*


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 30, 2009)

what methods of weight loss would you recommend joswitch?


----------



## joswitch (Jul 30, 2009)

Australian Lord said:


> If you want to make this argument this way, fine by me. You're the one who will look foolish I suppose, so no skin off my nose.
> 
> My opinion of this argument is that, to the average person it looks like "_Diets = starvation_ it makes people saying it appear either as a bunch of raving fatties or obesity apologists." And thats something the Size Acceptance movement can't be seen as, if it wants to make headway in its goals. To the average Janet and John out there, it just looks like a lot of pathetic whinging about food and dietry which reinforces already negative stereotyping about fat people who would rather stuff their faces without care.



Then the average Janet and John need ****ing educating toot-bloody-sweet!

To cop out of telling the truth about the damage semi-starvation does to thousands of people - because you believe it is *politically inconvenient* to do so in the current climate of fat-hatred is political and moral cowardice.
Sitting on this information is a betrayal of everyone who has died or suffered and may suffer and/or die due to VLCD.

Actually my insistence on the term *semi-starvation* draws a neat line between VLCD and LCD and "healthy-eating diets"....


----------



## joswitch (Jul 30, 2009)

katorade said:


> I think you have a poor definition of starvation in your dictionary. Reducing one's caloric intake does not equal starvation unless it falls below levels the body requires to function. Like I said in the other thread, most sound diets have people eat close to or at the recommended level of calories the average human needs to THRIVE, not just survive. There is also the added recommendations of exercise to burn, rather than store consumed calories.



answered in other thread .Also see list of VLCDs above.

That is the body's natural state. Typically, people that go on a diet for weight loss are either eating more calories than recommended, not doing enough activity for their caloric intake, or are not eating a diet that is balanced and *are metabolizing it poorly*.[/QUOTE]

!?Pseudoscience!????
Specify and explain. Refs please.


----------



## bigmac (Jul 30, 2009)

katorade said:


> I think you have a poor definition of starvation in your dictionary. Reducing one's caloric intake does not equal starvation unless it falls below levels the body requires to function. Like I said in the other thread, most sound diets have people eat close to or at the recommended level of calories the average human needs to THRIVE, not just survive. There is also the added recommendations of exercise to burn, rather than store consumed calories.
> 
> That is the body's natural state. Typically, people that go on a diet for weight loss are either eating more calories than recommended, not doing enough activity for their caloric intake, or are not eating a diet that is balanced and are metabolizing it poorly.



I'm using the definition I leaned in vertebrate physiology class at the University of Alberta and I stand by it -- I'm sure my professor, Dr. Larry Wang and his Richardson Ground Squirrels do too. (FYI the chubby rodents are used to study thermogenic responses to both exercise and changes in body chemistry.)

The primary fallacy of your argument is that there is no set level of calories the body requires to function. The idea that if you eat 3500 calories less next week than your used this week you will loose a pound of fat is a total myth. If you eat fewer calories than you're presently eating -- even if this is a lot -- your body will lower its caloric requirements in response (an early stage starvation response). I'm not saying you won't loose any weight or that you won't be healthy if the calorie restriction is moderate and the nutrient content of you remaining food remains high -- I'm just saying that your body will use the tools that evolution gave it to adapt to (pardon the pun) lean times.

People need to get their heads around the fact that the human body's response to changes in caloric intake is -- like most things in nature -- not linear.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 30, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> what methods of weight loss would you recommend joswitch?



Don't aim to lose weight - aim to be healthy-
i.e. Health At Every Size. HAES approach.
I've linked to it already.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Jul 30, 2009)

blah blah blah blah

can we combine these two threads please


----------



## joswitch (Jul 30, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I'm using the definition I leaned in vertebrate physiology class at the University of Alberta and I stand by it -- I'm sure my professor, Dr. Larry Wang and his Richardson Ground Squirrels do too. (FYI the chubby rodents are used to study thermogenic responses to both exercise and changes in body chemistry.)
> 
> The primary fallacy of your argument is that there is no set level of calories the body requires to function. The idea that if you eat 3500 calories less next week than your used this week you will loose a pound of fat is a total myth. If you eat fewer calories than you're presently eating -- even if this is a lot -- your body will lower its caloric requirements in response (an early stage starvation response). I'm not saying you won't loose any weight or that you won't be healthy if the calorie restriction is moderate and the nutrient content of you remaining food remains high -- I'm just saying that your body will use the tools that evolution gave it to adapt to (pardon the pun) lean times.
> 
> People need to get their heads around the fact that the human body's response to changes in caloric intake is -- like most things in nature -- not linear.



Dude! Yes! this^


----------



## mossystate (Jul 30, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Don't aim to lose weight - aim to be healthy-
> i.e. Health At Every Size. HAES approach.
> I've linked to it already.



How unhealthy, physically, were you ( if you were ), when you were ' very thin ' ?


----------



## katorade (Jul 30, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I'm using the definition I leaned in vertebrate physiology class at the University of Alberta and I stand by it -- I'm sure my professor, Dr. Larry Wang and his Richardson Ground Squirrels do too. (FYI the chubby rodents are used to study thermogenic responses to both exercise and changes in body chemistry.)
> 
> The primary fallacy of your argument is that there is no set level of calories the body requires to function. The idea that if you eat 3500 calories less next week than your used this week you will loose a pound of fat is a total myth. If you eat fewer calories than you're presently eating -- even if this is a lot -- your body will lower its caloric requirements in response (an early stage starvation response). I'm not saying you won't loose any weight or that you won't be healthy if the calorie restriction is moderate and the nutrient content of you remaining food remains high -- I'm just saying that your body will use the tools that evolution gave it to adapt to (pardon the pun) lean times.
> 
> People need to get their heads around the fact that the human body's response to changes in caloric intake is -- like most things in nature -- not linear.



Please read my comments in the "other" thread. I am fully aware that 3500 calories to one person is not going to be the same for another. I am also aware that it is possible to lose weight while consuming MORE calories, and gain weight while eating less. My point is that *not* all diets are focused around *weight loss*, and that they *are* in fact about eating a *healthy diet*, and that in many cases, weight loss is a direct effect of eating a healthier diet.

I never said that the 2,000 calorie RDA should be static or that it applies to every individual. It is an average, hence the word "recommended" in Recommended-Dietary/Daily-Allowance. It's a common starting point for most anyone that can be re-calculated as needed, especially considering the difference between the requirements for men and women.


----------



## bigmac (Jul 31, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> what methods of weight loss would you recommend joswitch?



OK I'll take a stab at this. If you want to loose fat (notice I said fat not weight) I recommend that you look to two unlikely groups; army recruits, and professional body builders.

Both drill sergeants and steroid and HGH pushes at the local gym know that to loose fat you need to both increase your lean body mass and alter your body chemistry.

Bus loads of soft pudgy fast food fed recruits start basic training every week. After about three months of training most recruits are quite lean and fit. The secret of their success a combination lots of strength (i.e. push ups) other forms of high intensity activity (sprints), hours of low intensity aerobic activity (i.e. marching), and a diet relatively low in refined carbohydrates and high in protein. The strength//high intensity training along with high protein diet both add body mass and change the recruits body chemistry by increasing testosterone and growth hormone levels. This greatly increases their metabolic rate. The long hours of low intensity aerobic training and the low refined carb diet keep blood insulin levels low which facilitates the utilization of stored fat.

Bodybuilders take the high intensity strength training to an extreme level. They also augment the bodies natural androgenic responses with steroids and artificial growth hormone. To get the ripped look that wins competitions bodybuilders cycle their training. In the off season first they bulk up by using heavy weights and eating a lot. A steroid cycle speeds recovery from heavy lifting and facilitates muscle growth. Prior to the competition Bodybuilders diet (i.e. very high protein and low carbohydrate), work out longer using lighter weights, and may even add some aerobic exercise (Arnold Schwarzenegger added swimming). They know they're going to loose muscle along with fat but hope they have built up enough so this won't matter much. In the final weeks before competition another steroid cycle is administered to minimize muscle loss due to extreme dieting -- this is what creates the desired freaky appearance on competition day.

So yes it is possible to remake your body but you must be willing to go to rather extreme measures *and * your body will regain the fat if you cease the regiment. On the plus side added muscle mass (at least that which was gained without steroids) tends to stick around (although I've long since regained the 50 pounds of fat I lost during basic training the 20 pounds of muscle I gained is still there too).


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 1, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Don't aim to lose weight - aim to be healthy-
> i.e. Health At Every Size. HAES approach.
> I've linked to it already.



that's very dangerously not an answer to the question at all. you should run for office.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 1, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> that's very dangerously not an answer to the question at all. you should run for office.



Your question was framed on the predicate that *I *would recommend *trying* to lose weight as a (health) goal. And in the vast majority of cases I wouldn't.
Not my fault that your question wasn't wide enough in scope.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 1, 2009)

mossystate said:


> How unhealthy, physically, were you ( if you were ), when you were ' very thin ' ?



Mossy - if you're genuinely interested in this feel free to start a thread on it and I'll drop by and share my experience sometime. I'd like to try and keep this thread on topic.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 1, 2009)

katorade said:


> COLOR=Blue]As far as your study goes, please show me something that was produced after 1950.



Fair point. I've yet to dig into later studies of the *mechanisms* of damage that semi-starvation does. I shall do that.
If the research is there - one commentator on the Minnesota Satrvation experiment remarks:
"Given the ethical constraints imposed on such experiments by the postwar Nuremberg Code and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration,... nothing like it can ever be done again"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Xf-jAQAACAAJ&sitesec=reviews

BUT - Here's population study evidence that shows *earlier mortality among big people who have lost weight in contrast to those who did not lose weight*:
2005 paper citing an 18 year study that ended in 1999
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1160579
also this from 1998
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9753009
I originally talked about this stuff over here:
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60961




> It's really convenient that you left out the very important parts of the study. You'd make a great politician. Way to be a spin doctor and color the truth.





