Food n Fitness Thread #9837483 [Archive] - Page 3

PDA

View Full Version : Food n Fitness Thread #9837483

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

SuzeQuze

01-17-2007, 03:21 PM

Do you guys work out when you have a cold?

skcin

01-17-2007, 03:45 PM

amber

01-17-2007, 04:03 PM

Do you guys work out when you have a cold?

I don't think I would. Pretty sure of it, really. Not if it was a real cold, where I felt all crappy.

SuzeQuze

01-17-2007, 04:10 PM

^ If I'm not dizzy, I try to. They say if it's just your head/nose/sinus/throat, go for it. But if it's fever/chills/cough/aches, you shouldn't. Easy for them to say when there's snot pouring out of your nose during an aerobics class. :laugh:

I did 30 minutes of cardio this morning, and light weights on my lunch hour. Down side is that I'm up a pound. But I think (hope) it's bloat. That will be gone in a few days. :D

Yeah, it's just the nose thing. I was planning to go but I sometimes get paranoid that I am making things worse. I don't want to skip it though cuz I skipped yesterday and 2 days in a row is too many.

DrummerDeanna

01-17-2007, 04:13 PM

Yeah, it's just the nose thing. I was planning to go but I sometimes get paranoid that I am making things worse. I don't want to skip it though cuz I skipped yesterday and 2 days in a row is too many.

I think it would actually make it better....especially if it's just a nose thing.

That said, I never work out when I have a cold or am sick...sniffles and sinus issues? I still work out unless they reall knock me on my ass...but I have horrible allergies - so I'm sniffly all the time - I still work out - but I always take a little pack of Kleenex with me :D

skcin

01-17-2007, 05:21 PM

As long as you don't get dehydrated, it's probably OK. But do what you feel comfortable with - don't go into a coughing fit or pass out from dizziness over it - you're not going to put on 20 pounds cuz you skipped 3 days. :D

JazmenFlowers

01-23-2007, 09:49 AM

strandinthewind

01-23-2007, 10:02 AM

Cut back on the bad carbs and increase the protein.

BlackWidow

01-23-2007, 10:04 AM

Well I kicked my ass at the gym today and did an hour of cardio since I skipped the past 2 days. Then I did legs and abs. It felt great but I'm pretty tired now!

cocaine helps...:shrug: :laugh:

SuzeQuze

01-23-2007, 02:59 PM

I've been bobbling within the same 2 or 3 pounds for close to 2 weeks. I can't seem to break into the next lowest range. have I plateaued (sp?)?

what do I do to break this plateau? I have 15-20 lbs left to reach my goal and I'll be damned if I'm gonna be stuck where I am.

suggestions?

Eat a little more to rev up your metabolism. Your body might be kicking into starvation mode. Have you already upped your calories? The protein suggestion from Strand is good too.

JazmenFlowers

01-24-2007, 09:53 AM

Eat a little more to rev up your metabolism. Your body might be kicking into starvation mode. Have you already upped your calories? The protein suggestion from Strand is good too.
thanks.

I have started eating more calories and trying to eat more protein. I'm also hitting the workouts hard.

bikerchic

01-24-2007, 10:02 AM

I joined Weight Watchers on Monday :( I'm up 15 lbs from last summer. I thought I was a Life Time member (from when I joined in 1990 after I had my son, but apparently I didn't go for the 6 consecutive weeks to weigh in after I reached my goal weight, so I had to pay registration ($25 :mad: ) plus pre-paid for the 12 week program ($174) which works out to $14.50/week which is cheaper than paying the regular $16, if you paid weekly. So this better work :cool:

JazmenFlowers

01-24-2007, 10:04 AM

^^^
good luck. and welcome to the Get Fit and Fab Crew.

carrie721

01-24-2007, 10:10 AM

bikerchic

01-24-2007, 10:12 AM

^^^
good luck. and welcome to the Get Fit and Fab Crew.

Thanks. I think WW is the best as far as teaching you how to eat right (real food, not expensive pre-packaged ****) right from the beginning :shrug: It worked for me last time and I kept the weight off for 16 years. We'll see. I just know, I can't do it myself, I've tried and tried. It really does get harder to lose weight over 40 :distress:

bikerchic

01-24-2007, 10:25 AM

we've snagged another! good luck, t. :woohoo:

Thanks Carrie. I stayed for the meeting and when the WW leader goes around the room and asks all the new members "so why are you here?" (duh, to lose weight), I said, "to lose the "baby weight" and she said, oh, how old is your baby?" and I said "16" and she said, 16 weeks or 16 months, and I said, 16 years :D :laugh:

carrie721

01-24-2007, 10:31 AM

JazmenFlowers

01-24-2007, 10:32 AM

how old is your baby?" and I said "16" and she said, 16 weeks or 16 months, and I said, 16 years :D :laugh:
funniest **** so far today. :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-24-2007, 11:28 AM

Thanks. I think WW is the best as far as teaching you how to eat right (real food, not expensive pre-packaged ****) right from the beginning :shrug: It worked for me last time and I kept the weight off for 16 years. We'll see. I just know, I can't do it myself, I've tried and tried. It really does get harder to lose weight over 40 :distress:

WW is a GREAT program - real food for real people. Good luck!!!!

Also - remember beer = lots a points :p

SuzeQuze

01-24-2007, 11:58 AM

DrummerDeanna

01-24-2007, 12:51 PM

Thanks Carrie. I stayed for the meeting and when the WW leader goes around the room and asks all the new members "so why are you here?" (duh, to lose weight), I said, "to lose the "baby weight" and she said, oh, how old is your baby?" and I said "16" and she said, 16 weeks or 16 months, and I said, 16 years :D :laugh:

:lol: :lol: That must have made you the hit of the meeting - it would have cracked me up!

The problem with the meetings I was going to was it was cheese-land. Horrible - I couldn't stomach it - so I got all pertinent information and stopped going....but it's a great program..which you know...I lost 25 pounds on it when I did it in 1997 - and kept it off for several years.

Now I'm losing much more slowly than last time, but at least I'm losing, and not going the other way.

On my end I'm kicking ass...going to the gym five days a week and I am now able to get into another (smaller) pant size :blob1: I still haven't gotten a scale, so I have no clue where I am number-wise...but I feel great, am doing good - and I'm not noticing a huge jiggle when I walk :D

skcin

01-24-2007, 01:25 PM

I joined Weight Watchers on Monday

Also - remember beer = lots a points :p

You couldn't wait to join until after I come to visit this weekend? You're screwed. :lol:

bikerchic

01-24-2007, 01:48 PM

I bet even with a few extra pounds you're still a hot bitch. But it's how you feel about it that counts.

Thanks Suze. Thats the thing, I don't feel good (or sexy ;) ) with the extra weight. I'll tell you what the turning point was, I was cleaning out the spare room (for Paula's visit this weekend) and I was moving my bike leathers to another room and thought, I'm going to try my chaps on, just for fun, to see how tight they are (cause I know I have put some weight on and I haven't worn them since last fall) and the f**kers didn't fit! I couldn't get the buckle done up around the waist :eek: :distress: I screamed and cursed and my husband's thinkin' "oh f**k, I'm screwed :laugh: ).

bikerchic

01-24-2007, 01:53 PM

You couldn't wait to join until after I come to visit this weekend? You're screwed. :lol:

I know!! I thought of that after I joined! (but it's all your fault, see above post ;) :laugh: ). I have it all planned out though. I'm not going to eat all week and I'm going to do the treadmill all day Sunday, so I can drink :D :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-24-2007, 01:56 PM

Thanks Suze. Thats the thing, I don't feel good (or sexy ;) ) with the extra weight. I'll tell you what the turning point was, I was cleaning out the spare room (for Paula's visit this weekend) and I was moving my bike leathers to another room and thought, I'm going to try my chaps on, just for fun, to see how tight they are (cause I know I have put some weight on and I haven't worn them since last fall) and the f**kers didn't fit! I couldn't get the buckle done up around the waist :eek: :distress: I screamed and cursed and my husband's thinkin' "oh f**k, I'm screwed :laugh: ).

LOL - I have soooo been there. But, here's a cool thing I did about a year and a half ago. I hauled out this 32 inch waist pants and tried them on my 40 or so inch wiast. After not being able to get them above my thighs :eek: - I put them back on the hanger and tried them on about once a month thereafter. It was quite a thrill when they closed and nirvana when they correctly fit :cool:

bikerchic

01-24-2007, 02:14 PM

LOL - I have soooo been there. But, here's a cool thing I did about a year and a half ago. I hauled out this 32 inch waist pants and tried them on my 40 or so inch wiast. After not being able to get them above my thighs :eek: - I put them back on the hanger and tried them on about once a month thereafter. It was quite a thrill when they closed and nirvana when they correctly fit :cool:

I know, isn't that a great feeling! Well, I know I won't be getting new chaps since they're about $300, so I have to get my ass back in those ones!

skcin

01-24-2007, 05:18 PM

I'm not going to eat all week and I'm going to do the treadmill all day Sunday, so I can drink :D :laugh:

Good to hear you're being really health concious. :laugh:

JazmenFlowers

01-28-2007, 02:08 AM

I finally broke my plateau. I'm now 2.6 lbs below where I was hovering for 2 weeks. hopefully, these last 15 lbs I want to lose will come off quick.

I also did namaste yoga today for the first time and loved it. I'm thinking of getting a dvd. ate an egg wrap (on whole wheat tortilla) for breakfast, had a slim fast for lunch, and a salad with grilled chicken and a side of steamed veggies for dinner. I'm feeling a little hungry now...but that's cause I'm up late...I should just go to bed...

ragandbone

01-28-2007, 02:19 AM

JazmenFlowers

01-28-2007, 02:23 AM

15 pounds! You'll be just a wisp!
:thumbsup: here's hoping! :laugh:
Now, what is Namaste yoga? Is that a vinyasa practice, as in "postures with breat" or "flow" yoga?
fearing I'll say the wrong thing, this is from FitTV's website:

"Nama" means "bow," "as" means "I," and "te" means "you." Therefore, "Namaste" literally means "bow me you" or "I bow to you."

To perform Namaste, we place the hands together at the heart chakra, close the eyes, and bow the head. It can also be done by placing the hands together in front of the third eye, bowing the head, and then bringing the hands down to the heart. This is an especially deep form of respect. Although in the West the word "Namaste" is usually spoken in conjunction with the gesture, in India, it is understood that the gesture itself signifies Namaste, and therefore, it is unnecessary to say the word while bowing.

We bring the hands together at the heart chakra to increase the flow of divine love. Bowing the head and closing the eyes helps the mind surrender to the divine in the heart. One can do Namaste to oneself as a meditation technique to go deeper inside the heart chakra; when done with someone else, it is also a beautiful, albeit quick, meditation.

For a teacher and student, Namaste allows two individuals to come together energetically to a place of connection and timelessness, free from the bonds of ego-connection. If it is done with deep feeling in the heart and with the mind surrendered, a deep union of spirits can blossom.

Ideally, Namaste should be done both at the beginning and at the end of class. Usually, it is done at the end of class because the mind is less active and the energy in the room is more peaceful. The teacher initiates Namaste as a symbol of gratitude and respect toward her students and her own teachers,and in return invites the students to connect with their lineage, thereby allowing the truth to flow — the truth that we are all one when we live from the heart.

Republished with the permission of (You will be leaving FitTV.com by clicking on this link) YogaJournal.com.

ragandbone

01-28-2007, 02:37 AM

Crap, I should have told you that I know what "namaste" is, or means within the context of a yoga class, but I was wondering if this was another program of postures, or a series I hadn't heard of. It is cool that you posted the description, though—you are a doll!
I think if you add flow yoga to your regime, you will really see some fat melt off. I really miss yoga classes, I used to leave with such euphoria, and it really helped me take on and defeat stressful situations.
So, now I have to make it to the gym tomorrow, or I will have missed this entire week. Myabe if I plan to report here tomorrow, it will insure that I go.
:o
:thumbsup: here's hoping! :laugh:

fearing I'll say the wrong thing, this is from FitTV's website:

"Nama" means "bow," "as" means "I," and "te" means "you." Therefore, "Namaste" literally means "bow me you" or "I bow to you."

To perform Namaste, we place the hands together at the heart chakra, close the eyes, and bow the head. It can also be done by placing the hands together in front of the third eye, bowing the head, and then bringing the hands down to the heart. This is an especially deep form of respect. Although in the West the word "Namaste" is usually spoken in conjunction with the gesture, in India, it is understood that the gesture itself signifies Namaste, and therefore, it is unnecessary to say the word while bowing.

We bring the hands together at the heart chakra to increase the flow of divine love. Bowing the head and closing the eyes helps the mind surrender to the divine in the heart. One can do Namaste to oneself as a meditation technique to go deeper inside the heart chakra; when done with someone else, it is also a beautiful, albeit quick, meditation.

For a teacher and student, Namaste allows two individuals to come together energetically to a place of connection and timelessness, free from the bonds of ego-connection. If it is done with deep feeling in the heart and with the mind surrendered, a deep union of spirits can blossom.

Ideally, Namaste should be done both at the beginning and at the end of class. Usually, it is done at the end of class because the mind is less active and the energy in the room is more peaceful. The teacher initiates Namaste as a symbol of gratitude and respect toward her students and her own teachers,and in return invites the students to connect with their lineage, thereby allowing the truth to flow — the truth that we are all one when we live from the heart.

Republished with the permission of (You will be leaving FitTV.com by clicking on this link) YogaJournal.com.

JazmenFlowers

01-28-2007, 02:42 AM

ragandbone

01-28-2007, 02:52 AM

this was basically a seated stretch twist program (am I saying that right?) lots of cat pose, downward facing dog, bowing swan and twists.

I love yoga, but don't really have the opportunity to make it and it only comes on FitTV now and then, but I do it when I can. and I agree with all you said above.

as for missing the gym, I know that feeling. but, like you said, make a point to report back and it'll give you an incentive.

besides, I'd like to know what all you do in your class tomorrow. ;)
If you look for atape, Rodney yee is delicious to look at, and a good teacher. I have a gret tape by a yogi I took a workshop from, David Swenson, it is an Ashtanga practice. I have trouble practicing without a live person to push me along. I am simply a lazy girl.
Unfortunately there will be no yoga at my gym, although I think they have Pilates. I usually just do the bike, or eliptical for 30 minutes, and then a few machines, and then if I break a little sweat, or feel a little burn, I head straight for the sauna. Really, it is all about the sauna! For me, though, a little exercise is fine, because I need tone most of all, more than fat loss, one doesn't need fat to feel flabby. Sigh.
Well, actually, what I need most of all, is to go with some regularity.

JazmenFlowers

01-28-2007, 02:54 AM

If you look for atape, Rodney yee is delicious to look at, and a good teacher. I have a gret tape by a yogi I took a workshop from, David Swenson, it is an Ashtanga practice. I have trouble practicing without a live person to push me along. I am simply a lazy girl.
Unfortunately there will be no yoga at my gym, although I think they have Pilates. I usually just do the bike, or eliptical for 30 minutes, and then a few machines, and then if I break a little sweat, or feel a little burn, I head straight for the sauna. Really, it is all about the sauna! For me, though, a little exercise is fine, because I need tone most of all, more than fat loss, one doesn't need fat to feel flabby. Sigh.
Well, actually, what I need most of all, is to go with some regularity.
I'm googling Mr. Yee as we speak.

and I understand about the need to tone. my mother, who is 4'11" and 95 lbs has never been fat, but she got a total gym and really toned up and it made a world of difference.

moderation and dedication are my two favorite words since I've been on this "get fit" plan. that's what it's all about. but, besides, you look damn good.

mikeschmike

01-28-2007, 02:59 AM

ragandbone

01-28-2007, 03:10 AM

They'll be scratching and clawing to get close to you in Boston.
They will scratch and claw, but there will be nothing to hang on to, because she will be a mere slip of a girl.

skcin

01-29-2007, 03:21 PM

This is good. I guess. Well, I don't know. Maybe. But here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.fitness/01/26/diet.exercise.reut/index.html

January 29, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good at helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study that challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet and fitness industry.

Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether lost by dieting or by running, they said.

They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take off even more weight.

"It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

"So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."

Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled conditions that can actually demonstrate what happens to a human body while dieting and exercising.

Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it takes longer to study monkeys and humans.

They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.

The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.

An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by the university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.

The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight, 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal visceral fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and is considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and diabetes.

The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin said in a telephone interview.

This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be overcome," he added.

Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.

"If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.

Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
"There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.

Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.

"For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still the best," he said.
His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories by either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.

"We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved -- core temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton last April.

CelticGypsy

01-31-2007, 03:44 AM

Finally lost the 3.2 lbs I have been trying to lose for the last three weeks. Been eating alot of sugar-free Raspberry gelatin. Great snack.

JazmenFlowers

01-31-2007, 09:14 AM

I realized that I forgot to mention this in my comment on your lj. So congratulations! They'll be scratching and clawing to get close to you in Boston.
:xoxo:
They will scratch and claw, but there will be nothing to hang on to, because she will be a mere slip of a girl.
:xoxo:
Finally lost the 3.2 lbs I have been trying to lose for the last three weeks. Been eating alot of sugar-free Raspberry gelatin. Great snack.
awesome. good for you. I agree that sugar-free gelatin and pudding have been a savior to me sometimes.

HejiraNYC

01-31-2007, 09:26 AM

This is a VERY long article about the American diet from the Sunday NYTimes that I think is essential reading. I'm wary of the author's credentials, but he presents his case very persuasively...

January 28, 2007

UNHAPPY MEALS

By MICHAEL POLLAN

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. I hate to give away the game right here at the beginning of a long essay, and I confess that I’m tempted to complicate matters in the interest of keeping things going for a few thousand more words. I’ll try to resist but will go ahead and add a couple more details to flesh out the advice. Like: A little meat won’t kill you, though it’s better approached as a side dish than as a main. And you’re much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That’s what I mean by the recommendation to eat “food.” Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you’re concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

Uh-oh. Things are suddenly sounding a little more complicated, aren’t they? Sorry. But that’s how it goes as soon as you try to get to the bottom of the whole vexing question of food and health. Before long, a dense cloud bank of confusion moves in. Sooner or later, everything solid you thought you knew about the links between diet and health gets blown away in the gust of the latest study.

Last winter came the news that a low-fat diet, long believed to protect against breast cancer, may do no such thing — this from the monumental, federally financed Women’s Health Initiative, which has also found no link between a low-fat diet and rates of coronary disease. The year before we learned that dietary fiber might not, as we had been confidently told, help prevent colon cancer. Just last fall two prestigious studies on omega-3 fats published at the same time presented us with strikingly different conclusions. While the Institute of Medicine stated that “it is uncertain how much these omega-3s contribute to improving health” (and they might do the opposite if you get them from mercury-contaminated fish), a Harvard study declared that simply by eating a couple of servings of fish each week (or by downing enough fish oil), you could cut your risk of dying from a heart attack by more than a third — a stunningly hopeful piece of news. It’s no wonder that omega-3 fatty acids are poised to become the oat bran of 2007, as food scientists micro-encapsulate fish oil and algae oil and blast them into such formerly all-terrestrial foods as bread and tortillas, milk and yogurt and cheese, all of which will soon, you can be sure, sprout fishy new health claims. (Remember the rule?)

By now you’re probably registering the cognitive dissonance of the supermarket shopper or science-section reader, as well as some nostalgia for the simplicity and solidity of the first few sentences of this essay. Which I’m still prepared to defend against the shifting winds of nutritional science and food-industry marketing. But before I do that, it might be useful to figure out how we arrived at our present state of nutritional confusion and anxiety.

The story of how the most basic questions about what to eat ever got so complicated reveals a great deal about the institutional imperatives of the food industry, nutritional science and — ahem — journalism, three parties that stand to gain much from widespread confusion surrounding what is, after all, the most elemental question an omnivore confronts. Humans deciding what to eat without expert help — something they have been doing with notable success since coming down out of the trees — is seriously unprofitable if you’re a food company, distinctly risky if you’re a nutritionist and just plain boring if you’re a newspaper editor or journalist. (Or, for that matter, an eater. Who wants to hear, yet again, “Eat more fruits and vegetables”?) And so, like a large gray fog, a great Conspiracy of Confusion has gathered around the simplest questions of nutrition — much to the advantage of everybody involved. Except perhaps the ostensible beneficiary of all this nutritional expertise and advice: us, and our health and happiness as eaters.

FROM FOODS TO NUTRIENTS

It was in the 1980s that food began disappearing from the American supermarket, gradually to be replaced by “nutrients,” which are not the same thing. Where once the familiar names of recognizable comestibles — things like eggs or breakfast cereal or cookies — claimed pride of place on the brightly colored packages crowding the aisles, now new terms like “fiber” and “cholesterol” and “saturated fat” rose to large-type prominence. More important than mere foods, the presence or absence of these invisible substances was now generally believed to confer health benefits on their eaters. Foods by comparison were coarse, old-fashioned and decidedly unscientific things — who could say what was in them, really? But nutrients — those chemical compounds and minerals in foods that nutritionists have deemed important to health — gleamed with the promise of scientific certainty; eat more of the right ones, fewer of the wrong, and you would live longer and avoid chronic diseases.

Nutrients themselves had been around, as a concept, since the early 19th century, when the English doctor and chemist William Prout identified what came to be called the “macronutrients”: protein, fat and carbohydrates. It was thought that that was pretty much all there was going on in food, until doctors noticed that an adequate supply of the big three did not necessarily keep people nourished. At the end of the 19th century, British doctors were puzzled by the fact that Chinese laborers in the Malay states were dying of a disease called beriberi, which didn’t seem to afflict Tamils or native Malays. The mystery was solved when someone pointed out that the Chinese ate “polished,” or white, rice, while the others ate rice that hadn’t been mechanically milled. A few years later, Casimir Funk, a Polish chemist, discovered the “essential nutrient” in rice husks that protected against beriberi and called it a “vitamine,” the first micronutrient. Vitamins brought a kind of glamour to the science of nutrition, and though certain sectors of the population began to eat by its expert lights, it really wasn’t until late in the 20th century that nutrients managed to push food aside in the popular imagination of what it means to eat.

No single event marked the shift from eating food to eating nutrients, though in retrospect a little-noticed political dust-up in Washington in 1977 seems to have helped propel American food culture down this dimly lighted path. Responding to an alarming increase in chronic diseases linked to diet — including heart disease, cancer and diabetes — a Senate Select Committee on Nutrition, headed by George McGovern, held hearings on the problem and prepared what by all rights should have been an uncontroversial document called “Dietary Goals for the United States.” The committee learned that while rates of coronary heart disease had soared in America since World War II, other cultures that consumed traditional diets based largely on plants had strikingly low rates of chronic disease. Epidemiologists also had observed that in America during the war years, when meat and dairy products were strictly rationed, the rate of heart disease temporarily plummeted.

Naïvely putting two and two together, the committee drafted a straightforward set of dietary guidelines calling on Americans to cut down on red meat and dairy products. Within weeks a firestorm, emanating from the red-meat and dairy industries, engulfed the committee, and Senator McGovern (who had a great many cattle ranchers among his South Dakota constituents) was forced to beat a retreat. The committee’s recommendations were hastily rewritten. Plain talk about food — the committee had advised Americans to actually “reduce consumption of meat” — was replaced by artful compromise: “Choose meats, poultry and fish that will reduce saturated-fat intake.”

A subtle change in emphasis, you might say, but a world of difference just the same. First, the stark message to “eat less” of a particular food has been deep-sixed; don’t look for it ever again in any official U.S. dietary pronouncement. Second, notice how distinctions between entities as different as fish and beef and chicken have collapsed; those three venerable foods, each representing an entirely different taxonomic class, are now lumped together as delivery systems for a single nutrient. Notice too how the new language exonerates the foods themselves; now the culprit is an obscure, invisible, tasteless — and politically unconnected — substance that may or may not lurk in them called “saturated fat.”

The linguistic capitulation did nothing to rescue McGovern from his blunder; the very next election, in 1980, the beef lobby helped rusticate the three-term senator, sending an unmistakable warning to anyone who would challenge the American diet, and in particular the big chunk of animal protein sitting in the middle of its plate. Henceforth, government dietary guidelines would shun plain talk about whole foods, each of which has its trade association on Capitol Hill, and would instead arrive clothed in scientific euphemism and speaking of nutrients, entities that few Americans really understood but that lack powerful lobbies in Washington. This was precisely the tack taken by the National Academy of Sciences when it issued its landmark report on diet and cancer in 1982. Organized nutrient by nutrient in a way guaranteed to offend no food group, it codified the official new dietary language. Industry and media followed suit, and terms like polyunsaturated, cholesterol, monounsaturated, carbohydrate, fiber, polyphenols, amino acids and carotenes soon colonized much of the cultural space previously occupied by the tangible substance formerly known as food. The Age of Nutritionism had arrived.

THE RISE OF NUTRITIONISM

The first thing to understand about nutritionism — I first encountered the term in the work of an Australian sociologist of science named Gyorgy Scrinis — is that it is not quite the same as nutrition. As the “ism” suggests, it is not a scientific subject but an ideology. Ideologies are ways of organizing large swaths of life and experience under a set of shared but unexamined assumptions. This quality makes an ideology particularly hard to see, at least while it’s exerting its hold on your culture. A reigning ideology is a little like the weather, all pervasive and virtually inescapable. Still, we can try.

In the case of nutritionism, the widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. From this basic premise flow several others. Since nutrients, as compared with foods, are invisible and therefore slightly mysterious, it falls to the scientists (and to the journalists through whom the scientists speak) to explain the hidden reality of foods to us. To enter a world in which you dine on unseen nutrients, you need lots of expert help.

But expert help to do what, exactly? This brings us to another unexamined assumption: that the whole point of eating is to maintain and promote bodily health. Hippocrates’s famous injunction to “let food be thy medicine” is ritually invoked to support this notion. I’ll leave the premise alone for now, except to point out that it is not shared by all cultures and that the experience of these other cultures suggests that, paradoxically, viewing food as being about things other than bodily health — like pleasure, say, or socializing — makes people no less healthy; indeed, there’s some reason to believe that it may make them more healthy. This is what we usually have in mind when we speak of the “French paradox” — the fact that a population that eats all sorts of unhealthful nutrients is in many ways healthier than we Americans are. So there is at least a question as to whether nutritionism is actually any good for you.

Another potentially serious weakness of nutritionist ideology is that it has trouble discerning qualitative distinctions between foods. So fish, beef and chicken through the nutritionists’ lens become mere delivery systems for varying quantities of fats and proteins and whatever other nutrients are on their scope. Similarly, any qualitative distinctions between processed foods and whole foods disappear when your focus is on quantifying the nutrients they contain (or, more precisely, the known nutrients).

This is a great boon for manufacturers of processed food, and it helps explain why they have been so happy to get with the nutritionism program. In the years following McGovern’s capitulation and the 1982 National Academy report, the food industry set about re-engineering thousands of popular food products to contain more of the nutrients that science and government had deemed the good ones and less of the bad, and by the late ’80s a golden era of food science was upon us. The Year of Eating Oat Bran — also known as 1988 — served as a kind of coming-out party for the food scientists, who succeeded in getting the material into nearly every processed food sold in America. Oat bran’s moment on the dietary stage didn’t last long, but the pattern had been established, and every few years since then a new oat bran has taken its turn under the marketing lights. (Here comes omega-3!)

By comparison, the typical real food has more trouble competing under the rules of nutritionism, if only because something like a banana or an avocado can’t easily change its nutritional stripes (though rest assured the genetic engineers are hard at work on the problem). So far, at least, you can’t put oat bran in a banana. So depending on the reigning nutritional orthodoxy, the avocado might be either a high-fat food to be avoided (Old Think) or a food high in monounsaturated fat to be embraced (New Think). The fate of each whole food rises and falls with every change in the nutritional weather, while the processed foods are simply reformulated. That’s why when the Atkins mania hit the food industry, bread and pasta were given a quick redesign (dialing back the carbs; boosting the protein), while the poor unreconstructed potatoes and carrots were left out in the cold.

Of course it’s also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims, while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness.

EAT RIGHT, GET FATTER

So nutritionism is good for business. But is it good for us? You might think that a national fixation on nutrients would lead to measurable improvements in the public health. But for that to happen, the underlying nutritional science, as well as the policy recommendations (and the journalism) based on that science, would have to be sound. This has seldom been the case.

Consider what happened immediately after the 1977 “Dietary Goals” — McGovern’s masterpiece of politico-nutritionist compromise. In the wake of the panel’s recommendation that we cut down on saturated fat, a recommendation seconded by the 1982 National Academy report on cancer, Americans did indeed change their diets, endeavoring for a quarter-century to do what they had been told. Well, kind of. The industrial food supply was promptly reformulated to reflect the official advice, giving us low-fat pork, low-fat Snackwell’s and all the low-fat pasta and high-fructose (yet low-fat!) corn syrup we could consume. Which turned out to be quite a lot. Oddly, America got really fat on its new low-fat diet — indeed, many date the current obesity and diabetes epidemic to the late 1970s, when Americans began binging on carbohydrates, ostensibly as a way to avoid the evils of fat.

This story has been told before, notably in these pages (“What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?” by Gary Taubes, July 7, 2002), but it’s a little more complicated than the official version suggests. In that version, which inspired the most recent Atkins craze, we were told that America got fat when, responding to bad scientific advice, it shifted its diet from fats to carbs, suggesting that a re-evaluation of the two nutrients is in order: fat doesn’t make you fat; carbs do. (Why this should have come as news is a mystery: as long as people have been raising animals for food, they have fattened them on carbs.)

But there are a couple of problems with this revisionist picture. First, while it is true that Americans post-1977 did begin binging on carbs, and that fat as a percentage of total calories in the American diet declined, we never did in fact cut down on our consumption of fat. Meat consumption actually climbed. We just heaped a bunch more carbs onto our plates, obscuring perhaps, but not replacing, the expanding chunk of animal protein squatting in the center.

How did that happen? I would submit that the ideology of nutritionism deserves as much of the blame as the carbohydrates themselves do — that and human nature. By framing dietary advice in terms of good and bad nutrients, and by burying the recommendation that we should eat less of any particular food, it was easy for the take-home message of the 1977 and 1982 dietary guidelines to be simplified as follows: Eat more low-fat foods. And that is what we did. We’re always happy to receive a dispensation to eat more of something (with the possible exception of oat bran), and one of the things nutritionism reliably gives us is some such dispensation: low-fat cookies then, low-carb beer now. It’s hard to imagine the low-fat craze taking off as it did if McGovern’s original food-based recommendations had stood: eat fewer meat and dairy products. For how do you get from that stark counsel to the idea that another case of Snackwell’s is just what the doctor ordered?

BAD SCIENCE

But if nutritionism leads to a kind of false consciousness in the mind of the eater, the ideology can just as easily mislead the scientist. Most nutritional science involves studying one nutrient at a time, an approach that even nutritionists who do it will tell you is deeply flawed. “The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science,” points out Marion Nestle, the New York University nutritionist, “is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle.”

If nutritional scientists know this, why do they do it anyway? Because a nutrient bias is built into the way science is done: scientists need individual variables they can isolate. Yet even the simplest food is a hopelessly complex thing to study, a virtual wilderness of chemical compounds, many of which exist in complex and dynamic relation to one another, and all of which together are in the process of changing from one state to another. So if you’re a nutritional scientist, you do the only thing you can do, given the tools at your disposal: break the thing down into its component parts and study those one by one, even if that means ignoring complex interactions and contexts, as well as the fact that the whole may be more than, or just different from, the sum of its parts. This is what we mean by reductionist science.

Scientific reductionism is an undeniably powerful tool, but it can mislead us too, especially when applied to something as complex as, on the one side, a food, and on the other, a human eater. It encourages us to take a mechanistic view of that transaction: put in this nutrient; get out that physiological result. Yet people differ in important ways. Some populations can metabolize sugars better than others; depending on your evolutionary heritage, you may or may not be able to digest the lactose in milk. The specific ecology of your intestines helps determine how efficiently you digest what you eat, so that the same input of 100 calories may yield more or less energy depending on the proportion of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes living in your gut. There is nothing very machinelike about the human eater, and so to think of food as simply fuel is wrong.

Also, people don’t eat nutrients, they eat foods, and foods can behave very differently than the nutrients they contain. Researchers have long believed, based on epidemiological comparisons of different populations, that a diet high in fruits and vegetables confers some protection against cancer. So naturally they ask, What nutrients in those plant foods are responsible for that effect? One hypothesis is that the antioxidants in fresh produce — compounds like beta carotene, lycopene, vitamin E, etc. — are the X factor. It makes good sense: these molecules (which plants produce to protect themselves from the highly reactive oxygen atoms produced in photosynthesis) vanquish the free radicals in our bodies, which can damage DNA and initiate cancers. At least that’s how it seems to work in the test tube. Yet as soon as you remove these useful molecules from the context of the whole foods they’re found in, as we’ve done in creating antioxidant supplements, they don’t work at all. Indeed, in the case of beta carotene ingested as a supplement, scientists have discovered that it actually increases the risk of certain cancers. Big oops.

What’s going on here? We don’t know. It could be the vagaries of human digestion. Maybe the fiber (or some other component) in a carrot protects the antioxidant molecules from destruction by stomach acids early in the digestive process. Or it could be that we isolated the wrong antioxidant. Beta is just one of a whole slew of carotenes found in common vegetables; maybe we focused on the wrong one. Or maybe beta carotene works as an antioxidant only in concert with some other plant chemical or process; under other circumstances, it may behave as a pro-oxidant.

Indeed, to look at the chemical composition of any common food plant is to realize just how much complexity lurks within it. Here’s a list of just the antioxidants that have been identified in garden-variety thyme:

4-Terpineol, alanine, anethole, apigenin, ascorbic acid, beta carotene, caffeic acid, camphene, carvacrol, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol, eriodictyol, eugenol, ferulic acid, gallic acid, gamma-terpinene isochlorogenic acid, isoeugenol, isothymonin, kaempferol, labiatic acid, lauric acid, linalyl acetate, luteolin, methionine, myrcene, myristic acid, naringenin, oleanolic acid, p-coumoric acid, p-hydroxy-benzoic acid, palmitic acid, rosmarinic acid, selenium, tannin, thymol, tryptophan, ursolic acid, vanillic acid.

This is what you’re ingesting when you eat food flavored with thyme. Some of these chemicals are broken down by your digestion, but others are going on to do undetermined things to your body: turning some gene’s expression on or off, perhaps, or heading off a free radical before it disturbs a strand of DNA deep in some cell. It would be great to know how this all works, but in the meantime we can enjoy thyme in the knowledge that it probably doesn’t do any harm (since people have been eating it forever) and that it may actually do some good (since people have been eating it forever) and that even if it does nothing, we like the way it tastes.

It’s also important to remind ourselves that what reductive science can manage to perceive well enough to isolate and study is subject to change, and that we have a tendency to assume that what we can see is all there is to see. When William Prout isolated the big three macronutrients, scientists figured they now understood food and what the body needs from it; when the vitamins were isolated a few decades later, scientists thought, O.K., now we really understand food and what the body needs to be healthy; today it’s the polyphenols and carotenoids that seem all-important. But who knows what the hell else is going on deep in the soul of a carrot?

The good news is that, to the carrot eater, it doesn’t matter. That’s the great thing about eating food as compared with nutrients: you don’t need to fathom a carrot’s complexity to reap its benefits.

The case of the antioxidants points up the dangers in taking a nutrient out of the context of food; as Nestle suggests, scientists make a second, related error when they study the food out of the context of the diet. We don’t eat just one thing, and when we are eating any one thing, we’re not eating another. We also eat foods in combinations and in orders that can affect how they’re absorbed. Drink coffee with your steak, and your body won’t be able to fully absorb the iron in the meat. The trace of limestone in the corn tortilla unlocks essential amino acids in the corn that would otherwise remain unavailable. Some of those compounds in that sprig of thyme may well affect my digestion of the dish I add it to, helping to break down one compound or possibly stimulate production of an enzyme to detoxify another. We have barely begun to understand the relationships among foods in a cuisine.

But we do understand some of the simplest relationships, like the zero-sum relationship: that if you eat a lot of meat you’re probably not eating a lot of vegetables. This simple fact may explain why populations that eat diets high in meat have higher rates of coronary heart disease and cancer than those that don’t. Yet nutritionism encourages us to look elsewhere for the explanation: deep within the meat itself, to the culpable nutrient, which scientists have long assumed to be the saturated fat. So they are baffled when large-population studies, like the Women’s Health Initiative, fail to find that reducing fat intake significantly reduces the incidence of heart disease or cancer.

Of course thanks to the low-fat fad (inspired by the very same reductionist fat hypothesis), it is entirely possible to reduce your intake of saturated fat without significantly reducing your consumption of animal protein: just drink the low-fat milk and order the skinless chicken breast or the turkey bacon. So maybe the culprit nutrient in meat and dairy is the animal protein itself, as some researchers now hypothesize. (The Cornell nutritionist T. Colin Campbell argues as much in his recent book, “The China Study.”) Or, as the Harvard epidemiologist Walter C. Willett suggests, it could be the steroid hormones typically present in the milk and meat; these hormones (which occur naturally in meat and milk but are often augmented in industrial production) are known to promote certain cancers.

But people worried about their health needn’t wait for scientists to settle this question before deciding that it might be wise to eat more plants and less meat. This is of course precisely what the McGovern committee was trying to tell us.

Nestle also cautions against taking the diet out of the context of the lifestyle. The Mediterranean diet is widely believed to be one of the most healthful ways to eat, yet much of what we know about it is based on studies of people living on the island of Crete in the 1950s, who in many respects lived lives very different from our own. Yes, they ate lots of olive oil and little meat. But they also did more physical labor. They fasted regularly. They ate a lot of wild greens — weeds. And, perhaps most important, they consumed far fewer total calories than we do. Similarly, much of what we know about the health benefits of a vegetarian diet is based on studies of Seventh Day Adventists, who muddy the nutritional picture by drinking absolutely no alcohol and never smoking. These extraneous but unavoidable factors are called, aptly, “confounders.” One last example: People who take supplements are healthier than the population at large, but their health probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the supplements they take — which recent studies have suggested are worthless. Supplement-takers are better-educated, more-affluent people who, almost by definition, take a greater-than-normal interest in personal health — confounding factors that probably account for their superior health.

But if confounding factors of lifestyle bedevil comparative studies of different populations, the supposedly more rigorous “prospective” studies of large American populations suffer from their own arguably even more disabling flaws. In these studies — of which the Women’s Health Initiative is the best known — a large population is divided into two groups. The intervention group changes its diet in some prescribed manner, while the control group does not. The two groups are then tracked over many years to learn whether the intervention affects relative rates of chronic disease.

When it comes to studying nutrition, this sort of extensive, long-term clinical trial is supposed to be the gold standard. It certainly sounds sound. In the case of the Women’s Health Initiative, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, the eating habits and health outcomes of nearly 49,000 women (ages 50 to 79 at the beginning of the study) were tracked for eight years. One group of the women were told to reduce their consumption of fat to 20 percent of total calories. The results were announced early last year, producing front-page headlines of which the one in this newspaper was typical: “Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds.” And the cloud of nutritional confusion over the country darkened.

But even a cursory analysis of the study’s methods makes you wonder why anyone would take such a finding seriously, let alone order a Quarter Pounder With Cheese to celebrate it, as many newspaper readers no doubt promptly went out and did. Even the beginner student of nutritionism will immediately spot several flaws: the focus was on “fat,” rather than on any particular food, like meat or dairy. So women could comply simply by switching to lower-fat animal products. Also, no distinctions were made between types of fat: women getting their allowable portion of fat from olive oil or fish were lumped together with woman getting their fat from low-fat cheese or chicken breasts or margarine. Why? Because when the study was designed 16 years ago, the whole notion of “good fats” was not yet on the scientific scope. Scientists study what scientists can see.

But perhaps the biggest flaw in this study, and other studies like it, is that we have no idea what these women were really eating because, like most people when asked about their diet, they lied about it. How do we know this? Deduction. Consider: When the study began, the average participant weighed in at 170 pounds and claimed to be eating 1,800 calories a day. It would take an unusual metabolism to maintain that weight on so little food. And it would take an even freakier metabolism to drop only one or two pounds after getting down to a diet of 1,400 to 1,500 calories a day — as the women on the “low-fat” regimen claimed to have done. Sorry, ladies, but I just don’t buy it.

In fact, nobody buys it. Even the scientists who conduct this sort of research conduct it in the knowledge that people lie about their food intake all the time. They even have scientific figures for the magnitude of the lie. Dietary trials like the Women’s Health Initiative rely on “food-frequency questionnaires,” and studies suggest that people on average eat between a fifth and a third more than they claim to on the questionnaires. How do the researchers know that? By comparing what people report on questionnaires with interviews about their dietary intake over the previous 24 hours, thought to be somewhat more reliable. In fact, the magnitude of the lie could be much greater, judging by the huge disparity between the total number of food calories produced every day for each American (3,900 calories) and the average number of those calories Americans own up to chomping: 2,000. (Waste accounts for some of the disparity, but nowhere near all of it.) All we really know about how much people actually eat is that the real number lies somewhere between those two figures.

To try to fill out the food-frequency questionnaire used by the Women’s Health Initiative, as I recently did, is to realize just how shaky the data on which such trials rely really are. The survey, which took about 45 minutes to complete, started off with some relatively easy questions: “Did you eat chicken or turkey during the last three months?” Having answered yes, I was then asked, “When you ate chicken or turkey, how often did you eat the skin?” But the survey soon became harder, as when it asked me to think back over the past three months to recall whether when I ate okra, squash or yams, they were fried, and if so, were they fried in stick margarine, tub margarine, butter, “shortening” (in which category they inexplicably lump together hydrogenated vegetable oil and lard), olive or canola oil or nonstick spray? I honestly didn’t remember, and in the case of any okra eaten in a restaurant, even a hypnotist could not get out of me what sort of fat it was fried in. In the meat section, the portion sizes specified haven’t been seen in America since the Hoover administration. If a four-ounce portion of steak is considered “medium,” was I really going to admit that the steak I enjoyed on an unrecallable number of occasions during the past three months was probably the equivalent of two or three (or, in the case of a steakhouse steak, no less than four) of these portions? I think not. In fact, most of the “medium serving sizes” to which I was asked to compare my own consumption made me feel piggish enough to want to shave a few ounces here, a few there. (I mean, I wasn’t under oath or anything, was I?)

This is the sort of data on which the largest questions of diet and health are being decided in America today.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

In the end, the biggest, most ambitious and widely reported studies of diet and health leave more or less undisturbed the main features of the Western diet: lots of meat and processed foods, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of everything — except fruits, vegetables and whole grains. In keeping with the nutritionism paradigm and the limits of reductionist science, the researchers fiddle with single nutrients as best they can, but the populations they recruit and study are typical American eaters doing what typical American eaters do: trying to eat a little less of this nutrient, a little more of that, depending on the latest thinking. (One problem with the control groups in these studies is that they too are exposed to nutritional fads in the culture, so over time their eating habits come to more closely resemble the habits of the intervention group.) It should not surprise us that the findings of such research would be so equivocal and confusing.

But what about the elephant in the room — the Western diet? It might be useful, in the midst of our deepening confusion about nutrition, to review what we do know about diet and health. What we know is that people who eat the way we do in America today suffer much higher rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity than people eating more traditional diets. (Four of the 10 leading killers in America are linked to diet.) Further, we know that simply by moving to America, people from nations with low rates of these “diseases of affluence” will quickly acquire them. Nutritionism by and large takes the Western diet as a given, seeking to moderate its most deleterious effects by isolating the bad nutrients in it — things like fat, sugar, salt — and encouraging the public and the food industry to limit them. But after several decades of nutrient-based health advice, rates of cancer and heart disease in the U.S. have declined only slightly (mortality from heart disease is down since the ’50s, but this is mainly because of improved treatment), and rates of obesity and diabetes have soared.

No one likes to admit that his or her best efforts at understanding and solving a problem have actually made the problem worse, but that’s exactly what has happened in the case of nutritionism. Scientists operating with the best of intentions, using the best tools at their disposal, have taught us to look at food in a way that has diminished our pleasure in eating it while doing little or nothing to improve our health. Perhaps what we need now is a broader, less reductive view of what food is, one that is at once more ecological and cultural. What would happen, for example, if we were to start thinking about food as less of a thing and more of a relationship?

In nature, that is of course precisely what eating has always been: relationships among species in what we call food chains, or webs, that reach all the way down to the soil. Species co-evolve with the other species they eat, and very often a relationship of interdependence develops: I’ll feed you if you spread around my genes. A gradual process of mutual adaptation transforms something like an apple or a squash into a nutritious and tasty food for a hungry animal. Over time and through trial and error, the plant becomes tastier (and often more conspicuous) in order to gratify the animal’s needs and desires, while the animal gradually acquires whatever digestive tools (enzymes, etc.) are needed to make optimal use of the plant. Similarly, cow’s milk did not start out as a nutritious food for humans; in fact, it made them sick until humans who lived around cows evolved the ability to digest lactose as adults. This development proved much to the advantage of both the milk drinkers and the cows.

“Health” is, among other things, the byproduct of being involved in these sorts of relationships in a food chain — involved in a great many of them, in the case of an omnivorous creature like us. Further, when the health of one link of the food chain is disturbed, it can affect all the creatures in it. When the soil is sick or in some way deficient, so will be the grasses that grow in that soil and the cattle that eat the grasses and the people who drink the milk. Or, as the English agronomist Sir Albert Howard put it in 1945 in “The Soil and Health” (a founding text of organic agriculture), we would do well to regard “the whole problem of health in soil, plant, animal and man as one great subject.” Our personal health is inextricably bound up with the health of the entire food web.

In many cases, long familiarity between foods and their eaters leads to elaborate systems of communications up and down the food chain, so that a creature’s senses come to recognize foods as suitable by taste and smell and color, and our bodies learn what to do with these foods after they pass the test of the senses, producing in anticipation the chemicals necessary to break them down. Health depends on knowing how to read these biological signals: this smells spoiled; this looks ripe; that’s one good-looking cow. This is easier to do when a creature has long experience of a food, and much harder when a food has been designed expressly to deceive its senses — with artificial flavors, say, or synthetic sweeteners.

Note that these ecological relationships are between eaters and whole foods, not nutrients. Even though the foods in question eventually get broken down in our bodies into simple nutrients, as corn is reduced to simple sugars, the qualities of the whole food are not unimportant — they govern such things as the speed at which the sugars will be released and absorbed, which we’re coming to see as critical to insulin metabolism. Put another way, our bodies have a longstanding and sustainable relationship to corn that we do not have to high-fructose corn syrup. Such a relationship with corn syrup might develop someday (as people evolve superhuman insulin systems to cope with regular floods of fructose and glucose), but for now the relationship leads to ill health because our bodies don’t know how to handle these biological novelties. In much the same way, human bodies that can cope with chewing coca leaves — a longstanding relationship between native people and the coca plant in South America — cannot cope with cocaine or crack, even though the same “active ingredients” are present in all three. Reductionism as a way of understanding food or drugs may be harmless, even necessary, but reductionism in practice can lead to problems.

Looking at eating through this ecological lens opens a whole new perspective on exactly what the Western diet is: a radical and rapid change not just in our foodstuffs over the course of the 20th century but also in our food relationships, all the way from the soil to the meal. The ideology of nutritionism is itself part of that change. To get a firmer grip on the nature of those changes is to begin to know how we might make our relationships to food healthier. These changes have been numerous and far-reaching, but consider as a start these four large-scale ones:

From Whole Foods to Refined. The case of corn points up one of the key features of the modern diet: a shift toward increasingly refined foods, especially carbohydrates. Call it applied reductionism. Humans have been refining grains since at least the Industrial Revolution, favoring white flour (and white rice) even at the price of lost nutrients. Refining grains extends their shelf life (precisely because it renders them less nutritious to pests) and makes them easier to digest, by removing the fiber that ordinarily slows the release of their sugars. Much industrial food production involves an extension and intensification of this practice, as food processors find ways to deliver glucose — the brain’s preferred fuel — ever more swiftly and efficiently. Sometimes this is precisely the point, as when corn is refined into corn syrup; other times it is an unfortunate byproduct of food processing, as when freezing food destroys the fiber that would slow sugar absorption.

So fast food is fast in this other sense too: it is to a considerable extent predigested, in effect, and therefore more readily absorbed by the body. But while the widespread acceleration of the Western diet offers us the instant gratification of sugar, in many people (and especially those newly exposed to it) the “speediness” of this food overwhelms the insulin response and leads to Type II diabetes. As one nutrition expert put it to me, we’re in the middle of “a national experiment in mainlining glucose.” To encounter such a diet for the first time, as when people accustomed to a more traditional diet come to America, or when fast food comes to their countries, delivers a shock to the system. Public-health experts call it “the nutrition transition,” and it can be deadly.

From Complexity to Simplicity. If there is one word that covers nearly all the changes industrialization has made to the food chain, it would be simplification. Chemical fertilizers simplify the chemistry of the soil, which in turn appears to simplify the chemistry of the food grown in that soil. Since the widespread adoption of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers in the 1950s, the nutritional quality of produce in America has, according to U.S.D.A. figures, declined significantly. Some researchers blame the quality of the soil for the decline; others cite the tendency of modern plant breeding to select for industrial qualities like yield rather than nutritional quality. Whichever it is, the trend toward simplification of our food continues on up the chain. Processing foods depletes them of many nutrients, a few of which are then added back in through “fortification”: folic acid in refined flour, vitamins and minerals in breakfast cereal. But food scientists can add back only the nutrients food scientists recognize as important. What are they overlooking?

Simplification has occurred at the level of species diversity, too. The astounding variety of foods on offer in the modern supermarket obscures the fact that the actual number of species in the modern diet is shrinking. For reasons of economics, the food industry prefers to tease its myriad processed offerings from a tiny group of plant species, corn and soybeans chief among them. Today, a mere four crops account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. When you consider that humankind has historically consumed some 80,000 edible species, and that 3,000 of these have been in widespread use, this represents a radical simplification of the food web. Why should this matter? Because humans are omnivores, requiring somewhere between 50 and 100 different chemical compounds and elements to be healthy. It’s hard to believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.

From Leaves to Seeds. It’s no coincidence that most of the plants we have come to rely on are grains; these crops are exceptionally efficient at transforming sunlight into macronutrients — carbs, fats and proteins. These macronutrients in turn can be profitably transformed into animal protein (by feeding them to animals) and processed foods of every description. Also, the fact that grains are durable seeds that can be stored for long periods means they can function as commodities as well as food, making these plants particularly well suited to the needs of industrial capitalism.

The needs of the human eater are another matter. An oversupply of macronutrients, as we now have, itself represents a serious threat to our health, as evidenced by soaring rates of obesity and diabetes. But the undersupply of micronutrients may constitute a threat just as serious. Put in the simplest terms, we’re eating a lot more seeds and a lot fewer leaves, a tectonic dietary shift the full implications of which we are just beginning to glimpse. If I may borrow the nutritionist’s reductionist vocabulary for a moment, there are a host of critical micronutrients that are harder to get from a diet of refined seeds than from a diet of leaves. There are the antioxidants and all the other newly discovered phytochemicals (remember that sprig of thyme?); there is the fiber, and then there are the healthy omega-3 fats found in leafy green plants, which may turn out to be most important benefit of all.

Most people associate omega-3 fatty acids with fish, but fish get them from green plants (specifically algae), which is where they all originate. Plant leaves produce these essential fatty acids (“essential” because our bodies can’t produce them on their own) as part of photosynthesis. Seeds contain more of another essential fatty acid: omega-6. Without delving too deeply into the biochemistry, the two fats perform very different functions, in the plant as well as the plant eater. Omega-3s appear to play an important role in neurological development and processing, the permeability of cell walls, the metabolism of glucose and the calming of inflammation. Omega-6s are involved in fat storage (which is what they do for the plant), the rigidity of cell walls, clotting and the inflammation response. (Think of omega-3s as fleet and flexible, omega-6s as sturdy and slow.) Since the two lipids compete with each other for the attention of important enzymes, the ratio between omega-3s and omega-6s may matter more than the absolute quantity of either fat. Thus too much omega-6 may be just as much a problem as too little omega-3.

And that might well be a problem for people eating a Western diet. As we’ve shifted from leaves to seeds, the ratio of omega-6s to omega-3s in our bodies has shifted, too. At the same time, modern food-production practices have further diminished the omega-3s in our diet. Omega-3s, being less stable than omega-6s, spoil more readily, so we have selected for plants that produce fewer of them; further, when we partly hydrogenate oils to render them more stable, omega-3s are eliminated. Industrial meat, raised on seeds rather than leaves, has fewer omega-3s and more omega-6s than preindustrial meat used to have. And official dietary advice since the 1970s has promoted the consumption of polyunsaturated vegetable oils, most of which are high in omega-6s (corn and soy, especially). Thus, without realizing what we were doing, we significantly altered the ratio of these two essential fats in our diets and bodies, with the result that the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 in the typical American today stands at more than 10 to 1; before the widespread introduction of seed oils at the turn of the last century, it was closer to 1 to 1.

The role of these lipids is not completely understood, but many researchers say that these historically low levels of omega-3 (or, conversely, high levels of omega-6) bear responsibility for many of the chronic diseases associated with the Western diet, especially heart disease and diabetes. (Some researchers implicate omega-3 deficiency in rising rates of depression and learning disabilities as well.) To remedy this deficiency, nutritionism classically argues for taking omega-3 supplements or fortifying food products, but because of the complex, competitive relationship between omega-3 and omega-6, adding more omega-3s to the diet may not do much good unless you also reduce your intake of omega-6.

From Food Culture to Food Science. The last important change wrought by the Western diet is not, strictly speaking, ecological. But the industrialization of our food that we call the Western diet is systematically destroying traditional food cultures. Before the modern food era — and before nutritionism — people relied for guidance about what to eat on their national or ethnic or regional cultures. We think of culture as a set of beliefs and practices to help mediate our relationship to other people, but of course culture (at least before the rise of science) has also played a critical role in helping mediate people’s relationship to nature. Eating being a big part of that relationship, cultures have had a great deal to say about what and how and why and when and how much we should eat. Of course when it comes to food, culture is really just a fancy word for Mom, the figure who typically passes on the food ways of the group — food ways that, although they were never “designed” to optimize health (we have many reasons to eat the way we do), would not have endured if they did not keep eaters alive and well.

The sheer novelty and glamour of the Western diet, with its 17,000 new food products introduced every year, and the marketing muscle used to sell these products, has overwhelmed the force of tradition and left us where we now find ourselves: relying on science and journalism and marketing to help us decide questions about what to eat. Nutritionism, which arose to help us better deal with the problems of the Western diet, has largely been co-opted by it, used by the industry to sell more food and to undermine the authority of traditional ways of eating. You would not have read this far into this article if your food culture were intact and healthy; you would simply eat the way your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents taught you to eat. The question is, Are we better off with these new authorities than we were with the traditional authorities they supplanted? The answer by now should be clear.

It might be argued that, at this point in history, we should simply accept that fast food is our food culture. Over time, people will get used to eating this way and our health will improve. But for natural selection to help populations adapt to the Western diet, we’d have to be prepared to let those whom it sickens die. That’s not what we’re doing. Rather, we’re turning to the health-care industry to help us “adapt.” Medicine is learning how to keep alive the people whom the Western diet is making sick. It’s gotten good at extending the lives of people with heart disease, and now it’s working on obesity and diabetes. Capitalism is itself marvelously adaptive, able to turn the problems it creates into lucrative business opportunities: diet pills, heart-bypass operations, insulin pumps, bariatric surgery. But while fast food may be good business for the health-care industry, surely the cost to society — estimated at more than $200 billion a year in diet-related health-care costs — is unsustainable.

BEYOND NUTRITIONISM

To medicalize the diet problem is of course perfectly consistent with nutritionism. So what might a more ecological or cultural approach to the problem recommend? How might we plot our escape from nutritionism and, in turn, from the deleterious effects of the modern diet? In theory nothing could be simpler — stop thinking and eating that way — but this is somewhat harder to do in practice, given the food environment we now inhabit and the loss of sharp cultural tools to guide us through it. Still, I do think escape is possible, to which end I can now revisit — and elaborate on, but just a little — the simple principles of healthy eating I proposed at the beginning of this essay, several thousand words ago. So try these few (flagrantly unscientific) rules of thumb, collected in the course of my nutritional odyssey, and see if they don’t at least point us in the right direction.

1. Eat food. Though in our current state of confusion, this is much easier said than done. So try this: Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. (Sorry, but at this point Moms are as confused as the rest of us, which is why we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of modern food products.) There are a great many foodlike items in the supermarket your ancestors wouldn’t recognize as food (Go-Gurt? Breakfast-cereal bars? Nondairy creamer?); stay away from these.

2. Avoid even those food products that come bearing health claims. They’re apt to be heavily processed, and the claims are often dubious at best. Don’t forget that margarine, one of the first industrial foods to claim that it was more healthful than the traditional food it replaced, turned out to give people heart attacks. When Kellogg’s can boast about its Healthy Heart Strawberry Vanilla cereal bars, health claims have become hopelessly compromised. (The American Heart Association charges food makers for their endorsement.) Don’t take the silence of the yams as a sign that they have nothing valuable to say about health.

3. Especially avoid food products containing ingredients that are a) unfamiliar, b) unpronounceable c) more than five in number — or that contain high-fructose corn syrup.None of these characteristics are necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but all of them are reliable markers for foods that have been highly processed.

4. Get out of the supermarket whenever possible. You won’t find any high-fructose corn syrup at the farmer’s market; you also won’t find food harvested long ago and far away. What you will find are fresh whole foods picked at the peak of nutritional quality. Precisely the kind of food your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food.

5. Pay more, eat less. The American food system has for a century devoted its energies and policies to increasing quantity and reducing price, not to improving quality. There’s no escaping the fact that better food — measured by taste or nutritional quality (which often correspond) — costs more, because it has been grown or raised less intensively and with more care. Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful, but most of us can: Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of their income on food, down from 24 percent in 1947, and less than the citizens of any other nation. And those of us who can afford to eat well should. Paying more for food well grown in good soils — whether certified organic or not — will contribute not only to your health (by reducing exposure to pesticides) but also to the health of others who might not themselves be able to afford that sort of food: the people who grow it and the people who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown.

“Eat less” is the most unwelcome advice of all, but in fact the scientific case for eating a lot less than we currently do is compelling. “Calorie restriction” has repeatedly been shown to slow aging in animals, and many researchers (including Walter Willett, the Harvard epidemiologist) believe it offers the single strongest link between diet and cancer prevention. Food abundance is a problem, but culture has helped here, too, by promoting the idea of moderation. Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called “Hara Hachi Bu”: eat until you are 80 percent full. To make the “eat less” message a bit more palatable, consider that quality may have a bearing on quantity: I don’t know about you, but the better the quality of the food I eat, the less of it I need to feel satisfied. All tomatoes are not created equal.

6. Eat mostly plants, especially leaves. Scientists may disagree on what’s so good about plants — the antioxidants? Fiber? Omega-3s? — but they do agree that they’re probably really good for you and certainly can’t hurt. Also, by eating a plant-based diet, you’ll be consuming far fewer calories, since plant foods (except seeds) are typically less “energy dense” than the other things you might eat. Vegetarians are healthier than carnivores, but near vegetarians (“flexitarians”) are as healthy as vegetarians. Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food.

7. Eat more like the French. Or the Japanese. Or the Italians. Or the Greeks. Confounding factors aside, people who eat according to the rules of a traditional food culture are generally healthier than we are. Any traditional diet will do: if it weren’t a healthy diet, the people who follow it wouldn’t still be around. True, food cultures are embedded in societies and economies and ecologies, and some of them travel better than others: Inuit not so well as Italian. In borrowing from a food culture, pay attention to how a culture eats, as well as to what it eats. In the case of the French paradox, it may not be the dietary nutrients that keep the French healthy (lots of saturated fat and alcohol?!) so much as the dietary habits: small portions, no seconds or snacking, communal meals — and the serious pleasure taken in eating. (Worrying about diet can’t possibly be good for you.) Let culture be your guide, not science.

8. Cook. And if you can, plant a garden. To take part in the intricate and endlessly interesting processes of providing for our sustenance is the surest way to escape the culture of fast food and the values implicit in it: that food should be cheap and easy; that food is fuel and not communion. The culture of the kitchen, as embodied in those enduring traditions we call cuisines, contains more wisdom about diet and health than you are apt to find in any nutrition journal or journalism. Plus, the food you grow yourself contributes to your health long before you sit down to eat it. So you might want to think about putting down this article now and picking up a spatula or hoe.

9. Eat like an omnivore. Try to add new species, not just new foods, to your diet. The greater the diversity of species you eat, the more likely you are to cover all your nutritional bases. That of course is an argument from nutritionism, but there is a better one, one that takes a broader view of “health.” Biodiversity in the diet means less monoculture in the fields. What does that have to do with your health? Everything. The vast monocultures that now feed us require tremendous amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep from collapsing. Diversifying those fields will mean fewer chemicals, healthier soils, healthier plants and animals and, in turn, healthier people. It’s all connected, which is another way of saying that your health isn’t bordered by your body and that what’s good for the soil is probably good for you, too.

Michael Pollan, a contributing writer, is the Knight professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. His most recent book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” was chosen by the editors of The New York Times Book Review as one of the 10 best books of 2006.

JazmenFlowers

01-31-2007, 09:47 AM

This is a VERY long article...
that's an understatement. I'm gonna hafta print this one out.

thanks for posting though...seems to be very informative.

skcin

01-31-2007, 02:32 PM

I read it! Confusing, yet enlightening, yet most seems like common sense. Yes, that's my review. :D

This? Blows my mind:
The sheer novelty and glamour of the Western diet, with its 17,000 new food products introduced every year....

I took the liberty of reposting the last part of that article, since this is the jist (gist?) of it.

So try these few (flagrantly unscientific) rules of thumb, collected in the course of my nutritional odyssey, and see if they don’t at least point us in the right direction.

1. Eat food. Though in our current state of confusion, this is much easier said than done. So try this: Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. (Sorry, but at this point Moms are as confused as the rest of us, which is why we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of modern food products.) There are a great many foodlike items in the supermarket your ancestors wouldn’t recognize as food (Go-Gurt? Breakfast-cereal bars? Nondairy creamer?); stay away from these.

2. Avoid even those food products that come bearing health claims. They’re apt to be heavily processed, and the claims are often dubious at best. Don’t forget that margarine, one of the first industrial foods to claim that it was more healthful than the traditional food it replaced, turned out to give people heart attacks. When Kellogg’s can boast about its Healthy Heart Strawberry Vanilla cereal bars, health claims have become hopelessly compromised. (The American Heart Association charges food makers for their endorsement.) Don’t take the silence of the yams as a sign that they have nothing valuable to say about health.

3. Especially avoid food products containing ingredients that are a) unfamiliar, b) unpronounceable c) more than five in number — or that contain high-fructose corn syrup.None of these characteristics are necessarily harmful in and of themselves, but all of them are reliable markers for foods that have been highly processed.

4. Get out of the supermarket whenever possible. You won’t find any high-fructose corn syrup at the farmer’s market; you also won’t find food harvested long ago and far away. What you will find are fresh whole foods picked at the peak of nutritional quality. Precisely the kind of food your great-great-grandmother would have recognized as food.

5. Pay more, eat less. The American food system has for a century devoted its energies and policies to increasing quantity and reducing price, not to improving quality. There’s no escaping the fact that better food — measured by taste or nutritional quality (which often correspond) — costs more, because it has been grown or raised less intensively and with more care. Not everyone can afford to eat well in America, which is shameful, but most of us can: Americans spend, on average, less than 10 percent of their income on food, down from 24 percent in 1947, and less than the citizens of any other nation. And those of us who can afford to eat well should. Paying more for food well grown in good soils — whether certified organic or not — will contribute not only to your health (by reducing exposure to pesticides) but also to the health of others who might not themselves be able to afford that sort of food: the people who grow it and the people who live downstream, and downwind, of the farms where it is grown.

“Eat less” is the most unwelcome advice of all, but in fact the scientific case for eating a lot less than we currently do is compelling. “Calorie restriction” has repeatedly been shown to slow aging in animals, and many researchers (including Walter Willett, the Harvard epidemiologist) believe it offers the single strongest link between diet and cancer prevention. Food abundance is a problem, but culture has helped here, too, by promoting the idea of moderation. Once one of the longest-lived people on earth, the Okinawans practiced a principle they called “Hara Hachi Bu”: eat until you are 80 percent full. To make the “eat less” message a bit more palatable, consider that quality may have a bearing on quantity: I don’t know about you, but the better the quality of the food I eat, the less of it I need to feel satisfied. All tomatoes are not created equal.

6. Eat mostly plants, especially leaves. Scientists may disagree on what’s so good about plants — the antioxidants? Fiber? Omega-3s? — but they do agree that they’re probably really good for you and certainly can’t hurt. Also, by eating a plant-based diet, you’ll be consuming far fewer calories, since plant foods (except seeds) are typically less “energy dense” than the other things you might eat. Vegetarians are healthier than carnivores, but near vegetarians (“flexitarians”) are as healthy as vegetarians. Thomas Jefferson was on to something when he advised treating meat more as a flavoring than a food.

7. Eat more like the French. Or the Japanese. Or the Italians. Or the Greeks. Confounding factors aside, people who eat according to the rules of a traditional food culture are generally healthier than we are. Any traditional diet will do: if it weren’t a healthy diet, the people who follow it wouldn’t still be around. True, food cultures are embedded in societies and economies and ecologies, and some of them travel better than others: Inuit not so well as Italian. In borrowing from a food culture, pay attention to how a culture eats, as well as to what it eats. In the case of the French paradox, it may not be the dietary nutrients that keep the French healthy (lots of saturated fat and alcohol?!) so much as the dietary habits: small portions, no seconds or snacking, communal meals — and the serious pleasure taken in eating. (Worrying about diet can’t possibly be good for you.) Let culture be your guide, not science.

8. Cook. And if you can, plant a garden. To take part in the intricate and endlessly interesting processes of providing for our sustenance is the surest way to escape the culture of fast food and the values implicit in it: that food should be cheap and easy; that food is fuel and not communion. The culture of the kitchen, as embodied in those enduring traditions we call cuisines, contains more wisdom about diet and health than you are apt to find in any nutrition journal or journalism. Plus, the food you grow yourself contributes to your health long before you sit down to eat it. So you might want to think about putting down this article now and picking up a spatula or hoe.

9. Eat like an omnivore. Try to add new species, not just new foods, to your diet. The greater the diversity of species you eat, the more likely you are to cover all your nutritional bases. That of course is an argument from nutritionism, but there is a better one, one that takes a broader view of “health.” Biodiversity in the diet means less monoculture in the fields. What does that have to do with your health? Everything. The vast monocultures that now feed us require tremendous amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides to keep from collapsing. Diversifying those fields will mean fewer chemicals, healthier soils, healthier plants and animals and, in turn, healthier people. It’s all connected, which is another way of saying that your health isn’t bordered by your body and that what’s good for the soil is probably good for you, too.

goldustsongbird

01-31-2007, 04:21 PM

^^ Eat like the Italians?! Do you KNOW what an Italian considers one portion? :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-31-2007, 04:56 PM

skcin

01-31-2007, 05:13 PM

strandinthewind

01-31-2007, 05:19 PM

HejiraNYC

01-31-2007, 05:34 PM

^^ Eat like the Italians?! Do you KNOW what an Italian considers one portion? :laugh:

I don't think he was referring to the Italian-American diet! :eek: I suspect he was referring to the Mediterranean diet in general that includes more tomatoes, olives, olive oil, whole grains, rice, etc. moreso than the southern Italian/Sicilian heavy stuff. I always thought the stereotype of over-doting Italian mothers was based on the Sicilians; by contrast, the people I've met from places in the north like Milan or even areas close to Switzerland were always very thin. Accordingly, when they come to America, they instantly gravitate toward steak since it is such a novelty at home. :shrug:

HejiraNYC

01-31-2007, 05:43 PM

I know :laugh:

I think it is romantic to envision the Europeans as having this healthy lifestyle. but, everytime I go over there, they stuff you to death with butter and cream based sauses and they all smoke and are drunk from noon on :eek: -- not that I object mind you :laugh:

I think they are in general thinner because they walk or ride a bike everywhere -- the portions are as large and they eat foots filled with saturated fat.

Well for whatever it's worth, as a vegan/vegetarian, I found plentiful options in Paris, even though I was expecting the worst. But then again, I spent a lot of time grocery shopping. In general, I noticed that they are really big on chocolate, wine and yogurt. Entire aisles full of the stuff; buying wine there is like buying a 2-liter bottle of diet coke here. As the article suggests, these are age-old "foods" that have been around forever, and we are just now beginning to appreciate their health benefits. :shrug:

Another thing I noticed is that the French are really "snacky." So are the Japanese. Again, aisles and aisles of pouch-sized snacks. Granted, most of these snacks are totally not good for you- high in sugar, salt and fat. But it probably does help to curb their appetites at mealtime. So indeed there must be something to be said about eating small amounts throughout the day rather than saving it all for meals. :shrug:

strandinthewind

01-31-2007, 05:49 PM

^^^^

Most def. :nod: If you eat a fist size meals every three or so hours -- your body's furnace (the metabolism) will always be ready to take on a larger task.

Truth be known, I LOVE European cooking because of the heavy fats.

seeker007nmss

01-31-2007, 06:00 PM

7. Eat more like the French. Or the Japanese. Or the Italians. Or the Greeks. Confounding factors aside, people who eat according to the rules of a traditional food culture are generally healthier than we are. Any traditional diet will do: if it weren’t a healthy diet, the people who follow it wouldn’t still be around.

Sorry, Thats a bunch of bunk. Look at what the life expectancy of these "traditional" cultures. The average Roamn was dead by 32. (Yes, there were many factors beyond food consumption involved, but it was one varible in the mix) Also if you have ever visited ancient (or even just past generational ruins and homes, you will find we are (on average) much taller, stronger and overall healthier. (Yes, medical advances and many more varibles are apart of this, but also our food knowledge) Put it this way. In "Some" cultures, vegetables were seen as poisens not to be injested by humans. Go figure.

skcin

02-01-2007, 02:24 PM

^^^

But, that home prepared food likely has lard in it as they do not really get the concept of low fat.

In the end, overeating is a problem everywhere and to assert the Europeans have some sort of automatic panacea is just wrong based on what I have seen. And, every major city I went to had fast food joints, much like America. I, too, loved the little local eateries, but I can assure you that huge portion of Lasagne outside of Florence had just as much fat and carbs as a Big Mac. Also, they really don't do a whole lot of diet soda there and they drink the sugared stuff, which is horrible for you.

That's exactly it - the major cities you've been to. As a tourist. They're not stupid - they know where the tourists will be, and what they want. And I'm sure the lasagna had plenty of fat & calories, but I'm also quite sure it was probably made with fresher ingredients - just becasue something's low-cal doesn't mean it's healthy & vice versa.

No lard at my families' homes. :shrug: Butter & cream, yes. But not in huge amounts. Soda - maybe 1 per day, but it's usually water, some wine with meals. I don't think that just because someone is European that they automatically eat well. But in general (and this is speaking only for my family) they eat smaller portions, more fresh fruits/veggies/grains, and very little processed or fast food. People also usually walk everywhere that's nearby. Snacks are fresh cheeses, breads, olives or salads. No chips, pretzels, "Little Debbie" snacks, etc.

And yes, there are AMERICAN fast food places all over Europe now - there's a McD's a couple miles from my brother's house. But it's not as affordable as it is here, so it's a special treat to have once every few months - not a few times a week like many I know in the U.S. It's also relatively new - 10 or 20 years there as opposed to more than 50 here -and there isn't a fast food joint on literally every corner, so fast food is not as ingrained in the culture there. Again, I'm speaking about my family. It's obviously a bit different when you go to the tourist areas - foreign travelers want their junk food, esp. Americans. :distress:

Sorry, Thats a bunch of bunk. Look at what the life expectancy of these "traditional" cultures. The average Roamn was dead by 32. (Yes, there were many factors beyond food consumption involved, but it was one varible in the mix) Also if you have ever visited ancient (or even just past generational ruins and homes, you will find we are (on average) much taller, stronger and overall healthier. (Yes, medical advances and many more varibles are apart of this, but also our food knowledge) Put it this way. In "Some" cultures, vegetables were seen as poisens not to be injested by humans. Go figure.

But the life expectancy here in the U.S. was also very low not all that long ago. :shrug: Humans have gotten larger & taller in general. You really can't compare current issues with ancient data. The fact is that CURRENTLY, obesity rates are markedly higher in the U.S. than most (any?) other countries, particularly in parts of Southern Europe & Asia. Same with heart disease. There must be a reason why.

I found another article today, this one's a bit more simple & points out that it's not only diet that sets other cultures apart from us - it's activity, how fast we eat, etc. Notice that the U.S. is cited for putting some of these things into practice.

http://www.cookinglight.com/cooking/hl/nutrition/article/0,13803,1094736,00.html

5 Healthiest Habits on the Planet
Learn five nutritious habits of the planet's healthiest countries—then use our tips to give your diet a boost.

By Lia Huber

If you've vacationed in an international destination, you know that learning about its food is one of the best ways to become familiar with a new culture. But lately, Americans have also taken greater interest in global cuisine because of health benefits attributed to certain styles of eating. Books, such as The French Diet: The Secrets of Why French Women Don't Get Fat, by Michel Montignac, and ongoing nutrition studies of the so-called Mediterranean diet and Asian foods continue to garner new headlines. We've sifted through the research to offer the following eating and meal-planning tips. Making small changes in the way you eat can bring big health benefits—and more enjoyment—to your table.

Healthy Habit #1
Eat Plenty of Produce and Whole Grains
Countries known for putting it into practice: China and Greece
In many countries, meat is a garnish. The traditional Chinese diet, for example, consists primarily of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. And in Greece, "vegetables and legumes are main meals, not just side dishes," says Antonia Trichopoulou, M.D., Ph.D., professor at the University of Athens Medical School and director of the World Health Organization's Collaborating Center of Nutrition.

Research finds that three servings or more a day of produce can lower the risk of stroke, heart disease, and some cancers. Harvard University's Nurses Health Study, for example, which examined almost 85,000 women over 12 to 14 years, found that those who ate the most fruit and vegetables had a 20 percent lower risk for heart disease. The new USDA guidelines recommend we eat between five and 13 servings of fruit and vegetables a day, and we're starting to hear the message. The average American consumed roughly 332 pounds of fresh produce in 2004, up from 287 pounds in 1990. Plus, with the growth of America's farmers' markets, the introduction of Consumer Supported Agriculture, where community members buy produce from local farmers each month, and home delivery from many supermarkets, opportunities for Americans to have fresh produce abound.

What you can do:
Try to fill two-thirds of your plate with produce and whole-grain foods, and the remaining third with fish or meat, Montignac says. Also, challenge yourself to put as many colors as possible into your meal. Or go on a fruit exploration: Try one new type of fruit from your local market each week. In summer, freeze some of your new favorites for a frosty after-dinner treat.

Healthy Habit #2
Savor Leisurely Dining
Countries known for putting it into practice: Italy, France, Spain, Greece, Japan
A meal in these countries often lasts several hours. In fact, one of Greece's dietary guidelines, its version of our usda dietary guidelines, is to "eat slowly, preferably at regular times of the day, and in a pleasant environment." Sharing a meal is so important that Greeks call someone a friend "by saying we have shared bread together," Trichopoulou says.

For the French, Italians, and Spanish, meals provide quality time with friends and family, a practice that encourages healthful bonds. Eating comfortably and slowly discourages overeating and fosters relaxation, which aids digestion. The body processes food more easily and efficiently when it's calm, Montignac says.

What you can do:
Take time to savor the scent, texture, and flavor of food. A traditional Japanese tea ceremony, for example, includes a role for each of the senses—watching and listening as the tea pours from pot to cup, picking up the cup and feeling the heat, smelling, and finally, tasting. Another way to savor your supper: Divide it into separate courses. Instead of bringing everything to the table at once, have a salad course, then fruit, entrée, and dessert—with, say, at least 10 minutes between each course to digest, chat, and relax. Whether you're dining with a spouse, family, or just you, set the table and sit down, rather than grazing in the kitchen—and enjoy.

Healthy Habit #3
Practice Portion Control
Countries known for putting it into practice: France, Japan
We have an abundance of delicious and nutritious food available in America; we just need to pay attention to portions. An average meal in France is 25 percent smaller than one in America, according to a 2003 University of Pennsylvania comparison, which examined portion sizes at 11 similar pairs of establishments, from pizza parlors to ethnic restaurants. The study also found that a typical carton of yogurt sold in Philadelphia was 82 percent larger than one offered in Paris, and a soft drink was 52 percent larger. In Japan, foods also come in smaller sizes and are often eaten out of bowls, rather than large plates or platters.

What you can do:
Japanese from the Okinawa region, who enjoy the longest life span in the world (an average of 82 years), practice "hara hachi bu," which translates to "eight parts out of 10" and means Okinawans stop eating when they are 80 percent full, says Brad Willcox, M.D., M.S., coauthor of the Okinawa Diet Plan. To adopt the concept, set down your fork and remove your plate at the first twinge of fullness, instead of taking a break and eating more. You can also use smaller plates and bowls when setting the table; use a food scale to measure portions; and opt for filling, fiber-rich foods, such as lentils and vegetables. For more tips or to follow the diet online, visit www.okinawadiet.net.

Healthy Habit #4
Eat a Variety of Unprocessed, Fresh Foods
Countries known for putting it into practice: Italy, France, Greece, Japan, the United States

The first thing many foreign visitors comment on when they enter an American supermarket is how many choices are available. It's not uncommon to find wild Alaskan salmon, olive oil from Greece, and grains from Italy all in one store. Organic foods and farmers' markets have also never been more popular. Many of these outlets feature interesting varieties, such as heirloom fruits and vegetables.

Shopping in countries such as France and Italy may also involve several stops—at the butcher, the greengrocer, and the baker—which not only increases the shopper's activity level, but also results in meals made with unprocessed ingredients, Montignac says. Studies show that fresh foods provide more fiber; fewer calories, saturated fats, and trans fats; and less added salt and sugar.

What you can do
Skip the prepared food aisles at the market and choose fresh, whole foods. Also, indulge in salads: With so many prewashed fresh vegetables and fruits available, you can put together a big, colorful one in minutes. Combine bagged baby greens, sliced mushrooms, cherry or sweet grape tomatoes, prechopped fresh bell peppers, and red onions. Drizzle with a bottled, reduced-calorie vinaigrette, and add whole-grain crackers, melba rounds, or matzoh crackers on the side to sneak in whole grains. Also, take vegetables beyond salads and steamers by pairing sauteed broccoli or spinach with whole wheat pasta, and tossing with roasted beets and walnuts.

Healthy Habit #5
Spice Up Your Plate
Countries known for putting it into practice: India, China, Thailand, the United States

Herbs and spices add delicious, attractive, and healthful flair to your plate. In addition to being low in calories and virtually fat free, researchers are discovering that herbs, such as garlic, thyme, and rosemary, and spices, like cinnamon, cloves, and curcumin (also known as turmeric), may fight disease. One recent, 40-day study of 60 people with type 2 diabetes found that eating half a teaspoon of cinnamon twice daily significantly lowered subjects' blood sugar and cholesterol levels.

What you can do:
In the United States, we have many ethnic restaurants and food choices where spices take center stage, and there are still more ways to add them to your diet. For example, to make sure fresh, delicious herbs are available year-round, start a container garden on your windowsill. You can also experiment with using unfamiliar spices on familiar foods. For example, if you love roasting a whole chicken or chicken breasts in paprika, try it with, say, curry powder. Rub the chicken well with the powder, then roast until juicy and tender. Dip bites of the chicken in bottled chutney mixed with a little lemon or lime juice. Alternatively, add a sprinkle of earthy ground cumin, a touch of ground cinnamon, and a pinch of nutmeg or coriander after rice cooks to add bold flavor and aroma. You can also add fresh herb leaves, such as basil, mint, or tarragon, to salads for a flavor boost.

strandinthewind

02-01-2007, 03:03 PM

skcin

02-01-2007, 03:36 PM

^^^^

I have been to more than just the major cities and the food was just as rich in the villages. In the end, it really comes down to portion control and watching the combinations of food you eat. if you eat fat and carbs all day long, your ass will expand.

Obviously. But not every meal is a rich meal, and any restaurant, even little bistros, are going to be more heavy than what you get for a typical daily meal. Like I said, I can only speak for my family & what they eat in their homes daily - healthy, fresh food in smaller portions at a slower more relaxed pace.

strandinthewind

02-01-2007, 03:46 PM

Obviously. But not every meal is a rich meal, and any restaurant, even little bistros, are going to be more heavy than what you get for a typical daily meal. Like I said, I can only speak for my family & what they eat in their homes daily - healthy, fresh food in smaller portions at a slower more relaxed pace.

But, that is true here as well. Most Americans do not dine out every night. They can't afford to. Instead, they cook and when they do, it likely is the same kind of thing as over there - a meat, a salad, etc. :shrug:

skcin

02-01-2007, 04:22 PM

But, that is true here as well. Most Americans do not dine out every night. They can't afford to. Instead, they cook and when they do, it likely is the same kind of thing as over there - a meat, a salad, etc. :shrug:

My American fam dines out a lot more than my Bulgarian fam. A lot more. That's formal dining, casual dining, and fast food. It's a fact. It's also a fact that my mom cooks a lot of packaged/processed foods, and so did most moms I knew growing up. Mac & cheese or rice from a box, bread from a bag, sauce from a jar or can, etc., not to mention frozen foods. These "convenience" food are a way of life here. They aren't over there. My sister-in-law bakes every day or buys bread from the bistro, all veggies come from their gardens, all meals are from scratch. Not as fatty, not as full of chemicals. No, you can't eat as much as you want - you can't do that anywhere with anything. Common sense.

Like I said, this is my family, my experience.

skcin

02-02-2007, 02:09 PM

Warning: Bragging up ahead:

Well, my 30-45 minutes on the eliptical 5 days a week is paying off more & more. I dropped another 2 pounds. :thumbsup: Down a total of 9.5 pounds - this is the lightest I've been in about 5 years, which is the lightest I've been since high school.

I have been getting so many compliments on how I look & how my clothes fit. A few weeks ago I tried a bunch of stuff on at Kohl's & was able to get into size 10 pants without a problem & many medium shirts were a bit roomy. I am so stoked.

I feel strong, my muscle tone is much improved, very little jiggle and NO BACK FAT! :laugh: I'm still doing WW Points system on my own & I've been sticking to it relatively well. Of course, I do take the occasional day off (Theresa's pizza & beerfest last weekend, Superbowl this Sunday) but I don't go crazy & binge. And no slacking on the exercise at all. I am so proud of myself for sticking with it, it's been almost a year since I got the eliptical & I still love doing it. Still doing weights too. God, i just feel great. Another 4.5 pounds would be awesome, but we'll see. :)

carrie721

02-02-2007, 02:11 PM

^^ yayyyyyy, go paula! good job, girl.

JazmenFlowers

02-02-2007, 02:13 PM

yay Paula. that's awesome.

I wish I had an elliptical machine. I've got to get out of this rut I'm in somehow.

skcin

02-02-2007, 02:16 PM

DrummerDeanna

02-02-2007, 02:19 PM

^ Check the classifieds & Craigslist for a used gym-quality one. I wouldn't bother with a cheaper one from Target or even Sears - they're not as sturdy & stable, therefore not as comfortable & you won't want to use it as much, IMO.

Are you still running? I would be, if it weren't 10 degrees & snowing outside all the time. Hopefully I can start the program again in a month or two.

Congrats, Paula :blob1:

I've been religious about Craigslist - but have found nothing thus far, but I have it in my head to buy a good machine - as I'll be losing the free gym when I leave my apartment....:o

Congrats on getting rid of the back fat...it's become the bane of my existence, back fat.

bikerchic

02-02-2007, 02:46 PM

sparky

02-02-2007, 02:49 PM

yay Paula. that's awesome.

I wish I had an elliptical machine. I've got to get out of this rut I'm in somehow.

Try swimming or a rowing machine. I love both. You can get rowing machines cheap these days. They're not hip anymore. I swear by them.

You may not want the upper body muscle they'll create. I don't know if bulked up shoulders and back are what you're after, but they are both a good switch up to shock your system with a different kind of exercise.

carrie721

02-02-2007, 02:52 PM

Try swimming or a rowing machine. I love both. You can get rowing machines cheap these days. They're not hip anymore. I swear by them.

You may not want the upper body muscle they'll create. I don't know if bulked up shoulders and back are what you're after, but they are both a good switch up to shock your system with a different kind of exercise.

rowing machines kick ass. nothing burns more calories per minute - i love the feeling of getting a serious full body workout.

sparky

02-02-2007, 03:00 PM

rowing machines kick ass. nothing burns more calories per minute - i love the feeling of getting a serious full body workout.

Some of the best money I ever spent. Coolest of all is the wheel is also a fan.

carrie721

02-02-2007, 03:02 PM

Some of the best money I ever spent. Coolest of all is the wheel is also a fan.

what brand did you get? in what price range can you get a good, sturdy one? i'm seriously thinking of getting one.

sparky

02-02-2007, 03:17 PM

what brand did you get? in what price range can you get a good, sturdy one? i'm seriously thinking of getting one.

****, I stare at it all the time but can't say. Something Japanese.
I got it on Craig's list years ago for about 200 bucks.
I looked it up: Tunturi.

JazmenFlowers

02-06-2007, 10:10 AM

bikerchic

02-06-2007, 11:03 AM

^Thats great that you found something you love! I'm not quite as adventureous as that but still doing the tread everyday. I'm down 3 lbs. this week with WW, so I'm happy :) They tell me though, I'm not eating enough food :shocked: Great programme though :thumbsup:

strandinthewind

02-06-2007, 11:07 AM

I went home to Louisiana last weekend and gained like 8 pounds :mad:

So, its back on the diet and the hitting the gym HARD this week.

skcin

02-06-2007, 11:56 AM

nothing exciting to post really. just wanted to say I did cardio pilates last night and I am sore from my waist down. it has to be some of the most difficult workouts to sustain. just to hold the poses and repeat them 3 times. I loved the floor work though.

I checked out 2 of the "On Demand" workout shows offered by my cable company this past Saturday. :lol: Yeah, that didn't work out very well. I knew I wasn't the most coordinated person in the world, but wow. One was a belly dancing workout, the other was a boot camp kickbox thing. I damn near fell over several times & felt like I had yanked my hip out of its socket. Mark thought it was hilarious. So I won't be trying that again. There were a bunch of them, though, so I'll check out some different ones.

^Thats great that you found something you love! I'm not quite as adventureous as that but still doing the tread everyday. I'm down 3 lbs. this week with WW, so I'm happy :) They tell me though, I'm not eating enough food :shocked: Great programme though :thumbsup:

You rock! :thumbsup: Total of 5 pounds, right?

I went home to Louisiana last weekend and gained like 8 pounds :mad:

So, its back on the diet and the hitting the gym HARD this week.

You suck! :( JK - you know those pounds will fall off within a week or two. :shrug:

bikerchic

02-06-2007, 02:50 PM

You rock! :thumbsup: Total of 5 pounds, right?

Yes! I just noticed on WW web site that's it's free registration for the U.S. (a savings of $20), for a limited time. If anyone's interested :)

skcin

02-07-2007, 12:48 PM

OK, I attempted another "on demand" exercise routine this morning. This time I did a "Slim in 6" workout. Afterwards, there was in infomercial to buy the whole series, of course. Anyway, much better than the other ones I tried. It was a bit slower paced, more of a target-toning workout than a "OK, let's get that heartrate up to 200!!!" type thing. :laugh: I didn't fall over once! So I Tivo'd it for future use.

It was basically the moves I've been doing for a while (the ones I got out of Redbook - squats, lunges, etc.) but slower, more controlled & with cardio bursts in between. We'll see how sore I am tomorrow.

DrummerDeanna

02-07-2007, 01:35 PM

I hadn't been to the gym in a few days as I got sick :( I felt better yesterday but wanted to take it easy - but went back today. I hate skipping so many days - I missed 4...but I was sick so I didn't eat a whole lot...hopefully it'll all even out...

But now I'm back on track...I was able to do a ful 45 minute cardio workout so I'm definitely on the mend.

Still don't know how much weight I've lost, I still don't have a scale :o

skcin

02-08-2007, 12:12 PM

leg....muscles....so sore....hard....to....walk.....

:o

Guess that means it's an effective workout. :D

JazmenFlowers

02-08-2007, 02:52 PM

leg....muscles....so sore....hard....to....walk.....

:o

Guess that means it's an effective workout. :D
yep. when I did the cardio pilates my inner thighs were so sore I was wobbling. (no jokes please :cool: ) and I thought that must be because I rarely work them.

I've got "friends" at work pressuring me to do WW and I'm just not sure I want to. I mean, I know it's good and it may help me lose these last 10-15 lbs, but I just hate the thought. :shrug:

DrummerDeanna

02-08-2007, 02:54 PM

^^
Why do you hate the thought? Just curious.

It's not a bad program...but if you're not ready to track all you eat, and count points etc...then it's definitely not for you. What I like about it is it's not at all restrictive...doesn't tell you not to eat certain foods - it's all about choices and portion sizes etc..

That said, you get a bad meeting leader/members and you're doomed - I HATED the meetings...

bikerchic

02-08-2007, 03:02 PM

but I just hate the thought. :shrug:

of what? I love this programme! The weight is falling off of me and I'm never hungry. I only had 15 lbs to lose, but I just couldn't do it on my own. Knowing you've paid and have to weigh in at the end of the week, is what keeps me on it! I even stay for the meetings. They're great.

JazmenFlowers

02-08-2007, 08:38 PM

the thought of keeping up with points and all that I guess. I've done WW before and it does work, I know that, but I just don't think it's for me. I may give it another shot though.

markolas

02-08-2007, 08:39 PM

Mmmm...pizza.

SuzeQuze

02-09-2007, 08:29 AM

Mmmm...pizza.

:lol: I love pizza! I had some last nite for dinner along with red wine. Hey wait, this is the wrong thread for that!

bikerchic

02-09-2007, 10:34 AM

the thought of keeping up with points and all that I guess. I've done WW before and it does work, I know that, but I just don't think it's for me. I may give it another shot though.

I guess it all depends on how bad you want to reach goal? I want it bad.

SuzeQuze

02-09-2007, 10:46 AM

From: http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/WBL02022

A wise person once pointed out that you are not what you eat, you are what you absorb. True enough; the world’s healthiest diet is of no use if the nutrients are not assimilated. So how can we maximize absorption?

As it turns out, some of the healthiest compounds in fruits and vegetables are fat soluble, which suggest some fat must be present in the meal for the nutrients to be absorbed. An Ohio State University researcher put that idea to the test. Eleven test subjects first ate a salad with romaine lettuce, baby spinach, shredded carrots and no-fat dressing. When the same salad was consumed with avocado, the subjects absorbed seven times more lutein and nearly 18 times more beta carotene, both vital nutrients that have anti-cancer and cardiovascular benefits.

In my view, one of the great revelations of the last 20 years of nutrition science is the vital importance of “good fats,” to which I would include omega-3 fatty acids, found in fish, walnuts and flax seeds. For more on the benefits of good fats - including intriguing research on how they can provide safe, natural relief from depression - look here.

JazmenFlowers

02-09-2007, 12:05 PM

I guess it all depends on how bad you want to reach goal? I want it bad.
maybe.

I have to say I want it bad as well. else I wouldn't be working out 5 times a week for the past 8 months, sworn off fast food and dropped 32.6 pounds.

bikerchic

02-09-2007, 12:11 PM

maybe.

I have to say I want it bad as well. else I wouldn't be working out 5 times a week for the past 8 months, sworn off fast food and dropped 32.6 pounds.

Congrates on the 32.6!! How many more do you want to lose? Are you counting calories or just cut out fast food?

JazmenFlowers

02-09-2007, 12:14 PM

Congrates on the 32.6!! How many more do you want to lose? Are you counting calories or just cut out fast food?
I would love to lose another 20, but that may be pushing it. I want to weigh what I weighed in college, but that was during the time I was accused of being anorexic, so maybe not quite that skinny. another 15 would be just fine.

I am totally counting calories and fat grams. no fast food and I try to limit myself to one 8 oz. serving of soda a day. I don't eat after 7:30 and I try to limit my white flour/sugar intake. I alternate workouts between walk/running and aerobic tapes 5 -6 times a week. I usually take Sundays off, but more often than not it's Fridays and Sundays off with some fun workout on Saturdays.

oh, I also do strength training 2-3 times a week.

the best aerobic tape I've found that combines cardio and strength training is a DVD I got at Target that comes with a resistance cord. I wish I could find a copy of the cover to show you all. I HIGHLY recommend it.

JazmenFlowers

02-09-2007, 12:18 PM

bikerchic

02-09-2007, 12:23 PM

I am totally counting calories and fat grams. no fast food and I try to limit myself to one 8 oz. serving of soda a day.

There are 9 teaspoons of sugar in 1 cup of cola :shocked: and 136 calories. Drink diet. Its 0 calories and 0 sugar. and since its only 1 can a day, then there's no need to get all hung up on the aspartame.

bikerchic

02-09-2007, 12:28 PM

what I would really like is a tape lead by a man. and NOT Gilad or anything like that. someone nice to look at. I'm so sick of staring at women and their bobbling boobs while I'm trying to work out. I want some inspiration! :lol:
There's always Tony Little, that's who I use.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0399530312.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

DavidMn

02-09-2007, 12:37 PM

SO I'm trying to come up with ways to eat better, and I LOVE boneless skinless chicken breasts. I was thinking of maybe that with some Cauliflower of Carrots or some other vegetable. Question: I know it's not good to use too much oil to cook stuff like that and since I dont have a grill I was wondering what is the best/lowest fat oil to cook with?

SuzeQuze

02-09-2007, 12:40 PM

DavidMn

02-09-2007, 12:43 PM

You can bake it with no fat. All oils have the same fat content but the unsaturated ones are the healthier ones. Olive oil is a good oil to use.Thank you my friend!:wavey: I'm serious about this. Sure do have alot to learn though!:lol:

skcin

02-09-2007, 12:56 PM

the best aerobic tape I've found that combines cardio and strength training is a DVD I got at Target that comes with a resistance cord. I wish I could find a copy of the cover to show you all. I HIGHLY recommend it.

Name, please. :D

There's always Tony Little, that's who I use.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0399530312.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Um, he asked for someone nice to look at, not someone to scare the **** out of him.

bikerchic

02-09-2007, 01:59 PM

Um, he asked for someone nice to look at, not someone to scare the **** out of him.

:laugh: I don't want Jazzy to get too hard ;)

HejiraNYC

02-09-2007, 02:13 PM

what I would really like is a tape lead by a man. and NOT Gilad or anything like that. someone nice to look at. I'm so sick of staring at women and their bobbling boobs while I'm trying to work out. I want some inspiration! :lol:

I loves me some swarthy Eurotrash! :nod:

I find most of these exercise programs to be so bogus. Sure, the instructors usually have incredibly buff bodies. But how do you think they got that way? It certainly wasn't by using a step or a rubber band with handlles on it. They either a) used steroids b) spent hours/day every day at the gym lifting heavy iron. They are deceiving people into believing that they will have these heavenly bodies by following these easy 30-minute routines. Think about it- Tony Little didn't get those 20" guns by stretching some rubber bands.

The only ones I believe actually practiced what they preached are/were Richard Simmons and Denise Austin. Neither of them had extremely buffed physiques, but they looked like normal people with average body fat, which is essentially what you end up with when you don't workout intensely. I think even Jane Fonda (back in the day, of course) probably busted her hump in the gym with weights in addition to her aerobics.

SuzeQuze

02-09-2007, 03:39 PM

I loves me some swarthy Eurotrash! :nod:

I find most of these exercise programs to be so bogus. Sure, the instructors usually have incredibly buff bodies. But how do you think they got that way? It certainly wasn't by using a step or a rubber band with handlles on it. They either a) used steroids b) spent hours/day every day at the gym lifting heavy iron. They are deceiving people into believing that they will have these heavenly bodies by following these easy 30-minute routines. Think about it- Tony Little didn't get those 20" guns by stretching some rubber bands.

The only ones I believe actually practiced what they preached are/were Richard Simmons and Denise Austin. Neither of them had extremely buffed physiques, but they looked like normal people with average body fat, which is essentially what you end up with when you don't workout intensely. I think even Jane Fonda (back in the day, of course) probably busted her hump in the gym with weights in addition to her aerobics.

Kathy Smith was (is? not sure if she's still in the game) really good. But her body was impossible, yeah, and she had to do way more than a video a few times a week to look like that. Not to mention implants. I had to stop doing videos because I would pick myself apart in comparison. Ugh.

skcin

02-09-2007, 03:41 PM

I think even Jane Fonda (back in the day, of course) probably busted her hump in the gym with weights in addition to her aerobics.

Didn't she recently admit she was bulemic back then too?

I like Denise Austin too. Tamilee Webb was another one - never skinny skinny, always short, stocky & muscular.

SuzeQuze

02-09-2007, 03:44 PM

Didn't she recently admit she was bulemic back then too?

I like Denise Austin too. Tamilee Webb was another one - never skinny skinny, always short, stocky & muscular.

:nod: Jane did admit that in her book. Great book BTW.

bikerchic

02-09-2007, 05:11 PM

Think about it- Tony Little didn't get those 20" guns by stretching some rubber bands.

Of course he didn't, he's a body builder. I wouldn't expect to achieve the same look (thank god) but he is a good motivational trainer.

HejiraNYC

02-09-2007, 05:42 PM

Of course he didn't, he's a body builder. I wouldn't expect to achieve the same look (thank god) but he is a good motivational trainer.

But see, that's the thing. Without saying it outright, the impression he gives off is that, by doing these exercises, you're going to get lean and bulging with muscles. False expectations! If Gilad gets those veiny rock-hard thighs by using that rubber step thing, then so will I! But the fact is, he probably squats hundreds of pounds on a Smith machine to get those thighs.

It's all very simple, really. In order to get results, you have to work hard. I mean hard. And it isn't just about reaching a point and staying there. You have to constantly try to push the outer limits of your stamina. It's not supposed to be pleasant or convenient. It has to be difficult or you're not working hard enough. It has to take all of your concentration and focus. I see people at the gym all the time, mostly women, who just go through the motions using 2.5lb dumbells, not even breaking a sweat. And I just wonder why people bother doing that. It's not really doing much to increase their strength or stamina. It's not really burning many calories. Maybe it's just the psychological satisfaction of saying "I was at the gym last night. I'll have two scoops of ice cream instead of one." :shrug:

bikerchic

02-09-2007, 08:46 PM

carrie721

02-09-2007, 09:16 PM

^ I know that by doing those workout tapes that you are not going to end up with a body like the instructor. I think that you would have to be pretty deluisonal to think that. I've been doing Carmen Electra's stripper pole exercises and I know for sure that I'm not going to end up looking like Carmen :laugh:

i freakin' love you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

LikeAWillow

02-09-2007, 09:45 PM

carrie721

02-09-2007, 09:48 PM

I do the Carmen tapes too :D The second in the series is probably my favorite, it's the only one that I think gives you a real work out.

my god, why haven't you been posting in so long? you're a riot. and you watch the l word. :woohoo:

LikeAWillow

02-09-2007, 09:51 PM

my god, why haven't you been posting in so long? you're a riot. and you watch the l word. :woohoo:

Haha, well it's nice to be appreciated. I've never really posted a lot on the ledge, I'm more of a livejournaler but hey, there's a first time for everything, right?

carrie721

02-09-2007, 09:54 PM

Haha, well it's nice to be appreciated. I've never really posted a lot on the ledge, I'm more of a livejournaler but hey, there's a first time for everything, right?

you should add me! :woohoo:

carrie721. o'course. :lol:

LikeAWillow

02-09-2007, 09:54 PM

you should add me! :woohoo:

carrie721. o'course. :lol:

Haha, we're both so creative. My lj name?

Like_A_Willow.

It's good to see we branch out and try new things.

carrie721

02-09-2007, 10:15 PM

Haha, we're both so creative. My lj name?

Like_A_Willow.

It's good to see we branch out and try new things.

:laugh:

i actually did branch out recently and came up with the genius "carrieoke" for another site. although i can't remember which site, so i guess it's moot. :laugh:

amber

02-09-2007, 10:32 PM

:laugh:

i actually did branch out recently and came up with the genius "carrieoke" for another site. although i can't remember which site, so i guess it's moot. :laugh:

That's a good one. Makes me wish my name was Carrie. *sighs wistfully*

carrie721

02-09-2007, 10:50 PM

That's a good one. Makes me wish my name was Carrie. *sighs wistfully*

yeah, my name is pretty much awesome. :laugh:

it's no good when you're in HS tho. this greasy kid in my latin class used to call me scary carrie. :rolleyes: :laugh:

amber

02-09-2007, 11:14 PM

yeah, my name is pretty much awesome. :laugh:

it's no good when you're in HS tho. this greasy kid in my latin class used to call me scary carrie. :rolleyes: :laugh:

Where is he?!?!? I'll kick his ass!! :mad:
oops, wait...no...I'm not in highschool...no need to kick any asses.

"Scary Carrie" - did you tell him how awesome and clever he was for thinking of that? :laugh:

My mom specifically chose my name for its lack of nicknames and rhyming possibilities.

Amber blamber. no.
Amber rambler. lame.
Amber scrambler. uh uh.
Amber Shazambler. pretty good.
uh...
amberger was my favorite, but it isn't exactly insulting, since I love hamburgers. Also, no one except my friends ever said that.
Which reminds me of how I am hungry right now...

SuzeQuze

02-09-2007, 11:15 PM

But see, that's the thing. Without saying it outright, the impression he gives off is that, by doing these exercises, you're going to get lean and bulging with muscles. False expectations! If Gilad gets those veiny rock-hard thighs by using that rubber step thing, then so will I! But the fact is, he probably squats hundreds of pounds on a Smith machine to get those thighs.

It's all very simple, really. In order to get results, you have to work hard. I mean hard. And it isn't just about reaching a point and staying there. You have to constantly try to push the outer limits of your stamina. It's not supposed to be pleasant or convenient. It has to be difficult or you're not working hard enough. It has to take all of your concentration and focus. I see people at the gym all the time, mostly women, who just go through the motions using 2.5lb dumbells, not even breaking a sweat. And I just wonder why people bother doing that. It's not really doing much to increase their strength or stamina. It's not really burning many calories. Maybe it's just the psychological satisfaction of saying "I was at the gym last night. I'll have two scoops of ice cream instead of one." :shrug:

A lot of women have heard "light weights high reps" so much that they don't understand what they should be lifting at all. I don't know how people go to the gym without breaking a sweat and get any satisfaction out of it. I sweat like a bastard when I go. :lol: I went up 5 lbs on all my leg weights today, 20 on my calves. Calves are easy to work because it's a muscle that's used so much you don't have to struggle with finding it or with form so much.

carrie721

02-09-2007, 11:26 PM

Where is he?!?!? I'll kick his ass!! :mad:
oops, wait...no...I'm not in highschool...no need to kick any asses.

"Scary Carrie" - did you tell him how awesome and clever he was for thinking of that? :laugh:

My mom specifically chose my name for its lack of nicknames and rhyming possibilities.

Amber blamber. no.
Amber rambler. lame.
Amber scrambler. uh uh.
Amber Shazambler. pretty good.
uh...
amberger was my favorite, but it isn't exactly insulting, since I love hamburgers. Also, no one except my friends ever said that.
Which reminds me of how I am hungry right now...

amberger is pretty funny. :laugh: i also got hairy carrie. :rolleyes:

my mom almost didn't name me carrie because of the stephen king book, though. :laugh: i was almost ashley. :eek:

A lot of women have heard "light weights high reps" so much that they don't understand what they should be lifting at all.

so true. and women are so afraid of bulking up, which is pretty much impossible to do unless you are specifically working towards that physique.

JazmenFlowers

02-10-2007, 12:13 AM

There are 9 teaspoons of sugar in 1 cup of cola :shocked: and 136 calories. Drink diet. Its 0 calories and 0 sugar. and since its only 1 can a day, then there's no need to get all hung up on the aspartame.
meh. it's really the only thing I do give myself each day. one a day and I'm not giving it up.
There's always Tony Little, that's who I use.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0399530312.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
um, ewww.
Name, please. :D
yeah, that would help. :) I'll have to get the DVD out and look at it.
:laugh: I don't want Jazzy to get too hard ;)
:cool:
I loves me some swarthy Eurotrash! :nod:

I find most of these exercise programs to be so bogus. Sure, the instructors usually have incredibly buff bodies. But how do you think they got that way? It certainly wasn't by using a step or a rubber band with handlles on it. They either a) used steroids b) spent hours/day every day at the gym lifting heavy iron. They are deceiving people into believing that they will have these heavenly bodies by following these easy 30-minute routines. Think about it- Tony Little didn't get those 20" guns by stretching some rubber bands.

The only ones I believe actually practiced what they preached are/were Richard Simmons and Denise Austin. Neither of them had extremely buffed physiques, but they looked like normal people with average body fat, which is essentially what you end up with when you don't workout intensely. I think even Jane Fonda (back in the day, of course) probably busted her hump in the gym with weights in addition to her aerobics.
I used to always think this too, but I guess it took me growing up and learning really how to work with the tape. it's all about getting the heartrate up and keeping it up. (wow, that sounds dirrty.)
Tamilee Webb
kick ass body - gutter face
you should add me! :woohoo:
woot! add me too...chiffonhead

strandinthewind

02-10-2007, 12:18 AM

I just made love to a pizza :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

carrie721

02-10-2007, 12:20 AM

I just made love to a pizza :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

dear god. in that case, i'm afraid to ask what you ATE. :eek:

strandinthewind

02-10-2007, 12:24 AM

dear god. in that case, i'm afraid to ask what you ATE. :eek:

Papa John's pan pizza - sausage, pepperoni, green peppers, and onions!!!

It wasn't very good. The PJ's buy my house is awaful, but it was the $10 special.

JazmenFlowers

02-10-2007, 12:44 AM

Papa John's pan pizza - sausage, pepperoni, green peppers, and onions!!!

It wasn't very good. The PJ's buy my house is awaful, but it was the $10 special.
mutha****a. that sounds good and I don't even like pizza. I haven't had anything like that since last June. :(

Paula - the dvd is called Fat-Burning Cardio Toning with resistance cords by The Firm.

SuzeQuze

02-10-2007, 09:19 AM

I lost 1 more lb so -15 all together. And people are already telling me I shouldn't lose any more. But I want to lose 7 more lbs and get down to 140.

strandinthewind

02-10-2007, 11:33 AM

I lost 1 more lb so -15 all together. And people are already telling me I shouldn't lose any more. But I want to lose 7 more lbs and get down to 140.

Congrats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LikeAWillow

02-10-2007, 08:10 PM

I've been trying to start some sort of fitness program for about two months and I have to tell you guys, so far I've absolutely sucked at it. I exercise, sure, but every night at work, I give in to a bag of doritos and a starbucks coffee (Tall Vanilla Mochas and Marble Macchiatos own my life). My goal is to lose five pounds by the end of March but I just don't see it happening until I get some willpower.

Or a job that isn't a 3 second walk from Starbucks.

DrummerDeanna

02-10-2007, 08:26 PM

goldustsongbird

02-10-2007, 08:28 PM

LikeAWillow

02-10-2007, 08:40 PM

^

You can do it and still have room for those drinks...and doritos! Maybe cut back just a bit? Less doritos and smaller sized drinks?

If you're keeping up a regular workout routine and make good choices the rest of the time you can do it!

Well thank you. Like everyone, I know what I should be doing, it's actually going through with it that's hard. :laugh:

LikeAWillow

02-10-2007, 08:42 PM

So friggin' addictive, right? I love their Caramel Macchiatos.

Oh I know, and the baristos are like little dealers, I swear. I used to just get my Vanilla Mocha until the one day, after I've ordered my usual, the girl behind the counter goes, "You know...if you like the way that tastes I bet you'd love..." The rest is Starbucks Addict history.

DrummerDeanna

02-10-2007, 08:43 PM

Well thank you. Like everyone, I know what I should be doing, it's actually going through with it that's hard. :laugh:

Oh I hear ya...that's quite a typical thing...I still struggle with it daily...but have really let up on myself - but that's because I have the comfort of knowing that I'm working out everday....

But good luck...

goldustsongbird

02-10-2007, 09:13 PM

Oh I know, and the baristos are like little dealers, I swear. I used to just get my Vanilla Mocha until the one day, after I've ordered my usual, the girl behind the counter goes, "You know...if you like the way that tastes I bet you'd love..." The rest is Starbucks Addict history.

I know! Or even just when they ask if you want more syrup, or extra whatever... Like I'm gonna say no?

LikeAWillow

02-10-2007, 09:18 PM

I know! Or even just when they ask if you want more syrup, or extra whatever... Like I'm gonna say no?

"Would you like whip with that?"
Okay self, you've got this. What did Mrs. Reagan teach you? Just so no. Just say no.
"Of course"
Mutha****er they got me again.

DrummerDeanna

02-10-2007, 09:41 PM

carrie721

02-10-2007, 10:01 PM

sparky

02-10-2007, 10:08 PM

I used to be a Starbucks dealer...I even got an award for being an outstanding barista...my Caramel Machiatos became almost famous in Albuquerque for a while :lol:

I'm not even kidding. I really liked that job actually.

Dealer. That's f-in funny. Like you did it on a potholed street in a bad part of town out of a broken down house. Dee, peering out from behind dingy, raggy curtins through a window above a ratty assed sagging porch. Sneaking a peek out to see if any well heeled Starbucks junkies are walking up to the place for a fix. Collars raised, looking side to side to see if anyone sees them sneaking in.:laugh:

markolas

02-10-2007, 10:34 PM

rbs3676

02-10-2007, 10:38 PM

I'm at my wits end. I need to make some changes, but I feel like I'm being held down. :distress:

You are being held down. By yourself.
All of the things you mentioned are things that the person you live with does.
That doesnt mean that YOU have to do them.
YOU can get up before 7AM. YOU can eat all the fruit and vegetables that you want. And why anyone controls when you go to bed is something I don't understand...but it doesn't sound right.

You can make any change that you want to.

rbs

strandinthewind

02-11-2007, 12:25 AM

According to a health assessment I recently took part in, I have high cholesterol and need to lose at least 35 lbs. It would be easier to do this **** if I lived by myself, but I live with someone who refuses to get up before 7am (I have to be at work by 9am, and it takes 45 minutes to get there), so there's no time for me to work out or do much of anything before I go to work; he also refuses to eat most fruits and vegetables. He also won't go to bed (or let me go to bed) before 11pm, which means I rarely get enough sleep during the week. I'm at my wits end. I need to make some changes, but I feel like I'm being held down. :distress:

Not to be mean, but why do you and he have to awaken at the same time? If I were you, I'd get up at 5:00, do your workout, and then be back for him by 7:00 if that is what is important to him, your relationship, etc. It's not like he is going to miss you from 5:00 -7:00 if he is sleeping. Who knows, maybe he'll see you getting your game back on and get off his a$$ and joing you :cool:

On edit and I swear I mean this in the spirit of friendship - if any swinging dick ever tried to control me like that, they'd be choking on their nuts because that is how high I'd have kicked them :laugh: Seriously, you have one life my friend and it is your's to live.

amber

02-11-2007, 12:28 AM

markolas

02-11-2007, 09:59 AM

Not to be mean, but why do you and he have to awaken at the same time? If I were you, I'd get up at 5:00, do your workout, and then be back for him by 7:00 if that is what is important to him, your relationship, etc. It's not like he is going to miss you from 5:00 -7:00 if he is sleeping. Who knows, maybe he'll see you getting your game back on and get off his a$$ and joing you :cool:

On edit and I swear I mean this in the spirit of friendship - if any swinging dick ever tried to control me like that, they'd be choking on their nuts because that is how high I'd have kicked them :laugh: Seriously, you have one life my friend and it is your's to live.

Besides what everyone else said, I'm curious - why can't you work out after work, and why do you guys have to eat the same things? :confused: Maybe I'm missing something...

:laugh: :laugh: You guys are hilarious. I could get up at 5am or 6am (which would be my preference, really), but he would whine about it a little bit, especially because it would mean I'd have to go bed no later than 9pm - and he doesn't get off work until 8pm and is not ready for bed until 11pm or 12am. And I can't swing that. I mean, I'm late for work every day, and he just doesn't seem to get it. :shrug:

I'm too exhausted in the evenings to work out. I'm completely drained, and by the time he gets home, I'm really ready to go to bed, but he's not, so he whines about that.

We don't have to eat the same things, but again...he'll whine a little bit when I don't cook something we'll both eat. I suppose I could just do what I have to do and let him get over it, but I can't stand the whining.

I'm thinking that I'm just not cut out to live with another person (or be in a relationship of any kind), but I can't afford to live by myself.

strandinthewind

02-11-2007, 01:52 PM

^^^^

I say give the diet control a try. If he likes you at all, he will understand the situation when you explain it to him that it is a medical thing based on that test. How could he not want you to be healthy? As for the whining, if he is going to whine anyway, then I say you have nothing to lose by doing it your way.

markolas

02-11-2007, 10:39 PM

I say give the diet control a try. If he likes you at all, he will understand the situation when you explain it to him that it is a medical thing based on that test. How could he not want you to be healthy?

He does, and he think he will ultimately understand. He's just kind of whiny and dramatic.

strandinthewind

02-11-2007, 10:40 PM

. . . He's just kind of whiny and dramatic.

He'd fit in around here LOL :wavey:

markolas

02-11-2007, 10:46 PM

He'd fit in around here LOL :wavey:

I hope he never gets curious and decides to take a gander at this place, after I've talked **** about him. :laugh:

JazmenFlowers

02-11-2007, 10:50 PM

I hope he never gets curious and decides to take a gander at this place, after I've talked **** about him. :laugh:
:laugh: ...

markolas

02-11-2007, 10:51 PM

strandinthewind

02-11-2007, 10:53 PM

Slightly back on topic...

I bought some canned blueberries (and some other fruit) in an endeavor to get back to the Super Foods thing. I'm going to get up early and go to the fitness center tomorrow morning, and try to eat a few servings of vegetables and whole grains. I'm going to just have to take this one day at a time. If I try to plan any further ahead than that, I run into problems.

Just remember - processed foods are the worst for you and actually inhibit weight loss. By processed I mean anything with enriched flour, high fructose corn syrup, etc. Stay away from those and watch your low fiber carbs and you should be fine.

If you can, buy the vegetables fresh and sautee them in a light spraying of Pam. Then eat lots of chicken (white meat) when you can!

markolas

02-11-2007, 11:01 PM

Just remember - processed foods are the worst for you and actually inhibit weight loss. By processed I mean anything with enriched flour, high fructose corn syrup, etc. Stay away from those and watch your low fiber carbs and you should be fine.

I do actually read the labels on things now, and I don't by anything with high fructose corn syrup - they put that **** in *everything* - I even (unwittingly) bought some canned tomatoes that had it in there. I'm more careful now. And I only buy whole grain bread, rice, and pasta.

If you can, buy the vegetables fresh and sautee them in a light spraying of Pam. Then eat lots of chicken (white meat) when you can!

The problem with me and fresh vegetables is that they rot in my fridge before I have a chance to eat them. They tend to come in such large bunches (especially lettuce and broccoli), and it's hard for one person to eat it all by himself before it goes bad. Of course, I also tend to buy things without really having a plan for how to fix it.

JazmenFlowers

02-11-2007, 11:03 PM

Just remember - processed foods are the worst for you and actually inhibit weight loss. By processed I mean anything with enriched flour, high fructose corn syrup, etc. Stay away from those and watch your low fiber carbs and you should be fine.

If you can, buy the vegetables fresh and sautee them in a light spraying of Pam. Then eat lots of chicken (white meat) when you can!
best advice ever.

strandinthewind

02-11-2007, 11:06 PM

. . . The problem with me and fresh vegetables is that they rot in my fridge before I have a chance to eat them. They tend to come in such large bunches (especially lettuce and broccoli), and it's hard for one person to eat it all by himself before it goes bad. Of course, I also tend to buy things without really having a plan for how to fix it.

If you can as they are more expensive - buy the little containers of the pre cut ones. They are not as good as the fresh ones, but they come in smaller sizes, etc.

Good Luck BTW!!!!!

One other thing - if you can, walk around the block a couple of times before and after you eat lunch and try and do like 25 push ups in your office two or three times a day. It will help raise your metabolism, which makes your body burn the food you eat more efficirently.

JazmenFlowers

02-11-2007, 11:12 PM

^^^
or buy a thighmaster and use it while sitting at your desk at work.

what? no one else does that?

oh. :shocked:

sparky

02-11-2007, 11:32 PM

^^^
or buy a thighmaster and use it while sitting at your desk at work.

what? no one else does that?

oh. :shocked:

Thighmaster. :laugh:

If you have that, then you must have the Buttmaster.

JazmenFlowers

02-11-2007, 11:34 PM

Thighmaster. :laugh:

If you have that, then you must have the Buttmaster.
well of course.

that way you put them on at the same time and work your thighs and butt at the same time! I am bootylicious, but I'd like a little less jelly in my hips.

skcin

02-12-2007, 04:02 PM

I lost 1 more lb so -15 all together. And people are already telling me I shouldn't lose any more. But I want to lose 7 more lbs and get down to 140.

Yay Suze! I'm the same way, "just another 5 pound until I'm down to such&such..." I'd love to get under 140, but I know I'd be pissed every time I popped back up over the 140 line. So F that. :laugh:

Dealer. That's f-in funny. Like you did it on a potholed street in a bad part of town out of a broken down house. Dee, peering out from behind dingy, raggy curtins through a window above a ratty assed sagging porch. Sneaking a peek out to see if any well heeled Starbucks junkies are walking up to the place for a fix. Collars raised, looking side to side to see if anyone sees them sneaking in.:laugh:

"OK, cover me. I've go to get this Chai Latte to the guy in the dumpster NOW!"

Thighmaster. :laugh:

If you have that, then you must have the Buttmaster.

Have the Buttmaster? Please, Jaz IS the Buttmaster. :cool:

skcin

02-13-2007, 12:53 PM

Tried some sort of hip-hop dance cardio blast workout bull****. It was yet another great reminder that not only am I completely uncoordinated, I also have no rhythm and can't dance. :o Go me!

LikeAWillow

02-13-2007, 12:54 PM

I went to the gym for the first time yesterday and did two miles around the track. Woo. :woohoo: We'll see how long it lasts.

DrummerDeanna

02-13-2007, 01:44 PM

Is it bad that after Jazzy's post at the top of the page I'm actually considering buying a thigh master?

I can't find a good thigh exercise - and my gym has no thigh machines :(

strandinthewind

02-13-2007, 01:50 PM

Is it bad that after Jazzy's post at the top of the page I'm actually considering buying a thigh master?

I can't find a good thigh exercise - and my gym has no thigh machines :(

Take stairs two or three at a time and do not use your hands to help!

DrummerDeanna

02-13-2007, 01:58 PM

Take stairs two or three at a time and do not use your hands to help!

Really? I didn't think that really did anything for the thigh area...I already take the stairs...but not two at a time...I'll give that a try...:D

strandinthewind

02-13-2007, 02:34 PM

Really? I didn't think that really did anything for the thigh area...I already take the stairs...but not two at a time...I'll give that a try...:D

It does both the glutes and the thighs as you have to use your quads to climb. Touch your quad while climbing and you will feel it flex. Also, if you can do a little lunge (dropping the knee in the back to the floor) while taking two steps at a time, you will be sweating by the time you reach the top!

DrummerDeanna

02-13-2007, 02:37 PM

It does both the glutes and the thighs as you have to use your quads to climb. Touch your quad while climbing and you will feel it flex. Also, if you can do a little lunge (dropping the knee in the back to the floor) while taking two steps at a time, you will be sweating by the time you reach the top!

Which is ever so conducive to an office setting :lol:

I do squats and/or lunges on leg days...but I just miss the thigh machines at my old gym - the ones I know where targeting the thigh muscles - specifically the inner thigh area....

Perhaps I'll try that stair thing toward the end of my work day - when no one is around to care that I'm all sweaty.

JazmenFlowers

02-13-2007, 06:10 PM

^^^
DD - I've got some exercises for your thighs. I'll explain in just a bit.

DrummerDeanna

02-13-2007, 06:12 PM

^^^
DD - I've got some exercises for your thighs. I'll explain in just a bit.

Would be much appreciated! :thumbsup:

carrie721

02-13-2007, 06:15 PM

^^^
DD - I've got some exercises for your thighs. I'll explain in just a bit.

for the love of god, this is a family message board!!

wait, what am i saying ... carry on ... and take pictures. :D

amber

02-13-2007, 06:30 PM

JazmenFlowers

02-13-2007, 07:20 PM

Would be much appreciated! :thumbsup:
stand with your heels touching and your toes pointed out to the side making a v shape with your feet. squat down. then, step to the left and squat, then step to the right and squat. do 12-15 reps and repeat 2 times. if you can, use light weights, lifting on the alternate arm as you step to the side.

feet together in v shape - squat 12-15 times
step to the right, squat, feet together, step to the left, squat, feet together - 12-15 times
repeat x 2

if you don't feel it working the next day, I'll paint my house red.
for the love of god, this is a family message board!!

wait, what am i saying ... carry on ... and take pictures. :D
:lol:

DrummerDeanna

02-13-2007, 07:22 PM

stand with your heels touching and your toes pointed out to the side making a v shape with your feet. squat down. then, step to the left and squat, then step to the right and squat. do 12-15 reps and repeat 2 times. if you can, use light weights, lifting on the alternate arm as you step to the side.

feet together in v shape - squat 12-15 times
step to the right, squat, feet together, step to the left, squat, feet together - 12-15 times
repeat x 2

if you don't feel it working the next day, I'll paint my house red.

:lol:

Beautiful. I'm going to try it - my leg workout is Thursday - I'll let you know how I feel on Friday :D

WAIT...stupid question....do you step to the side WHILE squatting...or is it squat, up THEN step....

JazmenFlowers

02-13-2007, 07:25 PM

Beautiful. I'm going to try it - my leg workout is Thursday - I'll let you know how I feel on Friday :D

WAIT...stupid question....do you step to the side WHILE squatting...or is it squat, up THEN step....
well, once you're done with your squats with your feet together, you just lift one leg and step to the side into a squat. does that make sense? so, as you're stepping, you're also going into a side squat.

DrummerDeanna

02-13-2007, 07:34 PM

well, once you're done with your squats with your feet together, you just lift one leg and step to the side into a squat. does that make sense? so, as you're stepping, you're also going into a side squat.

Yes, that makes sense. I think..let me try it...

ooh..yeah..that's going to be goood...I can feel it working where it needs to! Thanks!! I'm way excited to add this to my leg routine.

strandinthewind

02-13-2007, 09:23 PM

Squats are a bitch, too, and you can do them right in the comfort of your own home in front of the TV. Wall sits, too. Wall sits are a thigh bitch.

and they so work wonders!!!!!!

skcin

02-14-2007, 11:29 AM

It does both the glutes and the thighs as you have to use your quads to climb. Touch your quad while climbing and you will feel it flex. Also, if you can do a little lunge (dropping the knee in the back to the floor) while taking two steps at a time, you will be sweating by the time you reach the top!

My quads get way too big really easily, I have no clue why. I hate it because then some clothes look odd on me. I still do squats & lunges, I just try to make sure I'm using the glutes more.

skcin

02-14-2007, 02:08 PM

I fell from grace big time last night. After a pretty normal day, I came home & ate dinner. Later, I ate 1/2 a bag of Rold Gold cheddar twists. :o And a bowl of Perry's Panda Paws chocolate ice cream. (I don't know why it's called that, but it's got hunks of chocolate & mini peanut butter cups in it) :( Well, there's my pig-out for the month, I'm over it.

BTW - I blame my Aunt Flo. That f*cking whore. :mad:

DrummerDeanna

02-14-2007, 02:16 PM

I have lost 7 pounds in the last few months. Not great, but not bad either.

The loss has kick started the feeling in me that I really gotta get back on track with diet. After I stopped going WW meetings, I stopped eating all that well, I'm still not awful butI could be a LOT LOT better....

My saving grace has been the exercise - which has allowed me to lose a little while still not eating great. So now my mission is to combine the two (diet AND exercise) but it occurred to me I've never been great with both at the same time...it's always one of the other with me.

So after today (because there are cookies and things lying around for VD) I'm giong to get back to religiously counting points and making better food choices :D

bikerchic

02-14-2007, 03:31 PM

I'm down another 4 lbs this week. That's 9 lbs in 3 weeks. I've never lost that much that quickly or that easily. The counting points and keeping a food journal has paid off.

skcin

02-15-2007, 12:43 PM

I'm down another 4 lbs this week. That's 9 lbs in 3 weeks. I've never lost that much that quickly or that easily. The counting points and keeping a food journal has paid off.

Congratulations! Isn't your goal only like 10 pounds or something?

bikerchic

02-15-2007, 01:28 PM

Congratulations! Isn't your goal only like 10 pounds or something?

No, 15. I have a feeling though, that the rest will be harder to lose. I'm not going to make the mistake of thinking it will be like this every week and then be disappointed when I only lose 1 lb or lose nothing that week. I am excersing my butt off though, 45 mins. a day 6 days a week on the treadmill. I'll tell you what my saviour has been, the Weight Watcher cakes. I have to have a wee bit of sweet at nite with my tea when I watch tv and the WW cakes are only 1 point and quite good.

sparky

02-15-2007, 04:56 PM

I'm down another 4 lbs this week. That's 9 lbs in 3 weeks. I've never lost that much that quickly or that easily. The counting points and keeping a food journal has paid off.

4 in a week! That's friggin great.

DrummerDeanna

02-15-2007, 05:18 PM

stand with your heels touching and your toes pointed out to the side making a v shape with your feet. squat down. then, step to the left and squat, then step to the right and squat. do 12-15 reps and repeat 2 times. if you can, use light weights, lifting on the alternate arm as you step to the side.

feet together in v shape - squat 12-15 times
step to the right, squat, feet together, step to the left, squat, feet together - 12-15 times
repeat x 2

if you don't feel it working the next day, I'll paint my house red.

:lol:

Ok...so I did these this morning. I dind't feel it on my inner thigh though..mostly outter...BUT that along with added lunges and I upped my weights...I'm already sore. It's a good sore.

I'm so pumped at the weight loss that I finally saw reflected on a scale that I feel all energized anew...:blob1:

skcin

02-15-2007, 05:20 PM

Ok...so I did these this morning. I dind't feel it on my inner thigh though..mostly outter...BUT that along with added lunges and I upped my weights...I'm already sore. It's a good sore.

I'm so pumped at the weight loss that I finally saw reflected on a scale that I feel all energized anew...:blob1:

Let us know if you can walk tomorrow. :D

DrummerDeanna

02-15-2007, 05:22 PM

Let us know if you can walk tomorrow. :D

I can barely walk now :laugh: Actually it's sitting, standing I'm having an issue with.

But still - not feeling it on the inner thigh..and this disapoints me...did I do them wrong? I don't know....I'm going to google thigh exercises and see what I come up with.

skcin

02-16-2007, 10:49 AM

I can barely walk now :laugh: Actually it's sitting, standing I'm having an issue with.

But still - not feeling it on the inner thigh..and this disapoints me...did I do them wrong? I don't know....I'm going to google thigh exercises and see what I come up with.

Yes, I agree, it's the change in position from sitting to standing that's killer. Where are you sore? More your quads & hamstrings? If not the inner thigh, perhaps you weren't lunging out wide enough, plus it helps to really concentrate on squeezing the inner thigh muscles when you bring the legs back together.

BBTW - I weighed myself after the great pretzel & ice cream fiasco of 2007, and I'm still steady. Phew. :o

carrie721

02-16-2007, 10:53 AM

BBTW - I weighed myself after the great pretzel & ice cream fiasco of 2007, and I'm still steady. Phew. :o

:laugh: i had a girl scout cookie fiasco. one box of shortbread cookies gone in two days. :eek: :eek: :eek:

skcin

02-16-2007, 10:56 AM

:laugh: i had a girl scout cookie fiasco. one box of shortbread cookies gone in two days. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Dude. My niece is selling candy for Girl Scouts right now. The chocolate covered raisins are to die for. So are the triple layer chocolate malted milk balls. :distress: Stupid Girl Scout bitches.

carrie721

02-16-2007, 11:00 AM

Dude. My niece is selling candy for Girl Scouts right now. The chocolate covered raisins are to die for. So are the triple layer chocolate malted milk balls. :distress:

they have GS candy now? you know what, i don't even want to know. i don't like choc. raisins or malted milk balls, so i'm just going to tell myself that all of their candy is gross. :laugh:

i don't wanna know
how tasty the girrrrl scout
candy reeeeeally isss ...

DrummerDeanna

02-16-2007, 01:14 PM

Yes, I agree, it's the change in position from sitting to standing that's killer. Where are you sore? More your quads & hamstrings? If not the inner thigh, perhaps you weren't lunging out wide enough, plus it helps to really concentrate on squeezing the inner thigh muscles when you bring the legs back together.

BBTW - I weighed myself after the great pretzel & ice cream fiasco of 2007, and I'm still steady. Phew. :o

Well today I feel it on my inner thigh, though not nearly as much as I'm feeling it in other areas...quads and hams mainly - and YEA..BUTT!! I love the butt soreness...lol...

So yes, I need to focus more on the movement and on squeezing the inner thigh, I did find some other thigh exercises to try online - so next leg workout I'll do those too....

amber

02-16-2007, 01:58 PM

:laugh: i had a girl scout cookie fiasco. one box of shortbread cookies gone in two days. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Two days? What took you so long? Lazy....:distress:

:laugh:

skcin

02-16-2007, 04:41 PM

Two days? What took you so long? Lazy....:distress:

:laugh:

I swear, I almost said the same thing. Maybe cuz they were shortbread - if they were samoas or tagalongs or thin mints (OK, any kind other than shortbread, really), I'd have the box polished off in a mattter of hours. :)

amber

02-16-2007, 04:46 PM

I swear, I almost said the same thing. Maybe cuz they were shortbread - if they were samoas or tagalongs or thin mints (OK, any kind other than shortbread, really), I'd have the box polished off in a mattter of hours. :)

:D

Is shortbread too rich for you? I love shortbread. GONE! ALL GONE! THEY WOULD ALL BE GONE!!!

:laugh:

skcin

02-16-2007, 04:57 PM

:D

Is shortbread too rich for you? I love shortbread. GONE! ALL GONE! THEY WOULD ALL BE GONE!!!

:laugh:

Nah, kind of plain for me. I like my cookies with a lot of crap on them. :lol:

amber

02-16-2007, 05:16 PM

Nah, kind of plain for me. I like my cookies with a lot of crap on them. :lol:

Oh. To me, nothing that tastes that much like butter is "plain"...:p

JazmenFlowers

02-16-2007, 06:15 PM

:laugh: i had a girl scout cookie fiasco. one box of shortbread cookies gone in two days. :eek: :eek: :eek:
omg. you too?! it's a syndrome going around. so far, I've only eaten half a package of thin mints. they are SO YUMMY!

carrie721

02-16-2007, 08:17 PM

Oh. To me, nothing that tastes that much like butter is "plain"...:p

srsly. butter cookies? yum. shortbread? yum. sugar cookies? yum. yum yum yum.

omg. you too?! it's a syndrome going around. so far, I've only eaten half a package of thin mints. they are SO YUMMY!

thin mints i can take or leave. but shortbread? look out, jaz. look the fukc out.

DrummerDeanna

02-16-2007, 08:22 PM

carrie721

02-16-2007, 08:23 PM

The big question is where the hell are you all getting Girl Scout Cookies!?!

ARe they already selling them in your area? Or have you saved them?

My weaknesses are Thin Mints, Tagalongs and um..the coconut/chocolate ones....yum.

The shortbread? I don't actually care for.

i don't know when they were selling them ... i think they were selling them last month or something because they came in the other day. :shrug: i dunno! my stepdad got them through work.

rbs3676

02-16-2007, 09:42 PM

The big question is where the hell are you all getting Girl Scout Cookies!?!

.

OMG -- you can't swing a cat around here without hitting a girl scout, her mother and two tag-along friends BEGGING you to buy both the cookies AND the candy!

When my sister was a girl scout (way back in the 70's), she'd drag a huge casefull of cookies up to houses. When she would start her routine, my brother and I would be on our bikes in the street taunting her screaming, "You cant sell any cookies! No one wants YOUR cookies!!".
It worked like a charm. She sold her entire stock in one day.

rbs

carrie721

02-16-2007, 09:44 PM

When my sister was a girl scout (way back in the 70's), she'd drag a huge casefull of cookies up to houses. When she would start her routine, my brother and I would be on our bikes in the street taunting her screaming, "You cant sell any cookies! No one wants YOUR cookies!!".
It worked like a charm. She sold her entire stock in one day.

rbs

hahahaha!!!!!!!! i wish you had been around when i was a GS. i never sold any. :laugh:

amber

02-16-2007, 10:12 PM

OMG -- you can't swing a cat around here without hitting a girl scout, her mother and two tag-along friends BEGGING you to buy both the cookies AND the candy!

When my sister was a girl scout (way back in the 70's), she'd drag a huge casefull of cookies up to houses. When she would start her routine, my brother and I would be on our bikes in the street taunting her screaming, "You cant sell any cookies! No one wants YOUR cookies!!".
It worked like a charm. She sold her entire stock in one day.

rbs
:shocked: :shocked:
Oh. My. God. That is brilliant! I can never come up with evil schemes. Seriously, I can't believe you guys thought of that. What's your IQ? Like, 200? :laugh:
I was always having to sell some stupid candy when I was little, for softball. I didn't have brothers or sisters, luckily my parents are chocolate pigs.
I'll have to take a moment to bask in the brilliance...

sparky

02-16-2007, 10:34 PM

I am extremely puzzled and completely disgusted.

About 3 weeks ago I decided it was high time to ditch the body fat. Either that or cut my throat, and that woulda been too messy.

So I ditched the alcohol. A big thing, I thought, as I was downing about 3500 calories of margaritas a week. Foodwise, I limited myself to 1500-1800 calories a day. Working out at least 90 minutes a day.

Week 1 - I was down 3 pounds.

Week 2 (last week) - I swam 6 miles. I walked 12 miles. Lifted weights for no less than 3 hours. I cheated a bit, and drank some white wine one night. About 600 calories of it. Other than that, was very good with eating. I lost a measly 1.5 pounds.

This week, I have so far swam 4.8 miles. Walked 4. Eaten like a saint. I just got back from a 40 minute bike ride after which I rowed for 24 minutes. All I have eaten is breakfast. Been too busy.

I HAVE GAINED A FUKCING POUND.

One more week of this and I am gonna go to the doctor and see if something is wrong with me. Maybe my testosterone is screwed up. Maybe I have a ten pound tumor in my guts. Cause if not, I see 4 options: a) drop the calories to 1000 a day and crank the exercise to 2 1/2 hours each day, b) barf up half the food I eat, c) buy some speed, or d) resign myself to being fat and just buy an entirely new wardrobe. Cause I tell ya, this **** is not working. :mad: WTF am I doing wrong? At this point I want to just go out, get a pizza, a bag of Doritos, and a 6 pack and gorge myself out of sheer rage. Why the fukc not?

amber

02-16-2007, 10:55 PM

^^^^

Uh, sweetie, this is just a well acknowledged scientific theory, but have you considered how muscle weighs more than fat?

And for god sake, don't eat less, that will rev down your metabolism. I've been even reading more about that lately, how when some people want to lose those last few pounds they have to eat more often and more cals (nutritious things, obviously, but you get my point) - if you are excercising that much, and not eating much cals, your body will want to store. I don't think that is what is happening now, I just think it would be a really bad idea to lessen your calories even more.

Also, several people and experts have sworn by this, if you want to try it - a tablespoon or two of unrefined organic virgin coconut oil at night and in the morning.
I haven't found a great way to eat it yet, but it goes okay in hot drinks, and on popcorn, and apparently smoothies are good. But I put it in my orange juice and it kind of solidified, so I probably won't be a fan of the smoothie method.
Anywhoo, lots of people have lost weight with it, but even if you don't, it has other great nutritional benefits.
I just started two days ago, the oil was $13. But the theory is, you will drop a few pounds even if you change nothing.

But honestly, I don't think you have a problem, your muscles are probably just swoll. (swollen, bigger, etc.)
Chill it out, Manorexia. :laugh: :xoxo: Just teasing you. But if you lost 3, then gained 1, you are still down 2. That is a lot of workout, I really think it's swoll muscles.

sparky

02-17-2007, 01:05 AM

amber

02-17-2007, 01:22 AM

Well, we'll see what happens. Maybe I'll try the coconut oil. If this method hadn't worked so well before, I wouldn't be so flipped. It just doesn't make any kind of sense.

Also it sounds like you might be dehydrated.

Honestly, if I read everything you did correctly, that pound couldn't be a pound of fat. :shrug: It just couldn't. Just be patient, you'll see what is really going on in a little while. :)

I mean, you don't have this giant round belly sticking out in front of you all of a sudden, do you? If in the past 2 days all of your clothes had become grossly tight or something, then there might be cause for panic. As it is, you probably just put on some muscle or have some water bloat.
Love ya! :wavey:
starqueesha

JazmenFlowers

02-17-2007, 01:25 AM

But honestly, I don't think you have a problem, your muscles are probably just swoll. (swollen, bigger, etc.)
Chill it out, Manorexia. :laugh: :xoxo: Just teasing you. But if you lost 3, then gained 1, you are still down 2. That is a lot of workout, I really think it's swoll muscles.
please consult your physician beginning this or any exercise or diet routine.

:lol:

ITA with Amber.

sparky

02-17-2007, 01:30 AM

Also it sounds like you might be dehydrated.

Honestly, if I read everything you did correctly, that pound couldn't be a pound of fat. :shrug: It just couldn't. Just be patient, you'll see what is really going on in a little while. :)

I mean, you don't have this giant round belly sticking out in front of you all of a sudden, do you? If in the past 2 days all of your clothes had become grossly tight or something, then there might be cause for panic. As it is, you probably just put on some muscle or have some water bloat.
Love ya! :wavey:
starqueesha

I am so not dehydrated, I don't think. I'm drinkin at least 64 ounces of water a day. No, the belly isn't all of a sudden, it's been growing for a year.:eek:

I very well may have put on some muscle. My arms, chest and back are bigger, even in three weeks. But the gut hasn't shrunk much. :(

Yeah, I'll stick with the program. But I may drink some tequila just cause I fukcin want to. :laugh: Thanks, 'queesh.

JazmenFlowers

02-17-2007, 01:31 AM

But I may drink some tequila just cause I fukcin want to.
that's the spirit kid! :thumbsup:

sparky

02-17-2007, 01:35 AM

that's the spirit kid! :thumbsup:

I may go to the freezer and hit the Silver Patron right this second.

:wavey:

Hell, Sharqueesha told me I may need more calories.:woohoo:

JazmenFlowers

02-17-2007, 01:36 AM

I may go to the freezer and hit the Silver Patron right this second.
now you're talking my language.

want some company? ;)

sparky

02-17-2007, 02:05 AM

now you're talking my language.

want some company? ;)

How fast can you get to Los Angeles?

I'm sitting on the porch in a t-shirt. It's 63 degrees.

ragandbone

02-17-2007, 02:09 AM

How fast can you get to Los Angeles?

I'm sitting on the porch in a t-shirt. It's 63 degrees.

That is shawl weather for me. You must've already had a shot.

(teacher voice) And, have you brought enough for everyone to share, Mr. Sparky?

sparky

02-17-2007, 02:17 AM

That is shawl weather for me. You must've already had a shot.

(teacher voice) And, have you brought enough for everyone to share, Mr. Sparky?

I'd look silly in a shawl, but I have a Levi jacket handy.

Share? Of course. I have a 1.75 liter bottle of Patron left to over from xmas.
It's the size of a gym bag.
I could get a dozen Marines drunk. Now that's a visual.:D

ragandbone

02-17-2007, 02:19 AM

I'd look silly in a shawl, but I have a Levi jacket handy.

Share? Of course. I have a 1.75 liter bottle of Patron left to over from xmas.
It's the size of a gym bag.
I could get a dozen Marines drunk. Now that's a visual.:D
That's a workout!

sparky

02-17-2007, 02:42 AM

That's a workout!

I could tell you a story, but this is a family board.

ragandbone

02-17-2007, 02:47 AM

I could tell you a story, but this is a family board.
MmHmm, do they have Fleet week in LA?

You might be able to tell it, if it involves some food n' some fit-ness!

sparky

02-17-2007, 02:53 AM

MmHmm, do they have Fleet week in LA?

You might be able to tell it, if it involves some food n' some fit-ness!

It was San Diego.:laugh:

And there was some exercise involved. But no food.
It's the kind of thing I would PM,
after a considerable amount of this tequila!

****, I actually may have told one Ledgie about it, while swapping tales of debauchery. Strand, Jazzy, do you remember? :laugh:

ragandbone

02-17-2007, 03:02 AM

It was San Diego.:laugh:

And there was some exercise involved. But no food.
It's the kind of thing I would PM,
after a considerable amount of this tequila!

:cool: You needn't tell. I used to love the energy on the streets during fleet week in San Francisco!

sparky

02-17-2007, 03:05 AM

:cool: You needn't tell. I used to love the energy on the streets during fleet week in San Francisco!

Then I am sure you can fill in the blanks!

strandinthewind

02-17-2007, 11:53 AM

It was San Diego.:laugh:

And there was some exercise involved. But no food.
It's the kind of thing I would PM,
after a considerable amount of this tequila!

****, I actually may have told one Ledgie about it, while swapping tales of debauchery. Strand, Jazzy, do you remember? :laugh:

I ain't satin nuttin' child~

skcin

02-19-2007, 03:34 PM

sparky

02-19-2007, 05:00 PM

Spark - how'd your weekend go? You didn't lose it & drink the rest of the bottle, did you? :laugh: I don't know what to tell you, other than keep going & don't give up. See, I'm like your very own after-school special starring Nancy McKeon.

Like Amber said, t's probably just your body getting used to everything again - either it's building your muscle back up, or it's pissed that you've cut your calories so it's scared to lose the fat. :D

Aww, thanks JO !

Can I have a ride on the back of your motorcycle?

I did have a shot of tequila that night! Hit the gym two hours Sat, did a brutal bike ride Sunday morn. And then I had a burger and FRIES last night.:laugh: I was starved and grumpy. I deserved it.

My weigh in this morning shows me 1.5 pounds down from last Monday. Better than a stick in the eye. 6.5 in 3 weeks. Not as fast as I'd like, but at least I am not gainiing.

:wavey:

amber

02-19-2007, 05:06 PM

Aww, thanks JO !

Can I have a ride on the back of your motorcycle?

I did have a shot of tequila that night! Hit the gym two hours Sat, did a brutal bike ride Sunday morn. And then I had a burger and FRIES last night.:laugh: I was starved and grumpy. I deserved it.

My weigh in this morning shows me 1.5 pounds down from last Monday. Better than a stick in the eye. 6.5 in 3 weeks. Not as fast as I'd like, but at least I am not gainiing.

:wavey:

Sweeeet. 6.5 in three weeks is just right. :confused: Seriously, you exercise like a bitch, make sure you get enough food.

An aside and an update - that coconut oil does not taste good. It's not unbearable, but it isn't lovely, either. So far the best was in ice cream, but I just put a tablespoon full in some tea in the morning and at night, and don't inhale while I drink it. Cause of the smell. The coconutty, oily smell. I mean, I can't be eating ice cream all the time. Or rather, I can, as I finished that container I bought in one day.
Anyway, coconut oil - bearable, but not delicious.

I just thought of something - it's kind of odd how the two (not the only two, obviously) smokers here tend to like to exercise the most. Though I don't smoke every day, I still smoke some.

skcin

02-19-2007, 05:22 PM

Aww, thanks JO !

Can I have a ride on the back of your motorcycle?

I did have a shot of tequila that night! Hit the gym two hours Sat, did a brutal bike ride Sunday morn. And then I had a burger and FRIES last night.:laugh: I was starved and grumpy. I deserved it.

My weigh in this morning shows me 1.5 pounds down from last Monday. Better than a stick in the eye. 6.5 in 3 weeks. Not as fast as I'd like, but at least I am not gainiing.

:wavey:

Sure, you can ride bitch. :angel:

6.5 pounds in 3 weeks is pretty rad, IMO. :shrug:

Sweeeet. 6.5 in three weeks is just right. :confused: Seriously, you exercise like a bitch, make sure you get enough food.

An aside and an update - that coconut oil does not taste good. It's not unbearable, but it isn't lovely, either. So far the best was in ice cream, but I just put a tablespoon full in some tea in the morning and at night, and don't inhale while I drink it. Cause of the smell. The coconutty, oily smell. I mean, I can't be eating ice cream all the time. Or rather, I can, as I finished that container I bought in one day.
Anyway, coconut oil - bearable, but not delicious.

I just thought of something - it's kind of odd how the two (not the only two, obviously) smokers here tend to like to exercise the most. Though I don't smoke every day, I still smoke some.

I thought you'd been eating coconut oil every day for months? :confused: Did you buy a different brand or something? An ass-flavored brand?

amber

02-20-2007, 12:59 AM

Sure, you can ride bitch. :angel:

6.5 pounds in 3 weeks is pretty rad, IMO. :shrug:

I thought you'd been eating coconut oil every day for months? :confused: Did you buy a different brand or something? An ass-flavored brand?

Yeah, we've been eating refined and they recommended pure organic unrefined. And, yes, it smells like coconut, and it is oil. I still have my other kind I use for cooking, the one that tastes fine, not so much like ass. :laugh:
It's just too strong coconut oily. But like I said, not unbearable. In fact, I should go have my nightly oil tea now...:p
You know how when you go underwater for swimming and plug your nose (not with your hands, just naturally)? That's what I do when I drink the tea.

JazmenFlowers

02-20-2007, 09:27 AM

this kind of goes along with this thread and I don't feel like starting a whole new thread on it, but last night's Wife Swap had one family that ate nothing but raw food. we're talking, cut up the chicken and eat it raw. milk was fermented, meat sat out for months and they called it "high meat"...it was gross. they don't bathe or disinfect their house, they brush their teeth with butter and clay. crazy ****. they all look sick. they don't drink water because it's a "solvent and dehydrates you" - anyway, the "new" wife convinces them to see a doctor and the nutritionist basically says she has no research to repute what their diet is, but that she wouldn't recommend it. I was like, wtf? how can she sit there and basically say "ok" to what they're feeding their kids. it was beyond me.

in other news, The Biggest Loser dvd is awesome. you have like 6 workouts on one dvd and you customize your warm up, work out and cool down before you get started and it puts it all together for you. and the trainer is way cute and motivating.

more and more people are noticing I'm losing weight. this is when the payoff is at it's best.

carrie721

02-20-2007, 09:29 AM

this kind of goes along with this thread and I don't feel like starting a whole new thread on it, but last night's Wife Swap had one family that ate nothing but raw food. we're talking, cut up the chicken and eat it raw. milk was fermented, meat sat out for months and they called it "high meat"...it was gross. they don't bathe or disinfect their house, they brush their teeth with butter and clay. crazy ****. they all look sick. they don't drink water because it's a "solvent and dehydrates you" - anyway, the "new" wife convinces them to see a doctor and the nutritionist basically says she has no research to repute what their diet is, but that she wouldn't recommend it. I was like, wtf? how can she sit there and basically say "ok" to what they're feeding their kids. it was beyond me.

DUDE. i almost puked. that was disgusting. i'm gagging just thinking about it. in****ingsane. i bet those people are going to get a knock on their door from the health department sometime soon.

JazmenFlowers

02-20-2007, 09:33 AM

DUDE. i almost puked. that was disgusting. i'm gagging just thinking about it. in****ingsane. i bet those people are going to get a knock on their door from the health department sometime soon.
or child services. why aren't they in school? I mean, they never said they homeschooled, did they?

I could not believe what I was seeing. and didn't they look sick to you? something about their eyes and their skin. I wanted to cry tho towards the end. the children are so obviously confused.

carrie721

02-20-2007, 09:37 AM

or child services. why aren't they in school? I mean, they never said they homeschooled, did they?

they're being "un"schooled, which is a form of homeschooling that is, in my opinion, bull****. or at least, the way they're practicing it is. i wonder what kind of homeschooling laws they have in iowa. i know in ohio, you have to submit a portfolio every year to your local school system to be evaluated, but other states are different. in AZ, for example, homeschooling parents have no accountability to the state.

I could not believe what I was seeing. and didn't they look sick to you? something about their eyes and their skin. I wanted to cry tho towards the end. the children are so obviously confused.

yeah, they did not look well. what the hell kind of doctor did they take them to? and i want to know more about their "nutritionist."

JazmenFlowers

02-20-2007, 09:40 AM

they're being "un"schooled, which is a form of homeschooling that is, in my opinion, bull****. or at least, the way they're practicing it is. i wonder what kind of homeschooling laws they have in iowa. i know in ohio, you have to submit a portfolio every year to your local school system to be evaluated, but other states are different. in AZ, for example, homeschooling parents have no accountability to the state.
oh, I see.
yeah, they did not look well. what the hell kind of doctor did they take them to? and i want to know more about their "nutritionist."
it looked like an MEA (I'm assuming y'all have those in Ohio). a walk-in clinic. the nutritionist could barely speak English. :cool:

carrie721

02-20-2007, 09:42 AM

oh, I see.

it looked like an MEA (I'm assuming y'all have those in Ohio). a walk-in clinic. the nutritionist could barely speak English. :cool:

i missed that segment, i think. i got caught up watching antiques roadshow. this woman bought a harp from an antique dealer for $2400 and it was owned by marie antoinette!! had the original strings on it and everything. worth upwards of $60,000. :eek:

JazmenFlowers

02-20-2007, 09:44 AM

i missed that segment, i think. i got caught up watching antiques roadshow. this woman bought a harp from an antique dealer for $2400 and it was owned by marie antoinette!! had the original strings on it and everything. worth upwards of $60,000. :eek:
damn Gina. how the hell did she get her hands on that?!

I can't watch that show. I love it and hate it at the same time.

makes me wonder how much all those old school cafeteria trays my grandfather passed down to me would go for in today's hot commodities market. :rolleyes: :laugh:

much like pork bellies in July. can you imagine what happens to pork bellies in July? (can you guess the movie reference here? :) )

carrie721

02-20-2007, 09:49 AM

damn Gina. how the hell did she get her hands on that?!

I can't watch that show. I love it and hate it at the same time.

makes me wonder how much all those old school cafeteria trays my grandfather passed down to me would go for in today's hot commodities market. :rolleyes: :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh:

i rarely watch it. i was flipping through during commercials and the woman before the harp woman was getting a desk appraised and was hilariously underwhelmed by the $3000-$5000 appraisal. i was rollin'.

the harp lady said there was some silent auction, and she didn't win, but she contacted the person running the auction and tracked down the person who won it and bought it from them. she was a harpist and it was so beautiful she had to have it, blah blah blah. now she's got a ****in' 230 year old french harp owned by the french royal family. damn. :shocked:

much like pork bellies in July. can you imagine what happens to pork bellies in July? (can you guess the movie reference here? :) )

bitch, please. :cool:

JazmenFlowers

02-20-2007, 09:55 AM

bitch, please. :cool:
ok ok, just checking. gotta keep you on your toesies. :D

carrie721

02-20-2007, 09:57 AM

ok ok, just checking. gotta keep you on your toesies. :D

;)

in actual food n fitness news ... i've gained weight. what a surprise - i ate a whole box of gs cookies in 2 days!! :laugh: i need to quit being lazy.

skcin

02-20-2007, 12:54 PM

^ Carrie - when you eat a whole box of cookies & gain a few pounds, you let the Girl Scouts win. :( And that's just wrong.

:laugh:

I'm glad to hear that the Biggest Loser workout DVD is good. I'm annoyed to hear about the newest change in what we should/shouldn't eat regarding the coconut oil - when will these "experts" make up their f*cking minds? And I'm excited for Jaz's peeps noticing his loss. :blob2:

DrummerDeanna

02-20-2007, 01:54 PM

Well after recovering from I am now way sore in the upper body region...So I've stepped it up all the way around...

Even in cardio - though I won't increase time (I already 45 minutes) I have increased resistance so I'm even upping the cardio workouts...good stuff - I am finally remembering what it's like to feel good and cute in clothes...but I also know I still have a long way to go...but I'm still at it...:thumbsup:

amber

02-20-2007, 03:45 PM

I'm annoyed to hear about the newest change in what we should/shouldn't eat regarding the coconut oil - when will these "experts" make up their f*cking minds? And I'm excited for Jaz's peeps noticing his loss. :blob2:

You can do what you want, the "experts" originally mostly said unrefined anyways, but I didn't want to buy that one. And now I'm trying the unrefined. No big. The refined is still better for cooking, no doubt. If you want to wait until the results are in, I'll conduct a proper experiment. I mean, I have been already, but it hasn't been long. That way, you'll know for sure, and won't get annoyed. :p
Do you really think everyone is going to say the same thing about any type of food anyways? Even experts get varying results, not to mention all the non official anecdotal results that different people have with different foods. :)

For me, that's what makes it fun, there is always something to learn...:laugh: *dork*.

Oh, and before you get annoyed again, I have to tell you that something I just read recommended a tblspn full in the morning and at night, but other sources have recommended more than that, like 4-5 tblspn/day. I was actually going to try to fit in at least one more tablespoonful somewhere, but haven't yet. I'm going to monitor this 2 tblsp/day experiment for awhile to see how it is going, first.

Also, I have no doubt that unrefined has more of whatever you would want from coconut oil, but refined still has some of what you want. How much? How significant is the difference? Not sure, but I'll look it up today, see if I can wade through the data. *snicker*.

goldustsongbird

02-20-2007, 04:41 PM

this kind of goes along with this thread and I don't feel like starting a whole new thread on it, but last night's Wife Swap had one family that ate nothing but raw food. we're talking, cut up the chicken and eat it raw. milk was fermented, meat sat out for months and they called it "high meat"...it was gross. they don't bathe or disinfect their house, they brush their teeth with butter and clay. crazy ****. they all look sick. they don't drink water because it's a "solvent and dehydrates you" - anyway, the "new" wife convinces them to see a doctor and the nutritionist basically says she has no research to repute what their diet is, but that she wouldn't recommend it. I was like, wtf? how can she sit there and basically say "ok" to what they're feeding their kids. it was beyond me.

Ewww, I saw that ****. Their house reminded me of something you'd see on How Clean is Your House. lol @ thinking water dehydrates! :confused: :rolleyes:

In dietary news, I don't know how much I've lost/gained, but I'm going to the nutritionist again on Friday for a followup.

strandinthewind

02-20-2007, 04:47 PM

I thought this site was interesting

http://www.coconutoil.com/

Again, it is all about balance.

Having said that, in a fit of who the hell knows what came over me, I ate like a pound of bacon alone at fome on Sat. night - did I mention I mented cheese on it :eek: I also had about three sausage patties and - Lord forgive me for being white trash - frozen battered fish filets :eek:

I ended the orgy with a canister of pringles and then some chocolate ice cream.

Hey - I was housesitting for my ex and the fridge was loaded :cool:

DrummerDeanna

02-20-2007, 04:49 PM

Ewww, I saw that ****. Their house reminded me of something you'd see on How Clean is Your House. lol @ thinking water dehydrates! :confused: :rolleyes:

In dietary news, I don't know how much I've lost/gained, but I'm going to the nutritionist again on Friday for a followup.

Oh god..I saw that too...then they all got sick when they ate at the restaurant...:lol:

Damn show...but yeah, their "diet" was completely gross...

skcin

02-20-2007, 04:51 PM

You can do what you want, the "experts" originally mostly said unrefined anyways, but I didn't want to buy that one. And now I'm trying the unrefined. No big. The refined is still better for cooking, no doubt. If you want to wait until the results are in, I'll conduct a proper experiment. I mean, I have been already, but it hasn't been long. That way, you'll know for sure, and won't get annoyed. :p
Do you really think everyone is going to say the same thing about any type of food anyways? Even experts get varying results, not to mention all the non official anecdotal results that different people have with different foods. :)

For me, that's what makes it fun, there is always something to learn...:laugh: *dork*.

Oh, and before you get annoyed again, I have to tell you that something I just read recommended a tblspn full in the morning and at night, but other sources have recommended more than that, like 4-5 tblspn/day. I was actually going to try to fit in at least one more tablespoonful somewhere, but haven't yet. I'm going to monitor this 2 tblsp/day experiment for awhile to see how it is going, first.

Also, I have no doubt that unrefined has more of whatever you would want from coconut oil, but refined still has some of what you want. How much? How significant is the difference? Not sure, but I'll look it up today, see if I can wade through the data. *snicker*.

No really, don't bother. Because I don't really care. :lol: :sorry: I mean, don't do it for me....do it for yourself. Or do it for the world.

Just to clarify - you don't have to explain yourself, I wasn't directing my comment at you, I was just stating my annoyance with the fact that opinions/thoughts/theories seem to be constantly changing about everything we eat. Not just coconut oil, it was just an example. :shrug: I'm not saying that research should stop, or people should stop trying to increase their knowledge about nutrition. I just find it annoying & tiresome that today something's good for you, then something's much better, then "they" tell you it's all crap, then maybe a little bit is OK, but wait, not this brand, etc. etc. etc. I just wanna eat, man. :laugh:

goldustsongbird

02-20-2007, 04:56 PM

Oh god..I saw that too...then they all got sick when they ate at the restaurant...:lol:

Damn show...but yeah, their "diet" was completely gross...

LOL, seriously. I didn't see how it ended, though. I flipped the channel and got distracted by something else. What happened? (Hey, wha' happened? :p)

DrummerDeanna

02-20-2007, 05:00 PM

LOL, seriously. I didn't see how it ended, though. I flipped the channel and got distracted by something else. What happened? (Hey, wha' happened? :p)

:lol: Wha happan!?!

Well I was only half-watching by the end, half playing Jeopardy on my computer.

So best I could tell the lady totally left filth house, at the other house the dad refused to let his kids (and himself) be present when she slaughtered a chicken. He also refused to eat the raw meat...but he did get the lady to clean herself up some and look somewhat decent...

That's really all I remember...I wasn't as invested in that program as I was in SuperNanny :p

amber

02-20-2007, 05:03 PM

No really, don't bother. Because I don't really care. :lol: :sorry: I mean, don't do it for me....do it for yourself. Or do it for the world.

Just to clarify - you don't have to explain yourself, I wasn't directing my comment at you, I was just stating my annoyance with the fact that opinions/thoughts/theories seem to be constantly changing about everything we eat. Not just coconut oil, it was just an example. :shrug: I'm not saying that research should stop, or people should stop trying to increase their knowledge about nutrition. I just find it annoying & tiresome that today something's good for you, then something's much better, then "they" tell you it's all crap, then maybe a little bit is OK, but wait, not this brand, etc. etc. etc. I just wanna eat, man. :laugh:

I just thought you would want to know, because I thought you had switched to coconut oil. I guess not. If I magically lose bunches of weight from this, I'll be sure not to pass it along. :laugh:

And I'm sorry all that stuff annoys you. :laugh:
I just eat, anyways, as I'm sure do you. It's not really a big mystery, fruits and veggies are always good for you, so at least we know that much. :laugh:

goldustsongbird

02-20-2007, 05:08 PM

:lol: Wha happan!?!

Well I was only half-watching by the end, half playing Jeopardy on my computer.

So best I could tell the lady totally left filth house, at the other house the dad refused to let his kids (and himself) be present when she slaughtered a chicken. He also refused to eat the raw meat...but he did get the lady to clean herself up some and look somewhat decent...

That's really all I remember...I wasn't as invested in that program as I was in SuperNanny :p

I just watched that again on Sunday. :lol:

Ugh. They didn't actually show the chicken slaughter, did they? I was busy watching the non-violent King of Kensington. :p

skcin

02-20-2007, 05:11 PM

I just thought you would want to know, because I thought you had switched to coconut oil. I guess not. If I magically lose bunches of weight from this, I'll be sure not to pass it along. :laugh:

And I'm sorry all that stuff annoys you. :laugh:
I just eat, anyways, as I'm sure do you. It's not really a big mystery, fruits and veggies are always good for you, so at least we know that much. :laugh:

You never know. That broccoli is pretty sneaky, it's probably been making us all sick for years. :D

DrummerDeanna

02-20-2007, 05:15 PM

I just watched that again on Sunday. :lol:

Ugh. They didn't actually show the chicken slaughter, did they? I was busy watching the non-violent King of Kensington. :p

I don't think so...I was only listening at that point, while playing Jeopardy :lol:

These people did not mesh at all, on the update the only thing that stuck was a little garden for the California people....but at the end they were saluting their "urban-ness" lol and I think eating out...

Damn show.

sparky

02-21-2007, 07:37 PM

Where in the hell would one even buy Coconut Oil?

BTW, I am kicking ass this week. 2km swims each day.

amber

02-21-2007, 08:07 PM

Where in the hell would one even buy Coconut Oil?

BTW, I am kicking ass this week. 2km swims each day.

At the grocery store, dillrod. Where do you think? :)

Yes, you are kicking ass.

I did a lot of cardio this weekend, and for some reason I've been doing hella, hella, hella yoga. I think because my leg hurts like a mofo. Anyway, I've been doing it almost every day.

sparky

02-21-2007, 08:44 PM

At the grocery store, dillrod. Where do you think? :)

Smartass much?

:wavey:

It seems like a specialty item. Ain't at Ralphs or Trader Joe's.

I may have to try Whole Paycheck.

carrie721

02-21-2007, 08:47 PM

Smartass much?

:wavey:

It seems like a specialty item. Ain't at Ralphs or Trader Joe's.

I may have to try Whole Paycheck.

lol. oddly, i can't find it at TJ's, but i can find it at my reg. smaller grocery store. :shrug:

btw - amber - is hella yoga like power yoga?

amber

02-21-2007, 09:21 PM

Smartass much?

:wavey:

It seems like a specialty item. Ain't at Ralphs or Trader Joe's.

I may have to try Whole Paycheck.

Oh, sorry, you are right. I thought you shopped at Whole Foods or somewhere like it already. :sorry: Not that I don't welcome the opportunity to be a smart ass....also I like the word "dillrod"...:laugh: :xoxo:

Yeah, they don't have it at Safeway. I get mine at Whole Foods.

amber

02-21-2007, 09:23 PM

lol. oddly, i can't find it at TJ's, but i can find it at my reg. smaller grocery store. :shrug:

btw - amber - is hella yoga like power yoga?

Yeah, like hella smartass is like power smartass. :mad: :laugh:

I've been doing various types and lengths of yoga *said smugly and self righteously*:cool:

JazmenFlowers

02-23-2007, 09:43 AM

well, it took my ass about 3 weeks, but I've managed to lose another 2.4 lbs. I am so close to my goal it's not even funny. if I can lose 10 more, I'll be at my goal, but I'd really like to lose 15. 20 would be pushing it.

I did the boot camp section of The Biggest Loser dvd and lemme tell ya...it kicked ass. extremely difficult to do and I felt it the next day. Bob, the trainer, is so nice to look at and he's funny and motivating. I really like this dvd. on the food front, I've been trying to incorporate the same stuff I used to eat, just in a healthier way. still no fast food...and some bitches came in the breakroom with McDonald's as I was eating my damn Lean Cuisine pizza. I just kept thinking of Supersize Me and that helped me keep from gutting them and running off with the loot.

so far, so good.

carrie721

02-23-2007, 09:46 AM

I just kept thinking of Supersize Me and that helped me keep from gutting them and running off with the loot.

:lol: :lol:

"this just in: it has been reported that a dangerously fabulous man has disemboweled four co-workers in a downtown office ..."

JazmenFlowers

02-23-2007, 09:50 AM

:lol: :lol:

"this just in: it has been reported that a dangerously fabulous man has disemboweled four co-workers in a downtown office ..."
you ain't nevah lied.

and I promise you...honest to Stevie...it crossed my mind. like, I actually envisioned it. how very American Psycho of me.

the bitches had a quarter pounder (my fav)!!! :p

carrie721

02-23-2007, 09:52 AM

you ain't nevah lied.

and I promise you...honest to Stevie...it crossed my mind. like, I actually envisioned it. how very American Psycho of me.

the bitches had a quarter pounder (my fav)!!! :p

you're not gonna go all taxi driver on us, are you? because if you are, i'd like to give you a list of names. :cool:

i haven't had a quarter pounder in years. years. but i don't eat mcdonald's anymore, except for the fries occasionally.

markolas

02-23-2007, 09:58 AM

Okay, seriously y'all, tomorrow is the day I start back eating healthy and exercising again. I need to lose 40 lbs, hopefully by the summer. I want to be thin, thin, thin. Hm...anyone know where I can get a good tape worm? :lol: