DemetriusLaissez-Faire!

Posts by ds1973


User's Posts | User's Topics


Forum Topic Date Replies
Foods Food Grades Oct 14 2013
12:47 (UTC)
1

Horribly.  If you don't follow the incorrect USDA guidelines, ignore the scores.  For example, I'm keeping myself in nutritional ketosis.  This means getting > 65% of my calories from fats (butter, heavy cream, olive oil, fatty fish and meat etc) and staying below 30g of carbs a day.  I got a "C" yesterday.   The grading system is described here:

http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/help.php?id= 66

Science is re-discovering the benefits to nutritional ketosis - which is shown to increase HDL (good cholesterol) decrease triglycerideds & fasting glucose and reduce the risk of metabolic disease.  It's also been shown to reduce tumor growth in animals and is being hypothesized as a way to prevent certain types of cancers.  Yet eating like this is completely contrary to the way people have been taught for the past 30 years.  It's no coincidence that type II diabetes skyrocketed with the war on fat.

Vegetarian Going back to eating meat Dec 19 2012
17:21 (UTC)
3

Congratulations, your body will thank you.

"Vegetarian diets don’t even protect against any type of cancer[36, 48-54]. It’s a myth. If you maintain healthy body fat levels, you’re just as “protected” from cancer, and health correlates with the amount of muscle mass you have[55-59].

Now, despite this massive laundry list of ailments, every single one of them can be fixed with the addition of a few lean portions of meat per day[60-70]. That’s it. Even if you want to lower cholesterol levels ... it’s more effective to add lean animal protein to your diet than vegetable proteins[71-74]."

Full Article with references:

Six Reasons Why Vegans (and Doctors) are Wrong About Animal Protein

 

Foods high fiber / iron foods Aug 21 2012
12:53 (UTC)
14

Broccoli and F*(%(ing STEAK!

Weight Loss Water Fasting Jul 30 2012
17:50 (UTC)
1

The longest you should fast without the risk of losing muscle is 12 - 16 hours.  That's if you're weight training and includes sleeping overnight.  So, for example, 10 PM till 12 PM the next day would be a 14 hour fast. 

 

Motivation How to deal with criticism after weight loss Jul 10 2012
15:05 (UTC)
5

When everyone around you is in the "overweight" category, of course they think you're anorexic.  I'm also around your weight/height 170-175 lbs and  5' 11 (and three quarters).  I got the same comments from people at work when I lost weight (from around 215) and also when I haven't seen family in a while.  I've been around 170 now for over 6 years and I'm at a different company now in another state, so this is my new "normal" to others. 

I think in general:

1) People get used to seeing big guys, even if that big is mainly fat.  You're in the normal weight range. 

2) People don't seem to think men are sensitive about their weight at all and tend to blurt things out.

3) People think men should be big - even if that means fat (see #1).

You could toy with their heads.  My sister-in-law made a comment about me being too skinny when she was in town.  Later I posted to facebook something like:  "Love it when people who are borderline obese call those of us with normal BMIs too skinny". 

She spent the next few months losing weight - without any serious lifestyle change - and then put it right back on again and now looks even chubbier.  LOL...

The Lounge Obama's healthcare ideas? May 30 2012
20:23 (UTC)
13
Original Post by caloricat:

I just don't see what the big deal is.  John Q taxpayer isn't going to foot the bill for the system...most of it would be paid for by companies...that are ALREADY paying for health insurance for their employees.  And anybody that HAS health insurance and wants to keep what they have wouldn't be stopped.

Companies are made up of people.  Those of us who work in private industry and have seen our benefits decrease while our premiums increase are paying for it.  We are people.  I personally would like to shop around and get a health plan that is mine. portable.  Not tied to a particular company. 

Once again, when company management is purchasing a plan, they're looking for the best options for the generic demographic of their employees at the best price.  They are the new middle man.  In the current system there's no incentive for the insurance companies to build a customer relationship with the patient. 

Any third party payment system is going to have this problem.  The patient will be treated like a part to be fixed rather than a customer with individual needs to be satisfied.

The Lounge Obama's healthcare ideas? May 30 2012
17:03 (UTC)
71
Original Post by catwalker:

Original Post by ds1973:

Original Post by catwalker:

Original Post by ds1973:

Kathy, you're right about shopping around for broken bones.   However you don't need to be a doctor to set a broken bone.  You don't need to be a doctor to do a lot of things, however various states set requirements for opening a practice (one of which is having a doctors name on it).  These regulations drive up costs to the patient.  Part of the blame also goes to the doctors union - the AMA.  They limit the quantity of doctors available to keep doctors salaries artificially high.

In a true free market, you could imagine that clinics would be opened by nurses or former army medics that aren't M.D.s but are fully qualified to perform minor procedures like drawing blood, vaccinating, setting broken bones, etc...

This would increase availability of service and drive cost down significantly.

This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen.

Hmmm, this seems to work for every other industry that provides a service.  The AMA definitely had a hand in some of the legislation that's been passed to keep it difficult for doctors not educated in this country or people without an M.D. to practice any form of medicine in this country.  Protecting the salaries of their dues paying members under the guise of protecting the public.

Free markets work.  Prices are lower and the various levels of service expand.  The medical community would be forced to become more patient focused because the patient would be the customer.  Right now the customer is whoever is paying the bill - usually the insurance company or the government.

The best interests of the patient will be served when the patient becomes the customer again. 

Do you really believe that it's doctors salaries that are driving up health care costs? And do you really believe that doctors salaries are protected by the AMA not allowing unlicensend doctors to practice?

I was not saying that's the sole problem.  If you read my post and understood something about markets, you'd realize I'm saying that is part of the equation. 

You really need to read articles like this to see how the AMA has historically limited the supply of physicians and worked closely with state and federal government to protect member salaries first and foremost:

"According to a 2007 study by McKinsey&Company, physician compensation bumps up health care spending in America by $58 billion annually,on average, because U.S. doctors make twice as much as their OECD peers. And even the poorest in specializations like radiology and surgery routinely rake in around $400,000 annually."

"excessive physician salaries contribute nearly three times more to wasteful health care spending than the $20 billion or so that defensive medicine does."

"other studies have found that doctors' salaries contribute more to soaring medical costs than the $40 billion or so that the uninsured cost in uncompensated care"

"The AMA convinced lawmakers to shut down "deficient" medical schools, drastically paring back the supply of doctors almost 30 percent over 30 years. Few new medical schools have been allowed to open since the 1980s."

"even convincing Congress to limit the number of residencies it funds to about 100,000 a year. This imposes a de facto cap on new doctors every year given that without completing their residencies from accredited medical schools, physicians cannot obtain a license to legally practice medicine in the U.S. Even foreign doctors with years of experience in their home countries have to redo their residencies—along with taking a slew of exams—before they are allowed to practice here."

"One way to relieve the shortage of providers that the medical industry has created would be for the AMA to abandon its aggressive game of turf-protection and allow nurses, midwives, physician assistants and practitioners of alternative therapies such as chiropractors, to offer standard treatments for routine illnesses without physician supervision. For instance, midwifery, once a robust industry in this country, has been virtually destroyed, thanks to the intense lobbying against it by the medical industry. In 1995, 36 states restricted or outright banned midwifery, even though studies have found that it delivers equally safe care at far lower prices than standard hospital births"

"the net effect of AMA-type restrictions hasn't been to make better quality doctors available to more people, but to reduce existing options, especially in rural and other under-served areas."

The Lounge Obama's healthcare ideas? May 30 2012
16:35 (UTC)
78
Original Post by catwalker:

Original Post by ds1973:

Kathy, you're right about shopping around for broken bones.   However you don't need to be a doctor to set a broken bone.  You don't need to be a doctor to do a lot of things, however various states set requirements for opening a practice (one of which is having a doctors name on it).  These regulations drive up costs to the patient.  Part of the blame also goes to the doctors union - the AMA.  They limit the quantity of doctors available to keep doctors salaries artificially high.

In a true free market, you could imagine that clinics would be opened by nurses or former army medics that aren't M.D.s but are fully qualified to perform minor procedures like drawing blood, vaccinating, setting broken bones, etc...

This would increase availability of service and drive cost down significantly.

This is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever seen.

Hmmm, this seems to work for every other industry that provides a service.  The AMA definitely had a hand in some of the legislation that's been passed to keep it difficult for doctors not educated in this country or people without an M.D. to practice any form of medicine in this country.  Protecting the salaries of their dues paying members under the guise of protecting the public.

Free markets work.  Prices are lower and the various levels of service expand.  The medical community would be forced to become more patient focused because the patient would be the customer.  Right now the customer is whoever is paying the bill - usually the insurance company or the government.

The best interests of the patient will be served when the patient becomes the customer again. 

The Lounge Obama's healthcare ideas? May 30 2012
14:48 (UTC)
88

Kathy, you're right about shopping around for broken bones.   However you don't need to be a doctor to set a broken bone.  You don't need to be a doctor to do a lot of things, however various states set requirements for opening a practice (one of which is having a doctors name on it).  These regulations drive up costs to the patient.  Part of the blame also goes to the doctors union - the AMA.  They limit the quantity of doctors available to keep doctors salaries artificially high.

In a true free market, you could imagine that clinics would be opened by nurses or former army medics that aren't M.D.s but are fully qualified to perform minor procedures like drawing blood, vaccinating, setting broken bones, etc...

This would increase availability of service and drive cost down significantly.

The Lounge Obama's healthcare ideas? May 30 2012
12:42 (UTC)
98

Oh yeah, and since the insurance market is over-regulated as it is, it needs to be completely deregulated.  The commerce clause is supposed to enable free trade between states, not allow states to stifle trade.  The medical industry is significantly fragmented by different state laws.  Differences in state insurance requirements and tax breaks to business only make it impossible for individuals to purchase health care from a low-cost national brand (like Geico). 

Basically government regulation has made a mess of the health care market and rather than go to a free market system, they want to regulate it further.

The Lounge Obama's healthcare ideas? May 30 2012
12:36 (UTC)
99
Original Post by caloricat:

Had he sat on the court during the Roosevelt administration, he'd have stood in the way of social security using the same arguement. 

You can take his arguement and apply it to every federally mandated law or rule that requires ANYONE to pay ANYTHING for ANYTHING.  Taxes, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc...  Pretty much ANY tax levied by the federal government would become unconstitutional because it requires someone to pay for something.

Last I checked, we can't just decide not to pay our taxes because we don't use federal services.  We can't decide to pay state taxes only for the roads we drive on.  I've been paying into social scurity since I was 15...I was never given the option of just keeping the money because I didn't think I'd ever be disabled or live to retirement.

And if people want to get a fancy surgery that the new government healthcare won't pay for...I don't think anything is stopping you.  I'm sure all these insurance companies that are in existence now will have all kinds fo booster plans to cover all kinds of things.  Nobody is taking away your right to have whatever surgery you want or have whatever extra insurance you want.  All the government is saying is that EVERYONE has to have at least a "little" health insurance.  Just like car insurance...you don't need GOOD car insurance...you just need the STATE MINIMUM to drive.

So you're using one confiscatory entitlement program (social security) to justify a new one? 

Just because someone gets away with pointing a gun to your head and taking from you the first time, doesn't make it right to continue doing it.

As for this car insurance thing, I'm not aware of anyone that has car insurance covering routine maintainance and wear and tear.  My car insurance is not going to cover my leaking water pump.  If you really want to apply that analogy to health care, it would require that everyone have insurance to cover major emergencies, not routine visits, flu shots, colds, broken bones from falling out of a tree, etc. 

Third party payment is one major reason costs have risen so significantly.  The consumer and service provider are no longer dealing directly with each other.  The consumer has no incentive to minimize spending and the service provider is losing control of pricing. 

Weight Loss snacks Mar 09 2012
13:01 (UTC)
1

Not "proven" in non diabetics

Effect of meal frequency on glucose and insulin excursions over the course of a day

Summary and discussion of full paper:

Better blood glucose with lower meal frequency

Weight Loss snacks Mar 07 2012
14:31 (UTC)
3

You don't need to snack.  You can lose fat on 2 meals a day if that's meets your calorie requirement for the day.   Don't be fooled by the bro-science.

Weight Loss small meals throughout the day Feb 08 2012
13:27 (UTC)
7
Original Post by oxford007:

Original Post by julieraven:

I started eating several small meals 5 days ago.  I don't like it at all.  I am always thinking about my next food intake and feel more hungry.  

I'm going back to 3 meals a day tomorrow.

I had the same issue. I felt like I was always snacking, but never actually EATING.

Do what works for you.

Yes, this happens a lot.  You're constantly hungry.   Interesting that once we establish an eating pattern, the hormone ghrelin is released in anticipation of the meal.  Ghrelin stimulates hunger.   This explains why after a couple days adaptation, people like myself are able to eat just twice a day and not be hungry all the time.  It also explains why, when you constantly eat 6 meals a day, you start to get hungry almost like clockwork at those times.

Scientists Discover Hunger's Timekeeper

“Circadian clocks allow animals to anticipate daily events rather than just react to them,” said LeSauter, who ran and supervised the study’s experiments. “The cells that produce ghrelin have circadian clocks that presumably synchronize the anticipation of food with metabolic cycles.

 The new research suggests that the stomach tells the brain when to eat and that establishing a regular schedule of meals will regulate the stomach’s release of ghrelin. “If you eat all the time, ghrelin secretion will not be well controlled,” said Silver, the paper’s lead author and the principal investigator of the study. “It’s a good thing to eat meals at a regularly scheduled time of day.”

Weight Loss small meals throughout the day Feb 08 2012
00:28 (UTC)
13

BS.  low carb is all relative.   By the way, "low carb" is also used to effectively treat diabetes. 

Also, i'm willing to bet that what got your blood glucose under control was not the 6-meals-a-day, but eliminating the high gi carbs (aka processed sugary foods).

Weight Loss small meals throughout the day Feb 07 2012
21:31 (UTC)
15
Original Post by thhq:

More bs ds.

My personal experience exactly followed what my dr and ADA said would happen. Quit trying to discredit the fact that conventional wisdom works.

And how does calorie counting fit into your daily activity? I thought that low carbers disregarded the calories in calories out approach. I'm very interested in how you count your calories, and why.

Wait, did you lose weight and improve health markers?!?!   Amazing.  That's what happens when everyone loses weight.

No one said calories don't matter, but calories aren't exactly all equally used by your body.  1000 calories from carbs is actually more energy for your body than 1000 calories from protein. Your body requires more energy to process the protein (thermic effect of food).  So, in addition to protein helping with satiety, the less efficient use of identical quantities of "calories" coming in actually works in favor of weight loss.

Also, I'm not sure what a low-carber is.  My diet ranges from 10 % to 40% carbs, depending on the day.  is 40% low carb?  I actually use CC to mainly keep track of macros.  I've gone weeks (travelling, vacation, etc) where I'm unable to track cals and all I do is skip breakfast and eat within an 8 hour window and come back weighing the same.  I've eaten ice-cream after 6 PM and woken up leaner, not sure low-carbers do that.

Weight Loss small meals throughout the day Feb 07 2012
19:51 (UTC)
18

First of all, personal experience is not science.

Second, you are a diabetic, not an average person.  That may well work for you, however studies indicate that intermittent fasting actually improves insulin sensitivity and can help diabetics.

Third, Martin is actually one of the most thorough "usual suspects".  He actually reads full papers and if you read his comments at the end, he does actually say that more studies should be done to validate this work.

Finally, it's a fact of life that doctors are poorly versed in nutrition.  As Martin points out that there is "overwhelming scientific support for the positive effects of high-protein diets on fat loss, weight management and health markers".  Yet, "many medical professionals and dietitians are still hesitant to recommend high-protein diets."

I often wonder how it is that so many overweight, unhealthy doctors and nurses can continue, in good conscience, to give out dietary advice.  Some change seems to be happening in the field, but when a doctors entire day is dedicated to seeing as many patients as possible to maximize revenue because co-pays are so small, most doctors aren't spending the time keeping up with the science.  One of my good friends from college recently left family practice because of this bureaucratic insanity.  He's also obese and ignorant about nutrition. 

Weight Loss small meals throughout the day Feb 07 2012
16:57 (UTC)
24
Original Post by thhq:

Eating small frequent meals has nothing to do with revving up metabolism, and everything to do with regulating blood sugar and hunger. It's a standard approach for controlling diabetes which has been co-opted by the general dieting kingdom.


Sorry, wrong again.  The human body does just fine regulating glucose levels without lots of small mini meals.  Small mini meals do the exact opposite - make it harder to control blood sugar.

Better blood glucose with lower meal frequency -  a nice review of a sound scientific study that puts this myth to bed.

"There has been considerable promotion both by the medical community and the lay press to consume 6 meals per day for weight loss or for glycemic control but our data indicate that the glucose AUC is 30% higher over the course of the day with a frequent high carbohydrate feeding than when consuming 3 meals per day."


 

Weight Loss small meals throughout the day Feb 07 2012
15:59 (UTC)
26

You don't actually need small meals throughout the day.  The "revving your metabolism" is a myth.  If you feel more satisfied eating 2 or 3 big meals, do that.

Fitness 13 year old girl -- record setter Jan 31 2012
22:02 (UTC)
3
Original Post by amethystgirl:

I re-listened - he said "no one has told her for decades that she can't." In other words, most of us have grown up hearing that girls/women can't lift heavy, so that's what stops us (well, not all of us).


Wow..  I listened to the vid twice and never heard a problem with decade it because that was a totally correct use of it.  Laughing

Advertisement
Advertisement
Allergy Remedies
Is It Possible to Go Natural?
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.