New posts

Blood Diets.

Feb. 20, 2013, 6:22 p.m.
Posts: 11680
Joined: Aug. 11, 2003

The book" Eat right for your type." Discuses about particular chemicals found in particular foods. Then in scientific proven detail describes how that chemical reacts in your body.
If we have different blood types that are so different that Type A is compleatly non compatible with type O then it is safe to assume that different blood types have different chemical properties.
"If" you read the whole book the theories are believable. I dont look at scientific journals at face value. I question all literature and draw my own conclusion.

In the end eating as little processed foods as possible and eating a variety of foods to get all the nutrients you require is probably a good start.
Oh get off the fucking couch, turn off the idiot box and go for a ride!

How about a lil dancing ganja dude that would be cute for smiles? icon.

Right conclusion, wrong route to get to it.

Feb. 20, 2013, 6:26 p.m.
Posts: 15546
Joined: May 29, 2004

Yeah, and most calories in a lot of diets come frmo sugars.

He also interviewed Dr William Davis,a real life cardiologist who discovered a few things about modern commercial wheat

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/10/05/f-anti-wheat-diet.html

Defenetily worth reading the whole article (ignore the Kardshian fluff).

Feb. 20, 2013, 6:56 p.m.
Posts: 1624
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

There was a great interview on CBC Radio the other day. The gist of the piece was that the actual, verified scientific evidence about diet and managing weight is that fat isn't the culprit - it's calories / carbs.

It was Q - here's the link - worth listening too.

http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2011/01/25/who-do-you-trust-for-information-about-a-healthy-diet/

Yeah, and most calories in a lot of diets come frmo sugars.

winner!

the whole idea of dietary fat being bad is based on flawed reasearched from teh 50's that foud that people who ate more high fat foods had higher occurances of heart disease and obesity. what the study failed to point out was that these people typically ate high levels of sugar and processed grains as well. fat, even saturated fat, is not the evil it's been made out to be. sugar and processed grains are the enemy.

deal with it

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/05/the-truth-about-saturated-fat.aspx

Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity ~ Seneca

Feb. 20, 2013, 9:58 p.m.
Posts: 15019
Joined: April 5, 2007

Wait, did someone in here say that calorie input vs. calorie output relates to fat-assness?

I should eat according to my blood-type, shed 20lbs before beach season hits and be a blistering 130lbs w/ 5lbs of ginger afro hair (on my head sickos)[/sarc]

Why slag free swag?:rolleyes:

ummm, as your doctor i recommend against riding with a scaphoid fracture.

Feb. 21, 2013, 1:14 p.m.
Posts: 7657
Joined: Feb. 15, 2005

RAR BACON CHEESE BURGER AND FRIES RAR :rawr:

I have 21,474,850 rep points...

My blog - read it!

http://www.citizenclass.ca

Feb. 25, 2013, 2:39 p.m.
Posts: 0
Joined: July 21, 2006

Paging Marvel to the Red Phone!

Below are a couple studies where they compared various types of diets or different macronutrient combinations, and what both studies conclude all diets work, for those individuals who stay on them.

- http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200094 Each popular diet modestly reduced body weight and several cardiac risk factors at 1 year. Overall dietary adherence rates were low, although increased adherence was associated with greater weight loss and cardiac risk factor reductions for each diet group. These results suggest that strategies to increase adherence may deserve more emphasis than the specific macronutrient composition of the weight loss diet itself in supporting successful weight loss.

- http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748: We randomly assigned 811 overweight adults to one of four diets; the targeted percentages of energy derived from fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the four diets were 20, 15, and 65%; 20, 25, and 55%; 40, 15, and 45%; and 40, 25, and 35%. Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regard less of which macronutrients they emphasize.

Mark Hub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, did an experiment and he lost 27 lbs over 10 weeks by cutting his calories and eating a “convenience store diet” (Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, etc.). http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

You can stand strong behind your beliefs or the science regarding what is the best diet, best macronutrient composition, best foods, etc … but if people can’t stick to it and they end up putting back on the weight, how does that affect their self-esteem, their self-confidence? What works for you, may not work for me.

I like how Dr. Sharma put it: “Not only, is what worked for you not necessarily the solution to everyone else’s problem, but just because you have lost the weight, does not mean you understand the issues relevant to others struggling with their problem. Sure, your story (of weight loss) is of interest and yes, it is good to know that you are managing, but this makes you no more an expert on obesity than surviving cancer would make you an oncologist.”

Just about the Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide, is not a weight loss guide and yes it does have industry influence. Here’s a couple good blog about it from Dr. Freedhoff:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2007/02/canadas-new-food-guide-i-give-it-c.html
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2006/11/canadas-food-guide-to-unhealthy-eating.html
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2008/06/leslie-beck-says-food-guide-makes-you.html

I have no filter …

Forum jump: