Here for the best nutrition information

[lolly]

Living healthy depends of 2 things: what you eat and what you do.

On social media, what I call 'diet gurus' create the bulk of the social discourse, which is veganism, keto, fasting and other things which are supported by nonsense. I'm not against any of those strategies or approaches. It's just that proponents of them are misrepresenting the truth. For example, I would recommend fasting for completely different reasons than a diet guru does. If excessive snacking is problematic, then a restricted feeding window could be beneficial. Otherwise, if I have a big boy who needs a ton of calories, then scheduling 5 or 6 meals is probably the way to go (for various reasons).

See the issue? Diet gurus, whatever their bias is, are one-size-fits-all - and since people are varied in so many ways, what they promote doesn't work. Of course, if you read the comments you'll see even the most outlandish of this ilk have a thousand comments: "this changed my life", "I lost 40 kg" etc. but the majority of diets do not work, so we know any guru's diet failed for most people.

The way it work is, it depends on the individual. That's a lot. Sex, age, size, lifestyle, culture, ethics and their goals. Everything has to fit together cohesively. However, general rules apply. For example, everything else has to fit within the context of calorie balance (difference between energy intake and expenditure), so let's just start with that fact - as the fundamental premise of this entire thread.

Go.

[stardustpilgrim]

Diabetes just destroys the body, I learned that from watching my Father's last years. My Mother was diabetic as is my sister. The function of the pancreas and insulin balance is incredibly complicated, fascinatingly complicated. Insulin resistance is a real thing. My Mother used to make me check my sugar once a year, after at least an 8 hour fast. If your sugar is normal (around 100 or lower, doctors will give you up to 118, don't believe them) after an 8 hour fast, basically, wake up in the morning and check your sugar, you are OK. About seven years ago, my sugar was high, it was about 130. That's called prediabetes. So I started researching. It took me some months to even figure out insulin metabolism is incredibly complicated, but after two weeks I got my sugar down to normal, I was determined not-to-get type-2 diabetes. You get it basically from having bad eating habits and just f-ing wearing out your pancreas, giving your pancreas too much to do, too often. Eventually, your pancreas just says, f this s**t. You basically get in a narrow range of off and on, to secrete insulin or not to secrete insulin, and the pancreas is not built to work that way. In a not so informative nutshell, insulin metabolism is complicated because it's, metaphorically, the "problem" and the cure, simultaneously.

I got my sugar down to normal by ceasing eating any processed sugar whatsoever, no sodas, no sweet tea (my kryptonite), no cookies, cake or candy, and basically no processed carbs, white stuff, sugar, white rice, white potatoes, white bread.

I'd say anyone who is prediabetic can not-be diabetic, by change of diet. In this whole learning process I learned doctors, in general, in particular my sister's doctor, don't know s**t about insulin metabolism. So, anyone who gets into this territory has to do their own research, and not-trust-doctors. Doctors, basically, just want to give you a pill to solve problems.

I explained to my sister that her doctor is telling her to do the exact opposite of what she should be doing. She just said, yes, I know, and kept following her doctor. Why? My sister likes to eat, doing what her doctor says do, allows her to eat what she wants to eat. It's just that simple, for her.

So, as ZD says, one size does not fit all. You basically have to start eating properly at at least a younger age, not to burn out your pancreas. It's late, or I could go on... Well, one hint, intermittent fasting allows the pancreas to begin to operate properly again. Basically, this helps get rid of the habit of overeating, AKA just liking to eat too much. Basically, you have to learn to listen to the intelligence of the body when it tells you, dude, you've had enough to eat.

OK, one more thing, when you have to start diabetic meds (according to what most doctors will convince-you-of), you are almost irrevocably screwed. Then, the balance of eating and taking diabetic meds gets so complicated it's difficult to lose weight. Why? Because at that point fasting goes out the window, you have to eat regularly to balance out your diabetic meds. Losing weight is a basic key to staying not-diabetic, but proper eating is also a necessary factor. Basically, you have to live at your body mass index, or below. That's why half the population of the US is defined as overweight.

