Obesity is classified now as a genetic predisposition

[tropo]

1 hour ago, InnerCynic said:

I found that simple diet modification worked. Staying away from dead carbs, sugary drinks, fast food of any sort, etc.  My test was that I would change my eating habits and NOT exercise.  That way I could gauge if it was the change in food intake  without the results being skewed by an exercise regimen.  What I found was that over the course of a year that I steadily lost weight at an average of 3 to 4 pounds per month until I reached an ideal body weight.  Felt and looked better than ever.   Pant sizes went down dramatically.  If haf I exercised I wouldn't have been able to determine if I was losing fat/water or adding additional muscle.  Now that I have a reasonable baseline to work with I can focus on starting an exercise course and building muscle mass.  But one thing is absolutely dead certain... stay away from junk foods as much as possible.  

People use the word "exercise" like it means one thing. There are zillions of different ways to exercise. Some programs can be very effective, while others can be a total waste of time.

 

Holding onto what muscle mass you have is an important consideration when dieting to lose body fat. If you drop a lot of fat with no exercise you're losing muscle too. If you're getting older holding onto muscle is even more important.

 

There is no way you can out-exercise a high-calorie diet. The food will always win. That shouldn't be the purpose of your exercise program. Exercise improves metabolic function. It helps to reduce insulin resistance, not to mention circulation, blood pressure, mood, fitness, bone density and many other things.

[poanoi]

1 hour ago, tropo said:

Actually, in most developed countries, there is a major shortage of people as populations age due to a sub-maintenance fertility rate below 2.1. China is in big trouble.

 

Check this out:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations)

 

The population explosion theory is wrong. The world population will decline due to dropping fertility rates. Of course, obesity will speed it along in developed nations.

 

 

the less humans, the less the humans has to share finite resources with other humans.

in case of pattaya specifically, its not oil shortage, but space, i'm talking about

the traffic jam. imagine what a wonderful pattaya with half the population and subsequent cars jamming the streets all day long

[simon43]

... imagine what a wonderful pattaya with half the population and subsequent cars jamming the streets all day long

I live and work in Naypyidaw.

Naypyidaw is 'famous' for having multi-lane roads with almost no traffic.

It's true! I cycle to work on a 12-lane road, with the occasional car and motorbike.

After living in Bangkok, Pattaya and Phuket, commuting in Naypyidaw is paradise! :)

[tropo]

1 hour ago, poanoi said:

the less humans, the less the humans has to share finite resources with other humans.

in case of pattaya specifically, its not oil shortage, but space, i'm talking about

the traffic jam. imagine what a wonderful pattaya with half the population and subsequent cars jamming the streets all day long

My point was that many countries are going to suffer big time in the near future with too many old people and not enough young ones. That's already happening in some countries like Japan and China. In Japan, they provide big incentives for their citizens to have children.

[poanoi]

1 minute ago, tropo said:

My point was that many countries are going to suffer big time in the near future with too many old people and not enough young ones. That's already happening in some countries like Japan and China. In Japan, they provide big incentives for their citizens to have children.

well, i think they will suffer so much more if they burden them self with

economic refugees like for example my country of origin has done.

robotization will take over much of the labor intensive work,

and its merely a matter of having less to share resources with

[tropo]

49 minutes ago, poanoi said:

well, i think they will suffer so much more if they burden them self with

economic refugees like for example my country of origin has done.

robotization will take over much of the labor intensive work,

and its merely a matter of having less to share resources with

It doesn't work like that. The resources won't be available in the first place if there is no one to share them with. Companies manufacture with a view to their market. No market - no production.

[tropo]

As we're discussing obesity, it would seem appropriate to also discuss cholesterol as that is what most people who are obese have been lead to believe - high cholesterol, high LDL, and triglycerides are a heart attack waiting to happen.

 

Have a read of this:

 

People with high cholesterol live the longest. That includes high LDL too.

 

(There are 19 scientific references below the article to help people who are in disbelief or shock)

 

Publicerad den 12/27/2015 av Uffe Ravnskov

This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers.¹ But let us take a look at heart mortality, the risk of dying from a heart attack if cholesterol is high.

 

http://www.ravnskov.nu/2015/12/27/myth-9/

 

and

 

Older people with higher cholesterol live longer

Population studies in Japan show that people of all ages with higher cholesterol live longer.1

Overall, an inverse trend is found [in Japan] between all-cause mortality and total (or low density lipoprotein [LDL]) cholesterol levels: mortality is highest in the lowest cholesterol group without exception. If limited to elderly people, this trend is universal. As discussed in Section 2, elderly people with the highest cholesterol levels have the highest survival rates irrespective of where they live in the world.

https://medium.com/the-mission/higher-cholesterol-is-associated-with-longer-life-b4090f28d96e

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by tropo

[MrY]

Lost 25kg. Writing a diet book about it now. Just thinking maybe "Stop Eating You Fat Pig" gives away too much in the title. Any suggestions..?

Edited February 23, 2018 by MrY
to trim excess fat.

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, MrY said:

Lost 25kg. Writing a diet book about it now. Just thinking maybe "Stop Eating You Fat Pig" gives away too much in the title. Any suggestions..?

Here's a good one -- "How to Be an Internet Troll and Laugh All the Way to the Bank?"

[dontoearth]

5 hours ago, MrY said:

Lost 25kg. Writing a diet book about it now. Just thinking maybe "Stop Eating You Fat Pig" gives away too much in the title. Any suggestions..?

     I thought you retired rich from your book, "I was a supermarket clown and you can be too!"

[MrY]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

7 hours ago, MrY said:

Lost 25kg. Writing a diet book about it now. Just thinking maybe "Stop Eating You Fat Pig" gives away too much in the title. Any suggestions..?

Here's a good one -- "How to Be an Internet Troll and Laugh All the Way to the Bank?

 

Except that I did lose 25kg (didn't quite reach my target of 30 kg) and the method I used is in what I told myself when I started, and that's the title (of the book I'm not actually writing). No intention to troll the thread.

 

Genetic disposition (10-15% difference in calories retained) aside, the real determining factor in weight gain/loss still remans calories provided vs calories used.

[dontoearth]

18 minutes ago, MrY said:

 

Except that I did lose 25kg (didn't quite reach my target of 30 kg) and the method I used is in what I told myself when I started, and that's the title (of the book I'm not actually writing). No intention to troll the thread.

 

Genetic disposition (10-15% difference in calories retained) aside, the real determining factor in weight gain/loss still remans calories provided vs calories used.

    Many people believe this!  However, the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health don't believe it anymore due to their research.  You might watch the youtube vid "The biology of weight loss!"

     Anyway, many people here advocate many things including what you are advocating.  I lost 36 lbs usa weight and would like another 18 lbs usa weight and used intermittent fasting and avoiding simple carbs.  Never counted a calorie or measured a portion, never estimated my calorie expenditure.  Many many (most) successful diet techniques don't do either thing anymore.

      Good article on here posted by Jingthing that details a huge research study which do NOT use portion control or calorie counting.

        If it worked for you praise be!  The last stats I heard from Dr. Jason Fung was that calorie counting and portion control worked 1 in 1,247 tries.  Not a very impressive figure.  And yes the American Medical Association still pushes calorie counting and portion control.  Of course they advertised cigarettes for 38 years after the research proved cigs cause lung cancer.

          Lastly, congrats to you no matter how you did it.  And I hope it stays off and works well for you from this point forward.

[MrY]

45 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

    Many people believe this!  However, the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health don't believe it anymore due to their research.  You might watch the youtube vid "The biology of weight loss!"

     Anyway, many people here advocate many things including what you are advocating.  I lost 36 lbs usa weight and would like another 18 lbs usa weight and used intermittent fasting and avoiding simple carbs.  Never counted a calorie or measured a portion, never estimated my calorie expenditure.  Many many (most) successful diet techniques don't do either thing anymore.

      Good article on here posted by Jingthing that details a huge research study which do NOT use portion control or calorie counting.

        If it worked for you praise be!  The last stats I heard from Dr. Jason Fung was that calorie counting and portion control worked 1 in 1,247 tries.  Not a very impressive figure.  And yes the American Medical Association still pushes calorie counting and portion control.  Of course they advertised cigarettes for 38 years after the research proved cigs cause lung cancer.

          Lastly, congrats to you no matter how you did it.  And I hope it stays off and works well for you from this point forward.

 

I used (and still do) Intermittent Fasting (target 20/4, max 16/8) and do a 4 day fasting session (or a week on FMD) every month. I like the energy I get from Ketones. I also dropped all processed foods and all simple (or fast) sugars including fruit juices. I did have to adjust the calorie intake to the low end of the spectrum as I seem to extract maximum calories out of food.

 

Very familiar with Jason Fung's work (diet/diabetes) and watched many of his videos.

 

Regardless of the above, I didn't really start losing weight until I started controlling my (individually adjusted) calorie intake! (Making sure I didn't starve my system when I didn't intend to, but having a sufficient calorie deficient every day.)

 

There are methods to manage hunger, methods to reduce the time you have for meals, methods to change how your body uses energy (glucose vs ketones makes a big difference in muscle loss in dieting), methods to reduce the amount of energy extracted from food, and there are individual differences (even from food to food), but nothing changes the physics of weight gain. The amount of energy provided to your body (after digestion) minus energy consumed equals net energy retained/expended. As simple as that.

 

In any case it's a permanent change. Diet is not something you come out of, it's a change in lifestyle.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by MrY
just to say: "Stop Eating You Fat Pig(s)!"

[tropo]

3 hours ago, MrY said:

 

Except that I did lose 25kg (didn't quite reach my target of 30 kg) and the method I used is in what I told myself when I started, and that's the title (of the book I'm not actually writing). No intention to troll the thread.

 

Genetic disposition (10-15% difference in calories retained) aside, the real determining factor in weight gain/loss still remans calories provided vs calories used.

There can be a problem if you turn weight loss into an obsession with numbers. If you're a bodybuilder or underwear model after a specific look, then you need to get your fat down to a certain level to show your muscle definition. Judging from what I'm reading in these forums, a lot of people think that if they get to a specific number they are going to be transformed into a super healthy human that will live a very long life.

 

For example, my body fat composition is around 10%. It's at that level because I like my look at that level or lower. I'm not at that level because I think it will healthier than 15 - 20%. It's just vanity. I just got a blood test back with a cholesterol level of 230. No sweat - I could live longer at that level. Plenty of skinny guys with low cholesterol die from heart attacks too, and many of them have impaired glucose tolerance as well. Statistical tables are not good at determining the health of individuals. Put another way, many of you could be just as healthy at your heavier body weight. Certainly 5 - 10kg isn't going to make a lot of difference.

 

Using BMI tables to determine your body fat level is useless. Those BMI tables are only for insurance companies. If you really want to find out if you're too fat, get it tested.

Edited February 24, 2018 by tropo

[jak2002003]

On ‎21‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 7:50 AM, dontoearth said:

     This was the medical thinking ages ago in restricting fruit for various diseases and diets.   New research shows unlimited fruit has benefits and no real downside.  

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-much-fruit-is-too-much/

Apart for rotten teeth... eroded enamel and dental decay.  

 

 

[dontoearth]

1 minute ago, jak2002003 said:

Apart for rotten teeth... eroded enamel and dental decay.  

 

 

      I think fruit is less responsible for that than snickers bars and potato chips and sticky desserts.  Fruit has fiber and for cripes sake buy a tooth brush and some dental floss!  :)

[tropo]

Just now, dontoearth said:

      I think fruit is less responsible for that than snickers bars and potato chips and sticky desserts.  Fruit has fiber and for cripes sake buy a tooth brush and some dental floss!  :)

You want strong teeth? Make sure you're getting at least 10mg of boron (elemental) per day. It will strengthen your whole skeleton and even help with hair growth. Most soil (and vegetables grown in it) are deficient in boron, so unless you're supplementing it or living in Turkey or Israel, you're probably deficient. It won't matter much how many veges you eat - you're not getting enough.

[dontoearth]

10 minutes ago, tropo said:

There can be a problem if you turn weight loss into an obsession with numbers. If you're a bodybuilder or underwear model after a specific look, then you need to get your fat down to a certain level to show your muscle definition. Judging from what I'm reading in these forums, a lot of people think that if they get to a specific number they are going to be transformed into a super healthy human that will live a very long life.

 

For example, my body fat composition is around 10%. It's at that level because I like my look at that level or lower. I'm not at that level because I think it will healthier than 15 - 20%. It's just vanity. I just got a blood test back with a cholesterol level of 230. No sweat - I could live longer at that level. Plenty of skinny guys with low cholesterol die from heart attacks too, and many of them have impaired glucose tolerance as well. Statistical tables are not good at determining the health of individuals. Put another way, many of you could be just as healthy at your heavier body weight. Certainly 5 - 10kg isn't going to make a lot of difference.

 

Using BMI tables to determine your body fat level is useless. Those BMI tables are only for insurance companies. If you really want to find out if you're too fat, get it tested.

     More accurate to get a bodyfat test. Agreed!  Just most won't do it.  I am not sure why.  It is free at my health club and only 3 people use the machine that I know of in the club.  Most are on that old fashioned doctors scale.  They like that one.  I think they really don't want to know.  My bodyfat is 24.6% which is OK for a man 62 but I would feel more comfortable being under 20% and my problems with blood pressure probably prove that out.

[tropo]

Just now, dontoearth said:

     More accurate to get a bodyfat test. Agreed!  Just most won't do it.  I am not sure why.  It is free at my health club and only 3 people use the machine that I know of in the club.  Most are on that old fashioned doctors scale.  They like that one.  I think they really don't want to know.  My bodyfat is 24.6% which is OK for a man 62 but I would feel more comfortable being under 20% and my problems with blood pressure probably prove that out.

There are few accurate BIA scales around. Most are extremely inaccurate, especially for muscular guys. The one I tried to use at California Wow had me in the mid-20% range. I did step on scales at a university back at home that had me close to the result from a DEXA scan and a hydrostatic weighing, all done within an hour. There was a 2% variance in the 3 measurements.

 

That type of testing is hard to find in most countries and expensive. Even back in Australia I had to travel an hour to get to a clinic that does the DEXA for body fat and it was nearly AUD $100 and you had to make an appointment. That shows my level of commitment to finding out the truth. In the US it's a lot easier I hear. I hear quite a bit about Bod Pods too, but I haven't seen one around in this neck of the woods. You can actually get by on just one DEXA scan. Have a skinfold test done on the same day and calibrate the two for future use. For example, if the DEXA returned 15% and the skinfold test returned 20%, you can make the adjustment for future skinfold tests... just subtract 5%. It's not perfect, but it would be free and close enough.

[MrY]

24 minutes ago, tropo said:

3 hours ago, MrY said:

 

Except that I did lose 25kg (didn't quite reach my target of 30 kg) and the method I used is in what I told myself when I started, and that's the title (of the book I'm not actually writing). No intention to troll the thread.

 

Genetic disposition (10-15% difference in calories retained) aside, the real determining factor in weight gain/loss still remans calories provided vs calories used.

There can be a problem if you turn weight loss into an obsession with numbers. If you're a bodybuilder or underwear model after a specific look, then you need to get your fat down to a certain level to show your muscle definition. Judging from what I'm reading in these forums, a lot of people think that if they get to a specific number they are going to be transformed into a super healthy human that will live a very long life.

 

For example, my body fat composition is around 10%. It's at that level because I like my look at that level or lower. I'm not at that level because I think it will healthier than 15 - 20%. It's just vanity. I just got a blood test back with a cholesterol level of 230. No sweat - I could live longer at that level. Plenty of skinny guys with low cholesterol die from heart attacks too, and many of them have impaired glucose tolerance as well. Statistical tables are not good at determining the health of individuals. Put another way, many of you could be just as healthy at your heavier body weight. Certainly 5 - 10kg isn't going to make a lot of difference.

 

Using BMI tables to determine your body fat level is useless. Those BMI tables are only for insurance companies. If you really want to find out if you're too fat, get it tested.

 

No "obsession with numbers", I just didn't get the results I wanted without monitoring my calorie intake. I now consider counting calories the basis of a diet, but it does not work without a feedback loop. And that is monitoring the results!

 

If your metabolism is off by 10% (quite possible), the reported calorie content is off by 10% (very common), and the weight of the portion is off by 10-20% (not unusual), then your intake needs to be adjusted for these inaccuracies. I found out I would not lose weight on a diet of (what was supposed to be) minimum allowable calories, I needed to go 500 kcal lower. Monitoring your calorie intake helps in day to day consistency too. Also, expect different results depending on the source of information too. For example, a portion cooked at home using a kitchen scale for ingredients vs same portion with calories reported by a restaurant vs your own estimate of calories in a portion you ordered, will differ by a huge margin. If you don't prepare your food from ingredients at home, any kind of calorie counting will be wildly inaccurate unless you eat pretty much the same foods on a daily/weekly basis and adjust the amounts based on results.

[dontoearth]

21 minutes ago, tropo said:

There are few accurate BIA scales around. Most are extremely inaccurate, especially for muscular guys. The one I tried to use at California Wow had me in the mid-20% range. I did step on scales at a university back at home that had me close to the result from a DEXA scan and a hydrostatic weighing, all done within an hour. There was a 2% variance in the 3 measurements.

 

That type of testing is hard to find in most countries and expensive. Even back in Australia I had to travel an hour to get to a clinic that does the DEXA for body fat and it was nearly AUD $100 and you had to make an appointment. That shows my level of commitment to finding out the truth. In the US it's a lot easier I hear. I hear quite a bit about Bod Pods too, but I haven't seen one around in this neck of the woods. You can actually get by on just one DEXA scan. Have a skinfold test done on the same day and calibrate the two for future use. For example, if the DEXA returned 15% and the skinfold test returned 20%, you can make the adjustment for future skinfold tests... just subtract 5%. It's not perfect, but it would be free and close enough.

     I have been using this at the Olympic Health Club for a couple of years.  It's free when you work out there.  It is called the Tanita Body Composition Analyzer Model BC418.  The software and hardware have been tested in math regression using the DXA for adjustment and accuracy.   It sounds like California WOW didn't really know how to use the machine properly.  Obviously you should have been measured in Sportsman mode.  Directly from the manufacturer I got this tech note:

   Reliability of body composition measurements with an 8-electrode BIA
Introduction
This device calculates body fat percentage, fat mass, fat free mass, and predicted muscle mass on the basis of
data obtained by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA).
One of two settings must be selected when taking measurements:
1 Standard (for persons 7 ~ 99 years of age)
2 Athlete (sportsmen/women who exercise considerably more than non-athletes)

AND ALSO THIS:

In deriving the body fat percentage, fat mass, and fat free mass for the whole body, the Body Composition
Analyzer uses data acquired by DXA* from both Japanese and Western subjects as well as a regression
formula derived through repeated regression analysis using height, weight, age, and impedance between
right hand and foot as variables. Measurements of body fat percentage, fat free mass, fat mass, and
predicted muscle mass for specific body parts also use a regression formula for each body part derived from
repeated regression analysis using height, weight, age, and impedance for individual body parts (right arm,
left arm, right leg, left leg, trunk) as variables, based on data acquired through DXA.
 

 

     Anyway, accurate enough for an old fat man like myself.  I am just amazed how many refuse to use it and jump on the old weight scale telling me this is in the doctors office this must be the best one!   I would not find or seek out more measurements at this time.  Maybe later!  This answers my needs and probably would answer anyone in the forums needs other than a few body builders and the occasional olympic athletes and marathon runners that join us to give advice.

[tropo]

3 minutes ago, MrY said:

 

No "obsession with numbers", I just didn't get the results I wanted without monitoring my calorie intake. I now consider counting calories the basis of a diet, but it does not work without a feedback loop. And that is monitoring the results!

 

If your metabolism is off by 10% (quite possible), the reported calorie content is off by 10% (very common), and the weight of the portion is off by 10-20% (not unusual), then your intake needs to be adjusted for these inaccuracies. I found out I would not lose weight on a diet of (what was supposed to be) minimum allowable calories, I needed to go 500 kcal lower. Monitoring your calorie intake helps in day to day consistency too. Also, expect different results depending on the source of information too. For example, a portion cooked at home using a kitchen scale for ingredients vs same portion with calories reported by a restaurant vs your own estimate of calories in a portion you ordered, will differ by a huge margin. If you don't prepare your food from ingredients at home, any kind of calorie counting will be wildly inaccurate unless you eat pretty much the same foods on a daily/weekly basis and adjust the amounts based on results.

I have always managed to maintain or reduce body fat without counting calories. I've never done it. My wife recently dropped 11% of her body weight by eating less and using an app to track her daily weight and then hold it on target.

 

I called this the "eating less" diet plan. It works just fine. You monitor your weight daily and graph it on "weightgrapher". If your weight trend line starts going up, then you have to eat even less again.

 

If I was in need of dropping a lot of body fat I'd go low carb with intermittent fasting. I prefer though to keep my carb intake the same as I'm concerned with muscle mass, and carbs really help with that.

[tropo]

6 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

     I have been using this at the Olympic Health Club for a couple of years.  It's free when you work out there.  It is called the Tanita Body Composition Analyzer Model BC418.  The software and hardware have been tested in math regression using the DXA for adjustment and accuracy.   It sounds like California WOW didn't really know how to use the machine properly.  Obviously you should have been measured in Sportsman mode.  Directly from the manufacturer I got this tech note:

   Reliability of body composition measurements with an 8-electrode BIA
Introduction
This device calculates body fat percentage, fat mass, fat free mass, and predicted muscle mass on the basis of
data obtained by Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA).
One of two settings must be selected when taking measurements:
1 Standard (for persons 7 ~ 99 years of age)
2 Athlete (sportsmen/women who exercise considerably more than non-athletes)

AND ALSO THIS:

In deriving the body fat percentage, fat mass, and fat free mass for the whole body, the Body Composition
Analyzer uses data acquired by DXA* from both Japanese and Western subjects as well as a regression
formula derived through repeated regression analysis using height, weight, age, and impedance between
right hand and foot as variables. Measurements of body fat percentage, fat free mass, fat mass, and
predicted muscle mass for specific body parts also use a regression formula for each body part derived from
repeated regression analysis using height, weight, age, and impedance for individual body parts (right arm,
left arm, right leg, left leg, trunk) as variables, based on data acquired through DXA.
 

 

     Anyway, accurate enough for an old fat man like myself.  I am just amazed how many refuse to use it and jump on the old weight scale telling me this is in the doctors office this must be the best one!   I would not find or seek out more measurements at this time.  Maybe later!  This answers my needs and probably would answer anyone in the forums needs other than a few body builders and the occasional olympic athletes and marathon runners that join us to give advice.

I didn't say the analyzer at California Wow was the same as yours. For starters, it didn't have electrodes for your arms, which is reason enough not to trust it. I knew how to use it - it just didn't work. The one I used in the university back at home had them. I'd have to look back to find the model. I think it was made in Korea.

. 

If you really want to be accurate you still need to get your own personal DEXA. Granted, that type of accuracy wouldn't be needed by most. The problem is the variance in the amount of visceral fat that some people carry and others don't. Your state of hydration can also influence the BIA measurements quite a bit.

[MrY]

2 minutes ago, tropo said:

I have always managed to maintain or reduce body fat without counting calories. I've never done it. My wife recently dropped 11% of her body weight by eating less and using an app to track her daily weight and then hold it on target.

 

I called this the "eating less" diet plan. It works just fine. You monitor your weight daily and graph it on "weightgrapher". If your weight trend line starts going up, then you have to eat even less again.

 

If I was in need of dropping a lot of body fat I'd go low carb with intermittent fasting. I prefer though to keep my carb intake the same as I'm concerned with muscle mass, and carbs really help with that.

 

OK... I think you just described the "monitoring results" part of what I wrote. Great if it works for you or your wife. I'm not monitoring my calorie intake any more (and haven't for a while) since I'm just maintaining my weight (with IF/FMD), but it was really helpful in the beginning. What I'm railing against is the notion that somehow "counting calories does not work". One person may not need to do it, while it may be invaluable to another. Certainly to count calories the way it is done in most diets does not work for everyone.

 

An improper implementation does not invalidate the method!

[dontoearth]

9 minutes ago, tropo said:

I didn't say the analyzer at California Wow was the same as yours. For starters, it didn't have electrodes for your arms, which is reason enough not to trust it. I knew how to use it - it just didn't work. The one I used in the university back at home had them. I'd have to look back to find the model. I think it was made in Korea.

. 

If you really want to be accurate you still need to get your own personal DEXA. Granted, that type of accuracy wouldn't be needed by most. The problem is the variance in the amount of visceral fat that some people carry and others don't. Your state of hydration can also influence the BIA measurements quite a bit.

      It wasn't in my post but this machine does give a viseral fat rating.  Mine has gone from very high to normal and I can see it in the shirt size I now wear with no bulge out in front I am down two shirt sizes.

      Nebido's site addresses their product reducing viseral fat so it may not be all my doing.

      I didn't see anything in the product manual about hydration but I am satisfied enough at this time.  

      What I can't understand is that these additional measurement are free and NO ONE wants to use them.

      Also not to bash the thai but it is quite an ordeal at the club to get someone to come and uncover the machine and press the first button for start.  I can only hope that a professional company came in and did the setup as it is obvious no one there could have done the installation of the machine.

[tropo]

7 minutes ago, MrY said:

 

OK... I think you just described the "monitoring results" part of what I wrote. Great if it works for you or your wife. I'm not monitoring my calorie intake any more (and haven't for a while) since I'm just maintaining my weight (with IF/FMD), but it was really helpful in the beginning. What I'm railing against is the notion that somehow "counting calories does not work". One person may not need to do it, while it may be invaluable to another. Certainly to count calories the way it is done in most diets does not work for everyone.

 

An improper implementation does not invalidate the method!

I agree! Counting calories will be the most effective method of all, no doubt. It would make our "eating less" diet even more effective as we're only guessing at how much should be eaten. My method requires more patience. As mentioned before, my wife lost 1kg per month, which would not seem like much to most, although her bodyweight was 45kg at the start of the diet. That would relate to about 2kg a month or more for heavier guys.

 

The reason I don't count calories is that I find it too much effort. Perhaps if I needed to drop a lot of weight I would consider it.

[dontoearth]

21 hours ago, tropo said:

As we're discussing obesity, it would seem appropriate to also discuss cholesterol as that is what most people who are obese have been lead to believe - high cholesterol, high LDL, and triglycerides are a heart attack waiting to happen.

 

Have a read of this:

 

People with high cholesterol live the longest. That includes high LDL too.

 

(There are 19 scientific references below the article to help people who are in disbelief or shock)

 

Publicerad den 12/27/2015 av Uffe Ravnskov

This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers.¹ But let us take a look at heart mortality, the risk of dying from a heart attack if cholesterol is high.

 

http://www.ravnskov.nu/2015/12/27/myth-9/

 

and

 

Older people with higher cholesterol live longer

Population studies in Japan show that people of all ages with higher cholesterol live longer.1

Overall, an inverse trend is found [in Japan] between all-cause mortality and total (or low density lipoprotein [LDL]) cholesterol levels: mortality is highest in the lowest cholesterol group without exception. If limited to elderly people, this trend is universal. As discussed in Section 2, elderly people with the highest cholesterol levels have the highest survival rates irrespective of where they live in the world.

https://medium.com/the-mission/higher-cholesterol-is-associated-with-longer-life-b4090f28d96e

 

 

 

 

 

      I have seen on youtube a large doctor group has organized and now meets and takes in members to educate against the use of statins and to try to push the medical community away from the cholesterol lowering drugs.  The doctors doing presentations insist that cholesterol doesn't matter much in the scheme of good health.  Further the side effects are not worth it for older people.  Those side effects like breaking joints and causing bone pain and muscle pain are not bearable for older people.  Not to mention the new charges leveled against statins that they may indeed trigger alzheimers as the brain is 80% fat and 35-45% of your cholesterol goes to brain health and function.

      I took statins until I was diagnosised with arthritis.  A few years off the statins and NO more arthritis pain.  I don't believe I had arthritis at all.  The doctor never did RA blood test.  Just passed me a prescription for painkillers and told me old age brings on these diseases but Thank God with modern medicine we can help people.

     

[tropo]

5 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      It wasn't in my post but this machine does give a viseral fat rating.  Mine has gone from very high to normal and I can see it in the shirt size I now wear with no bulge out in front I am down two shirt sizes.

      Nebido's site addresses their product reducing viseral fat so it may not be all my doing.

      I didn't see anything in the product manual about hydration but I am satisfied enough at this time.  

      What I can't understand is that these additional measurement are free and NO ONE wants to use them.

      Also not to bash the thai but it is quite an ordeal at the club to get someone to come and uncover the machine and press the first button for start.  I can only hope that a professional company came in and did the setup as it is obvious no one there could have done the installation of the machine.

It just goes to show you how ignorant most people are. They don't understand that fat loss is what they need to know, not weight loss. You're lucky to have such a machine - I wish I had one to use.

 

I had a decent pouch out in front back in 2010 - 11. Doing an exceptional amount of Cardio exercise on a low carb diet got rid of it for me. That wasn't cardio while reading the daily news type of cardio either, but really hard cardio LOL. I didn't have a testosterone deficiency at that time either. Apparently visceral fat is the easiest to remove.

[tropo]

4 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

      I have seen on youtube a large doctor group has organized and now meets and takes in members to educate against the use of statins and to try to push the medical community away from the cholesterol lowering drugs.  The doctors doing presentations insist that cholesterol doesn't matter much in the scheme of good health.  Further the side effects are not worth it for older people.  Those side effects like breaking joints and causing bone pain and muscle pain are not bearable for older people.  Not to mention the new charges leveled against statins that they may indeed trigger alzheimers as the brain is 80% fat and 35-45% of your cholesterol goes to brain health and function.

      I took statins until I was diagnosised with arthritis.  A few years off the statins and NO more arthritis pain.  I don't believe I had arthritis at all.  The doctor never did RA blood test.  Just passed me a prescription for painkillers and told me old age brings on these diseases but Thank God with modern medicine we can help people.

     

The taking of statins is probably one of the reasons why older people with low cholesterol are dying faster than people with high, no-statin cholesterol levels.

[FritsSikkink]

"it is important to realize how much of the weight problem is deeply tied to genetics predisposition rather than some character flaw in people that are fat.  This doesn't mean you can't loose weight.  It just means that it is not actually a total personal matter or some kind of character flaw."

utter nonsense 

from the article:

"so genetic change is unlikely to be responsible for such a rapid emergence of obesity."