Fed Up Documentary
Replies
-
-
Is Katie Couric the new Oprah? Let's find out!
Mom-science for the win. Let's all get our science from celebrities. No need for those pesky years of studying relevant fields and math and stuff.
Makeup!!0 -
0
-
SanteMulberry wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »LadyTalulah wrote: »I agree that it's completely down to the individual to control what and how much we eat, but there is truth in the fact that the big food corporations don't care about our health. They'll market anything as healthy just to sell it when it's actually complete synthesised cr*p. Of course you need to take personal resposibility on educating yourself about what's healthy and what's not but it's not made any easier with all the conflicting information out there.
It's true, they didn't force feed you anything, whatever you ate was your choice… Either way, good to know you started to do your own research. Educate yourself then follow whatever feels right to you! Good luck.
They can market anything as healthy because there are competing philosophies about what's healthy and what isn't. Hence all the "conflicting information." An Atkins follower won't care that Quaker Oats is "heart healthy" and low sodium. A vegetarian won't care that tuna is a low fat source of protein. A vegan won't care that milk is a good source of calcium. And so on.
And this is why these documentaries stink. They assume a philosophy, and then work off of that as if everyone assumes it, or should assume it, as well. No one's pet food philosophy has the power to dictate health to the rest of us. We shouldn't all be forced to eat gluten-free just because there's a food philosophy trending about it, and we shouldn't deny corporations the right to produce and heavily market gluten free products for those who demand it.
I'll eat Lucky Charms and McDonald's because my philosophy allows me the freedom to do that. And who is Katie Couric to scold me or anyone else or any corporation for that matter about it just because a sugar-is-da-debbel philosophy doesn't tolerate these sugary foods? Why should government enact policy that would in the end amount to "vice" taxes on foods that, according to some random group of bozo's food and health philosophy, is da debbil?
Who's stopping you from loading up on a crap diet? Do you really think anyone is going to propose government rule on what we can eat? That in itself smacks of the "tin-foil hat brigade". OP is merely looking for advice on how to healthfully lose body fat and she likely doesn't have the luxury of disregarding sound nutrition.
I'm sorry, but the criticism I responded to is over corporations being free to market anything as healthy. My response also responds to the criticism presented in documentary after documentary that the government has failed in regulating so-called unhealthy foods.
What do you think regulation entails?0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
I eat a wide variety of foods. Nothing is cut out of my diet.
0 -
I agree. I was beginning to look and feel like an old woman five years ago. Most of my friends now marvel that I have gone backward in age from the look of me. But I can assure you that only excellent nutrition and adequate exercise is what has caused this.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
I think it's because Sarauk2sf is honest with herself and doesn't make excuses.
*nod nod* Completely agree.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
I think it's because Sarauk2sf is honest with herself and doesn't make excuses.
That for sure.
Sara is an inspiration to many.
0 -
At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »LadyTalulah wrote: »I agree that it's completely down to the individual to control what and how much we eat, but there is truth in the fact that the big food corporations don't care about our health. They'll market anything as healthy just to sell it when it's actually complete synthesised cr*p. Of course you need to take personal resposibility on educating yourself about what's healthy and what's not but it's not made any easier with all the conflicting information out there.
It's true, they didn't force feed you anything, whatever you ate was your choice… Either way, good to know you started to do your own research. Educate yourself then follow whatever feels right to you! Good luck.
They can market anything as healthy because there are competing philosophies about what's healthy and what isn't. Hence all the "conflicting information." An Atkins follower won't care that Quaker Oats is "heart healthy" and low sodium. A vegetarian won't care that tuna is a low fat source of protein. A vegan won't care that milk is a good source of calcium. And so on.
And this is why these documentaries stink. They assume a philosophy, and then work off of that as if everyone assumes it, or should assume it, as well. No one's pet food philosophy has the power to dictate health to the rest of us. We shouldn't all be forced to eat gluten-free just because there's a food philosophy trending about it, and we shouldn't deny corporations the right to produce and heavily market gluten free products for those who demand it.