[inavalan]

Sept 20, 2023 22:51:04 GMT -5 lolly said:

Living healthy depends of 2 things: what you eat and what you do.

On social media, what I call 'diet gurus' create the bulk of the social discourse, which is veganism, keto, fasting and other things which are supported by nonsense. I'm not against any of those strategies or approaches. It's just that proponents of them are misrepresenting the truth. For example, I would recommend fasting for completely different reasons than a diet guru does. If excessive snacking is problematic, then a restricted feeding window could be beneficial. Otherwise, if I have a big boy who needs a ton of calories, then scheduling 5 or 6 meals is probably the way to go (for various reasons).

See the issue? Diet gurus, whatever their bias is, are one-size-fits-all - and since people are varied in so many ways, what they promote doesn't work. Of course, if you read the comments you'll see even the most outlandish of this ilk have a thousand comments: "this changed my life", "I lost 40 kg" etc. but the majority of diets do not work, so we know any guru's diet failed for most people.

The way it work is, it depends on the individual. That's a lot. Sex, age, size, lifestyle, culture, ethics and their goals. Everything has to fit together cohesively. However, general rules apply. For example, everything else has to fit within the context of calorie balance (difference between energy intake and expenditure), so let's just start with that fact - as the fundamental premise of this entire thread.

Go.

I agree with that. 

3,500 calories =~ 1 lb of fat

Using this formula, and a daily intake of 1,400 calories, I dropped 135 lbs (61 kg) over 13 months, at a constant rate.

In less than half a year I got off high blood pressure and high cholesterol medicines.

I also started eating "healthy", and moderately exercising daily. I changed my perspective from "trying to loose weight in order to get healthy", to "living healthy which materialized into loosing weight" too.

Following the same principles, I maintained overall health and normal weight for over 20 years.

At the time, I wasn't aware of the role of the psychic in the health of the physical body. Now I truly believe this, and use it too.

[inavalan]

The Early Sessions: Book 3 of The Seth Material

SESSION 143, APRIL 5, 1965

*****

In regard to your illness, no healing of any sort can ever take place without inner understanding and psychic comprehension. My interests are those of an educator. Any healing brought about from the outside may be advantageous in the short run, and I would be only too willing to help in a situation involving illness, particularly of a serious variety, even though the advantages of my help would be surface ones.
I realize that such surface help at times could be most desirable. Basically however in your case the illness was not serious, and the advantage that you would derive from my help in a healing capacity would have been outweighed entirely by several disadvantages that are almost always present, in the case of healing that does not originate from inner comprehension.

*****

I would have been removing the problem from you, and in this instance depriving you of the opportunity of solving it, and therefore of adding to your own energies and abilities

*****

I can indeed do more, in that my pills are pills of knowledge, which are indeed, my friends, somewhat difficult to digest

*****

The illness did represent, however, a needed warning, materialized into physical reality as illness. A warning that after all there had been a recent tendency on your part, though slight, to slide into negative thinking. The illness was meant to bring you up short, to make you think.
It was no coincidence, however, that you plunged into reading the New York papers during your stay in bed. Not that it is intended that you should close your eyes to world events, but that in your particular case there are times when, to you, such concentration upon world evils becomes extremely unwholesome.
Your reactions at such times are not good for yourself, and your reactions are not good at such times for the conditions which bring them about. Such reactions actually worsen the conditions that you would change. I am not suggesting that you adopt a bland, idiotic, male Pollyanna smile, nor that you shout love, prosperity and health from the rooftops while the world below is steeped in poverty and ignorance.
However it is your duty, and the duty of every individual insofar as it is within his power, to maintain his own psychic health and vitality; according to the strength of this vitality he will protect himself and others. Negative expectations, far from protecting either the individual or those with whom he comes in contact, will actually, to a greater or lesser degree, turn as destructive as any epidemic.

*****

But in your case, you are aware of man’s inhumanity to man. It is well that you are, but you must not allow this knowledge to weigh like a mountain upon your being, so that you are pinned under and your energies sucked away. This is the danger for which you must be alerted.

*****

You have learned something from this illness, and you will be stronger for it, but you would not have learned it if it had not run its course, and if you had not faced the reason behind it.
You of all people should realize that when valid concern for world problems turns into an obsession with world injustices that wipes out all, or threatens to wipe out all personal enjoyment, then trouble is on the way. For enjoyment is a weapon. The man who is capable of joy is capable, to a large extent, of changing his world. Joy is not a weak spineless idiot either. Its backbone is stronger than bitterness.
Joy is the muscle of action, and without it there would be no action. If I speak strongly to you at times, it is because this tendency, while much less now than formerly, must be kept very well in control, Joseph.
Basically this concern for human welfare is indeed virtuous, but overindulged in it becomes loaded with possibilities that could be most unfortunate.

*****

What I want, here, is the balance. Neither plunge yourself into the ignorance, doubts and injustices, so that you can see nothing else, nor close your eyes to them. But there must be a place within you where these do not exist, or the freedom of the inner self will be hampered, as far as its connection with the ego is concerned.

*****

I am extremely cautious as far as giving warnings, since suggestion could play a part in bringing about the event which looms, merely as an unfortunate possibility, but not definitely as an actuality.

*****

The future, in your terms, is not foreordained, and is at no moment fixed.
It is true that what will occur, in your terms, has already occurred in other terms, and that it is possible to perceive beyond your now into your so-called future. But here I am very careful of tampering, for tampering with “your” present tampers with “your” future. I suggest that in the last sentence you place the word your in quotes.

*****

A firm but not too impatient attitude is the most beneficial on your parts

*****

[lolly]

Sept 20, 2023 23:40:46 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Diabetes just destroys the body, I learned that from watching my Father's last years. My Mother was diabetic as is my sister. The function of the pancreas and insulin balance is incredibly complicated, fascinatingly complicated. Insulin resistance is a real thing. My Mother used to make me check my sugar once a year, after at least an 8 hour fast. If your sugar is normal (around 100 or lower, doctors will give you up to 118, don't believe them) after an 8 hour fast, basically, wake up in the morning and check your sugar, you are OK. About seven years ago, my sugar was high, it was about 130. That's called prediabetes. So I started researching. It took me some months to even figure out insulin metabolism is incredibly complicated, but after two weeks I got my sugar down to normal, I was determined not-to-get type-2 diabetes. You get it basically from having bad eating habits and just f-ing wearing out your pancreas, giving your pancreas too much to do, too often. Eventually, your pancreas just says, f this s**t. You basically get in a narrow range of off and on, to secrete insulin or not to secrete insulin, and the pancreas is not built to work that way. In a not so informative nutshell, insulin metabolism is complicated because it's, metaphorically, the "problem" and the cure, simultaneously.

I got my sugar down to normal by ceasing eating any processed sugar whatsoever, no sodas, no sweet tea (my kryptonite), no cookies, cake or candy, and basically no processed carbs, white stuff, sugar, white rice, white potatoes, white bread.

I'd say anyone who is prediabetic can not-be diabetic, by change of diet. In this whole learning process I learned doctors, in general, in particular my sister's doctor, don't know s**t about insulin metabolism. So, anyone who gets into this territory has to do their own research, and not-trust-doctors. Doctors, basically, just want to give you a pill to solve problems.

I explained to my sister that her doctor is telling her to do the exact opposite of what she should be doing. She just said, yes, I know, and kept following her doctor. Why? My sister likes to eat, doing what her doctor says do, allows her to eat what she wants to eat. It's just that simple, for her.

So, as ZD says, one size does not fit all. You basically have to start eating properly at at least a younger age, not to burn out your pancreas. It's late, or I could go on... Well, one hint, intermittent fasting allows the pancreas to begin to operate properly again. Basically, this helps get rid of the habit of overeating, AKA just liking to eat too much. Basically, you have to learn to listen to the intelligence of the body when it tells you, dude, you've had enough to eat.

OK, one more thing, when you have to start diabetic meds (according to what most doctors will convince-you-of), you are almost irrevocably screwed. Then, the balance of eating and taking diabetic meds gets so complicated it's difficult to lose weight. Why? Because at that point fasting goes out the window, you have to eat regularly to balance out your diabetic meds. Losing weight is a basic key to staying not-diabetic, but proper eating is also a necessary factor. Basically, you have to live at your body mass index, or below. That's why half the population of the US is defined as overweight.

It is pretty complicated and I'm glad you got your sugar under check. I think the problem with research is, insulin is probably the most quack subject diet gurus bang on about.

The blood sugar problems are typically associated with a high body fat percentage. That couldbe a high fat mass, obviousoly, orit could be a low lean tissue mass. If you have a low lean mass then it doesn't take much fat to have a high body fat percentage. Hence rather thin people with low muscle mass are prone even though they aren't all that overweight according to BMI.

I'm not going to say a diabetic should do this or that with nutrition as it's best to see a qualified dietitian for that (not a MD), but as a general rule, minimising processed carbs is a good idea. It won't make all that much difference if you continue an excessive calorie intake and a sedentary lifestyle, though, because a high body fat percentage will still be the leading determinant. We generally find, however, that reductions in excess processed carbs significantly reduces calorie intake.

The first consideration would still be calorie balance, then within that boundary positive changes can add up.

[park]

As a baseline, my preferred diet is "don't eat stupid shit".

We all know what "stupid shit" in terms of food is, so it's not like anyone needs to do any research or adopt fancy protocols.

This might not lead to a perfect diet immediately, but I suspect that just implementing this simple notion would highly improve the diet of most people struggling with this issue.

[stardustpilgrim]

I wanted to write a little about insulin resistance. Insulin is like a key that unlocks the cells so that they can metabolize glucose. When you get insulin resistant, insulin is present but the cells refuse to open to process glucose in the blood. Now, this is where it gets weird. To try to solve the problem the pancreas makes more insulin, but this doesn't solve the problem, the insulin already present isn't even working. This creates the very narrow range of the pancreas on and off switch mentioned above. Unless you do something, this is going to lead to type-2 diabetes. Part of my solution was cutting unnecessary carbs, mentioned above, and cutting calories. I had already been walking, upped my walking to virtually every day. Fasting, itself, is not really an answer, I discovered. The body learns to live on reduced calories, and eventually you can put your body into starvation mode, if you don't eat enough your body thinks you're starving. So, however inavalan ended up with his 1400 a day, that's a good balance, for weight loss. When I was younger I could lose weight whenever I wished. Getting up in years, I've found no matter what I eat, I have to up my miles walking to lose weight. So, for me, that means reduced calories plus extra walking. Also want to note what park said is most significant. Stupid food is basically eating empty calories, calories that do not have nutritional value. Good nutrition, eating what the body actually needs (and not more that it needs), is essential. Also learned, if you eat too much protein, and do not burn the extra calories, this protein will also be converted to fat and stored by the body.

Oh, also began learning about a hormone that tells the brain when you've had enough to eat, it is actually made by fat (so fat is actually an organ). Leptin, it was only discovered in 1994. Leptin is like your favorite drill sergeant, leptin cannot be circumvented, easily, it basically demands you eat, until it says, OK, you've had enough. So learning some leptin rules is also necessary concerning losing weight. Basically, leptin creates a feedback loop, the more you eat the more you want to eat. Likewise, the less you eat the less you want to eat. It's all controlled by leptin, that's why by willpower alone, you can't lose weight. Leptin overpowers your will.

The book that really explained the whole process of insulin metabolism for me, is not readily available.

[lolly]

There's always a 'latest thing' (at the moment it's 'seed oils'), and leptin is one of those latest things. Diet gurus leap onto these things, and I've heard them pretending to understand leptin. Insulin is their favorite thing because it has a direct role in fat accumulation. All these things are true, real things, which is why you can take a truth as a premise and spin it into silly string.

It's interesting to learn about these 'components', but when it comes to practicality, all the things work in conjunction and we find their specific isolated functions have very little effect on the whole.

Protein is the most important nutrient that has two main things going for it with regards to body mass: 1) it is satiating - eating protein makes you feel full - so you consume fewer calories. 2) It has a high thermal effect, meaning it takes more calories to metabolise (than carbs or fat).

In addition to having those two effects, it's critical for the maintenance or accrual of muscle tissue.

When people lose weight, on average about 1/4 of that is muscle mass. High protein intake coupled with resistance exercise mitigates the loss of lean mass during weight loss, so that a much higher percentage of weight lost is fat. Walking is fantastic for many things - it's the best - and it helps burn a few extra calories, but it's not effective for retaining muscle mass during weight loss.

The exercise element is a bit of a myth because when you are active you also feel hungrier and eat more anyway. Hence the weight loss effect of exercise isn't actually a real thing in the practical sense. We want to be more specific and talk about fat loss particularly; not weight loss in general. It's even better to talk about body composition because if you can stay the same weight, but accrue more muscle, your body fat percentage is reduced, and ultimately, we want to optimise body composition (ratio of lean mass:fat mass).

If you have more muscle you can also have more fat, and people without decent muscle mass really can't afford much fat accumulation at all.

[lolly]

Insulin resistance explained:

[stardustpilgrim]

Watched the video lolly, very good. When it finished, 4 different videos popped up. One was Jason Fung on reversing type 2 diabetes. I know Fung knows his stuff, I got his book on fasting when I was exploring getting my blood sugar down. I watched it in full also, longer, 44 minutes. He goes more fully into the process. He does get very briefly into the "bad" type of fat your video guy goes into, minute 35:40. Fung's video is about a year old, it's a must see if anyone has high blood sugar issues. He explains what I told my sister, YOUR DOCTOR IS HAVING YOU DO THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU NEED TO DO!!! She understood all the issues, we had talked it out for weeks. I'm going to send the video to her also, she told me about Fung in the first place. Basically, taking more insulin or insulin-type meds, DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM! In fact, that makes things worse in the long run.

Fung packs a lot into 44 minutes. Starting at minute 40:00 is vital, if you don't have time to watch in full. He gives the solution I arrived at, cut (the bad) carbs, do intermittent fasting. He explains why that works. And, if you lose weight, you can reverse type 2 diabetes (in most cases), or prevent it, in my case.

[lolly]

Bariatric surgery = fewer calories
Fasting = fewer calories
Low carb diet = fewer calories

Lots of concentration on carbs (glucose) becoming fat, and that happens,but it's really just excess calories.Excess calories from fat actually causes more fat storage (but higher fat burn) whereas glucose doesn't actually store much fat (but has a lower fat burn)

Fung is basically of the false belief that insulin (due to carbs) is the cause of obesity, and therefore diabetes. In fact, if you are on lower carb and higher fat diet with a surplus of calories, you will become obese and be more likely contract diabetes.

He gets to the drug Semaglutide, which is an appetite suppressant, and if you eat less (not diet specific) = fewer calories.In this case he says 'nothing works better', yet is has nothing to do with his earlier position on carbs.

He then talks about a very restricted diet of 800 calories = fewer calories. Used up fat and overtime presto. He didn't explain that starvation diets make you lose a lot of muscle tissue... and unless someone is in a dire situation, starvation dieting is bad.

Even the charts he shows simply say 'hypocaloric diet'. Nothing specific to carbs.

Despite most of his talk being true, fewer calories = less fat = remission, he concludes with a 'low carb diet, which will work just fine provided it entails a calorie deficit. You could also have a low fat diet with a calorie deficit. As long as the body sheds fat, there will be a remission. Of course he says intermoittent fasting = fewer calories, so if you go low carb and IF, you're going to reduce calories, lose fat, and there for see a remission, but you could just eat 3 meals and a snack including carbs and the same thing would happen provided you have that calorie deficit.

Notice how he talks about reducing glucose, and not about fewer calories, and he's a one size fits all (low carb + IF) - namely he's a keto warrior - is what makes Fung a diet guru quack. The reality is, his method doesn't work if it doesn't entail a calorie deficit, which is the actual cause of weight loss.

The other issue I take with Fung is he doesn't talk about lean mass retention or accrual. The focus of his narrative is glucose (carbs) when the nutrient of focus should be protein. He talks about losing weight rather than losing fat.

I listened to the whole thing, but I'm already familiar withe Fung, and he's out there with a medical degrees, but bottom line is, he's what I call a diet guru.

You don't approach nutrition from a glucose standpoint. You start with calories as your foundation, and the primary nutrient of concern is protein.

If a person is already overweight and suffering diabetes, then see a properly qualified dietitian. Cats like Fung will lead you down the garden path.

[lolly]

I watched another Fung video about the 5 keys to diabetes remission and he did not once mention fewer calories. The guy is a quack.

[inavalan]

Adult Obesity Maps
Updated Sept 21, 2023

link

"All states and territories had an obesity prevalence higher than 20% (more than 1 in 5 adults)."

[stardustpilgrim]

Sept 22, 2023 8:41:58 GMT -5 lolly said:

Bariatric surgery = fewer calories
Fasting = fewer calories
Low carb diet = fewer calories

Lots of concentration on carbs (glucose) becoming fat, and that happens,but it's really just excess calories.Excess calories from fat actually causes more fat storage (but higher fat burn) whereas glucose doesn't actually store much fat (but has a lower fat burn)

Fung is basically of the false belief that insulin (due to carbs) is the cause of obesity, and therefore diabetes. In fact, if you are on lower carb and higher fat diet with a surplus of calories, you will become obese and be more likely contract diabetes.

He gets to the drug Semaglutide, which is an appetite suppressant, and if you eat less (not diet specific) = fewer calories.In this case he says 'nothing works better', yet is has nothing to do with his earlier position on carbs.

He then talks about a very restricted diet of 800 calories = fewer calories. Used up fat and overtime presto. He didn't explain that starvation diets make you lose a lot of muscle tissue... and unless someone is in a dire situation, starvation dieting is bad.

Even the charts he shows simply say 'hypocaloric diet'. Nothing specific to carbs.

Despite most of his talk being true, fewer calories = less fat = remission, he concludes with a 'low carb diet, which will work just fine provided it entails a calorie deficit. You could also have a low fat diet with a calorie deficit. As long as the body sheds fat, there will be a remission. Of course he says intermoittent fasting = fewer calories, so if you go low carb and IF, you're going to reduce calories, lose fat, and there for see a remission, but you could just eat 3 meals and a snack including carbs and the same thing would happen provided you have that calorie deficit.

Notice how he talks about reducing glucose, and not about fewer calories, and he's a one size fits all (low carb + IF) - namely he's a keto warrior - is what makes Fung a diet guru quack. The reality is, his method doesn't work if it doesn't entail a calorie deficit, which is the actual cause of weight loss.

The other issue I take with Fung is he doesn't talk about lean mass retention or accrual. The focus of his narrative is glucose (carbs) when the nutrient of focus should be protein. He talks about losing weight rather than losing fat.

I listened to the whole thing, but I'm already familiar withe Fung, and he's out there with a medical degrees, but bottom line is, he's what I call a diet guru.

You don't approach nutrition from a glucose standpoint. You start with calories as your foundation, and the primary nutrient of concern is protein.

If a person is already overweight and suffering diabetes, then see a properly qualified dietitian. Cats like Fung will lead you down the garden path.

I've been out all day, just got home. First, I think maybe you are asking him to state the obvious on how to lose weight, you have to burn more calories than you take in. I mean, isn't it obvious? (I saw your other post about the other JF video you watched).

This is patently false. Any excess calories you do not burn, daily, are turned to fat. Where else would the excess calories go? All food not used to repair and build the body, is turned to glucose, all. And this glucose if not used for energy, is turned to body fat. That's like Fat-101.

Even if you eat more protein than the body needs to build muscle and repair itself, it's turned to fat (protein is energy also, where [else] would it go if not used?). But I agree, he should use more specificity. He's probably done over a hundred videos, every video he should not assume you have seen any previous videos. He should specify the carbs he means. [IOW, he (obviously) doesn't mean vegetables, which are also carbs. You can basically eat all the vegetables you want to, without weight gain]. I'm going to assume, from my own previous research, he means processed carbs, processed food. Processing food, does part of the digestive work, and so make turning white bread, white rice, for example, too quickly into sugar (eating sugar, sugar is already sugar, glucose). IOW, whole wheat bread makes the body work, so whole wheat bread is not immediately turned to glucose. Processed, white carbs, turn almost immediately to sugar in the body. Processed carbs spike insulin the quickest, the highest. And processed means the manufacturer is going to add sugar and fats to make it taste better to make you want to eat more.

I'm not going to debate the other stuff (now anyway), except for over 30 years doctors and nutritionists had the wrong idea about fat, eating fat does not make you fat. Eating more calories than you burn, makes you fat. Basically, additionally, the calories you eat should be nutritious (IOW, empty calories, not good).

OK, one more thing. This goes back at least 45 years when I used to run instead of walk, so I think I remember correctly. I never did more than a 10,000 meter race, I never ran regularly more than 3 miles a day. But I read a good bit about the body using energy, and yes, of course inavalan is correct, 3,500 calories = one pound of fat (just as an equation, but you get extra fat-burning benefits from exercise, IOW, you're going to burn more than 1 lb of fat walking 35 miles). That's a lot of running, but especially a lot of walking (time factor), that's basically walking (or running) 35 miles to lose one pound of fat, on average. The body stores glucose in the muscles. That's on average about 20 miles worth, that's what the wall is in a marathon, when the body has used up its store of glucose in the muscles.

OK, why am I saying that? Because, basically, to begin burning body fat you first have to use up your store of glucose in the muscles. But first, also, to begin burning body fat you have to burn up the excess fat in the liver, those two places are where the body goes to first for energy when it has burned up the daily intake of food-energy, basically 16 hours worth (because of sleep, you can't eat while sleeping). And it takes a lot of muscle-glucose burning and a lot of liver-fat burning to even to get to body-fat burning. If you consider the wall, the 20 mile mark in a marathon, that's what you have to exceed to begin burning body fat, so you have to take into consideration, not-replenishing that glucose in-the-muscles, in order to begin burning body fat in earnest (because, again, the body is always going to go there first for operating-energy, when it has used your daily food-energy). I know that from personal experience the last 2+ years. And all that is why eating 1,400 calories a day works well to lose weight. (My formula was always about 100 calories an hour on average, burning daily, 2,400 calories a day to operate the body, a male body). And, if you get much under 1,400 calories a day, the body will get by on less, the body will adapt, unless you also simultaneously up your exercise, I also learned that the hard way. IOW, less than 1,400 calories, the body lowers its metabolism. Then, if you go back to *eating normally*, your body then stores those "excess calories" (anything over what-you-had-gotten-used-to) as fat [because the body has gotten used to operating on the fewer calories], that's the YoYo phenomenon. And it's a lot of trouble getting all that straightened out. So, yes, inavalan is again correct, your food intake has to just become a way of life, a lifestyle. You can't go on a diet to lose weight, and then go back to "eating normally".

Oh, too, I haven't watched your con Jason Fung video, yet, will.

[stardustpilgrim]

Oh, another serendipitous benefit of stopping all sugar. I had heart burn, acid reflux issues, for over 35 years (I've had to have my esophagus balloon-stretched twice, because of scar tissue causing esophagus-narrowing). When I stopped all sugar my heartburn completely went away, completely.