SpiritDragon

This all sounds reasonable enough, but it also begs the question, if eating out for lunch is clearly leading to weight gain, why not simply change that? I'm not saying it's the right path for you, just asking the obvious question that stands out to me.

That's excellent! I love that you're breaking up your exercise and that it's feeling easier. Breaking up exercise is a great way to get more without feeling completely drained. In fact, Stuart McGill, a leading authority on managing back pain likes to use walking in spurts shy of the amount that would aggravate pain symptoms throughout the day to build capacity to handle more without pain. It's really a simple concept, but it isn't necessarily how people think about building up exercise tolerance. It works well for those who get winded easily or get other pains such as grumpy knees and so on. Eventually, longer exercise blocks may be in order and will be tolerated well, but for now, it sounds like this is working well for you and I commend you setting a great example of discovering a method that is working for you! Keep up the H2O

That's really exciting. How is the water drinking going? How did exercise go this last week. Keep up the good work! If you're finding the behaviours you're working on to be too difficult we can always tweak them back to make them more attainable to ensure that you are building confidence through successful changes, even if they are small. If you feel ready to take on new challenges I'll be happy to give suggestions. Congratulations on the super results this week!

I have nothing against doctors or anyone telling people that they believe that vaccines are a good idea and the treatment they recommend, just as I applaud doctors who are proactive enough to have a candid talk with their patients about the risks associated with their weight. I don't support people being compelled to comply with their doctor's treatment recommendation though. I believe in informed consent where people are given the information and allowed to make a decision for themselves and their families. If we went to the level some here go with vaccines in suggesting that anyone with a fat kid should lose custody and be imprisoned, I would absolutely oppose such a cruel approach, just as I do with vaccines and any other treatment option. If all of your friends and neighbours begin to fat shame you to the point that their children are no longer allowed around in your presence lest they pick up fattening habits from you and tell everyone you're a horrible unintelligent person who the world would be better off without, and we need to legislate that your kids all go to fat camp for treatment and you are not allowed to opt out - that's bullying. I like to think people wouldn't stand for it in this case, and I don't know why they stand for it with vaccines. I never said that vaccines are doing nothing, I simply pointed out that the herd immunity premise is demonstrably false in the case of measles simply by the numbers and is misinformation used to weaponize this issue and turn otherwise nice people into bullies on this issue. If herd immunity was needed to prevent outbreaks then we had insufficient coverage to explain the condition of measles temporary eradication simply because sufficient numbers of the adult population presented a much larger chink in the herd armour than unvaccinated children. The population wasn't then over 95% protected against measles and isn't now. If the reasoning now is that we don't have enough people vaccinated to create herd immunity, we need 95-99% coverage, how can we then claim the vaccine worked before at lower levels of uptake than are required now to create eradication? Do you not see the contradiction? I further pointed out that when it comes to Whooping Cough in particular that the vaccine doesn't stop the transmission of the disease, it just alters the course of the disease. Thus whooping cough is still out there among all the vaccinated people with no stop in transmission we just have silent carriers who are spreading the disease without even knowing they are contagious. https://web.archive.org/web/20131130004447/https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm376937.htm Most pertinent point from the above link Here is a better read over of the study mentioned above: https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2013/11/20/1314688110.full.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482312/ Follow up study suggesting further plausibility that whooping cough outbreaks are largely due to asymptomatic transmission among the vaccinated to those with waning immunity or to the naive immune system that has either never naturally built immunity or done so via vaccination. I'm not saying that vaccines are bad and that people shouldn't get them. I'm saying that there is a lot of misinformation on both sides and that herd immunity is the biggest means of creating social pressure on others to vaccinate although it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny in all cases, possibly none. How many people are getting upset at the vaccinated child who unknowingly exposed the poor immune compromised kid next door who couldn't be vaccinated against whooping cough to the disease? Nobody, they blame the unvaccinated on the other side of town who stayed home in self appointed quarantine because he was symptomatic. The worst part is that the kid who actually got the disease would no longer get recolonized by the pertussis bacteria, but the vaccinated kid can become a carrier time and again. So until we figure out a better vaccine herd immunity cannot be accomplished for Bordatella Pertussis (Whooping Cough). This should be common knowledge, but it would likely hurt vaccine uptake so it is kept so quiet that new parents are told they need whooping cough boosters to protect their children, but we know the booster won't help stop transmission. There may however actually be a case for some kind of immunity being passed on to the fetus when given to the expecting mother. This very well may be. It could also be that third world sanitation needs to catch up and this will do it. It does a better job of explaining why diseases like scarlet fever went away at the same time as others even though no vaccine was ever rolled out for scarlet fever.

It actually completely depends on how contagious the disease is as to where the cut off point for herd immunity theoretically is. Measles is highly contagious and is thought to require more like 95% coverage for the herd immunity effect to take place. Whooping Cough cannot currently be stopped from transmitting with the vaccines, people are still carriers and may have mild symptoms thought to be a cold or flu, may have no symptoms at all, or may show more classic signs of the disease. Current vaccines cannot provide herd immunity from whooping cough because the disease is still transmitted, it's everywhere. Stopping a highly contagious disease like measles using the theory of herd immunity would be impossible without vaccinating everyone simultaneously in the first place, and then if sufficient boosters weren't maintained for life a resurgence would still occur. It used to be thought that vaccines gave life long immunity and so for decades no one ever got booster shots, and most adults still don't, which left the vast majority of the population not immune because the vaccine-induced immunity wears out. So while the herd would have been insufficiently protected for decades while the disease declined and the credit was given to vaccines which now operate on a theory which debunks their own success. Vaccines can't have it both ways. Either they need to achieve herd immunity to confer protection, which has likely never been achieved in the case of measles (over 95% of the population up to date) or they have to admit that it doesn't require such high levels of vaccination, but then they couldn't use the herd immunity idea to bully people into doing something they aren't comfortable with for the "greater good".

I apologize, I don't remember if you set any particular behavior goals you can shoot for on a weekly or daily basis? Are eggs for breakfast part of that? You certainly don't have to, but you might find it helps to track individual habits in the tracking spreadsheet on the tab with your name.

How is the Leonine hair coming Emperor?

That is so scary. It saddens me how unsympathetic people can be in making blanket statements about people making decisions for their families when there are multiple reasons like these. I mean even in your grandchildren's case - is it worth taking the risk when you know something about your daughter's combination of DNA and biochemistry reacted poorly to that vaccine to risk putting her kids in ER as well. If there were better tests to find out who might have poor reactions in order to increase safety it would go a long way to improve confidence in those who have had poor reactions. When I got my ninth grade tetanus booster (likely a TDap as they would have recently introduced the acellular pertussis component) I had a serious reaction that left my left arm paralyzed for a week. It was terrifying not knowing if my arm would ever work again. It would also be helpful if they had options to get single antigen vaccines that seem to be less reactive, instead the expectation is that everyone gets trivalent to hexavalent or worse concoctions because it's more convenient. It's also sad that more effort isn't put into finding effective cures and verifying documented cures (particularly notable is the work of Frederick Klenner with vitamin C) for these dread diseases since vaccinated or not some people still get them. Of course, if a convenient and safe cure were out there and well established among the public and medical staff then vaccination rates would likely plummet because the big bad killers would lose their fangs.

It's even cooler than that - you actually activate increased brown adipose tissue to kick up metabolic activity and improve fat mobilization. It's possibly even more beneficial to keep the heat down to around 18 degrees Celsius (approx 65 F) through the winter and where a tee shirt. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3593105/ But if you prefer not to freeze yourself in the shower or spend your day almost shivering, you can also activate brown fat with food: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/brown-fat-losing-weight-through-thermogenesis/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/boosting-brown-fat-through-diet/

No your not an idiot for vaccinating your kids. You're simply acting like an idiot by asserting people with a different level of comfort on issues than you have come to are idiots. People die riding in cars, do we shame the drivers as anti-pedestrians. People die doing any number of things, some people look at certain activities as too dangerous and not worth the risk while others see them as worth the risk. Acting like a bully and calling people names when they have come to different decisions than you for any number of possible reasons is silly. Life is risk. We make decisions based on our experiences and interpretations of the facts and we accept different items as facts based on sources that are considered trustworthy. Parents make all kinds of decisions everyday based on weighing perceived risks against perceived rewards. Even pretty lousy parents make decisions for their children based on what they believe will bring the best outcome. It would be much more productive to say, "Well I certainly feel that the evidence supports vaccination and that's what I believe everyone should choose and would choose if they could see the evidence that I have" As opposed to essentially saying, "people that think differently than me are stupid, I am superior and by virtue of my pompous self image declare them unworthy of being parents" do you really think that's productive - or does it just make you feel big and important?

...and people who let their children out of the house into motor vehicles and riding in airplanes are guilty of child abuse because, after all, they could die. People that let their children eat sugary cereals and meat are guilty of child abuse because they are setting them up for diseases which will eventually kill them. People who don't let them out are stifling them and not allowing them to develop socially and are also inflicting abuse. You sure better not let them go skiing or swimming because, you know, death. Don't act like an idiot and demonize everyone who has a different view of the risks and rewards over life decisions because they don't align with your own.

That's a wonderful goal! However, it is important to understand the distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. True type 1 diabetes is caused when the pancreas cannot produce insulin and therefore it is required or the condition will cause wasting away and and a horribly slow and painful death. Essentially, even if you eat enough you'll starve to death because without insulin to get the nutrients into the cells you don't get nourished. It's apparently not uncommon to have only a partial or funcional type 1 diabetes where the pancreas can produce and distribute insulin, but not enough to keep up with demands. If you are in this latter category of type 1 diabetes there is hope that a well structured diet that is controlled for calories and doesn't spike blood sugar levels may get you to the point you don't require additional insulin by keeping your sugar levels slow and steady enough that your body can keep pace. If you have true type 1 diabetes, then you'll need to continue to take insulin for life, or at least until something better is discovered. It's type 2 diabetes that is reversible with lifestyle because it is caused by eating too much in general, too much of the wrong things, and not exercising enough. This creates a state where the cells don't respond to the action of insulin called insulin resistance and taking additional insulin actually leads into a vicious cycle of more weight gain and more insulin resistance. It seems most people I've met recently are prescribed metformin these days to try to control blood sugar with insulin resistant diabetes. So I don't want to take anything away from your goal, but with you mentioning type 1, I wanted to ensure you are aware that diet and exercise can still help lessen the need for insulin and so you will be able to lower the number of units you require, but you may not be able to get off insulin entirely - especially in a case of a pancreas that cannot make ANY insulin, where your body will still require injections to function properly. I don't want this to dash your hopes, because you may indeed be able to get to the point you don't need injections, but again only if your pancreas is making some insulin, just not enough to keep up with your current lifestyle needs.

So with the results entered into the spreadsheet so far, we have a group total loss of 24 pounds in the last three weeks. This is pretty awesome.

A big shout out to @zil who has created an excellent database for keeping track of numbers and goals at a glance. I have sent private messages to several members here inviting them to use the link which is available by invite or request only to ensure that only those we want to have access are editing the information. Any one who wishes to join the database can request a link by PM from Zil, @unixknight or myself. I'm looking forward to this helping keep track for everyone!

@zil and @unixknight (not sure why I can't get your tag to turn blue) this sounds great. I'm game for anything that makes it really easy to see where everyone is at and ensure we aren't leaving anyone behind that doesn't require everyone to have Excel (I don't). I'm glad you guys are sharp, I'm not as savvy when it comes to such things, I've had very limited exposure to google docs. It sounds like you're on a similar wavelength. Thanks again!

Hey Everyone, I've had a really busy last week and will still be quite busy at least through next weekend. I've just got time to say I'm happy to see everyone is keeping at it and to welcome @Just_A_Guy aboard. What can I say January can busy at the gym and I'm burning the candle at both ends right now. I was wondering if there is someone who knows a way to create a spreadsheet that we can all edit with updates of goals and outcomes on a weekly basis. I don't know if this platform would allow anything like that - maybe we could create a wiki? Any ideas would be helpful so that we can see at a glance what everyone is working on and how they are doing. I'll try to be back to offer more support when I have better time availability. Go team!

@Barrett Maximus I watched that documentary not to long ago and found it to be all over the place lacking a sense of direction leading to clarity. They seem to be suggesting that Joseph and Hyrum will be the two prophets in the Holy Land in the last days, but fail to provide anything convincing to back such an assertion.

If you already can play the flute you can expect to do so tomorrow Most of Western civilization eats well in excess of their protein needs which does put them at increased risk for kidney troubles and cancer compared to groups who are getting closer to around 5-10% of their daily calories from protein. Some studies will claim that the protein puts you at no greater risk because they compare high protein diets to standard western diets that are already high in protein. So if you're eating a lot of protein, especially from animal sources you do an increased risk of trouble down the road, but it is a risk that is matched to the general population around you. You might look at it more as something that you can reduce your chances of having kidney damage and cancer by reducing your protein intake. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1262767/ - Study drawing the conclusion that high protein is of no risk for the average healthy person. This is an ongoing debate without a definitive answer. We know for a fact that reducing protein is helpful for those with kidney failure and that eating more plant based helps to prevent comorbidities that may play a causative role in the progression of kidney disease. For instance, diabetes is one of the biggest predictors of kidney damage and interestingly enough eating less animal products appears to be protective - now whether that's because of the protein, fat or other inflammatory components I don't think has been clearly established. One thing that would certainly give me pause giving any one a green light across the board to eat as much protein as they want is the finding that as much as 75% of people with kidney damage who we know would be susceptible to excess proteins are unaware they have a problem yet. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17976426 I read somewhere that an estimated 26 million people in the united states have diagnosed kidney damage, if 3 times that many have it and don't know it that's a little concerning because unless we all go get tested we don't know if we are among them. I suppose one could at the very least go ask to have kidney function tested before embarking on increased protein intake.

Great reference Great point - a reference number of use to some is 0.8 grams of protein per KG (2.2 lbs) is the suggested amount of protein intake for the regular population. Thus a 200 pound individual would need 200/2.2 * 0.8 = 80 grams of protein. This already includes a buffer to ensure it is enough for 97% of the population as different people have differing requirements due to biochemical individuality. The point is most people 50-60% won't even need this much, but to ensure no one is left behind the recommendations are higher. It's easy to eat in excess of 100 grams of protein without putting any thought or effort into it. This is really interesting. I have read piles on the wonders of vitamin c in treating a plethora of conditions from measles to arthritis, the cold and flu to cataract prevention, but I have not read of it having a protective effect against protein poisoning in the kidneys. I suppose it's powerful antioxidant and antipathogenic properties would make sense in providing protection to the tissues of the kidneys against damage and possibly neutralizing some of the damaging agents before they cause trouble - I just would have also wondered about the excess excretion of vitamin c also putting stress on the kidneys. Fascinating. It made me think of this video showcasing some interesting research on animal products in the diet causing kidney trouble that could be eliminated by taking anti-inflammatory medications. Perhaps the vitamin c is doing something similar to squelch inflammation and protect the kidneys. Do you have any sources I can look at on that? https://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-type-of-protein-is-better-for-our-kidneys/

Oops post - nothing to see here folks!

I'm sure you already know this, but keep in mind that one pound of body fat has 3500 calories of energy in it, so if you keep a 500 calorie deficit daily it will take seven days to lose a pound according to the math. There is more going on in the human body than just this math, but one pound a week is great progress. That's 50 lbs a year if you keep it up. This time next year you won't be upset to report that you only lost 50 lbs in 2019.

Great points @Carborendum, carbohydrates are fascinating because they have so many different forms which digest at different rates (or not really at all). Fiber is an interesting form of complex carbohydrate. However, if I'm remembering correctly, even the soluble fiber that can be digested by the gut bacteria (such as resistant starch) won't actually transfer any glucose into the body (Glucose is generally considered the final break down point of sugar, but other simple sugars like fructose can be). Instead the bacteria in your guts take what they need and what they leave behind for the body to use is actually short chain fatty acids which are beneficial to the intestines to help ward off unwanted cultures in the microbiome and continue to promote an environment that is friendly to healthy bacteria. I've read that instead of the usual 4 calories per gram that would be expected from carbohydrate that only 1-2 calories of short chain fats will get reabsorbed and contribute to energy in the body. This is far more helpful than taking probiotics by simply creating a healthy gut habitat blossoming with good flora that thrive and reproduce not needing to be constantly replenished by exogenous means. Fun fact: Approximately 1/3 of your stool is comprised of dead bacteria from the gut.