I'll eat Lucky Charms and McDonald's because my philosophy allows me the freedom to do that. And who is Katie Couric to scold me or anyone else or any corporation for that matter about it just because a sugar-is-da-debbel philosophy doesn't tolerate these sugary foods? Why should government enact policy that would in the end amount to "vice" taxes on foods that, according to some random group of bozo's food and health philosophy, is da debbil?
Who's stopping you from loading up on a crap diet? Do you really think anyone is going to propose government rule on what we can eat? That in itself smacks of the "tin-foil hat brigade". OP is merely looking for advice on how to healthfully lose body fat and she likely doesn't have the luxury of disregarding sound nutrition.
I'm sorry, but the criticism I responded to is over corporations being free to market anything as healthy. My response also responds to the criticism presented in documentary after documentary that the government has failed in regulating so-called unhealthy foods.
What do you think regulation entails?
LOL--The day that there is federal legislation regulating the amount of sugar in processed food will be the day that hell freezes over. Why would Congress shoot itself in its collective foot by regulating sugar when they are the biggest beneficiaries of corporate largesse from the elaborate subsidies paid to the sweetener industries?!?
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »LadyTalulah wrote: »I agree that it's completely down to the individual to control what and how much we eat, but there is truth in the fact that the big food corporations don't care about our health. They'll market anything as healthy just to sell it when it's actually complete synthesised cr*p. Of course you need to take personal resposibility on educating yourself about what's healthy and what's not but it's not made any easier with all the conflicting information out there.
It's true, they didn't force feed you anything, whatever you ate was your choice… Either way, good to know you started to do your own research. Educate yourself then follow whatever feels right to you! Good luck.
They can market anything as healthy because there are competing philosophies about what's healthy and what isn't. Hence all the "conflicting information." An Atkins follower won't care that Quaker Oats is "heart healthy" and low sodium. A vegetarian won't care that tuna is a low fat source of protein. A vegan won't care that milk is a good source of calcium. And so on.
And this is why these documentaries stink. They assume a philosophy, and then work off of that as if everyone assumes it, or should assume it, as well. No one's pet food philosophy has the power to dictate health to the rest of us. We shouldn't all be forced to eat gluten-free just because there's a food philosophy trending about it, and we shouldn't deny corporations the right to produce and heavily market gluten free products for those who demand it.
I'll eat Lucky Charms and McDonald's because my philosophy allows me the freedom to do that. And who is Katie Couric to scold me or anyone else or any corporation for that matter about it just because a sugar-is-da-debbel philosophy doesn't tolerate these sugary foods? Why should government enact policy that would in the end amount to "vice" taxes on foods that, according to some random group of bozo's food and health philosophy, is da debbil?
Who's stopping you from loading up on a crap diet? Do you really think anyone is going to propose government rule on what we can eat? That in itself smacks of the "tin-foil hat brigade". OP is merely looking for advice on how to healthfully lose body fat and she likely doesn't have the luxury of disregarding sound nutrition.
You didn't listen to any of the arguments from the supreme court when they were deliberating about the insurance mandate from the Affordable Care Act did you? Some of the dissenting justices painted a pretty sobering picture about the precedent that the ruling set. For the first time in the history of our country, the government can force you to purchase something solely for the fact that you are alive and breathing. If they're in charge of healthcare decisions, what's to say they can't start deciding what you can eat to make you "healthier" in their eyes to justify spending less money on healthcare. It's really not that far fetched based on the changes we've seen thus far. I'm sure Michelle is already making things happen lol.0 -
You may find that you must change your diet as you get closer to your goal. I did. I lost the first 40 pounds easily--then it got tougher and I had to more carefully control what I ate and increase my exercise even more.SanteMulberry wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
The "rules" of "calories in-calories out" work well for the majority of people in their youth (and who exercise). HOWEVER, it just doesn't work very well for the typical post-menopausal woman, because the reduced number of calories she needs to shrink her fat deposits results in malnutrition,
Funny, this 5 years post menopausal woman is doing just fine losing weight and fat deposits and I am healthier than I have been in years. I follow CICO with a touch of IIFYM to help me find the best way to distribute the calories in part of the equation.
And do you eat a lot of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor food? If that's the case, then think of how much better you would do with a better diet. Since you indicate on your ticker that you still have about 75 pounds to go, you were likely a lot bigger than OP to start with.
I eat a wide variety of foods. Nothing is cut out of my diet.
0 -
I came across this gif and sometimes, it really sums up a lot of things really well.
0 -
I blame the filthy rich corporations that manufacture forks. Have you noticed that everyone in America who is overweight eat with forks? Meanwhile, the CEOs of those corporations are making BILLIONS! But you don't hear about that in the media....why? Because the fork manufacturers have paid them hush money. Stop using forks and you will lose the weight!
Sorry. I felt like blaming someone other than myself too.0 -
I blame the filthy rich corporations that manufacture forks. Have you noticed that everyone in America who is overweight eat with forks? Meanwhile, the CEOs of those corporations are making BILLIONS! But you don't hear about that in the media....why? Because the fork manufacturers have paid them hush money. Stop using forks and you will lose the weight!
Sorry. I felt like blaming someone other than myself too.
Nah, it's the spoons. They hold a lot more than forks.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
I think it's because Sarauk2sf is honest with herself and doesn't make excuses.
And you think I am?
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
I'm 34 and eat whatever I please, and I'm in the best shape of my life. I'm an anomaly too I guess?0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »
I agree. I was beginning to look and feel like an old woman five years ago. Most of my friends now marvel that I have gone backward in age from the look of me. But I can assure you that only excellent nutrition and adequate exercise is what has caused this.
They're being nice. That's what friends do.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
So first you infer that she has a rigorous training schedule most can or won't do as a reason she's able to be as she is. But now that it is "revealed" she does something that is actually average and doable, it's got to be her "better" metabolism (insinuating that it's something she's always had)???
:laugh:
Okay then.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »LadyTalulah wrote: »I agree that it's completely down to the individual to control what and how much we eat, but there is truth in the fact that the big food corporations don't care about our health. They'll market anything as healthy just to sell it when it's actually complete synthesised cr*p. Of course you need to take personal resposibility on educating yourself about what's healthy and what's not but it's not made any easier with all the conflicting information out there.
It's true, they didn't force feed you anything, whatever you ate was your choice… Either way, good to know you started to do your own research. Educate yourself then follow whatever feels right to you! Good luck.
They can market anything as healthy because there are competing philosophies about what's healthy and what isn't. Hence all the "conflicting information." An Atkins follower won't care that Quaker Oats is "heart healthy" and low sodium. A vegetarian won't care that tuna is a low fat source of protein. A vegan won't care that milk is a good source of calcium. And so on.
And this is why these documentaries stink. They assume a philosophy, and then work off of that as if everyone assumes it, or should assume it, as well. No one's pet food philosophy has the power to dictate health to the rest of us. We shouldn't all be forced to eat gluten-free just because there's a food philosophy trending about it, and we shouldn't deny corporations the right to produce and heavily market gluten free products for those who demand it.
I'll eat Lucky Charms and McDonald's because my philosophy allows me the freedom to do that. And who is Katie Couric to scold me or anyone else or any corporation for that matter about it just because a sugar-is-da-debbel philosophy doesn't tolerate these sugary foods? Why should government enact policy that would in the end amount to "vice" taxes on foods that, according to some random group of bozo's food and health philosophy, is da debbil?
Who's stopping you from loading up on a crap diet? Do you really think anyone is going to propose government rule on what we can eat? That in itself smacks of the "tin-foil hat brigade". OP is merely looking for advice on how to healthfully lose body fat and she likely doesn't have the luxury of disregarding sound nutrition.
I'm sorry, but the criticism I responded to is over corporations being free to market anything as healthy. My response also responds to the criticism presented in documentary after documentary that the government has failed in regulating so-called unhealthy foods.
What do you think regulation entails?
LOL--The day that there is federal legislation regulating the amount of sugar in processed food will be the day that hell freezes over. Why would Congress shoot itself in its collective foot by regulating sugar when they are the biggest beneficiaries of corporate largesse from the elaborate subsidies paid to the sweetener industries?!?
