Jack Lalanne's Advice

AnnPT77 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Dare I? I'm fascinated with creation stories. I love mythology. I love seeing the common threads in most culture's creation stories. I don't in any way conflate that with scientific learning.

Having said that, what you're reading has nothing to do with the Jewish story of creation, except maybe tangentially. And it's certainly not a scientific source.

The ancient history from Sumer covers the source of our scientific knowledge about our solar system, calendar and astrology.

Abram/Abraham's father was a high priest in Sumer/Ur and it was their job to pass the scientific learning passed to them on to their son. Since the Jewish account of creation may not have been written until some 3300 years ago they (Moses,etc) may have looked back to the history text from Abraham's times. This was all in the current Iraq of today the cradle of civilization as most know today.

If you read the medical info in these ancient Sumerian history text you will see how they cover diets of early man.

You are mixing people mentioned in myth with reality. If I want info on actual history, I'm going to get it from archaeologists and anthropologists.

While I respect that your faith system might enable you to conflate Jewish traditional mythos with fact, I'm sorry, it's not the same as science.

I have gone down the rabbit hole, does anyone have a life line?

Meh. Rabbits may be better company than people. Think it over while I fetch a rope. If you do decide to come out, we can go to a tea party.

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

piperdown44 wrote: »

mmapags wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ccruz985 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.

From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.

And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.

For example:

white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.

Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these

Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.

Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.

Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).

Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.

Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.

Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.

Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.

Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.

It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.

You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?

Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.

But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.

One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.

And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.

Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.

Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?

Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.

I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.

Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.

Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.

Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.

Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.

I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.

If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.

People back then must have been very active compared to today.

One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make

I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.

Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.

My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.

piperdown44 wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

piperdown44 wrote: »

mmapags wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ccruz985 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.

From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.

And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.

For example:

white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.

Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these

Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.

Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.

Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).

Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.

Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.

Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.

Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.

Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.

It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.

You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?

Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.

But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.

One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.

And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.

Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.

Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?

Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.

I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.

Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.

Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.

Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.

Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.

I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.

If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.

People back then must have been very active compared to today.

One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make

I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.

Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.

My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.

I can't speak for all my contemporaries but I grew up in a rural area and we were all very active. Just about everyone played sports (small school) and worked on the farm (picking rock all day or moving gated pipe).

Cleaning...woof, that takes me back. Saturday's, after setting water, was house cleaning. Move ALL the furniture to vacuum, wash the insides of the windows, dust everything, change all the sheets, clean the bathroom. We all had to pitch in and even with 5 of us it still took hours and had to pass Mom and Dad's version of clean. That doesn't include spring, summer and fall where we all worked outside on the lawn or house (in addition to farm duties).

Heck, when the weather was warm, I'd even walk 2 miles to our house after football practice. That's after 2 hour practices where we were constantly moving. Come to think of it, no wonder I was so darn skinny...lol

And, after chores on the weekend, for fun, we all went water skiing, swimming, hunting, snow skiing, hiking, fishing, camping, etc.

The only people I remember being heavier were the kids that choose not to play sports, did not live on a farm and weren't really active at all.

I'm also going to point out that this was with a Mom and Dad that were born in 1930 and 1929 respectively and most all our food had some fried aspect to it, butter or bacon grease, and lots of stuff most people avoid today. My mom and her brothers are all in either their late 80's or early 90's and still going strong.

moosmum1972 wrote: »

VintageFeline wrote: »

mph323 wrote: »

GaleHawkins wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

piperdown44 wrote: »

mmapags wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ccruz985 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.

From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.

And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.

For example:

white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.

Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these

Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.

Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.

Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).

Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.

Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.

Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.

Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.

Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.

It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.

You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?

Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.

But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.

One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.

And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.

Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.

Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?

Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.

I don't think anyone has a hard time acknowledging that pop or desserts are a main issue for some, even many. It seems commonplace to believe that, and clearly if it's an issue for you, you'd know that. I think it's easier to think "I don't eat a lot of bad foods, so I must be fat for other reasons." For those who ARE eating lots of foods believed to be especially "fattening" (which does not include everything on Jack's list, but certainly would include cookies or cake), it's not like they don't know it.

Anyway, seems to me that MyPlate is a decent approach and that, to the contrary, a list of certain higher cal foods not to eat (most of which are already recognized as "fattening"), not a good approach (especially since there are many other high cal foods for those without a huge sweet tooth). This does not mean that I would disagree with the common sense advice in MyPlate (and numerous other sources, I think it was common knowledge when I was growing up) that OF COURSE you should pay attention to the amount of sweets and other high cal low nutrient foods you are eating and not overdo it.

Pop is a particularly bad example, because the stats show that most people DON'T drink a lot of sugary pop. The reason the stats are high (although declining) is because the smaller percentage of people who drink a lot, drink a LOT. Understanding that it has a lot of calories is important, sure, although I doubt many people serious about losing weight guzzle huge amounts of pop and don't know it's an issue.

Your points resonate with me. I've never been a pop drinker. I've never been a consumer of cakes, pastries etc. I got fat eating eggs, meat fish and lots of fruits and veggies. It was purely and simply a matter of eating too much.

Same here. I got overweight by extra helpings of meat. In fact, when my wife and I'd go out with new'ish friends and they'd ask about dessert my wife would say "an extra helping of meat is my husbands dessert". Really, the only desserts I have are around Christmas since homemade sugar cookies are in abundance and Peppermint ice cream is back in the stores. Other than those 2, I don't really care for sweet stuff.

I get what's been discussed here but I really don't see my coworkers or friends eating the top list very much. Since I'm in a position to interact with a majority of who works at my company, what I see is extra large portions or having snacks all the time (some considered "healthy") combined with a sedentary lifestyle.

If you go and look in the thread that @AnnPT77 posted with her book from 1960, it's very striking wrt the calorie allotment or TDEE for various people then vs now.

People back then must have been very active compared to today.

One thing occurred to me based on my own personal experience after having read that thread. They mentioned house cleaning as exercise. Bear with me here, because I do have a generalized point to make

I remember, as a little girl, helping my mother and grandmother clean house in the 60's and 70's. There was a LOT more effort involved in housework back then, and standards for housekeeping were also different. Clean the blinds every month, wash the windows regularly and so on. We have newer products that make the effort easier (no need to wax and buff wood furniture or windows, for instance) and vacuum cleaners are much lighter and easier to push around. The effort involved in cleaning a floor? Oh please. That used to be a hands and knees endeavor with a scrub brush and then it involved waxing.

Back then, kids were outside all day running around playing. People walked to shops. Kids walked to school (I know I did, even in the 70's). I still walked to the store in the 1980's.

My general point is yes indeed, people were a LOT more active.

Yes we were a lot more active back in the 50-60's for sure. Before catching the school bus for the 12 mile trip I had to feed the livestock and milk a few cows by hand. Mom fixed breakfast from scratch each morning like all meals. She put the rice in water to soak overnight. By the time I walked into the school each morning I had more of a workout than kids see in a full day perhaps now. There was no TV to watch so during the winter I did a lot of reading of major books. In the summer it was working in the fields.

Recently researching the history of grain farming I came across a PDF version on line of The 12th Planet book based on Sumerian clay tablets (first written record by humans know today) discovered in the last 100 years that covers farming and health factors in the pre biblical era and the genetic modification of man eons ago. Yesterday I was reading about DNA and mtDNA that shows why we may to be able to eat many different ways and still be healthy. Humans seem to have a diverse gene pool we are dipped from solar system wide.

I have since ordered the full series from eBay/Amazon because The 12th Planet is just the first one written over a 25+ year period and they improved as the author did more research into our far distance past.

Wait - what?? You're getting your information from a book about the history of human/alien interactions?

"The first book of the revolutionary Earth Chronicles series offers indisputable documentary evidence of the existence of the mysterious planet Nibiru and tells why its astronauts came to Earth eons ago to fashion mankind in their image"

Wasn't Nibiru supposed to have caused an apocalypse recently? Either way, LOL.

Isn't that out of star wars??

nutmegoreo wrote: »

There is some next level tinfoil-*kitten*hattery going on in here. Wow!

Every time I'm certain I've seen it all...

nutmegoreo wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

nutmegoreo wrote: »

There is some next level tinfoil-*kitten*hattery going on in here. Wow!

Every time I'm certain I've seen it all...

Yup. I think this is the winner of them all.

I just don't know what else to say. I'm rarely left speechless, so it's clearly impressive. This is full on tinfoil suit of armor.