I'm sorry to hear that, Anatess. All going well we will all still be here to support you upon your return. I hope we haven't put any undue pressure on you. The point of this from my perspective is to be helpful to people, and if you need a break I respect your opinion and maintain that you are the expert on you. Please feel free to do what you need to do to look after your health. We'll still be rooting for you.

To go along with that last post I thought it might be helpful give a little primer on macronutrients - protein, carbohydrate, and fat. Protein - needed for many functions such as making enzymes and hormones and creating the building blocks for tissues in the body. Provides roughly 4 calories per gram eaten. Carbohydrate - The preferred fuel source of the nervous system and arguably the cleanest burning fuel for the body in general. Also provides approximately 4 calories per gram. Fats - needed for lubricating and holding hydration in addition to being a very good/very dense energy source. Provides around 9 calories per gram. Since we don't eat nutrients, but food, it is important to know where different nutrients are found in the food supply. Most people are aware that protein is found in animal products such as meat and eggs, but don't necessarily realize that sufficient protein can be found in almost all whole foods. Fruits skew toward not having enough as a stand alone, but vegetables, and whole grains supply enough with legumes, nuts and animal products supplying plenty. Most of us eat twice as much protein as we need daily without even trying. Carbohydrates are found in all plant foods whether it's a nut, seed or avocado (all of which are known for fat content but still contain carbs) to the starchy vegetables and whole grains which have substantial carbohydrate stores. When eaten minimally processed these plant foods offer an excellent supply of necessary nutrients to the diet without unduly messing with metabolism. Fats are found in a plethora of plant foods including some listed above as well as all animal products. Essential omega fatty acids cannot be synthesize in the body and must be consumed. Omega 6's are easy to come by, but omega 3's require a little more effort as they are not found in large quantities in the most common foods. They can be found in fish and flax most notably. Any of these macronutrient (calorie sources - our calories always come from either protein, fat or carbohydrates - including alcohol which is an odd 7 calories per gram from fermented carbs) categories can be problematic when refined down to be essentially the calories component without the natural nutrient package.

Thanks for sharing this @unixknight. You're absolutely right that the quality of the foods our calories come from makes an impact on weight loss and health. However, this post also seems to fall into the trap of wrongfully demonizing carbohydrates and glorifying fats and proteins. Insulin is a very important hormone to our health, energy, and weight control. What many don't realize is that insulin is also released from the pancreas in response to protein from foods sometimes rivaling the release caused by carbohydrates, especially from concentrated forms like whey protein. There are differing schools of thought in what the cause of insulin resistance is where on the one hand it could simply be that the cells are already too full of sugar to take any more on. On the other hand the insulin receptor is thought to be gummed up with fat stopping it from responding properly - an interesting study in 1927 showed medical students causing insulin resistance by eating high fat oily diets while those who ate pure sugar for the two days still had normal glycemic control - neither is a good idea though. I could go into a long drawn out explanation of all kinds of things going on, but I'll try to keep it more brief (unless the group wants a big write up at some point on this topic). Just keep in mind that while all calories aren't created equal, calories are still the key determining factor in weigh management and diabetes progression/reversal. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)33102-1/fulltext This is one of many studies coming out starting to really show how reversible diabetes is. You can see that in the study group the more weight that was lost the more diabetes reversed. The same effect has been observed with low fat high carb diets and high fat low carb diets as well as Mediterranean style diets with caloric deficits. In simplified terms the biggest determinant of health and weight management from eating is the nutrient density of the foods chosen rather than the macronutrient (fat, carb, protein) profile. If we compare 20 calories of table sugar to 20 calories of olive oil we'll find that both provide almost nothing of real nutritional value, if we traded out 20 calories of table sugar for 20 calories of an apple we'd see that the sugars in the apple come with a much greater variety and quantity of nutrients that will have a satiating effect. The same can be said by comparing olive oil to an avocado or nuts, the whole foods will come with a package of nutrients that haven't been stripped away leaving nearly pure calories but nothing terribly nourishing. When the body doesn't get the nutrients it needs it continues to send hunger signals making weight loss extremely difficult eating nutrient poor foods which will leave one feeling hungry all the time. So absolutely - refined sugary foods aren't good for health or weight loss, but neither are refined fatty, or even refined proteins for that matter. We need the nutrients and bulk that come along from real foods to control hunger.