BigStar

But families share similar lifestyles. So the child of an obese mother is more likely to be obese also, for obvious reasons. The implication of "it's me genes" isn't really warranted to relieve one of personal responsibility, sorry. However, if it did run in the family, then that would be an important reason to try one's best to counteract that malign influence by actively attempting to mitigate it by working on the other risk factors. The principle holds true for various other issues. You might also learn the difference between ordered and unordered lists. Even ordered lists may not be in order of importance.

Just to note. From your article cited: Aging. Prostate gland enlargement rarely causes signs and symptoms in men younger than age 40. About one-third of men experience moderate to severe symptoms by age 60, and about half do so by age 80. Family history. Having a blood relative, such as a father or a brother, with prostate problems means you're more likely to have problems. Diabetes and heart disease. Studies show that diabetes, as well as heart disease and use of beta blockers, might increase the risk of BPH. Lifestyle. Obesity increases the risk of BPH, while exercise can lower your risk. I wonder if many here are in fact overweight, have various symptoms of metabolic syndrome (strongly associated with insulin resistance), taking the meds, and don't exercise? With increased testosterone level, prostate volume showed a significant linear decreasing trend. These findings provide evidence of the relationship between testosterone and prostate volume. --https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-93728-1 And it turns out Best exercises to increase testosterone As mentioned earlier, not all exercises affect T levels in the same way. Here are some of the best exercises that can help increase testosterone. Resistance training Resistance exercises are proven by research to help increase short- and long-term T levels. Resistance training like weightlifting is the best type of exercise to boost testosterone in both the short and long term. It’s been found to be especially helpful for men. WOT? High-intensity interval training (HIIT) for men HIIT is another proven way to boost testosterone, but only in men. Cardio There’s no evidence that cardio has any impact on your T levels, no matter your sex. In fact, too much cardio may reduce your T levels. --https://www.healthline.com/health/does-working-out-increase-testosterone#exercises-that-increase-t

All shrewd ANF Pattaya CCTV Experts have long asserted the CCTV cameras don't work. Why shouldn't he take them seriously? You dunno how much time they put into serious crime, just a little bash that had to be got in. But it wasn't so much the fine. If they hadn't caught and fined him, then you'd have to constantly dodge farang fornicating on the pavements, streets, and beach. B5000 means an awful lot to our baked-beans-on-toast tourists concerned to avoid barfines.

https://www.supersports.co.th/en/search/men running shoes

Who cares? Guess it's the season for our irrelevant Scrooges to pipe up.

Great. Low carb + exercise, staying fit, is, I think, also responsible for my not being bothered by BPH symptoms so far at age 73. Somewhat slower flow is about it, so far.

Fizzled out around E3, gave up. Lot of reviewers agree not worth watching to the end. Andor picked up in the last 3 episodes. Looking forward to the conclusion tonight.

You’re ba-a-ack. BTW, this isn't an airport, so you really don’t need to announce your departure. Reminds me a bit of our Leaving Thailand malcontents always making a series of extended announcements with fanfare and self-satisfying parting shots. Good. Laudably intelligent. If you actually knew anything about low carb diets, you'd know that fruit isn't an exception. Low carb is defined by amount, not type. Any substitutions are possible, if not necessarily in your own self-interest. The warning is merely that high glycemic fruits make it more difficult to maintain a low carb count. True. CR diets will say the same thing in reference to calories. This was never among any of your points, let alone a main point. Nor must low carb diets lack electrolytes, unless of course you perversely choose foods lacking them. Wrong. That just all depends on your low carb food choices. You can certainly meet estimated daily requirements, if unofficially estimated, by choosing low carb foods with larger amounts of those minerals. Low carb doesn't mean eating only meat and eggs.???? I dunno what ". . ." means, but obviously not all those veggies included, even mandated, in low carb. And fruits are included, of course. So the problem comes down to a familiar one on the forum: you don’t know what a low carb diet is, while making nonsensical, false claims about it. It's better not to repeat false claims at all, so we're especially grateful. I wouldn't call it a match. Your main point's been refuted. No, you can't see that with objective vision. The imagined nervousness is merely projection on your part. It’s a rapid, intense discussion typical of Peter Attia interviews. He's quite aggressive. And they’re discussing fructose, not sugar per se. The issue is fructose added into junk food vs natural fructose from fruits (not fruit juice). Overall, the conclusion to that will be inevitable. Not an “admission” (laughable) but merely a statement of results gained from a particular study relevant to the discussion about fructose. Attia didn’t drill down to the specifics of the study so that the naive and gullible un“able to use google to look things up” wouldn’t be misled. ‘Course, they probably couldn’t understand it if they did look it up, making Attia’s omission doubly unfortunate. But I looked it up and read it in full. You can find an abstract here: The effect of two energy-restricted diets, a low-fructose diet versus a moderate natural fructose diet, on weight loss and metabolic syndrome parameters: a randomized controlled trial and then go find the full text in .pdf form. It’s overall a good study, unlike the silly Mediterranean diet study referenced earlier in this thread. But the conditions are very narrow: the participants were all on a low isocaloric diet for weight loss. What that meant was that since the “moderate” group got more fructose (from fruits), the “low” group had to make up the non-fructose calories in some other way. And that was by eating more cereal. A lot more, like 26% more. What cereal? Didn’t say. Could be Cap'n Crunch. Calories remained the same, but the "low" group ended up with higher glycemic levels. Oh. The study admits this limitation: In addition, patients in the very low fructose diet had a higher glycemic index and glycemic load, as this was necessary to maintain equivalent carbohydrate content. Diets with high glycemic load result in higher postprandial insulin concentration, which has been associated with hunger and overeating [20]. In our study, glycemic load was confounded with diet groups and caloric intake; and therefore, it was not possible to discern its specific effects. Right. And this is rather glossed it over in the conclusion to the study. In conclusion, diets low in fructose from added sugars result in a significant improvement in weight, blood pressure, metabolic syndrome parameters, serum sICAM-1, and quality of life scores. Both low carb calorie-restricted diets performed well in the secondary measures. ‘Course, most calorie-restricted diets would do the same, though low carb generally does better. Then this: For weight loss achievement, a moderate natural fructose diet was superior to a low-fructose diet. This was interesting, but wrong. Not “a” moderate natural fructose diet, but this particular one, in which fruit stood in for cereal, a starch. The caloric value of the fruit had to be chosen in such a way as to keep the “moderate” total calories very nearly the same as in the low fructose diet. Such a diet may offer greater benefits than other energy-restriction diets, as it does not entail the restriction of total carbohydrate intake and hence may be more sustainable. Misleading, though it admits it’s limited to “energy-restriction” diets. It did entail the restriction of substituting fruit for a starch, and the "low" group did have “a higher glycemic index and glycemic load.” So: fruit calories would be better than cereal calories, or "lower glycemic" wins. That makes sense: more nutrients, more fiber, more anti-oxidants. In this study, a lower glycemic load. More sustainable? Would people consistently choose fruit over their beloved cereal? More likely, they’ll just eat both.???? So, that’s all cleared up. Fairly useless, come down to it, but a vindication for better nutrition, as would be predicted, starches being at the bottom of the scale. ???? Up to you, who cares? Nobody said you had to and low carb diets don't mandate it. I do when the choice is easy because berries, besides low on the glycemic index, are at the top of the heap for nutrition and flavonols. The frozen 1kg bags are very convenient and relatively cheap. For the overweight or obese trying to lose weight, they--and fruits such as olives, avocados, and tomatoes--are by far the best choice until they get their weight down and can add more carbs as their metabolism can take them. Atkins himself made this point. I’m rather a creature of habit, as many living a fitness lifestyle are. I noticed Dan Go, a reputable guru in the new paradigm, tweeted today: All of the fittest people I know (who are not pro athletes) are doing the same workouts, eating the same foods & sleeping well. They’re focused on doing the boring things consistently. Variety can be highly overrated, esp. when your glucose is under control.

Forum FUD. No way that stuff burns. Put a blowtorch to it and it'll melt, though.

It was quite a lot of fun. Snow battles, burying, swimming, and general shenanigans, more as the night went on and people got drunker, but left around 10. Hell for the waitresses. They weren't running tabs, too chaotic. Crowded, too, with a line to get in when I got there, even a bit much for the aircon despite all the space taken up by the "snow." I'm glad they went to the trouble and expense of putting it on. A good sign that business is doing pretty well after all. Riding around a bit, I noticed a suprising revival of Soi 7 from its derelict days. High Season lives!

Friend of mine isn't a runner, went on low carb, lost 20 kg, energy, mobility, mood, well-being all improved markedly. COVID hit, went back on high carb, had heart attack, still in hospital trying to recover. Little comforting anecdotes, the real coin of this realm. Let's all go over to https://reddit.com/r/lowcarb/ https://reddit.com/r/keto/ https://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php And copy in a few hundred anecdotes from there. BTW, amid all the noise and hostility, the few curious might take a look here: https://reddit.com/r/lowcarb/wiki/faq

I don't follow an extremely low carb diet or a so-called extreme diet. Nor am I in the least irritable, but in fact quite mellow with every reason to be. Now, one might as well argue that a low-fat diet makes people stupid and so claim that others are irritable, but I wouldn't do that.???? Yawn. Nor is my life "hard" in any way, enjoying my life at the beach. Now, to throw out a bone, it was a little harder during COVID 'cause the Russian hotties weren't enhancing the scenery as before. But they're back, so all's good. Had a nice walk out there today. Having a laugh at the nonsense here is merely part of the fun. I chuckle through most of my posts, unless some rare poster is actually making a useful, informative, evidence-based point or is seriously asking for help. Maybe ask your gut to help you lighten up. Lies, demonizing, and further personal attacks will be reported for attitude adjustment. Seen it work wonders. Enough's enough. If your gut doesn't like to be contradicted by scientific studies, too bad. Suck it up, or rather in. Come up with some verified, informative information other than the meaningless "follow your gut," whose efficacy you haven't and are afraid to verify. Quite a lot of gut followers in Thailand over the years, though. It's always an option. While I'm at it, I'll dispense again with the usual straw man, or whinge, that "individual differences aren't taken into consideration." Oh, they always are in low carb. Here's our anti-christ himself, Gary Taubes, in Why We Get Fat: . . . there’s no one-size-fits-all prescription for the quantity of carbohydrates we can eat and still lose fat or remain lean. For some, staying lean or getting back to being lean might be a matter of merely avoiding sugars and eating the other carbohydrates in the diet, even the fattening ones, in moderation: pasta dinners once a week, say, instead of every other day. For others, moderation in carbohydrate consumption might not be sufficient, and far stricter adherence is necessary. And for some, weight will be lost only on a diet of virtually zero carbohydrates, and even this may not be sufficient to eliminate all our accumulated fat, or even most of it. . . . Note the principle SHOULD apply elsewhere as well but often doesn't: A blanket recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables and whole grains, as Oz prescribes and now Weight Watchers and the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, ignores this aspect of human variability completely. It assumes that people who are predisposed to fatten can tolerate the same foods and benefit from the same very mild dose of carb-restriction that the naturally lean can. --Gary Taubes Advice to diet and get fit by any knowledgeable, responsible authority always takes into account individual differences. And it's universally good advice. Maybe the objection really amounts to it doesn't take into account individual laziness and pig-headedness? And the blood lipid markers always show a normal range. Range. Insisting you're healthy while your markers say you're in risk territory, or not even knowing what they are, is always up to you, but does seem foolish to me. I don't at all mind agreeing to disagree. Why should I? I'm good. Sounds singularly appropriate.

All those Brit violators! Think some were caught in the water off Pattaya beach a few years ago.

Just because public sex may be common in the UK doesn't mean it's acceptable here. Yep, different countries have different customs. Over HALF Brits having sex in a public place and breaking the law... are YOU?

If they do that, then they'll cut down on the sugar and carbs and therefore the spikes. That would definitely be a good thing. Or they could just cut down in the first place and not worry much about monitoring. ????

Right. Don't become an elite runner. Our forum members will all keep that in mind in their attempts to lose weight and control their metabolic syndromes. So I think this relieves them of any responsibility for their own conditions, and there's just no choice but to be weak and sick.???? Thank you. Let's all check our doc appts.

Looked on the site and I see they've put down the "snow" for the snow party already. Goes right to the bar stool seats. So, the party's on. A very unique event and worth seeing for all newbies unless it's too much. Always amusing to watch the goings on. The girls really get into this. Poor waitresses, though. I'll have to give a big tip to my fave. In theory one can go anytime after 1 pm and start frolicking with the Santa's helpers before any snow goes yellow, lol. Watch out you don't drop your wallet, phone, keys, cash. Been done many times. I'll try to drop by tonight if the traffic's not too bad. Probably can't get a seat. https://tahitianqueen.com/

Sounds great. So far, it's not working as well as it might, so I hope you'll find some research info and advice, other than to take more--or different--meds, that do work better for you. I dare not suggest any. ???? For many, though, docs and meds "work." Perfectly acceptable here, and the questions are mostly about which docs and meds, where I can't help. Up 2 you, as we often hear in Pattaya. ????

Ah. But no one you've read advocates exercising or doing anything else too much, so whom are you talking to? You haven't defined too much or discovered any member here doing that too much. But you could, since your too much seems effectively to amount to any more than casual walking or a casual game of tennis once in a while.???? I think if you actually do read, you'll find that the walking prescriptions for better health are for a regular schedule of at least moderate intensity--which you might find too much and stressful. Physical activity isn't exercise. Avoiding stress is fundamental to our great Principles, of course. Chasing after docs and meds, undergoing surgeries, waiting in waiting rooms, and paying medical bills somehow isn't stressful, however. I love this forum. No, they debate in the medical journals. But they agree that it's better to prevent disease if possible, rather than just treat the symptoms when they appear. And they agree on a few helpful fundamentals. You know if you're on the prevention track through regular medical checkups, which you're not doing. Chronic disease is going to appear anyway. But, in the absence of congenital defect, it's up to you whether that'll be sooner rather than later. You're singing to the choir. That point seems to have arrived quite early for most. ????

Owing to an insulin drop from the previous spke . . . so continuing the cycle of spikes and drops I agree. And it's even nicer not feeling hungry between meals, feels even better. If I were you, I'd get an OGTT, which you haven't had. Couple of things you're doing good, like staying away from junk food. And you're in effect calorie restricting and burning off some, maybe a lot, of the carbs via exercise, given the supposed VO2max of 50. We have another member doing much the same thing, and taking berberine. Once a pre-diabetic, if he stops exercising, he gets fat.

SHOCK Another straw man argument. @scubascuba3once came up the with the brilliant eating too much cheese can make you fat. Well, that's it then. ???? How 'bout, you can die from drinking too much water? We can keep this up all day, as Jack Nicholson famously said in Goin' South. Great. So you've got the diet down. "Eat what I want when I want," BTW, has long been one of the conclusions of ace ANF Poster Longevity Science. Nothing new there. Most supplicants in the Health forum totally agree; the questions are those of the cheapest & best docs & meds. Can't help with that. And you've got the exercise all down pat. No cause for concern then, except for some reason you're just awfully concerned and need to keep reassuring yourself. So with that, lacking any references or numbers, I guess you've got nothing but more repetition of the same unhelpful opinions. Now, hopefully someone will come along with something on topic and useful.

But most people don't, you see, or exercise, with obvious results. I love all these irrational beliefs merely designed to excuse yourself from exercise.???? You've yet to present a shred of evidence about anything, and you're also scared to get a medical checkup, so basically you're just trolling. As I told you in my first reply in your series, man up. You've mistaken me for somebody who gives a s**t. Here, I enjoy pointing out ignorance, misconceptions, and misinformation while having a laugh whenever possible. And I try to help the rare person actually seeking help, such as @backstreet. That's what makes posting on health & fitness forums on reddit much more rewarding. There people are actually trying to improve--and they do, with remarkable success stories--not come up with silly excuses. What most people do leads to predictable results, as is easily seen. Oh, you can start easy and gradually get used to it. YAWN.

Heh. Well, no more taunting.???? It's amazing how obese the once undersized and skinny can become. One such friend of mine died at age 72 after her gov't insurance paid a million or so on her docs, meds, and surgeries. The cool thing is that her grave is located on a hill in view of her favorite discount store: Target.

It depends, but they may tend to lead to insulin resistance over time. I've given some references above somewhere. The obese and diabetic all started off with "no problem."

It doesn't matter. Only exercise, esp. resistance training, is going to slow the loss of strength from sarcopenia, besides confer all the other benefits.