> [/COLOR]
> You should have mentioned the part where the men that were given a 1,600 calorie diet were originally taking in 3,200 calories a day. That's 1,200 calories more than the MODERN recommended RDA caloric intake! They were eating at that level because they required more calories for their activity level, which is OBVIOUSLY more than the average desk-jockey today.



Oops! Fair point. My bad. :blush: BUT! -
That still put the 1,600 a day at HALF of the preceding intake.
So this study would hold equivalence for "desk jockeys" at
for women: 2,000 / 2 = 1,000 cal intake
for men: 2,500 / 2 = 1,250 cal intake
Which puts the caloric intake in this study well above:
VLCDs (450 cals) like Lighter Life, the Cambridge Diet
and more than / on a par with 
LCDs like Medifast (800 - 1000 cals)




> A higher calorie intake is required for people that are already physically fit and active, like athletes and body-builders, who eat 6-7 times (compared to the twice a day they were feeding the test subjects) a day and can eat more than 3 times the amount of calories as the average person.


Yes. I knew. But still valid point.



> You could have also mentioned the part where they were fed a diet meant to simulate the conditions of famine-struck war victims consisting mainly of potatoes, turnips, bread, and macaroni, meaning their diet was NOT NUTRITIONALLY SOUND. The severe lack of complete proteins, vitamins, and minerals is obviously the cause of both physical and psychological damage, NOT the fact that it was a 1,600 (actually 1,800) calorie level.



I disagree that "severe lack of complete proteins, vitamins, and minerals *is obviously the cause* of both physical and psychological damage, "
I concede that it probably _contributed_ but I think you're way off the mark by discounting the caloric contribution.

Many of the VLCDs out there make much of their "nutritionally complete" status in regard to "proteins, vitamins, and minerals" and yet as I pointed out in thread http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62200 people are still suffering harm to their health and in worst cases are dying.

I agree that it would be worthwhile to see if I can find more data, (perhaps on clinical trials of Medifast or suchlike), that detail semi-starvation on a "nutritionally complete" (in all but calories) diet.

Note: one of the things I noticed re. Lighter Life is that the minerals included in the manufactured food are in mineral rather than organic form (e.g. iron as a salt as opposed to iron in a heme group). there is some debate as to whether or not that makes it harder for the body to absorb these minerals.



> I also find it really funny that you promote HAES, considering that in itself is A FREAKING DIET. :doh: Healthy at any size means that you MAINTAIN a lifestyle that keeps your body running smoothly and in check, and you frequently monitor things like blood pressure, cholesterol levels, etc. etc. It isn't a diet focused on weight loss, but it IS a diet focused on health maintenance. Either way, it's a diet.



Yeah. You only see that as inconsistent because of the conflict we've already discussed between use of "diet" in it's "common meaning" (the subset known officially as "reducing" diets) and it's proper / definitive / medical meaning. 

Further because HAES incorporates the concept of intutive eating / listening to your body's needs, it does not fit into the strict definition of "eating a regulated sequence, amount, or type of food." insofar as it allows for the changes in your body's needs in response to e.g. activity, hormonal cycles etc.

Even if you persist in regarding HAES as a maintainence diet - the whole point is that weight per. se. is not the focus -* health* is. This makes a HUGE difference to the phsychology of it contrasted with the semi-starvation diets I'm campaigning against. There is not this concept of "success / failure" to be measured against the scale. Further HAES focusses on various counselling and cognitive work to raise self-esteem and emphasises the idea of activity / excercise not as a chore but as something to take joy in. this has a big health impact on reducing low self-esteem / depression / stress all of which have strong negative impacts on health. So I'd say HAES is much more than a "maintainence diet".


----------



## mossystate (Aug 1, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Mossy - if you're genuinely interested in this feel free to start a thread on it and I'll drop by and share my experience sometime. I'd like to try and keep this thread on topic.



I got my answer.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 1, 2009)

bigmac said:


> OK I'll take a stab at this. If you want to loose fat (notice I said fat not weight) I recommend that you look to two unlikely groups; army recruits, and professional body builders.
> 
> Both drill sergeants and steroid and HGH pushes at the local gym know that to loose fat you need to both increase your lean body mass and alter your body chemistry.
> 
> ...



_Yes one can remake their body- but, it's not the thing that happens over night. If one were to get into Bodybuilding and had the right genetics- steriods and time ( it's at least 5-10 years of training)...Some exceptional folks can do things quicker... Strength training can take 10 years - it's also a very slow process... 

The exercise industry is one with a very conflicting History ( Muscular Christianity- Bob Hoffman (Father of Olympic Weightlifting in the US - York Barbell Company) and Later Joe Wieder gaining legitmacy of their business through the help of Strongman - George Jowett). 

It's interesting that the concept of working out was really developed in the 19th Century. The Military also adopted excercise around that time. Heck the avg Civil War Soldier was far smaller that the today's counterpart. 

Arnold and interesting character for sure ... Many thought that Sergio Oliva was a better bodybuilder -but, rumor was that (never proven) Weider could see more Magazines with Arnold. 

My best phrase concerning Arnold occured in the movie 'Bigger,Faster,Stronger' by Greg Valentino...

"He (Arnold) is smiling at you and waving with one hand & given you the finger under the table with the other." _


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Mossy - if you're genuinely interested in this feel free to start a thread on it and I'll drop by and share my experience sometime. I'd like to try and keep this thread on topic.




Her question seemed quite relevant in the face of your argument.....
The opposite side of the coin....it always holds some truth for the other side.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Mossy - if you're genuinely interested in this feel free to start a thread on it and I'll drop by and share my experience sometime. I'd like to try and keep this thread on topic.



What would this thread be titled.. Dear Joswitch, how unhealthy were you when you were thin? It isn't exactly a discussion topic itself. Also, it's totally relevant to this thread/your arguement sooo.. answer?


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Your question was framed on the predicate that *I *would recommend *trying* to lose weight as a (health) goal. And in the vast majority of cases I wouldn't.
> Not my fault that your question wasn't wide enough in scope.



what the fuck are you talking about? when _you_ ask the questions, _you_ can decide the scope.

my question was very, very simple, what is the healthiest and most efficient way to lose weight according to joswitch?


----------



## Wild Zero (Aug 2, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> my question was very, very simple, what is the healthiest and most efficient way to lose weight according to joswitch?



AIDS, cancer, whatever's fastest since losing weight=DEATH SENTENCE according to cherry picked SCIENCE!!!!!!!1111


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 2, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> what the fuck are you talking about? when _you_ ask the questions, _you_ can decide the scope.
> 
> my question was very, very simple, what is the healthiest and most efficient way to lose weight according to joswitch?



Stop derailing the joswitch hour of Gaining Is The Best Thing You Could Ever Want To Do For Me-- go make your own darn thread


----------



## bigmac (Aug 2, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> _Yes one can remake their body- but, it's not the thing that happens over night. If one were to get into Bodybuilding and had the right genetics- steriods and time ( it's at least 5-10 years of training)...Some exceptional folks can do things quicker... Strength training can take 10 years - it's also a very slow process...
> 
> The exercise industry is one with a very conflicting History ( Muscular Christianity- Bob Hoffman (Father of Olympic Weightlifting in the US - York Barbell Company) and Later Joe Wieder gaining legitmacy of their business through the help of Strongman - George Jowett).
> 
> ...



I agree 100% -- that if you want to remake your body into something its not presently it take a lot of hard work over a long period of time (3-5 months to turn a pudgy recruit into serviceable but not elite soldier and years if not decades to become a professional bodybuilder). And you can't stop or your body will revert to what it was. This is exactly why only a very small percentage of people who try to "loose weight" actually succeed in the long run (5 years or more).

I hadn't hear the name Sergio Oliva in years. I think he was too far ahead of the curve. Arnold -- while huge in his prime -- never had the super freaky look of many of today's bodybuilders -- he had some endomorphic traits that softened his appearance just enough to make him salable to people outside the hardcore.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 2, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Her question seemed quite relevant in the face of your argument.....
> The opposite side of the coin....it always holds some truth for the other side.



Ah, this thread is about weight loss and it's effect on the human body.
The opposite side of the coin would be weight gain.
That I was very thin as a kid / tween / teen wasn't due to weight loss or gain per. se. so not really relevant here....

Now, I could share my experiences of both gain and loss- 
in a nutshell:
my weight loss - always due to: 
ill health - food poisoning for instance, also tonsilitis leading to involuntary under-eating and vomiting, 
and/or lack of sufficient available and trustworthy food sources (when travelling)
and/or lack of weight training available (like most people - if I cease lifting - my body "dumps" muscle)
regardless of mechanism weight loss always led to me feeling tired and weaker than before.

weight gain - hard and slow for me, much weight training and eating a lot of cals and protein.... I gained mass at roughly half fat / half muscle... I feel stringer and am more resistant to illness, now, at my highest weight.

A data set of one.
Not all that useful in context really, eh?


----------



## joswitch (Aug 2, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> What would this thread be titled.. Dear Joswitch, how unhealthy were you when you were thin? It isn't exactly a discussion topic itself. Also, it's totally relevant to this thread/your arguement sooo.. answer?



I was giving Mossy the benefit of the doubt i.e. that she actually had a genuine interest. So I'd suggest:
"People: have you been very thin? How did it affect your health" as a thread topic.
Also see my answer to GEF.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> weight gain - hard and slow for me, much weight training and eating a lot of cals and protein.... I gained mass at roughly half fat / half muscle... I feel stringer and am more resistant to illness, now, at my highest weight.
> 
> A data set of one.
> Not all that useful in context really, eh?




Joswitch:

After all we can be our own experiment when it comes to nutrition and
exercise...

Have you ever looked at any of the Hard Gainer sites? Also - how does your system react to drinking or eating Dairy Products (Milk, Cheese ...) ?


----------



## joswitch (Aug 2, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> what the fuck are you talking about? when _you_ ask the questions, _you_ can decide the scope.
> 
> my question was very, very simple, what is the healthiest and most efficient way to lose weight according to joswitch?



"So Exile - are you still having sex with your pet dog?"
It's a simple question dude, just answer Yes or No!

Western dialectic debate contains a lot of false logic / linguistic traps (that date back to the earliest rhetoricticians (spelling?) probably the Sophists...)
It's a classic ploy to frame a question so that it contains an assumption the questioner wants affirmed and the respondent doesn't. It's called the "leading" question. Presented above - to you - in the classic dilemma form.
In western dialectic there remains this idea that if the respondent steps "outside the bounds" of the question that they are somehow bad or deceitful.
This is bullshit.
In Japanese there's a word "mu"
Which in context means:
"Unask the question"
or/also
"the scope of your question is insufficient to contain a meaningful representaion of the truth.":bow:

So -
Mu. I do not recommend weight loss as a primary health goal (in vast majority of cases).

When folks I know gripe about being overweight to me, I generally advise them to look after their health, which in context of most of them being peeps who work too hard, are sedentary and drink too much tends to be:

- walk, when you get chance, *swim* once or twice a week, (take it easy to start with and ramp it up, session by session to vigorously) for about half an hour per. session. Swimming is GOLD 'cos it's resistance and aerobic, and supports weight / protects joints. Take up Tai Chi if you can. Don't go running cos it f*cks your knees (that's from MY experience). Cycling's ok. Try and do excercise that you ENJOY. If you've got pre-existing health probs go to your doc regularly and double check before you start in on vigorous excercise.
- get 8 hours sleep a night (sleep deprivation = very bad for health)
- eat a balanced, nutritionally complete diet (in the strict dictionary sense of "diet") with adaequate calories, protein, roughage, vitamins and minerals (i.e. approx. RDA adjusted for self and activity) eat wholefoods. eat green things with each meal if you can. Chose mono (or poly) unsaturated fats e.g. olive oil. Have some oily fish - tuna or mackerel say... for omega 3's and 6's. Don't eat trans fats (their geometry is incompatible with biology, they will f*ck you up.). Don't eat High Fructose Corn Syrup (linked to liver problems, as I recall). Don't eat aspartame (artificial sweetener - it's a TOXIN). Take a multivitamin supplement daily.
- eat regularly. eat *something* for breakfast! (kick starts metabolism). If you're in a rush have a piece of fruit - have a banana! to start your day - don't start the day starving!
- drink water. have a big glass of water with each meal at least. Keeping hydrated is essential for good digestion and good health in general. (don't drink more than 2 pints of water in an hour cos it screws your electrolyte balance which is bad and can = fatal, best to aim for approx. 2 litres water over a whole day, varying depending on activity / heat / humidity)
- drink no more pints of beer than your number of excercise sessions per week (e.g. swim twice a week, that's two pints a week). drink halves. space them out with a glass of water. This last one is my personal "wrinkle" for my heavy drinking friends.

All very much non-controversial. 

And you know what. Maybe if they followed that stuff , they *might* lose weight, or maintain, or even gain (if they gain muscle weight). Whatever happens with their weight: their health, basic fitness, mobility, muscle tone, basal metabolic rate, blood pressure, quality of sleep, ability to handle stress etc. ought to improve. And those are well worth it, regardless of the number on the scale. 

My take on this is that focus on the number on the scale is often detrimental.
Holistic improvement in health is more valuable.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 2, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> Joswitch:
> 
> After all we can be our own experiment when it comes to nutrition and
> exercise...
> ...



Yes. I did check the hard gainer advice. And used it. And drinking loads of (skimmed) milk was a big part of how I built myself up from 133lbs to 174lbs...


----------



## joswitch (Aug 2, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Stop derailing the joswitch hour of Gaining Is The Best Thing You Could Ever Want To Do For Me-- go make your own darn thread



Lolzerama!


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 2, 2009)

bigmac said:


> I agree 100% -- that if you want to remake your body into something its not presently it take a lot of hard work over a long period of time (3-5 months to turn a pudgy recruit into serviceable but not elite soldier and years if not decades to become a professional bodybuilder). And you can't stop or your body will revert to what it was. This is exactly why only a very small percentage of people who try to "loose weight" actually succeed in the long run (5 years or more).
> 
> I hadn't hear the name Sergio Oliva in years. I think he was too far ahead of the curve. Arnold -- while huge in his prime -- never had the super freaky look of many of today's bodybuilders -- he had some endomorphic traits that softened his appearance just enough to make him salable to people outside the hardcore.



Harold Poole was another amazing Bodybuilder ahead of his time as per this Youtube clip 
Harold Poole -Early 1960s ... Sad part is that Harold had to leave the AAU (Bodybuilding organization run by Bob Hoffman and York Barbell) to go to Wieder and truly be recognized as the star he was..

Arnold - interesting thing about him is that all the promoters were hungry for him. I have an old isse of Iron Man magazine from 1967 and even then you saw the what was to come... Promoters couldn't wait for him to come to the US... Poor Sergio (being an Ex Olympic Weightlifer from Cuba) merely defected to the US in the early 60's....


----------



## mossystate (Aug 2, 2009)

" _When folks I know gripe about being overweight to me, I generally advise them to look after their health, which in context of most of them being peeps who work too hard, are sedentary and drink too much tends to be:

- walk, when you get chance, swim once or twice a week, (take it easy to start with and ramp it up, session by session to vigorously) for about half an hour per. session. Swimming is GOLD 'cos it's resistance and aerobic, and supports weight / protects joints. Take up Tai Chi if you can. Don't go running cos it f*cks your knees (that's from MY experience). Cycling's ok. Try and do excercise that you ENJOY. If you've got pre-existing health probs go to your doc regularly and double check before you start in on vigorous excercise.
- get 8 hours sleep a night (sleep deprivation = very bad for health)
- eat a balanced, nutritionally complete diet (in the strict dictionary sense of "diet") with adaequate calories, protein, roughage, vitamins and minerals (i.e. approx. RDA adjusted for self and activity) eat wholefoods. eat green things with each meal if you can. Chose mono (or poly) unsaturated fats e.g. olive oil. Have some oily fish - tuna or mackerel say... for omega 3's and 6's. Don't eat trans fats (their geometry is incompatible with biology, they will f*ck you up.). Don't eat High Fructose Corn Syrup (linked to liver problems, as I recall). Don't eat aspartame (artificial sweetener - it's a TOXIN). Take a multivitamin supplement daily.
- eat regularly. eat something for breakfast! (kick starts metabolism). If you're in a rush have a piece of fruit - have a banana! to start your day - don't start the day starving!
- drink water. have a big glass of water with each meal at least. Keeping hydrated is essential for good digestion and good health in general. (don't drink more than 2 pints of water in an hour cos it screws your electrolyte balance which is bad and can = fatal, best to aim for approx. 2 litres water over a whole day, varying depending on activity / heat / humidity)
- drink no more pints of beer than your number of excercise sessions per week (e.g. swim twice a week, that's two pints a week). drink halves. space them out with a glass of water. This last one is my personal "wrinkle" for my heavy drinking friends.

All very much non-controversial. _ "


That wasn't so difficult...was it?

Things that many people say here, all the time, which is not saying it should not be repeated, and people take from such things as they will.

I think you need to work on the dismissive way you have with fat people. Your using the word....gripe....was some of that slip still showing.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Yes. I did check the hard gainer advice. And used it. And drinking loads of (skimmed) milk was a big part of how I built myself up from 133lbs to 174lbs...



The stuff works - it takes some getting use to drinking a gallon of Milk at a time;but, it's what many old time bodybuilders and strength athletes did in an era where you did not have the protien supplements that we have now- but the Vitamin Industry is another scary subject...


----------



## joswitch (Aug 2, 2009)

mossystate said:


> I think you need to work on the dismissive way you have with fat people. Your using the word....gripe....was some of that slip still showing.



Psssch... that's not a "me and fat people" thing, that's a "me and people" thing... I'm an equal opportunities asshole!  :doh: well that's how I come over on the interwebs anyway!

Oh and when I wrote that post I was thinking of my friends who I've known for twenty years - who I have actually given this advice to... and "gripe" (as in low-level repeated grumbling) was exactly what they were doing... 
Apparently this advice - which included my routine caution to "be gentle with yourself" especially at first as you ramp up the excercise - was according to one of my friends a "draconian regime"!
He's actually catching heat from his employers re. his weight...
And get this - his employer is the RC church - he's about to enter the seminary as a catholic priest!
I said to him "WTF!? are they hassling you for?? you're training to be a *priest*! not a commando or a ****in' ninja!" but apparently hysterical fear of TEH DEATH FATZ has now permeated the upper levels of the catholic church...


----------



## comperic2003 (Aug 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Don't go running cos it f*cks your knees (that's from MY experience).



Most people who fuck up their knees while running, run too much and almost always run with shitty form. Also, the majority of women (overweight women especially) have a severe biomechanic disadvantage when it comes to running safely. So, with all that being said, I too, would not recommend running for most.



joswitch said:


> Don't eat trans fats (their geometry is incompatible with biology, they will f*ck you up.).



Of course, naturally occurring trans fats are excluded from this criticism.



joswitch said:


> Don't eat High Fructose Corn Syrup (linked to liver problems, as I recall).



Wrong.




joswitch said:


> Don't eat aspartame (artificial sweetener - it's a TOXIN).



Wrong.



joswitch said:


> - eat regularly. eat *something* for breakfast! (kick starts metabolism). don't start the day starving!



I start everyday "starving". As a matter of fact, I "starve" myself for 8 hours after waking. Intermittent fasting can work wonders for some people.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 2, 2009)

comperic2003 said:


> Of course, naturally occurring trans fats are excluded from this criticism.


Naturally occurring trans fats are very rare.
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/trans-fats.html
However it you wanted a more precise "rule of thumb" try this on for size:
"avoid artificially hydrogenated fats. e.g. hydrogenated vegetable oil."


> Wrong.


"Fatty liver" disease found in "sedentary" mice on a high fat, high High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) diet:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022836.html
I can't be bothered to dig deeper on this point. As far as I'm concerned HFCS also falls under the general principle of - if it didn't grow in/out of the ground, get plucked from a tree or come out of an animal, best not to eat it.
Processed food are generally worse for you than wholefoods.


> Wrong.


Rilly? You sure? 
I've had aspartame pegged as a neurotoxin and a carcinogen for a long time.
http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/0206/bella_italia_the_soffritti_aspartame_study.php
Landmark Ramanazzi study where it was linked with a variety of cancers in rats:
http://www.sweetpoison.com/pdf/Soffritti_et_al_in_EHP.pdf
The history of aspartame's legalisation by the FDA is murky indeed.

It's certainly a *non-food* and as such *I* do not recommend people take it into their bodies. As far as you can help it. It is in nearly every damn thing now.




> I start everyday "starving". As a matter of fact, I "starve" myself for 8 hours after waking. Intermittent fasting can work wonders for some people.



*sighs a long and weary sigh* 
Honestly, I was asked for *my* recommendations and I gave them. 

Your mileage may vary.
I'm glad that works for *you*.
Huzzah!

I'm done bloody arguing with every bloody body.
I've put the info. out there.
Folks can use it or ignore it as they wish.


----------



## comperic2003 (Aug 2, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Naturally occurring trans fats are very rare.
> http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/trans-fats.html
> However it you wanted a more precise "rule of thumb" try this on for size:
> "avoid artificially hydrogenated fats. e.g. hydrogenated vegetable oil."



Naturally occurring trans fats, while not as common as artificially hydrogenated fats, can be found in many meat and dairy products.



joswitch said:


> "Fatty liver" disease found in "sedentary" mice on a high fat, high High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) diet:
> http://www.naturalnews.com/022836.html



Seriously? 



> A diet high in fat *and* in high fructose corn syrup may cause severe liver problems in people with a sedentary lifestyle



How can you say any one of those factors alone can cause severe liver problems when the study only suggests a combination of the three may cause severe liver problems in mice. Not only that but,



> the high fructose corn syrup [used in the study] translates to about eight cans of soda a day in a human diet,



Oh yeah, that's realistic.




joswitch said:


> Rilly? You sure?
> Landmark Ramanazzi study where it was linked with a variety of cancers in rats:
> http://www.sweetpoison.com/pdf/Soffritti_et_al_in_EHP.pdf



Landmark? That study is grossly flawed. I ask this in all honesty, did you even read it?




joswitch said:


> *sighs a long and weary sigh*



Don't be so dismissive without first looking at the research. But then again, you do seem pretty set in your ways, so, I won't waste my time unless prompted.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 3, 2009)

comperic2003 said:


> How can you say any one of those factors alone can cause severe liver problems when the study only suggests a combination of the three may cause severe liver problems in mice.



That is true. 
A further scan of literature says the "jury's still out" on HFCS.

But.
As I mentioned above: 
When it comes to "should I put this new*, highly processed, nutritionally empty (apart from calories) substance into my body?"
It takes very little negative suspicion to lead me to say "no".

That I might be missing out on a load of yummy HFCS?
I can live with that.
You eat it up if you like!

(*as in decades)



> Landmark? That study is grossly flawed. I ask this in all honesty, did you even read it?



Scanned it, yeah.
Checked for the usual: such as use of control groups....

"grossly flawed", eh? really? - substantive critique would be more enlightening.

Here's a review of the literature on aspartame:
http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
"One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem."

more comment:
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/aspartame.shtml

Read, and make your own decision.

As above with HFCS, but more so because - aspartame = ZERO nutritional value. Why put it in your body?

Oh and from personal experience - when they started putting it in chewing gum:
I used to chew a pack a day. For like 6 years. No problems.
Add aspartame. 
Which breaks down to methanol and phenylalanine on digestion.
And hey presto! Irritable Bowel Syndrome. (excess phenylalanine = cause)
So I cut down / virtually stopped chewing gum with it in.
No more IBS.
It's a no brainer for me.


I'm not going to argue the toss with you on these issues.
I've made my points.
Now you can have the floor.
Knock yourself out.


NOTE:
To fffflamer and GEF and everyone else who has me tagged as some kind of heartless, concienceless, sinister feeder - both HFCS and artificial sweetners (including aspartame) have been linked (debatably, but still, linked) by some authors - to weight gain!!! Yes. I am arguing *against* putting sh*t in your body that might cause weight gain.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 3, 2009)

Oh quick correction - because one of the things made when aspartame breaks down > phenylalanine which is an amino acid... technically it does have *some* nutritional value.

But you'd be better getting your amino acids from vegetable or animal protein.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 3, 2009)

> Oh and from personal experience - when they started putting it in chewing gum:
> I used to chew a pack a day. For like 6 years. No problems.
> Add aspartame.
> Which breaks down to methanol and phenylalanine on digestion.
> ...



Operative words here:

*I.
Me.
Personal experience.*

So maybe for you this turned out this way, it does not mean that it's going to be true for everyone. I personally can drink as much diet soda as I want and NOT get IBS.....so what does that tell you?

You ridiculed the term "shit ton" but I'm going to repeat it anyway. Each human body is different. Some people may drink a liter or two of diet cola with aspartame and be _fine._ Some can not tolerate it at all.

Dude, seriously.

When you start posting links to articles that flat out say "dieting can kill you", you lose a lot of credibility.

Oh, and this?



> Don't go running cos it f*cks your knees (that's from MY experience).



Utter nonsense. I'm sure in YOUR experience it's true cause you're talking about your body. I personally can run, walk, and climb stairs all I want and have zero knee problems. I have several relatives who have run marathons with perfectly fine and healthy knees. My mother is well into her sixties and NEVER misses a day on the track or on the treadmill and has no knee problems at all. I'm a waitress and am often on my feet for up to 14 hours at a stretch....ZERO knee pain.

Lastly:



> Swimming is GOLD 'cos it's resistance and aerobic, and supports weight / protects joints.



Swimming is not weight bearing exercise and does NOT protect against, or prevent osteoporosis. Now maybe wherever you got your fancypants medical training did not teach you this, but women need to have weight bearing exercise to keep their skeletal systems strong especially when they are over 30 or 35 and no longer storing calcium from the food they eat. Yes swimming is great exercise for numerous reasons, but it is NOT weight bearing and thus not complete for many people.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 3, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> When you start posting links to articles that flat out say "dieting can kill you", you lose a lot of credibility.


If you're referring to the thread "Sad! Another BBW is killed by extreme dieting!"
I posted to links that show you specific diets that *have* killed.
Links that identified the women who *were* killed by those specific diets.
Fatality was not mentioned in OP of *this* thread - just mechanisms of harm in semi-starvation.


> Oh, and this?
> *Knees*
> Utter nonsense. I'm sure in YOUR experience it's true cause you're talking about your body. I personally can run, walk, and climb stairs all I want and have zero knee problems. I have several relatives who have run marathons with perfectly fine and healthy knees. My mother is well into her sixties and NEVER misses a day on the track or on the treadmill and has no knee problems at all. I'm a waitress and am often on my feet for up to 14 hours at a stretch....ZERO knee pain.


:doh:
Look - I was asked for *MY* advice. And where it was based on *MY* experience I identified it as such *exactly* so that people could take it with that "pinch of salt" / "your mileage may vary" attitude.
It's *crazy* to then come in and attack me by saying things like:
"_I'm sure in YOUR experience it's true cause you're talking about your body._"
Duh. Obviously. That's what *I* said!

And I'm so pleased for your having great knees - enjoy them!
I went running everyday for 3 or 4miles for a full year.
I got the proper shoes and everything.
But as there's bad joints and some osteo arthritis on both sides of my family my knees are now...not so good. Yeah I can walk for miles, run, do stairs (two at a time and at speed) - mostly without knee pain, but not *always*... I get lots of ominous clicking noises now too.. so I treat my knees with more respect than I used to... and my advice to others is informed by that... as I said!





> Lastly:
> Swimming is not weight bearing exercise



I never said it was! I said it was "*resistance*" excercise. i.e. excercise where you work your muscles against resistance - equivalent to weight training.
If I lie on my back and bench press I'm not "weight bearing" (which indicates the bearing of the weight of my own body) but I am pushing against *resistance* = weight of barbell. If I swim I may not be weight bearing but I am moving a mass of water and its inertia and viscosity provide *resistance*.

And when I said it "supports weight / protects joints" - I meant during the time in the pool! Which makes excercise safer and less painful. I'd've thought that was obvious in the context.



> and does NOT protect against, or prevent osteoporosis. Now maybe wherever you got your fancypants medical training did not teach you this, but women need to have weight bearing exercise to keep their skeletal systems strong especially when they are over 30 or 35 and no longer storing calcium from the food they eat. Yes swimming is great exercise for numerous reasons, but it is NOT weight bearing and thus not complete for many people.


Aaaaaaaand I also recommended walking - whenever possible.
First thing I said.
Aaaaaaand that would be.... *drumroll* weight bearing!! 
So while your point re. osteoporosis is worthwhile your attack on me - is not.
Try to criticise what I say rather than what you thought I said.:doh:
Or maybe lay off me and add to the thread in a productive and non-confrontational way... that'd make a pleasant change...


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 3, 2009)

> I posted to links that show you specific diets that *have* killed.
> Links that identified the women who *were* killed by those specific diets.



And i can post links to stories about food allergies or even articles from medical journals about food allergies that show incidences of death from eating shellfish, peanuts, or wheat gluten. Just because *some* human bodies are such that they go into anephelactic (sp.) shock from consuming certain products does not mean I should start a whole Dims thread warning everyone to not order a shrimp cocktail for dinner.

The fact that some people have celiac disease does not mean "eating a slice of bread can kill you." I mean, yes it *can* if you suffer from a severe case of celiac disease, but it's not really applicable to the general populace.

You're practically channelling Russell Williams when you post stuff like "running can kill your knees" and only after you're called out on it say "Oh BTW, I suffer from osteoarthritis." Well no SHIT running kills your knees, you suffer from a potentially serious autoimmune disease! 

I could very reasonably post "Gaining weight can cause immobility" and only after I get a dozen angry posts from SSBBWs who say they can walk just fine, come back with "Well, I suffer from bursitis in my hips so if I gained weight I might be unable to walk." Considering *I* have bursitis, gaining weight would for sure affect *my* mobility, but it would be pointless for me to post about my personal medical condition as some sort of warning for everyone.

Aaaand:



> - drink no more pints of beer than your number of excercise sessions per week (e.g. swim twice a week, that's two pints a week). drink halves. space them out with a glass of water. This last one is my personal "wrinkle" for my heavy drinking friends.



You can post your "personal wrinkles" all you want, but they don't really add up to peer-reviewed science. Srsly.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 3, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> And i can post links to stories about food allergies or even articles from medical journals about food allergies that show incidences of death from eating shellfish, peanuts, or wheat gluten. Just because *some* human bodies are such that they go into anephelactic (sp.) shock from consuming certain products does not mean I should start a whole Dims thread warning everyone to not order a shrimp cocktail for dinner.
> 
> The fact that some people have celiac disease does not mean "eating a slice of bread can kill you." I mean, yes it *can* if you suffer from a severe case of celiac disease, but it's not really applicable to the general populace.


But if you read up through all the threads I've posted with all the references you get to see the bigger picture - which IMO - is that semi-starvation = harmful, to many if not most people.



> You're practically channelling Russell Williams when you post stuff like "running can kill your knees" and only after you're called out on it say "Oh BTW, I suffer from osteoarthritis." Well no SHIT running kills your knees, you suffer from a potentially serious autoimmune disease!


I didn't say I *have* OA - I said it's in my family. there's a difference.



> I could very reasonably post "Gaining weight can cause immobility" and only after I get a dozen angry posts from SSBBWs who say they can walk just fine, come back with "Well, I suffer from bursitis in my hips so if I gained weight I might be unable to walk." Considering *I* have bursitis, gaining weight would for sure affect *my* mobility, but it would be pointless for me to post about my personal medical condition as some sort of warning for everyone.
> 
> 
> You can post your "personal wrinkles" all you want, but they don't really add up to peer-reviewed science. Srsly.



****!!!!
FOR THE THIRD AND LAST TIME!
I've *clearly *said that my "list of recommendations for health" are my personal, informed *opinion*. I've even picked out the *really* personal bits and marked them as such!

I've also clearly identified all the other stuff that's based on evidence..... by posting links to that evidence. It's not hard to understand.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 3, 2009)

Here are my personal recommendations for a healthy lifestyle.

- Stay out of the sun and make sure to wear sunscreen, sunglasses, and/or a hat when you go outside. (LoveBHMS has a family history of skin cancer.)

- Don't gain weight (LoveBHMS has a chronic joint condition in her hips and weight gain is dangerous.)

- Don't eat too much sugar (LoveBHMS has a family history of diabetes.)

- As much walking, running, and stair climbing as you want is perfectly fine! (LoveBHMS does not have bad knees, fallen arches or flat feet.)

- Don't eat grapefruit! (LoveBHMS takes prescription meds for which grapefruit and grapefruit juice are contraindicated)

- Enjoy moderate consumption of alcoholic drinking and feel free to go to the race track or buy scratch cards or lottery tickets (LoveBHMS is not an alcoholic or compulsive gambler and thus can indulge in drinking or gambling without fear of serious repercussions.)

Do you see where *my personal issues* are not applicable to anyone else?


----------



## joswitch (Aug 3, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Here are my personal recommendations for a healthy lifestyle.
> 
> - Stay out of the sun and make sure to wear sunscreen, sunglasses, and/or a hat when you go outside. (LoveBHMS has a family history of skin cancer.)
> 
> ...



*yawn* 

y'know what?
Mossy and Exile specifically asked *me* for *my* personal opinion - and I was reluctant to give it. at. all. 

Because it was a thread derail. 
Because I haven't bothered digging into the references for it (in contrast with my OPs on all my threads - I have done the reference work for *those*). 
Because I knew it would bring out this *exact* kind of argumentative cobblers.

But y'know - they wanted to know!
And so I told them.

Well more fool me.:doh:

You carry on.
Enjoy yourself!
It's nearly 2am here.
G'night!:bow:


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 3, 2009)

joswitch, I really don't understand why you thought this thread was applicable to this community? I would say of anyone, Dims members are least likely to fall into the guise of a semi-starvation diet in a desperate attempt to lose weight. 

Not to mention, I would seriously urge anyone to be wary of any specific medical advice given in this thread, not just from joswitch, but from others too. It's dangerous taking advice from people you don't know well and who may or may not be qualified to be giving said advice.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 3, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> joswitch, I really don't understand why you thought this thread was applicable to this community? I would say of anyone, Dims members are least likely to fall into the guise of a semi-starvation diet in a desperate attempt to lose weight.
> 
> Not to mention, I would seriously urge anyone to be wary of any specific medical advice given in this thread, not just from joswitch, but from others too. It's dangerous taking advice from people you don't know well and who may or may not be qualified to be giving said advice.



Are you like implying I should listen to my doctor? Who went to medical school and has known me for years and knows my personal medical history? I should take his advice and not advice found on the internet?


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 3, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Are you like implying I should listen to my doctor? Who went to medical school and has known me for years and knows my personal medical history? I should take his advice and not advice found on the internet?



I know, I know, it's a very novel idea and all.


----------



## comperic2003 (Aug 3, 2009)

joswitch said:


> That is true.
> A further scan of literature says the "jury's still out" on HFCS.



Let's not confuse the issue. The "jury" is not "still out" on HFCS. No credible evidence solely linking HFCS to liver problems in humans can be found in the literature.



joswitch said:


> "grossly flawed", eh? really? - substantive critique would be more enlightening.



Sure:



> · The increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame, given the high background incidence of chronic inflammatory changes in the lungs and the lack of a positive dose-response relationship. It is well-known that such tumours can arise as a result of abundant lymphoid hyperplasia in the lungs of rats suffering from chronic respiratory disease. The most plausible explanation of the findings in this study with respect to lymphomas/leukaemias is that they have developed in a colony suffering from chronic respiratory disease. The slight increase in incidence of these tumours in rats fed aspartame is considered to be an incidental finding of the ERF study and can therefore be dismissed.
> 
> · The preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the renal pelvis, ureter and bladder occurring primarily in female rats along with renal calcification were most probably treatment-related, at least at the higher doses. It is widely accepted that the effect is a high dose effect of irritant chemicals or chemicals producing renal pelvic calcification as a result of imbalances in calcium metabolism, specific to the rat. The Panel considers that these effects are of no relevance for humans.
> 
> ...



http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620765743.htm



> These studies were conducted in a way that could not possibly have provided any information about the toxicity of aspartame &#8211; or in fact anything else in the rats’ diet. The animals used were allowed to live until they died naturally, meaning that all the study did was show the results of ageing, which as we all know is a natural process that leads, inevitably, to death.
> 
> “In fact, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the results is that aspartame appears to be safe because the studies showed that those rats fed it (even at very high doses) lived as long (if not longer) as untreated rats, despite consuming up to more than 100 times the ADI every day of their lives. If aspartame was as horrendously toxic as is being claimed, it would be logical to expect the rats dosed with it to have shortened life-spans. The conclusions drawn by the researchers were clearly not backed up by their own data."


http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2007/aspartame-activists-3-8-2007.htm

For more information on the faults of the European Ramazzini Foundation study, consult the following links
http://web.archive.org/web/20071017024754/www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fpaspar2.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671



joswitch said:


> Here's a review of the literature on aspartame:
> http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
> "One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem."



Seriously? You are quoting a non peer-reviewed online article? How do you even know those figures are correct? And even if they were, what does that prove? Unless you plan on reading all 91 of those independently funded studies, you have no idea which ones are even credible.



joswitch said:


> more comment:
> http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/aspartame.shtml
> 
> 
> ...



Your "reference" is littered with hyperbole and lacks citations for many statements. 

At this point, joswitch, you have lost all credibility with me.



joswitch said:


> As above with HFCS, but more so because - aspartame = ZERO nutritional value. Why put it in your body?



I am not arguing for the consumption of HFCS or aspartame. Don't confuse the issue. I am arguing that your previous statements were false.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 3, 2009)

Let's fill a wading pool with fake sweeteners and watch comperic and joswitch wrestle.

Nekkid.



Whaddya say, boys.



:happy:


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 3, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Let's fill a wading pool with fake sweeteners and watch comperic and joswitch wrestle.
> 
> Nekkid.
> 
> ...



Only if you post a link to a blog detailing the health benefits of wrestling in a pool of aspartame.


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 4, 2009)

drosswitch


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

comperic2003 said:


> Your "reference" is littered with hyperbole and lacks citations for many statements.


I specifically identified that link as "comment"... i.e. an opinion piece.
It's only a "reference" in the sense that it's an href link.


> At this point, joswitch, you have lost all credibility with me.


this would *maybe* bother me... if you were someone who could distinguish corroboration from contradiction  (see thread Calories In / Out)...


> I am not arguing for the consumption of HFCS or aspartame. Don't confuse the issue. I am arguing that your previous statements were false.



Ok, I read up that critique on the Ramanazzi study and I accept that my calling it "landmark" was incorrect. And further the point about the treated rats living as long as the others is a good one and goes against the conclusion by the Ramanazzi authors.
I've run a search on aspartame in BMJ and found only an op ed piece from a couple of professors trashing the cancer link, and concluding it was safe, except for people with phenylketonuria (spelling?).

I'm happy to accept for now, for sake of argument *here* that there's no proven cancer link for aspartame.

Re. HFCS your point that no conclusive work has been done in *humans* is moot, as drug and food trials for toxicity are habitually done with animal models - for obvious reasons.
The chemical / digestive difference between HFCS (of ratio 50%*) and sucrose is simply the need to break the dimer bond - which means that sucrose will enter the bloodstream *somewhat* more slowly than the equivalent HFCS. How much more slowly (one op ed piece I read reckoned from minutes to and hour.... not terribly helpful) and whether or not that will matter health wise I don't know.
(*HFCS in drinks tends to be 55% fructose, in other things 42%).

My instinctive mistrust for highly processed foods / food ingredients remains.
Not to mention my own experience with aspartame and IBS (see above)....
But as discussed _ad nauseum_ personal experience has limited wider application.... *So - comperic2003 - if you are not arguing for the consumption of HFCS or aspartame what is your position on these two substances and why?*


----------



## Sugar (Aug 4, 2009)

Is this the alternative to no Hyde Park? Make nonsense blanket statements in a sentence structure that is like the bastard cousin of the haiku. We have to have controversy someway, somehow!

Awesome.

*runs off to eat splenda packets*


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> joswitch, I really don't understand why you thought this thread was applicable to this community? I would say of anyone, Dims members are least likely to fall into the guise of a semi-starvation diet in a desperate attempt to lose weight.



Sorry?
this is a Size Acceptance community.... right?
Or did I take a wrong turn into the Twilight Zone....

Therefore I thought people would actually give a sh*t about something that disproportionately affects big folks - who are disproportionately targeted by / and drawn into VLCDs / LCDs. I posted the stats for the higher incidence of big folks dieting somewhere in the "Sad! Another BBW is killed by extreme dieting!" (page 4)... You can go look 'em up if you like....

I think your take on the typical DIMS member is skewed by the 3 dozen or so most vocal members on here... Just duck into the WLS* board to see how many Dimmers are taking / considering extreme measures to lose weight....
Further consider the many, many lurkers who don't *post* here...

Honestly, if just one person is inspired to think differently about their health and look into ideas like HAES for themselves - then I'll count this last week of frustrating wrangling on this boards as time well spent. Actually I've had PMs / reps saying just that - so I do count it as time well spent.

(*WLS is effectively a surgically enforced VLCD, plus lots of extra complications and issues. Note - I'm not condemning the people who choose that. I just want people to make *informed* choices for themselves. These bits of info. I've posted here are just *part* of the picture.)



> Not to mention, I would seriously urge anyone to be wary of any specific medical advice given in this thread, not just from joswitch, but from others too. It's dangerous taking advice from people you don't know well and who may or may not be qualified to be giving said advice.



Of course. Always check up everything you hear! Natch.


----------



## Starsshine (Aug 4, 2009)

standard diets are bad.
because they are made for a random group of people.
There is no way that just because its good for some, its good for you.
Every body is different, and ever body needs different things.

By using a standard diet, you got a chance that your body will miss out on some if the vitamins or something like that. Because it could be that your body would need some extra vitamin D..

The only healthy diets are the once you get for a dietist. They find out what your body needs before they tell you how and what to eat.


The other problem with the standard weights is, is that it might not be right for your eating habit. If it tells you to eat 6 times a day, while you know you can eat in the morning, and you cant eat most things you like, It wont work.
As soon as the diet period is over, you would be back on your old weight before you know it.


and yes, you can deside to take in less callories. But this isnt always good. Specially without profesional advice.

And then afcorse the reason.. the reason to start a diet is just as important as the diet itself.
There are only 2 good reason to start: You dont feel comfertable wity yourself OR You have to because of health reasons.

Other then that, diets suck.


And as long as you are happy about you, and your health is ok.. who cares


----------



## comperic2003 (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> I specifically identified that link as "comment"... i.e. an opinion piece.
> It's only a "reference" in the sense that it's an href link.



Why post an opinion piece filled with unsubstantiated nonsense?




joswitch said:


> this would *maybe* bother me... if you were someone who could distinguish corroboration from contradiction  (see thread Calories In / Out)...



I am in the process of moving. I will respond to your post in that thread sometime this week.



joswitch said:


> Re. HFCS your point that no conclusive work has been done in *humans* is moot, as drug and food trials for toxicity are habitually done with animal models - for obvious reasons.



Perhaps my language was unclear, but I do not require the work to be done on humans in order for the results to be considered valid. Several sound rat studies would suffice.




joswitch said:


> *So - comperic2003 - if you are not arguing for the consumption of HFCS or aspartame what is your position on these two substances and why?*



I would simply recommend people consume either of those ingredients in moderation. As for why? Well, generally speaking, HFCS and aspartame are found in junk food; so, an over consumption of HFCS and aspartame laden foods can lead to an under consumption of important nutrients.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Sorry?
> this is a Size Acceptance community.... right?
> Or did I take a wrong turn into the Twilight Zone....
> 
> ...



If anything this threads makes me want to prove you wrong.


----------



## Mathias (Aug 4, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> joswitch, I really don't understand why you thought this thread was applicable to this community? I would say of anyone, Dims members are least likely to fall into the guise of a semi-starvation diet in a desperate attempt to lose weight.
> 
> Not to mention, I would seriously urge anyone to be wary of any specific medical advice given in this thread, not just from joswitch, but from others too. It's dangerous taking advice from people you don't know well and who may or may not be qualified to be giving said advice.



I agree. The OP is failing to see that this site overall promotes a be healthy at whatever size you feel lifestyle. I'm sure there's probably some things he's said that people having figured out on their own at some point.


----------



## Miss Vickie (Aug 4, 2009)

comperic2003 said:


> I would simply recommend people consume either of those ingredients in moderation. As for why? Well, generally speaking, HFCS and aspartame are found in junk food; so, an over consumption of HFCS and aspartame laden foods can lead to an under consumption of important nutrients.



*shrug* Sounds reasonable to me! Whether they're actively harmful or not (and I say this as someone who loves her some Diet Coke) can be argued 'till the cows come home. To me the question must be asked: What do we hope to gain by eating these things? Do they have nutritional value? Not really, since they're not usually found in overly healthy foods like *true* whole grain products, meals with lots of differently colored vegetables, and lean meat. We eat them instead of things like nuts, carrots, fruit, high quality yogurt, and the like.

Recognizing that we eat them because they're "fun" is at least honest. I don't eat that stuff pretending in any way that it's good for me. I eat them with an open mind, and because I enjoy the flavor/texture/color. But when I want nutritious foods, which is the vast majority of time, I usually prepare them, or purchase them from a source I trust. I think the problem with how Americans look at diet (and this may be true in other western cultures as well) is that we've lost all sense of moderation. We either go nuts eating nothing but celery, or we eat thousands of crap-laden calories without thought. It seems like there is very little in between. I say eat the "junk" when we want, but understand what it is we're eating, and try to also eat lots of healthy things, too.

I'm reading the book The End of Overeating by Dr. David Kessler, not because I want to lose weight or am in any way interested in a diet, and in fact the "diet" aspect of the book turned me off for the longest time, even while I was/am very interested in food manufacturing. I'm reading it because he goes into great detail about what the manufacturers of food have done to actively sabotage us into eating foods that are bad for us. They use our emotions against us, and we eat things we don't need, which don't ultimately satisfy us, and which can make us sick. I just started reading it but it's pretty interesting. I'm also interested in the documentary coming out soon, "Food, Inc" which is about the same thing. Love the books by Michael Pollan for the same reason.

Anyhow, that's my two cents on the subject.


----------



## katorade (Aug 4, 2009)

Starsshine said:


> standard diets are bad.
> because they are made for a random group of people.
> There is no way that just because its good for some, its good for you.
> Every body is different, and ever body needs different things.
> ...



The only problem I have with this logic is that even if a standardized diet isn't custom-tailored for every person that starts on it, they are, typically speaking, by a large margin better than the current diet of food the person was eating before.

Also, the majority of standardized diets are engineered to be nutritionally sound for the average human body. Naturally, you should consult with your doctor before starting any diet, especially if you know you have pre-existing issues such as absorbing certain vitamins.


----------



## mergirl (Aug 4, 2009)

Hmm..I was thinking of trying to lose a bit of weight by not eating as much crisps and chocolate pudding..but now i'm frightened!! Oh well, might as well not bother now. 
This is a 'diet' in a sense but i can see no reason why on earth this can be bad in ANY way. Except maby for the crisps and chocolate pudding companies. Oh and the enthusiastic to the point of madness Fa's!! :happy:


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

comperic2003 said:


> Why post an opinion piece filled with unsubstantiated nonsense?


Good point.
My bad.
I was knackered so I couldn't be bothered to dig for the stuff on aspartame.
So I just slapped up the first couple of links I found on google, for folks to start off with.... and that was one...

I've spent a lot more time doing the leg work on my OPs though.



> I am in the process of moving. I will respond to your post in that thread sometime this week.
> 
> Perhaps my language was unclear, but I do not require the work to be done on humans in order for the results to be considered valid. Several sound rat studies would suffice.


Okay.



> I would simply recommend people consume either of those ingredients in moderation. As for why? Well, generally speaking, HFCS and aspartame are found in junk food; so, an over consumption of HFCS and aspartame laden foods can lead to an under consumption of important nutrients.



Solid point.:bow:


----------



## exile in thighville (Aug 4, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> If anything this threads makes me want to prove you wrong.



yeah.yeahyeahs


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

Mathias said:


> I agree. The OP is failing to see that this site overall promotes a be healthy at whatever size you feel lifestyle. I'm sure there's probably some things he's said that people having figured out on their own at some point.



Wait.... so you're saying - don't post anything in Dims if someone else *might* have said it here before????

You do realise that if you put that principle into practice you'd have to erase the majority of threads and posts on here don't you?


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> If anything this threads makes me want to prove you wrong.



Good. A sceptical and questioning attitude is a valuable thing. :bow:


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Hmm..I was thinking of trying to lose a bit of weight by not eating as much crisps and chocolate pudding..but now i'm frightened!! Oh well, might as well not bother now.
> This is a 'diet' in a sense but i can see no reason why on earth this can be bad in ANY way. Except maby for the crisps and chocolate pudding companies. Oh and the enthusiastic to the point of madness Fa's!! :happy:



Lolz! Don't you know there's an economic slump? Where's your solidarity? Think of those poor crisp and pudding workers out of a job! 



joke

*sigh*


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

Miss Vickie said:


> *shrug* Sounds reasonable to me! Whether they're actively harmful or not (and I say this as someone who loves her some Diet Coke) can be argued 'till the cows come home. To me the question must be asked: What do we hope to gain by eating these things? Do they have nutritional value? Not really, since they're not usually found in overly healthy foods like *true* whole grain products, meals with lots of differently colored vegetables, and lean meat. We eat them instead of things like nuts, carrots, fruit, high quality yogurt, and the like.
> 
> Recognizing that we eat them because they're "fun" is at least honest. I don't eat that stuff pretending in any way that it's good for me. I eat them with an open mind, and because I enjoy the flavor/texture/color. But when I want nutritious foods, which is the vast majority of time, I usually prepare them, or purchase them from a source I trust. I think the problem with how Americans look at diet (and this may be true in other western cultures as well) is that we've lost all sense of moderation. We either go nuts eating nothing but celery, or we eat thousands of crap-laden calories without thought. It seems like there is very little in between. I say eat the "junk" when we want, but understand what it is we're eating, and try to also eat lots of healthy things, too.
> 
> ...



Good points.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Lolz! Don't you know there's an economic slump? Where's your solidarity? Think of those poor crisp and pudding workers out of a job!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sick of people interrupting threads with joking and light banter. 

View attachment 44v8itg.jpg


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 4, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I'm sick of people interrupting threads with joking and light banter.









*Bring It Greenie*
*I give you fair warning this Pooch has been following a proper diet*


----------



## mergirl (Aug 4, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> what methods of weight loss would you recommend joswitch?



See, actually i think this needs to be repeated. What would the answer be to someone who was very large and wanted to lose weight? How could they possibly do it, short of wls? Are you saying there is just no way? Healthy at any weight just sometimes isn't an option for all people.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 4, 2009)

mergirl said:


> See, actually i think this needs to be repeated. What would the answer be to someone who was very large and wanted to lose weight? How could they possibly do it, short of wls? Are you saying there is just no way? Healthy at any weight just sometimes isn't an option for all people.



*Probably following some sort of plan that is done on the Biggest Loser show- but, even there the sponsors are pushing questionable dietary supplements *

of course there is also ...






Could be the 
Limbaugh Mystery Diet  - He lost 90lbs.(no WLS)....


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

mergirl said:


> See, actually i think this needs to be repeated. What would the answer be to someone who was very large and wanted to lose weight? How could they possibly do it, short of wls? Are you saying there is just no way? Healthy at any weight just sometimes isn't an option for all people.



You mean what if we get right down to individual cases with very particular problems? I'd say - go see your doctor... hell go see two or three! get a number of opinions, do as much research as you can before making up your mind as to how you want to procede...

And if someone absolutely feels they MUST lose weight... 
Say cos they are bedbound, in danger from sores / cellulitis and/ or they are in a lot of pain.... for instance....
And maybe if they dropped X lbs it'd be enough that they can begin to get mobile again / start physio / excercise / counselling / get into HAES or whatever...
Then there are alternatives to starvation (WLS induced or otherwise)....

I'm loath to mention them...
And I'm *NOT* recommending or endorsing them or whatever...
I totally do NOT know enough about the risks...
And *there are risks* - as with any surgery....
*sigh* 
Okay....
Surgical removal of adipose tissue:
Either liposuction
or 
Pannilectomy (surgical removal of the pannus)
as I recall MissStacey had a pannilectomy a few years back...
I don't know why or anything more about it...

So there you go.
You did ask.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> And if someone absolutely feels they MUST lose weight...
> Say cos they are bedbound, in danger from sores / cellulitis and/ or they are in a lot of pain.... for instance....
> And maybe if they dropped X lbs it'd be enough that they can begin to get mobile again / start physio / excercise / counselling / get into HAES or whatever...
> (



See, this is where you refuse to see how you talk down to fat people...and you do.

What about a fat person who WANTS to lose weight, and does not care if you think it is a ' resonable ' thing to do? Say they are not housebound...they are not in a ton of pain. Or, they are in pain, and they lose x number of pounds, and they decide they like the look of being smaller. When you were very thin, did you get counseling?

Were you physically unhealthy when you were thin? If you answered that, I did not see it. If you were physically unhealthy, and you gained a couple of pounds, did you then stop...go talk to someone...love yourself WITH THE BODY YOU HAD ( HAES ) ? 

Are you still having issues with flashbacks from when you were ...very thin? Take away your lust for fat bodies ( mmmm...lust ).... can you get to a place where you see the same desire others have? Maybe step away from the science?


----------



## Famouslastwords (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> You mean what if we get right down to individual cases with very particular problems? I'd say - go see your doctor... hell go see two or three! get a number of opinions, do as much research as you can before making up your mind as to how you want to procede...
> 
> And if someone absolutely feels they MUST lose weight...
> Say cos they are bedbound, in danger from sores / cellulitis and/ or they are in a lot of pain.... for instance....
> ...



So you suggest a surgical solution where somebody would MOST LIKELY die rather than a diet like Jenny Craig where they'd put you on 1700-2300 calories depending on your weight?

Are you mental?


----------



## cinnamitch (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> You mean what if we get right down to individual cases with very particular problems? I'd say - go see your doctor... hell go see two or three! get a number of opinions, do as much research as you can before making up your mind as to how you want to procede...
> 
> And if someone absolutely feels they MUST lose weight...
> Say cos they are bedbound, in danger from sores / cellulitis and/ or they are in a lot of pain.... for instance....
> ...




So you do not recommend dietary changes to acheive HEAS cause omg its a DIET, yet you are ok with p pannilectomy or liposuction? You do realize lipo is totally not recommended on morbidly obese patients nor is a pannilectomy as a method of losing weight. So dietary changes vs non recommended surgical procedures which can be deadly .. not a hard choice at all


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

cinnamitch said:


> So you do not recommend dietary changes to acheive HEAS cause omg its a DIET, yet you are ok with p pannilectomy or liposuction? You do realize lipo is totally not recommended on morbidly obese patients nor is a pannilectomy as a method of losing weight. So dietary changes vs non recommended surgical procedures which can be deadly .. not a hard choice at all



Er... you haven't read the thread have you?
Or even my last post.
Jesus I knew this would happen.:doh:
I am sooooooo sick of people posting to attack me without reading what I actually said.

1) - I support HAES. 100%. End of. And you'd know that if you read this thread. posts #21 and #30. or *any* of the other science threads I'd posted.

2) - *Mergirl asked: what were the non-HAES alternative possibilities other than - starvation (with or without WLS)*

And I said

"And I'm NOT recommending or endorsing them or whatever...
I totally do NOT know enough about the risks..."

So no, I am not ok with these.
Which you would know - if you bothered reading what I actually posted.
Clear now?
Thanks for playing.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

Famouslastwords said:


> So you suggest a surgical solution where somebody would MOST LIKELY die rather than a diet like Jenny Craig where they'd put you on 1700-2300 calories depending on your weight?
> 
> Are you mental?



No no no no no no no. NO!!!
Why can't anybody READ!!!!????

What part of *"I'm NOT recommending or endorsing them" * do you not understand???


----------



## Sugar (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> No no no no no no no. NO!!!
> Why can't anybody READ!!!!????



I'll make sure to sign everyone up for a Jibberish class ASAP...


----------



## cinnamitch (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Er... you haven't read the thread have you?
> Or even my last post.
> Jesus I knew this would happen.:doh:
> I am sooooooo sick of people posting to attack me without reading what I actually said.
> ...



I think you really overestimate my caring of your opinion. I think most of what you say is what anyone with a bit of a brain can find through their own research . For you to make it your responsibilty to come here to enlighten the masses as to what is the right way to optimum health is just really really silly. Oh and you are an adult, children use all caps to yell, mature adults get their point across with normal writing.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 4, 2009)

Is this the new fight forum


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

mossystate said:


> See, this is where you refuse to see how you talk down to fat people...and you do.



I said:

"You mean what if we get right down to individual cases with very particular problems? I'd say - go see your doctor... hell go see two or three! get a number of opinions, do as much research as you can before *making up your mind as to how you want to procede*..."

Now, how is me suggesting that fat people self-determine what they want to do with their own bodies "talking down" to them????

I said:

"And if someone absolutely feels they MUST lose weight... 
*Say* cos they are bedbound, in danger from sores / cellulitis and/ or they are in a lot of pain.... *for instance*...."

I was just giving an *example* as to maybe why someone might *possibly* consider the very extreme *surgery *options I was about to go on to mention. And given that two reading-impaired posters IMMEDIATELY jumped on me I wish to hell I hadn't ****in' bothered.
Call me General Izayshun again, but *my impression is that most people consider surgery to be a very big deal!*



> What about a fat person who WANTS to lose weight, and does not care if you think it is a ' resonable ' thing to do?


Who the *** cares whether or not I think it's reasonable?
It's the individual's decision. end of.



> ..... can you get to a place where you see the same desire others have? Maybe step away from the science?



Sure I can understand the desires other people have.

Can you understand my desire that people maybe read my posts and criticize what I actually write rather than what they *imagine* I have written?


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

cinnamitch said:


> I think you really overestimate my caring of your opinion. I think most of what you say is what anyone with a bit of a brain can find through their own research . For you to make it your responsibilty to come here to enlighten the masses as to what is the right way to optimum health is just really really silly. Oh and you are an adult, children use all caps to yell, mature adults get their point across with normal writing.




If you were capable of reading the "normal writing" - why didn't you?
Then you and I wouldn't even be talking here.
And if you don't care about my opinion - why did you post a response?
And what's "silly" about sharing health information?

FYI - if you'd read the thread - you'd see that the only time I've made *ANY* recommendations (other than - *do HAES*) was in response to a question repeatedly asked by Exile and Mossy and thatgirl08. And look at the hassle I got off that.:doh:

Then in response to a question from Mergirl I made a highly *NEGATIVELY qualified* mention of two surgical procedures that I *know* some people *have* used to (in effect) lose weight.
And BOOM! flame-o-rama!:doh::doh:

Well I've learned an important lesson here on DIMS over the last couple weeks:

*You WILL be flamed by people who will NOT have bothered to read your posts*, if you:
1) share your feelings
2) post any information
3) answer any questions from anyone.

It's been.... unpleasant...
Especially 'cos I remember years back when this place had a generally high standard of reading comprehension....


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> Is this the new fight forum



Y'know what mate - did you ever wish you had never, ever opened your mouth to give a genuine answer a to a question someone asked??? 

I actually thought all the flames had died down. Damn.


----------



## cinnamitch (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> If you were capable of reading the "normal writing" - why didn't you?
> Then you and I wouldn't even be talking here.
> and you know - that would be great!
> And if you don't care about my opinion - why did you post a response?
> And what's "silly" about sharing health information?



Honestly until you posted that crap at the end regarding lipo i had not paid a lot of attention to this stuff you posted. Doing research does not make you an expert just an amateur with time on his hands. PHd just means you went to school longer . You make some interesting observations but they are so entangled in your bias based postings that i can't take you seriously.


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 4, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Y'know what mate - did you ever wish you had never, ever opened your mouth to give a genuine answer a to a question someone asked???
> 
> I actually thought all the flames had died down. Damn.



Nothing wrong about giving a genuine answer...sometimes things can get lost in the delivery of the message... sometimes certain folks may not like the message...some folks just want drama for the sake of drama ...sometimes you get more than you bargained for... you get it all in one thread...


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

cinnamitch said:


> Honestly until you posted that crap at the end regarding lipo


Wait... so you ONLY read the ONE thing that I explicitly did NOT recommend and then you attacked me becauae you hadn't even bothered reading that one post correctly???


> i had not paid a lot of attention to this stuff you posted.


No sh*t!


> Doing research does not make you an expert just an amateur with time on his hands. PHd just means you went to school longer .


Go to your medicine cabinet.
Take half of the stuff in it and throw it away.
More than half of research for the last 30 years has been done by PhDs.
(READ my threads to find the reference)


> You make some interesting observations but they are so entangled in your bias based postings that i can't take you seriously.


Well *that* feeling's mutual.


----------



## joswitch (Aug 4, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> Nothing wrong about giving a genuine answer...sometimes things can get lost in the delivery of the message... sometimes certain folks may not like the message...some folks just want drama for the sake of drama ...sometimes you get more than you bargained for... you get it all in one thread...



Yeah.
And did I ever!
Right. I'm taking a major time out from here.
This place has sucked up an insane amount of my time lately.

G'night.





Que "good riddance" type snarkfest below


----------



## Geektastic1 (Aug 4, 2009)

Joswitch, I've been reading. I think you have good points.

In all the threads I've read, I've seen you make the same main points, which seem to be : 

1.) Extreme crash dieting is ill-advised, and very low calorie diets have actually killed people. Some of these, unfortunately, have gotten the blessing of some medical practicioners.
2.) Weight loss (specifically, calorie-restricted) dieting, even the "sensible" kind, can have problems. Because of the way our metabolisms have evolved to cope with periodic famine, reducing calories triggers certain mechanisms and can be counterproductive. 
3.) Eating techno-food such as artificial sweetners and HCFS is probably not a good idea. 
4.) Focusing on health, rather than weight loss, is the way to go. Excercise, eat whole grains, fish, nutritious whole foods. Sleep well, avoid stress. 

Joswitch, am I right here? 

That's what I've been getting out of it anyway. The stuff you're saying seems pretty standard and reasonable and based on the Health At Every Size point of view, which I'm familiar with. 

Personally, I don't see these posts as patronizing or as "preaching to the fatties" by some skinny FA guy with an agenda like some others seem to. I see a lot of enthusiasm and caring for the worthwile causes of size acceptance and HAES. Perhaps his posting style may put some off, but this guy ain't our enemy. Sheesh, give him a break already, folks, and take some time to read what he's trying to say, *in context*.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 4, 2009)

mossystate said:


> When you were very thin, did you get counseling?
> 
> * Were you physically unhealthy when you were thin?* If you answered that, I did not see it. *If you were physically unhealthy, and you gained a couple of pounds, did you then stop...go talk to someone...love yourself WITH THE BODY YOU HAD ( HAES ) ? *






I will ask...again.

Dismiss it as snark...drama...I don't really care. These questions are very important, seeing how you are angry when others don't read your stuff/advice.


So? Why didn't you believe in HAES for yourself?...etc..


----------



## tonynyc (Aug 4, 2009)

The Dreaded Shark Punch - Shark Steaks Anyone


----------



## LoveBHMS (Aug 5, 2009)

> (*WLS is effectively a surgically enforced VLCD, plus lots of extra complications and issues. Note - I'm not condemning the people who choose that. I just want people to make informed choices for themselves. These bits of info. I've posted here are just *part* of the picture.)



Because no way should surgical patients expect to make informed choices based on what their surgeon tells them, or from what they learn in pre-surgical counseling from a nurse, registered dietician, or discussions in support groups.

No, an "informed choice" comes from reading this thread.

I have two problems with HAES. One comes from a discussion with a prominent Dims member who explained that it was offensive because it implies fat rights/fat acceptance only apply to the "good fatties" who are behaving themselves with regards to eating and moving.

The other is that in some cases, actual weight loss may be necessary for increased mental or physical health. If you have foot or joint problems, the simple fact of excess weight may be a health problem....doesn't matter if you are eating olive oil, fish, whole grains and chicken, if your body hurts because it can't support a certain number of pounds, then reduction in weight may be necessary. 

Some people also become depressed or unhappy with a change in weight (loss or gain). If being above a certain size causes anxiety or unhappiness, then again, weight loss may be the answer. Being "fit and fat" may not be enough.


----------



## katorade (Aug 5, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Being "fit and fat" may not be enough.



Not to mention that fit and fat is not one size fits all. Someone might be perfectly healthy at 250 lbs. while another person might not. Someone that adapts the HAES lifestyle just MIGHT end up losing weight because their natural body type is that of a leaner figure. It's not the end of the world if it happens, although I'm sure it could seem like it if you're attracted to a larger waistline.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Aug 5, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> Because no way should surgical patients expect to make informed choices based on what their surgeon tells them, or from what they learn in pre-surgical counseling from a nurse, registered dietician, or discussions in support groups.
> 
> No, an "informed choice" comes from reading this thread.
> 
> ...





"HAES doesn't mean that you're at the right weight necessarily. It means that if you do healthful things for yourself that you will be."


----------