Whether it happens or not is besides the point. These documentaries criticize the government for not regulating: The idea being conveyed in that criticism is obviously that government should regulate. This is the idea we are supposed to chew on as a plausible government solution to the obesity epidemic. However absurd or unlikely you or I feel that this idea would materialize is besides the point.
Sugar is being compared to Big Tobacco, and even cocaine...if Big Tobacco has a vice tax and a warning label, why not Oreos? The ends justify the means, right? If a vice tax can deter people, especially poor people, from eating Oreos, why not? Think of the children.
0 -
At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
Aaaand the last ounce of credibility you may or may not have had is now gone...0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
Because science.0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »LadyTalulah wrote: »I agree that it's completely down to the individual to control what and how much we eat, but there is truth in the fact that the big food corporations don't care about our health. They'll market anything as healthy just to sell it when it's actually complete synthesised cr*p. Of course you need to take personal resposibility on educating yourself about what's healthy and what's not but it's not made any easier with all the conflicting information out there.
It's true, they didn't force feed you anything, whatever you ate was your choice… Either way, good to know you started to do your own research. Educate yourself then follow whatever feels right to you! Good luck.
They can market anything as healthy because there are competing philosophies about what's healthy and what isn't. Hence all the "conflicting information." An Atkins follower won't care that Quaker Oats is "heart healthy" and low sodium. A vegetarian won't care that tuna is a low fat source of protein. A vegan won't care that milk is a good source of calcium. And so on.
And this is why these documentaries stink. They assume a philosophy, and then work off of that as if everyone assumes it, or should assume it, as well. No one's pet food philosophy has the power to dictate health to the rest of us. We shouldn't all be forced to eat gluten-free just because there's a food philosophy trending about it, and we shouldn't deny corporations the right to produce and heavily market gluten free products for those who demand it.
I'll eat Lucky Charms and McDonald's because my philosophy allows me the freedom to do that. And who is Katie Couric to scold me or anyone else or any corporation for that matter about it just because a sugar-is-da-debbel philosophy doesn't tolerate these sugary foods? Why should government enact policy that would in the end amount to "vice" taxes on foods that, according to some random group of bozo's food and health philosophy, is da debbil?
Who's stopping you from loading up on a crap diet? Do you really think anyone is going to propose government rule on what we can eat? That in itself smacks of the "tin-foil hat brigade". OP is merely looking for advice on how to healthfully lose body fat and she likely doesn't have the luxury of disregarding sound nutrition.
You didn't listen to any of the arguments from the supreme court when they were deliberating about the insurance mandate from the Affordable Care Act did you? Some of the dissenting justices painted a pretty sobering picture about the precedent that the ruling set. For the first time in the history of our country, the government can force you to purchase something solely for the fact that you are alive and breathing. If they're in charge of healthcare decisions, what's to say they can't start deciding what you can eat to make you "healthier" in their eyes to justify spending less money on healthcare. It's really not that far fetched based on the changes we've seen thus far. I'm sure Michelle is already making things happen lol.
I'm a Canadian.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »PikaKnight wrote: »SanteMulberry wrote: »
What about MFP user Sarauk2sf? She's in her late 40's and has managed to lose weight and recomp her body while including (in moderation) full fat items like ice cream, dairy and such.
Not everyone can (or will) follow the type of regime that Sarauk follows. I have arthritis and must be very careful as to the type and amount of exercise that I do--but, within that parameter, I have made a drastic change in my health and appearance.
LOL. She strength trains 3x a week. That's it. No cardio/nothing else and she has a desk job. How is that different than from what most follow? In fact, it's less than what most people try to do.
A lot of cardio can actually be counter-productive to the aging female body. Cardio is "catabolic"--that is, it tends to be decrease lean body mass. Weight-lifting, on the other hand is "anabolic"--that is, it tends to increase lean body mass. Which one do you think is better for increasing the flagging metabolism of the aging woman? I actually don't do a lot of cardio--just enough to keep my cardiovascular system healthy. She may have a better metabolism than I have to start with--many, many women are not so fortunate. It is estimated that about 40% of post-menopausal women have thyroid problems (as do I).
Aaaand the last ounce of credibility you may or may not have had is now gone...
Aaaand you want to explain your statement? Or do you like to hand out random insults?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions