Fatter than God
 

I am getting so fat---so freaking fat! I need some real, live solutions to this problem that don't include #1) wiring my jaw shut, or, #2) surgery. Now. I KNOW about eating right and all that. What I want to know is--has anybody tried TrimSpa or HydroxyCut or any of that stuff? Does it help/work? I like easy--I like chemical solutions, so this would be wonderful if it DID help, but I don't feel like shelling out 40.00 for a bottle of stuff if it won't help.

dammit!!!!

As far as I have been able to tell (and my wife is on the verge of having weight-reduction surgery, so I've done some research), the *only* things that work are:

1) Eat less, exercise more
2) Endure some sort of physical modification

All the rest is patent-medicine, snake-oil, hucksterism.

els--how much torture did your wife have to go thru to get an OK on the surgery? Did she have to prove that she couldn't lose weight on her own? Lots of documentation?

I agree with Elspode. To weigh less, you have to burn more than you eat. No other non-surgical way to do it. You have to operate at a calorie deficit. Like paying off credit cards, two big things stand in your way. One is the with credit cards, you have to live below your means as you pay down the balance. With the diet, you have to eat less than you want / can. And the second thing is that in both cases, this is an change and an uncomfortable one. And, sadly, the discomfort is most easily removed by the very actions that got things to this point in the first place. Eat, spend. It is HARD.

I've had personal experience with both the jaw-wiring-shut and the stomach-stapling routes. One was my ex-fiance' and the other was my ex-sister-in-law. The results were dramatic. The weight does come off, lots and fast.

I read somewhere recently, scientists studying how the brain receives and send signals, discovered an anomaly.
The signals to the brain for hunger and anxiety are identical. :mg:
That makes hunger so difficult to dismiss.
I want...no I NEED, chocolate...now.

Well, nothing beats the thrill of surgery, but if you want an alternative to having staples in your pyloric valve or whatever:

The absolute number one worst way to lose weight is to cut back on calories and not exercise. The body's metabolism thinks you're still a small furry mammal living through bad times back when that big old meteor hit and changed the earth's climate and got rid of all those nasty dinosaurs. Your metabolism will slow down and go into survival mode, and you'll remain plump on one slice of bread per day.

If you drink, stop. There are SO many empty calories in a single glass of wine or a shot of Jack!

Avoid dairy products as much as possible - they all come from the milk of a cow. Do you know what cow's milk is supposed to produce? An eight hundred pound animal, minimum.

The human metabolism has evolved to support a diet of lean meat, whole grains and fruit and plenty of time spent on the move searching for food and avoiding predators. This means avoid McDonalds, avoid processed foods, and refined sugars, and start spending more time at the gym or even just walking.

You need to jump start your metabolism again. Walk every day, if its physical do it. Take up gardening, sign up for a line dancing class, park your car at the farthest spot rather than the nearest.

Good luck to you!

This statement is not entirely correct; your metabolism will slow down if you make a dramatic cut to your average caloric intake, but in order for this to happen, you need to reduce it to well below what you burn every day (an average person would burn around 1700 calories a day with no exercise). To slow your metabolism down a significant amount, you’d probably have to cut your caloric intake to ~1200 calories. If you cut it to 600, you can really slow it down, but it’s hard to get any reasonable nutrition at that level.

Wine has far fewer calories that most other beverages. It is far better to drink wine than beer or soda (or even juices, if you are concentrating only on calories).

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-001-02s02yv.html

Whole milk is fairly high in calories, but reduced fat (and skim, for that matter) milk really isn’t. A cup of 1% milkfat milk has about 100 calories. Dairy products are in general fairly high in fat (which is a better reason to avoid them than for caloric levels).

Humans have likely not evolved their metabolisms at all over recorded history. People can subsist on rather bland and homogeneous diets quite well; the only survival advantage to eating high on the food chain is that you can get more caloric density. Humans do not need to eat meat, whole grains, or fruit to survive.

In order to lose weight, you have to eat fewer calories than you expend. Exercising and burning an extra 200 calories per day does you no good if you eat an extra 200 calories per day. It is harder than most people think to burn calories by exercising. I spend around 30 minutes a day on my spinner bike running my heart rate at around 190 and I’ll burn only around 350 calories each session (it takes about 3500 calories to make a pound). Most people can’t run their heart rates that high for nearly that long and will burn calories much slower. You will never be able to lose weight until you get your diet under control.

Strange how nobody has pointed out that a good round of athletic sex burns a great number of calories, and tones a lot more muscles than a spinner bike ;)

But as far as diets, I've had great success with Slimfast as a maintenance tool. I didn't have to drop a huge amount of weight, but I was becoming very "fluffy" from all the donuts and fast food in the office environment. Slimfast worked perfectly, because that way I got plenty of energy with no headache or tiredness while typing at a computer. Then when you leave the office you do your exercising and can eat a "normal" meal and skip desert. After 3 days on Slimfast, you actually do not WANT to eat anything more than a normal meal. That 3-day window seems to be key, I noticed the same thing when I did the Atkins Diet back in the early 70's when it first came out. So if you can hold to the discipline for 3 days, many of the cravings will go away. But of course, if you are morbidly obese, none of this will help you because your metabolism no longer recognizes the signals which govern normal hunger and satiation and has run away with your body. Having your stomach stapled is to essentially remove most of that organ which processes alimentation, and that seems as extreme as using abortion as your sole means of birth control. It should be the absolute last resort and only if a doctor with no vested interest in selling this surgery has said you have no other choice.

Very true, but many of us single people don't have that option. :)

The Hydroxycut stuff worked for me but I was just trying to cut up a bit with less of a drop in caloric intake. It won't help much for significant weight loss.

Folks will go on crash diets out of desperation and not worry about nutrition. This is very counter-productive. You yourself admit that low caloric intake will slow down the metabolism. That was my point, also.



The body will burn the acetates which are a product of alcohol consumption in preference to burning stored fat. Thus the calories in a glass of wine or shot of vodka are far more lethal than the calories in a can of soda pop.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/...ch/alcohol.htm



I didn't say avoid dairy products merely because of calories. I stated that cow's milk - from which dairy products are all derived - is a substance dedicated to the production of an animal which will one day weigh 800 pounds or more. Why eat dairy products if you want to be a slim 120 pounds?


I did not state that humans have evolved their metabolisms over recorded history. Human history is a mere blink of the eye to Old Mother Evolution. Our metabolisms remain the same as they were when we were wandering around in the plains of Africa. Whole grains, fruit, and lean meat are not high on the food chain - OK, meat is, but fruit and grains are NOT. And, no, we don't need to eat these things to survive, but you were worried about nutrition in the first paragraph of your response, why are you forgetting it here?

True. My point was that you need to make a rather drastic change in your caloric intake to have a significant impact on your metabolism. Most people would not be able to cut their intake long enough (even on a “crash” diet) to alter their metabolism. Your original statement was:

I was merely trying to clarify. You must cut back on calories to lose weight; otherwise, you to increase your activity level enough so that your intake = expenditure. This is way easier to do with diet than with exercise. If you do cut your caloric intake enough for your metabolism to change, you cannot counter this effect by exercising more. For most people who want to lose weight, it is far better to get one's diet under control before beginning any exercise program.

When it comes to weight loss, calories are calories. Period.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie5.htm

This makes no sense. All mammals produce milk, which is very similar in composition. Humans, as an accident of history, happen to drink cow’s milk more often than other mammals. Using your logic, I would assume drinking rat’s milk would be less harmful than drinking cow’s milk since adult rats weigh only a few pounds.

Weight loss has nothing to do with nutrition. I was just making a point, not proselytizing.

Your statement was:
I interpreted this (probably incorrectly) as a statement that humans who eat a “balanced” diet have a survival advantage over those that do not. This is the point I was refuting. I probably should have said "human" history, rather than "recorded" history. That's what I meant, in any case.

I have tried both. And I should add that I am a person that doesn't even take an aspirin for a headache, but a friend took trimspa and lost so much weight I tried it. I think the stuff I tried is now illegal to sell.

I have to say when I started taking it I probably needed to lose about 15 pounds. I lost about 5 the first week. And I felt like shit. People at my work would ask me why my hands were shaking - it was terrible. It made me very hyper.

Now, I think I am at a good weight and try to get to the gym a few times a week. Cardio, cardio, cardio is the only answer to lose weight, that and of course reducing your calorie intake. It takes a few weeks, but once you increase your cardio the weight will come off.

I think we have mostly been arguing semantics here, but I do take exception to a few of your statements, including the one above. A good weight loss program should also be one based on balanced nutrition. Otherwise, while you may lose weight, you may also pay a price for it in your over all health that you don't want to pay.

The milk of mammals is produced to quickly grow baby animals. I imagine a diet based on rat's milk would not be condusive to weight loss, either. I agree.

As far as a lowered metabolism rate, you would be amazed at how many folks out there have lowered their caloric intake to the point that this occurs. I, myself, am one of them. This was not a deliberate action on my part. Due to stress, I have very little appetite these days and my over all caloric intake is pathetic. My metabolism has gone into famine mode and I am attempting to counter this by getting more exercise. It is very difficult to change your metabolic set point once this happens, as I can attest from personal experience.

Brianna - I promised myself that I would start living healthily on 1 October, and I genuinely believed it. I just seem to be on some sort of downward spiral though..... Had a healthy dinner last night then got up on auto pilot at about 22.00 and bought a pizza from one of the many take-aways on my road. If I don't put a stop to this soon I'll look like Catal Huyuk (following your fat god theme there).

I've lost weight before - sadly I'm a yo-yo dieter. I'm 5'8 and have been every weight from 120- 220lbs. Not sure how to break this cycle. I know I can LOSE weight, so its just a case of waiting til my mind-set is right & going for it again. Sadly I know I can also GAIN weight again. I'm not happy with my weight at present but I know I can resolve that. The trickier question is how I stop myself putting it back on again.

I have lost weight through purely cutting down my food intake before. It was the hardest way to stick to, but even with a dramatic decrease in calories I don't believe my body hit starvation mode. I found that weighing myself every fortnight showed a consistent weight loss. When I weighed myself every day the small losses & occasional gains could have lead me to believe it wasn't working.

Last time I combined healthy eating with rigorous exercise once I'd lost the first stone. Exercise alone would not have worked for me. I had over 50lbs to lose and was gorging on fast food and drinking far too much. I was lethargic, depressed, not sleeping, ashamed of my body etc etc. A healthy diet has to be the place to start, surely?

Would I consider surgery? If I had the money - yes.

End of me, me, me post - sorry.

Oh, Sundae Girl, you and I have all that in common! I have weighed anywhere from 120-220 before, too! I ALWAYS say, "OK, now I'm going to be healthy!" and blow it in 24 hours. I get sad, depressed and ashamed of my body, too, and then the downward spiral of self-loathing starts and drinking sounds like the cure, no? Wow. Thanks for sharing your story. It has helped me today. Thanks :) Feels so good to NOT be alone! :)

I took all my fat clothes to the charity shop last time, as I swore I'd never ever let things get that bad again. Am now faced with replacing them all - maybe if I go into the charity shop again they'll all still be there, freshly washed & pressed for me :)

Please tell me if you come up with any great solution! I tried diet pills once (no idea what they were called, but they came in an electric blue bottle & it was rumoured that Britney Spears used them). I got them from a friend who they disagreed with and they disagreed with me too..... They made me so nauseous I couldn't work or sleep, and I felt like I was living in a bad cartoon - twitching & jerking all over the place. Found out afterwards they were absolutely packed with caffiene (which I have always been sensitive to). Taught me to check what I was putting in my body in future!

Being in the same situation myself means I can't offer any words of wisdom, but you have my support for what its worth. And its good to know its not just me. Right, off to get a jacket potato with chilli, cheese & sour cream. Ahem.

Actually, rat milk (Malk) is much higher in fat and protein than cow or human milk. However it does not contain the same growth hormones (rBST or the naturally occurring ones - like IGF-1 (which is identical in humans and cows and "causes cancer").

Scroll down to compare milk composition by species.

I gain about 15 pounds every winter (seasonal depression?) and I've found the best way to lose it is to just get so involved with something else, I forget to eat.

Seriously! Like this July I adopted this little psycho chihuahua and I started researching all her health problems, I was walking her a few times every day, trying to train her, reading doggie articles online, etc. I lost too much weight and had to purposely try to eat more fattening foods so I didn't look too thin.

Get a new hobby that interests you and excites you so much that you stop thinking about what you want to eat and food can actually become a pain. "Damn it, I'm hungry but I don't want to stop and eat...I wish there was a little food pill that I could just pop so I wouldn't have to stop and eat and chew and swallow and all that BS, it just takes too long"

Maybe I'm just weird, but it works for me.
Going to the gym also works beautifully, but it's not as easy.
Oh wait, one more idea! Get a job involving physical labor! Then you'd get paid to be active!

The linked article doesn't say that. It says cells with the IGF-1 receptor, removed or blocked, can/will not become cancerous.
But it does not say that being exposed (or not) to IRS-1 protein has any bearing on turning cancerous, only body size. It also says other things dock with the IGF-1 receptor so I think your jumping to an unwarranted conclusion in blaming IRS-1. :eyebrow:

That's where "fast foods" sneak into your plans to be healthy. Eating right usually takes planning and preparation. :)

That's what I get for not checking my analogy. Thanks for the clarification, jinx.

Rat milk is also designed to quickly produce 800 punds of rat - just no all in the same animal.

You could install a gate.

Ah you can still fit Cadbury Chocolate Fingers through that......!

(If picture is not attached please bear with me - its the 1st time I've tried)

i'm kind of all over the place too... so I'm glad we can all commisurate together. My thing is that I don't ever weigh myself, I just go by how clothes feel. For instance, my hot jeans didn't fit me too well in the spring, but I manage to get them on yesterday with few problems - I did have a conversation with my jeans telling them that they need to get on my body or else - and they did. Maybe a bit tight in places, but I could get them on, I could move and quite frankly, I like my jeans to be tight in my butt and thighs... it's just more comfortable. Sure they could fit better, but I'm happy for now and I'll keep trying to make them fit.

How I do that - that's another story... and I'll fill you in as it goes along. In the mean time, good luck, Bri!

I am trying the outside motivating factor when it comes to getting more exercise. I don't know how many resolutions I've made and broken about getting out and just doing some more walking in the past 6 months. In December, the new Cardi Welsh Corgi pup is due to arrive. I know that he will FORCE me to go out and walk. Pups have so MUCH energy! Plus, Cardigans have an enthusiasm about things that you just can't help but share with them! :)

I got puppy baby pic's from the breeder today. Don't know yet which of these little cuties will be my new walking partner:

Get the first one, Mari. If his nose color has already filled in, he is either the first born or the strongest of the two pups. More developed internally, choose him.

As for the issue at hand, weight, I see the guys have gone off discussing chemistry while the gals are talking about UNHAPPY experiences of the past. Ladies, please realize what is the underlying problem: you are not HAPPY. It makes all the difference in whether you will be successful with anything you do and expecially where that applies to your health. The problem is not what you eat but why you eat it. Find somebody who can guide you to treat THAT and the rest will come without you even noticing. Trust me, I have been there.

Yeah, I would agree with you, Tonchi. However, I will get the pup that the breeder picks out for me - there are 4 others, too. Cardigan Welsh Corgi's are scarce as hen's teeth. I had to apply for the pup just like applying for a job and give references and everything. The breeder is highly reputable and her Corgi's consistently win at a agility and herding trials on the national level. I felt fortunate to be one of the 6 lucky Cardi pup applicants she accepted. Since I want a companion animal, not a show dog or one for breeding, I won't be given the pick of the litter which is fine by me. I researched Cardigan breeders pretty extensively and actually turned down two offers of other puppies because I am so impressed with this breeder's dogs and her philosophy. Any pup from that litter is going to make a fine walking companion and pal!

Here's a pic of a Cardi competing in an agility competition. I'm actually hoping for a blue merle like the one in the picture. Now is that guy gonna help you get fit or what? ;)

'Splain something here ... two months ago you were checking out different boxes that you could live in down by the river because you were fearful of losing your housing, and now you're buying a pedigree puppy of high scarcity, already have a cat ... if you can barely feed yourself by your own admission, how can you take on the responsibility of pets?

Heheheheheheh!

I clicked on the Cellar and saw that you had replied to this thread, and thought to myself, "Surprise me, Wolf! Please, don't be so predictable!" Oh, well...

Pets can live in boxes, too, and I'm on a diet. :p

She's using the cellar for writing practice. She's sketching out a character.

Psssst! Brianna! The character is heavily one dimensional! Maybe the character needs to go on a diet! :lol:

A pet-quality dog from a better breeder is going to be $500-$1000.

And?

Lower in calories?

Guaranteed to speed up your metabolism?

A great appetite suppressant?

Better than a home gym?

Guaranteed to bite Speed Trap Cop in the ass?

Will chase off Urbane Guerilla?

Carries a Glock?

What? I give up!

(I can see that not ALL of you have been hanging on to my EVERY last word here lately! Oh well, I've been known to forget stuff, myself)

:zzz:

We need to get something going in one of the other threads!

AND.. pedigreed dogs have more serious and frequent health problems, like displasia, tooth loss, eye problems, and weak lungs. They require watching and pampering to a much greater degree than mutts do. Vet expenses are astronomical and always come during weekends and holidays when you have to go to an emergency clinic at 3 times the usual cost. If you buy a show quality you pay up to $10,000; AKC Registered pet-quality dogs start at $650 in the states where I have known breeders. And letting the breeder choose the dog for you is begging to have it stuck to you, Mari. You pays your nickle and makes YOUR choice, or wait until a better opportunity. Goin' kinda fast, Mari, I'm inclined to agree with Wolf on this. I want you to be happier than just for the first few days after you get the little guy.

Tonchi! :thumb:

Anyone else who wishes to start up a discussion of purebred vs. mutt; how to select a good pup, etc., I'd be pleased to exhange thoughts in a new thread. I don't want to hijack Brianna's weight loss thread, though.

So, Brianna! I just ate a carton of donuts! Now what? ;)

Oh I know, I linked to the article because I thought it was interesting. You can do a google search on IGF-1 and cancer and draw your own conclusion from the tons of articles returned. That's why I put "causes cancer" in quotes.

Well, if you are a carton of donuts, you've bigger problems than I can help you with. Good luck with that. :donut:

BWAHHAHAAhahahaha!

To be fair, that's a typo, not a spelling errot.

Nobody said anything was fair!!

I went back and fixed my typo, but come to think of it, they say you ARE what you eat, so I guess donuts are me!

Pet-quality? As opposed to what? Food-grade? :lol:

Just in case you're not just being a wiseacre - I can never tell, I'm dense that way --

Dog breeders, of the sort seen in "Best In Show", are trying to improve a breed by selectively breeding for quality. A good breeder is looking for puppies that are good enough to be Champions, and thus both contribute to the breeding pool and to their own wallet.

Some littermates will be immediately rejected as not showable, and thus will be "pet-quality", rather than "show-quality" dogs. Mismarking, bad gait, anything "wrong" can rule a dog out of the show ring life but most of these make great pets. I met a Boston whose fault was that he stuck his tongue out all the time. Not showable - but an awesome little pup.

Bean, my dog who died a few months ago, was from a top dog named Dusty who was a super Champion - Best of Breed at Westminster, actually. But when Bean was born, his mother bit one of his ears off, and thus Bean went immediately from show dog to pet dog, and his price reduced from $3000 to $500.

(As it turned out, one of Bean's testicles did not develop and thus he would have been pet quality anyway. And due to certain congenital defects he should not have been bred, and was not.)

[/thread drift]
What works best for me is an increase in exercise (1/2 hour walk every other day) and no carbs (bread, potatoes, pasta, biscuits, cake) in the evening (but I'll have a biscuit or two, and/or a sandwich for lunch no problem, and continue to drink the alcohol I want). That lost me 1lb/week last summer.
Next best is limiting the evening carbs and no exercise. That's what I'm doing just now and I'm slowly losing weight (1lb every week or two). These two schemes (especially the second ;) ) are easiest for me to stick to and do not feel like punishment. They do say that slow weight loss is better than a quick drop ... less likely to be regained.
I note with interest the number of people who choose a diet which is the direct opposite of their habitual food consumption pattern - to me, this seems a recipe (pun intended) for disaster.
So, in addition to thinking about why you're eating (are you really hungry ?), think about your habitual eating pattern and try to find a diet that matches that, rather than fights it.

Very nice.

I agree with your observations, limey. Picking a plan that is opposite your habits is like scaling a mountain by running directly at the summit. The chances for success are much better with an oblique approach, like the switchbacks that crisscross the mountainside. Not as steep, but you get a little flat spot every so often to catch your breath. And if you stumble and fall, you won't wind up at the bottom of the hill, beat to crap, bloody and defeated. You'll just stop where you land, and be able to stand up, dust yourself off, and keep on climbing.

Surprisingly, I found the honest answer to this question, most of the time, is no.

/Thread Drift

UT is right. Hear that, UT?

UT IS RIGHT!

(WOW! Did anyone just notice that pigs have sprouted wings and begun to fly?)

Anyhow, my first Cardigan (Merlin) was a wonderful dog in every single way except that he was a "Whitely," meaning that unlike the Blue Merle jumping thru the tire in the pic above, one side of his face was all white - immedient disqualification from show ring or breeding. Not a single other thing wrong with him. Picked him up for $300 instead of the standard $1,000.00 that the breeder usually charged. Merlin ended up saving my Mom's life. Pretty good bargain for 300 bucks!

[/thread drift]
the inability to lose weight may be symptomatic of adult onset diabetes (aka Type II). I'm going to start another thread on this subject but anyone who seriously diets and can't seem to lose more than a few pounds should probably be screened first by a simple fasting (10-12 hours) blood sugar test and if that shows anything north of 130 then they need to have a hemoglobin A1c test. If that is 7 or higher then you're officially a type II. I found out 2 years ago (exactly) that this was my situation and so I don't want to be the bearer of bad tidings but we, as an aging population, are just now seeing only the tip of the type II iceberg.

Show Quality.

That forum looks eerily like the celler...