Beer, ice-cream, chocolate etc in my diet

[JSixpack]

On 6/26/2017 at 1:32 AM, swissie said:

If people get overweight, it means that they eat more than their body needs.

 

But it's defining that slippery word "more," which you sidestepped, with the problem of how exactly more becomes MORE, that have lead to the many "sure-fire" weight-loss" advertisings have we been bombarded in the last 50 years.

 

To get information that's actually useful you might start here:

 

 

Quote

A clear indication that they don't work is the fact that worldwide, people are getting more and more overweight.

 

True but that mostly means that people aren't following them. The problem for the overweight individual is to find one he/she can consistently follow year after year. Low carb has one of the highest rates of compliance if not the highest in many cases. http://healthdaddy.org/are-low-carb-diets-hard-to-stick-to/

 

Low carb is sometimes attacked on the basis of cost, veggies costing more than bread, rice, and sugar. So the cheapest, now, would be simply the breatharian diet. It should have tremendous appeal to our many antediluvian calories in/calories out fossils, particularly the impecunious pensioners among them. Here ya go: ‘Breatharian’ couple survives on ‘the universe’s energy’ instead of food

[tominbkk]

All depends if you believe calories in calories out or not.  Plus adding non nutritive items to your diet does not help build it.

[Bob12345]

All depends if you believe calories in calories out or not.

Its science, not a believe.

[robblok]

10 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

Its science, not a believe.

True.. but in some cases the kind of calories count too and so does the timing. Its not all as easy as just calories in and out. Proteins for instance are harder to burn so part of their caloric value is lost in the process. A big drink full of sugar might spike your insulin so much that you store fat even though your on a caloric deficit. 

 

I do accept the science of calories in and out.. just believe there are a few more variables. 

[Bob12345]

True.. but in some cases the kind of calories count too and so does the timing. Its not all as easy as just calories in and out. Proteins for instance are harder to burn so part of their caloric value is lost in the process. A big drink full of sugar might spike your insulin so much that you store fat even though your on a caloric deficit. 
 
I do accept the science of calories in and out.. just believe there are a few more variables. 

The insulin story has been debunked but agree with the rest.

[robblok]

Just now, Bob12345 said:

The insulin story has been debunked but agree with the rest.

Id like to read about the fact that its debunked (not an attack just always willing to learn). I want to know more as its hard enough to stay in shape and knowledge helps. Wish I knew back when I was younger what i know now about training and diet.

[Bob12345]

11 hours ago, robblok said:

Id like to read about the fact that its debunked (not an attack just always willing to learn). I want to know more as its hard enough to stay in shape and knowledge helps. Wish I knew back when I was younger what i know now about training and diet.

Basically the calories determine if you will gain weight or lose weight.

 

If you have a meal with a shitload of sugars it will mean there is an insulin spike for an hour and you gain fat, but because the sugar is processed quickly you will have the other 23 hours of the day to lose fat.

On the other hand if you have a meal with the same amount of calories an no sugars it might take 8 hours to process meaning you gain a tiny bit of fat each hour for 8 hours long and then lose fat the other 16 hours of the day.

 

The net result will be the same (assuming the same amount of calories available for your body, so excluding the thermogenic effects) as the net insulin response is the same. only in one case there is a peak while in the other case it is more dragged out over a longer period of time.

 

Layne Norton's explanation:

 

And some reading material with sources:

http://sciencedrivennutrition.com/do-carbohydrates-control-body-fat/

 

 

(and I am not taking this as an attack, I actually like you ask about it because it forces me to go over it again and make sure I got it all right and actually understand it).

 

 

 

Edit: I couldn't leave out this piece from our countryman Menno Henselmans:

http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html

 

Take Home Messages

• For your body composition, it doesn’t matter if a carb is classified as simple or complex or if it has a high or low glycemic or insulin load or index. Only the total amount of carbs in your diet matters and this only matters because carbs contain calories.
• For your health, the source of carbs is only relevant if you’re unhealthy. If you’re already healthy, it generally doesn’t matter.

[robblok]

Bob,

 

Going to listen to it and see what i feel about it. There are other sources saying different things. A lot of websites are saying that you need to control your carbs (not around workout time but other times) That you have to make sure your insulin sensitive so stuff gets delivered to your muscles and not your fat cells. I am talking here about someone who is fit and trains a lot. 

 

I read a lot about food on different websites one I do like is the forum from lylemcdonald. I am always open to learn new stuff about this topic as I am a guy who is lean and works out a lot but always has to watch what he eats and to lose fat I have to go to extreme measures.  ( i prefer this topic over Thai politics but in general this part of the forum is dead).   

 

I do like what your saying here about the insulin spike and all.. makes sense too actually. (that is if you control your food like I do and make sure you eat almost the same calorie wise every day) Then I think in the end the calories win. However I have seen plenty of research where people were eating different amounts of proteins but kept the sum of calories the same and the guys eating the protein and working out lost more fat then those higher in carb. Problem is I can't 100# recall where I read it. I am always reading a lot of this stuff so if I come across something like that again I will send it here or to you. 

[Bob12345]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Bob,

 

Going to listen to it and see what i feel about it. There are other sources saying different things. A lot of websites are saying that you need to control your carbs (not around workout time but other times) That you have to make sure your insulin sensitive so stuff gets delivered to your muscles and not your fat cells. I am talking here about someone who is fit and trains a lot. 

 

I read a lot about food on different websites one I do like is the forum from lylemcdonald. I am always open to learn new stuff about this topic as I am a guy who is lean and works out a lot but always has to watch what he eats and to lose fat I have to go to extreme measures.  ( i prefer this topic over Thai politics but in general this part of the forum is dead).   

 

I do like what your saying here about the insulin spike and all.. makes sense too actually. (that is if you control your food like I do and make sure you eat almost the same calorie wise every day) Then I think in the end the calories win. However I have seen plenty of research where people were eating different amounts of proteins but kept the sum of calories the same and the guys eating the protein and working out lost more fat then those higher in carb. Problem is I can't 100# recall where I read it. I am always reading a lot of this stuff so if I come across something like that again I will send it here or to you. 

Be careful to trust people just because they are fit and train a lot.

This is science and has little to do with how lean or strong a person is. That said, Layne Norton has done (natural) bodybuilding and is a recordholder in powerlifting, plus has a PhD in this field (protein synthesis for sports). Besides him I also follow Bret Contreras, Eric Helms, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, etc. All top researchers in this field with PhD's, many high level competitors under their wings, competitive experience, etc and they basically all agree on this subject.

 

Regarding the research you have seen: you are absolutely correct there. As always the small print is extremely important. Above the conclusion is that the source of your carbs do not matter (sugars from a soda drink or brown rice) as the total calories matter (excluding thermogenic effect and fibers). But you are now talking about exchanging carbs for proteins, which makes it a totally different story.

[robblok]

Just now, Bob12345 said:

Be careful to trust people just because they are fit and train a lot.

This is science and has little to do with how lean or strong a person is. That said, Layne Norton has done (natural) bodybuilding and is a recordholder in powerlifting, plus has a PhD in this field (protein synthesis for sports). Besides him I also follow Bret Contreras, Eric Helms, Alan Aragon, Brad Schoenfeld, etc. All top researchers in this field with PhD's, many high level competitors under their wings, competitive experience, etc and they basically all agree on this subject.

 

Regarding the research you have seen: you are absolutely correct there. As always the small print is extremely important. Above the conclusion is that the source of your carbs do not matter (sugars from a soda drink or brown rice) as the total calories matter (excluding thermogenic effect and fibers). But you are now talking about exchanging carbs for proteins, which makes it a totally different story.

Bob, 

 

Of course I don't give more credibility to those looking good. A lot of it is genetics, it would be like saying that Arnold would be the  expert (in his time) on training and food just because he won most contests. 

 

But yes replacing carbs by proteins is different as proteins need 30% or so more energy to burn. But that goes a bit against just a calorie is a calorie. But it seems you mean within carbs it does not make what kind you take.. For me I take the biggest oats i can get as they take a longer time to process (seen BBC documentary on that one). So sure caloric wise your right but to how full you feel or how your energy is released its different.

 

Alan Aragon, is linked to LyleMcDonald, i like the guy because like the ones you name they quote science and back their stuff up. I love reading it. Though sometimes I wonder how much things differ, i seen some reports on a night (cassein) drink being so good for you and I have been taking cassein (actually never seen results from protein powders.. just take them for the ease as I am fairly low in my calories. (too low actually for someone my size and activity but I have always been the guy that burns fat real hard)

[JSixpack]

8 hours ago, Bob12345 said:

Basically the calories determine if you will gain weight or lose weight.

 

Useless. As Rob pointed out it's a LOT more complicated than that.

 

Quote

If you have a meal with a shitload of sugars it will mean there is an insulin spike for an hour and you gain fat, but because the sugar is processed quickly you will have the other 23 hours of the day to lose fat.

 

And you then you actually gain weight 'cause nobody who eats such a meal is going to eat nothing else for the next 23 hours. Fact, you're probably going to have a couple more of the same plus snacks in between and are probably obese already if not merely insulin resistant. Let's get real here for the sake of the members who come to the "I'm Too Fat" forum looking for help.

 

Quote

On the other hand if you have a meal with the same amount of calories an no sugars

 

Nobody's eatin' that much broccoli, pal. But have all you want. There's a lesson in here somewhere.

 

Quote

Layne Norton's explanation:

And some reading material with sources:http://sciencedrivennutrition.com/do-carbohydrates-control-body-fat/

 

Who's this lightweight and what's he really selling? That explanation like all the supposed "debunking" explanations doesn't address the real point and sets up strawmen, as you know if you'd bothered just reading the comments.

 

http://sciencedrivennutrition.com/do-carbohydrates-control-body-fat/#comment-936

http://sciencedrivennutrition.com/do-carbohydrates-control-body-fat/#comment-1269

 

A bit of sense re: de novo lipogenesis https://paleoleap.com/science-turning-carbs-to-fat-de-novo-lipogenesis/

 

And then an authority in the field, Gary Taubes, addresses his heavyweight critics here: https://www.cato-unbound.org/2017/01/30/gary-taubes/case-against-sugar-isnt-so-easily-dismissed

Take Home Messages

• For avoiding insulin resistance and  for losing fat if you're overweight, it probably does matter, depending on metabolism, if a carb is classified as simple or complex or if it has a high or low glycemic load. The total amount of carbs in your diet matters and this matters because carbs contain calories, whose sources are not created equal; so high caloric density carbs & high glycemic loads, the kind that usually taste best and lead to carb addiction, would be best avoided in a fat loss program for the overweight. Explaining obesity by calories in/calories out is like noting that a room is crowded because more people entered it it. It says nothing about how they got there exactly, taking hormonal regulation into account, and how to get them out. Nobody denies the starvation rule but "eat less" advice, which everyone knows, has failed utterly to stem the obesity epidemic.
• For your health, the source of carbs is relevant if you’re healthy to help you stay healthy notably by avoiding the kind of insulin resistance some of our (formerly) carb agnostic members contracted. If you’re already healthy, it generally does matter, as all obese/overweight people started out healthy not paying attention to their sources of carbs.

 

[robblok]

I think it might be theory v.s real life applications here.

 

In theory it does not matter how simple the carbs are but in life I tend to take oats and the biggest / least processed (not cut up ) that I can get. I can say for a fact it keeps me full longer then a drink full of simple carbs of the same amount of calories. 

 

I also try to be lowish carb.. but I need some carbs for all the workouts I do. I am more high protein. (though not really over 2 grams per kg of body-weight). I think we should all find something that works and that is bearable. 

[Taggart]

Referring to the original topic, in regards to beer it seems to be seasonal for me here in farangland.  In late autumn, winter and early spring it's a daily consumption of one bottle of calorie heavy dark beers with high abv for winter warmth.   No sign of any weight gain when consumed. The rest of the year I rarely have beer.    I have a few squares of 70% + dark chocolate on a daily basis.  Again, no sign of weight gain.  On the last trip to Thailand friends and family wanted to go to Swensen's for dessert.  Surprised to see at the time they had sorbet on the menu.  I don't normally go looking for it, but I ended up opting for that choice.  Quite a difference from when I first visited Thailand with my wife over thirty years ago and would normally choose the banana split at that time.  

[dontoearth]

On 7/4/2017 at 9:13 PM, robblok said:

I think it might be theory v.s real life applications here.

 

In theory it does not matter how simple the carbs are but in life I tend to take oats and the biggest / least processed (not cut up ) that I can get. I can say for a fact it keeps me full longer then a drink full of simple carbs of the same amount of calories. 

 

I also try to be lowish carb.. but I need some carbs for all the workouts I do. I am more high protein. (though not really over 2 grams per kg of body-weight). I think we should all find something that works and that is bearable. 

I am not sure what you are saying here!    Oatmeal has about the same glycemic index as WHITE BREAD.   The low glycemic oats are steel cut.  That is one process.  They cut it to create  a way for the liquid to absorb as it is cooked.  When oatmeal is made into food it is heavily processed. It is boiled or steamed, crushed (rolled means a roller was used) toasted and then cut up!  So oatmeal is a heavily processed food and not at all good for you.  The larger flake variety has not been cut up but all the other processes have been done.  I think it is a marketing gimmick.  Oatmeal has been promoted by lots of well meaning but not well informed people.  And you can just buy oat grain which would has the lowest possible glycemic.   Real oats are a hard grain like rice.  It is a pain to boil often needing 35-60 mins in the pan.  I think switching to oatmeal in the morning years ago caused a huge weight gain in my body.  I avoid it like the plague today.  Again we often have to take all this science in and then use it and monitor our own bodies carefully to see what the reaction is to the foods and exercises.

[robblok]

21 hours ago, dontoearth said:

I am not sure what you are saying here!    Oatmeal has about the same glycemic index as WHITE BREAD.   The low glycemic oats are steel cut.  That is one process.  They cut it to create  a way for the liquid to absorb as it is cooked.  When oatmeal is made into food it is heavily processed. It is boiled or steamed, crushed (rolled means a roller was used) toasted and then cut up!  So oatmeal is a heavily processed food and not at all good for you.  The larger flake variety has not been cut up but all the other processes have been done.  I think it is a marketing gimmick.  Oatmeal has been promoted by lots of well meaning but not well informed people.  And you can just buy oat grain which would has the lowest possible glycemic.   Real oats are a hard grain like rice.  It is a pain to boil often needing 35-60 mins in the pan.  I think switching to oatmeal in the morning years ago caused a huge weight gain in my body.  I avoid it like the plague today.  Again we often have to take all this science in and then use it and monitor our own bodies carefully to see what the reaction is to the foods and exercises.

I looked it up your statement is not true.. unless your talking about those quick oats.

 

I have seen quite some research on oats they are quite good.. never had problems with them myself.. But i do weigh them and make sure I don't eat too much. 

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

I looked it up your statement is not true.. unless your talking about those quick oats.

 

I have seen quite some research on oats they are quite good.. never had problems with them myself.. But i do weigh them and make sure I don't eat too much. 

I have also read endless research on how very good oats are for everyone.  I am very skeptical as most of it has funding from the cereal manufacturers.   My hometown is Quaker Oats headquarters!  I no longer believe that cereal products or breakfast is good for you. (at least for me it is not.)   This is the way my body behaves.  I do best with intermittent fasting skipping breakfast.   I don't do cereals anymore.  I don't do juices.   If you read up NOT on Oats but on glycemic load you will find my statement is accurate.  The more a food is processed the higher the load.  The less processed the lower the load.  Some people don't believe in the glycemic load research or in the insulin driving obesity research.  I think this research has helped me and I would encourage people to read up on their own.  Try their own programs and see if it helps.  BTW, pearled barley is really low on the glycemic load something like 25 out of the 100 point scale.  Whole oat grain would also score somewhere near there but an hour of boiling keeps most people from eating it.  The scale ranks white bread at a 100 and table sugar around 83.  I couldn't find a good table of just all the types of oatmeal compared by glycemic load this am but I did post one before somewhere else on the forum.  Oatmeal is averaged (all types at 55) and Instant Oats at 79.  I try to stay below about 45 with most of my food.  Averaging oatmeal is a bad idea.  It means some variety (steel cut or whole oat groat) is bringing the average down.  So you might try the steel cut or whole oat groat or just continue to weigh and use whatever product is working for you.   We all have to find our own answers.  For me no oatmeal.  No breakfast!   Maybe steel cut or groats once in a blue moon but as a bedtime snack.

[Taggart]

I'm not into low carb diets but oats and barley are recommended by the inventor of the glycemic index, Dr. David Jenkins.  I eat my steel cut oats just about every morning.  No negative effects for myself.

[tominbkk]

On 7/5/2017 at 9:13 AM, robblok said:

I think it might be theory v.s real life applications here.

 

In theory it does not matter how simple the carbs are but in life I tend to take oats and the biggest / least processed (not cut up ) that I can get. I can say for a fact it keeps me full longer then a drink full of simple carbs of the same amount of calories. 

 

I also try to be lowish carb.. but I need some carbs for all the workouts I do. I am more high protein. (though not really over 2 grams per kg of body-weight). I think we should all find something that works and that is bearable. 

2g/kg seems pretty reasonable if you are working out hard.  I've scaled back my weights because I messed up my shoulder.  All better now pretty much but I'm being really careful and fully letting it heal.  So lots of swimming, bike riding, and walking.  I take in about 1g/kg, for me that's around 80, but some days a little less and some days a little more.  It's funny how if you listen to what you body is telling you it needs it will lead you to what to eat.  I've been doing IF too and it's pretty cool how after you do your workout without eating all day your body craves to eat the right thing.  Nice 8 oz steak and big pile of spinach with a little coconut oil and himalayan pink salt on the top!  God that was good!

[tominbkk]

On 7/4/2017 at 8:39 AM, robblok said:

Bob,

 

Going to listen to it and see what i feel about it. There are other sources saying different things. A lot of websites are saying that you need to control your carbs (not around workout time but other times) That you have to make sure your insulin sensitive so stuff gets delivered to your muscles and not your fat cells. I am talking here about someone who is fit and trains a lot. 

 

I read a lot about food on different websites one I do like is the forum from lylemcdonald. I am always open to learn new stuff about this topic as I am a guy who is lean and works out a lot but always has to watch what he eats and to lose fat I have to go to extreme measures.  ( i prefer this topic over Thai politics but in general this part of the forum is dead).   

 

I do like what your saying here about the insulin spike and all.. makes sense too actually. (that is if you control your food like I do and make sure you eat almost the same calorie wise every day) Then I think in the end the calories win. However I have seen plenty of research where people were eating different amounts of proteins but kept the sum of calories the same and the guys eating the protein and working out lost more fat then those higher in carb. Problem is I can't 100# recall where I read it. I am always reading a lot of this stuff so if I come across something like that again I will send it here or to you. 

I like Lyle but he seems so angry!  Must be all that red meat he eats.  Hahahah

[robblok]

19 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

I have also read endless research on how very good oats are for everyone.  I am very skeptical as most of it has funding from the cereal manufacturers.   My hometown is Quaker Oats headquarters!  I no longer believe that cereal products or breakfast is good for you. (at least for me it is not.)   This is the way my body behaves.  I do best with intermittent fasting skipping breakfast.   I don't do cereals anymore.  I don't do juices.   If you read up NOT on Oats but on glycemic load you will find my statement is accurate.  The more a food is processed the higher the load.  The less processed the lower the load.  Some people don't believe in the glycemic load research or in the insulin driving obesity research.  I think this research has helped me and I would encourage people to read up on their own.  Try their own programs and see if it helps.  BTW, pearled barley is really low on the glycemic load something like 25 out of the 100 point scale.  Whole oat grain would also score somewhere near there but an hour of boiling keeps most people from eating it.  The scale ranks white bread at a 100 and table sugar around 83.  I couldn't find a good table of just all the types of oatmeal compared by glycemic load this am but I did post one before somewhere else on the forum.  Oatmeal is averaged (all types at 55) and Instant Oats at 79.  I try to stay below about 45 with most of my food.  Averaging oatmeal is a bad idea.  It means some variety (steel cut or whole oat groat) is bringing the average down.  So you might try the steel cut or whole oat groat or just continue to weigh and use whatever product is working for you.   We all have to find our own answers.  For me no oatmeal.  No breakfast!   Maybe steel cut or groats once in a blue moon but as a bedtime snack.

I take steel cut with huge leafs and use cinamon on it.. read up about it. But anyway it all depends on personal preference at some times I just took egg for breakfast (baked with some bacon or ground beef). I have tried many things. I actually still switch things up once in a while. I also don't do juices. 

 

But in the end i like my oats.. i like my musli and yoghurt.. i like my proteins. 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

I like Lyle but he seems so angry!  Must be all that red meat he eats.  Hahahah

Hi is bi polar or was. But he has good research on his site. 

[tominbkk]

20 minutes ago, dontoearth said:

I have also read endless research on how very good oats are for everyone.  I am very skeptical as most of it has funding from the cereal manufacturers.   My hometown is Quaker Oats headquarters!  I no longer believe that cereal products or breakfast is good for you. (at least for me it is not.)   This is the way my body behaves.  I do best with intermittent fasting skipping breakfast.   I don't do cereals anymore.  I don't do juices.   If you read up NOT on Oats but on glycemic load you will find my statement is accurate.  The more a food is processed the higher the load.  The less processed the lower the load.  Some people don't believe in the glycemic load research or in the insulin driving obesity research.  I think this research has helped me and I would encourage people to read up on their own.  Try their own programs and see if it helps.  BTW, pearled barley is really low on the glycemic load something like 25 out of the 100 point scale.  Whole oat grain would also score somewhere near there but an hour of boiling keeps most people from eating it.  The scale ranks white bread at a 100 and table sugar around 83.  I couldn't find a good table of just all the types of oatmeal compared by glycemic load this am but I did post one before somewhere else on the forum.  Oatmeal is averaged (all types at 55) and Instant Oats at 79.  I try to stay below about 45 with most of my food.  Averaging oatmeal is a bad idea.  It means some variety (steel cut or whole oat groat) is bringing the average down.  So you might try the steel cut or whole oat groat or just continue to weigh and use whatever product is working for you.   We all have to find our own answers.  For me no oatmeal.  No breakfast!   Maybe steel cut or groats once in a blue moon but as a bedtime snack.

I have been doing IF for quite some time now, and have been dabbling in extended fasting - 2-3 days at a time.  Gets pretty easy to do.  I personally cannot take in grains, I get hunger pangs and am miserable.  Mostly I just do cruciferous veggies for my carbs.

[tominbkk]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

I take steel cut with huge leafs and use cinamon on it.. read up about it. But anyway it all depends on personal preference at some times I just took egg for breakfast (baked with some bacon or ground beef). I have tried many things. I actually still switch things up once in a while. I also don't do juices. 

 

But in the end i like my oats.. i like my musli and yoghurt.. i like my proteins. 

I do the cinnamon thing too!  As well as tumeric.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

2g/kg seems pretty reasonable if you are working out hard.  I've scaled back my weights because I messed up my shoulder.  All better now pretty much but I'm being really careful and fully letting it heal.  So lots of swimming, bike riding, and walking.  I take in about 1g/kg, for me that's around 80, but some days a little less and some days a little more.  It's funny how if you listen to what you body is telling you it needs it will lead you to what to eat.  I've been doing IF too and it's pretty cool how after you do your workout without eating all day your body craves to eat the right thing.  Nice 8 oz steak and big pile of spinach with a little coconut oil and himalayan pink salt on the top!  God that was good!

In general I workout hard (do have my down time too and then i scale down a bit). Injuries are hard.. i have not had many injuries thankfully. I do have a crappy lower back for some reason. I don't notice a thing during deadlifts squats and all.. never during sitting walking.. but the moment I sleep too long on my back i wake up with back pain. When i started doing deadlifts it went away. But not it seems to stay. I am in the process (its hard) of changing to sleeping on my side.

 

I like working out, though at times its hard to start.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, tominbkk said:

I do the cinnamon thing too!  As well as tumeric.

Dont forget apple cider vinagar.. do that too. I also take some Berberine and Ashwagandha.. but not sure how much any of this helps. My blood sugar is good. But i read if you can regulate your insulin sensitivity it could help even more with burning fat and building muscle. So far no shocking results (not that I expected them)

[tominbkk]

Just now, robblok said:

In general I workout hard (do have my down time too and then i scale down a bit). Injuries are hard.. i have not had many injuries thankfully. I do have a crappy lower back for some reason. I don't notice a thing during deadlifts squats and all.. never during sitting walking.. but the moment I sleep too long on my back i wake up with back pain. When i started doing deadlifts it went away. But not it seems to stay. I am in the process (its hard) of changing to sleeping on my side.

 

I like working out, though at times its hard to start.

I was getting this thai sports massage where they use oil (well it feels like a sports massage) and this guy who I hadn't used before twisted my shoulder.  Then when I went to workout the next day it was painful and my arm was numb and tingly in certain positions.  I used some NSAIDS for a few days and it went away but was still tender.  It seems perfectly fine now for about the last three weeks but I'm going to give it a full 2 months before I go back to light weights.  I get really paranoid about injuries, and see way too many guys all bandaged up....that's not what I do weights for.  I love the challenge and how it  makes me feel but I can get my fitness other ways too.

[tominbkk]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Dont forget apple cider vinagar.. do that too. I also take some Berberine and Ashwagandha.. but not sure how much any of this helps. My blood sugar is good. But i read if you can regulate your insulin sensitivity it could help even more with burning fat and building muscle. So far no shocking results (not that I expected them)

Oh yeah I use ACV, I put a tablespoon in my first morning liter of water.  Not sure if it actually does anything but what the heck.  I need to get my bloodwork done again.  I was borderline hypertensive about two years ago and dropped a fair amount of weight, went low carb, upped the fitness and things are quite good now (checked about 6 months go).  Intermittent or extended fasting is a great way to regulate insulin sensitivity.  Check out Dr. Jason Fung on this topic.  He uses fasting as therapy, along with LC.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

Oh yeah I use ACV, I put a tablespoon in my first morning liter of water.  Not sure if it actually does anything but what the heck.  I need to get my bloodwork done again.  I was borderline hypertensive about two years ago and dropped a fair amount of weight, went low carb, upped the fitness and things are quite good now (checked about 6 months go).  Intermittent or extended fasting is a great way to regulate insulin sensitivity.  Check out Dr. Jason Fung on this topic.  He uses fasting as therapy, along with LC.

The whole problem is there are so many things touted.. AVC , cinnamon, berberine, turmeric ect.. its so hard to know what works and what does not. But as long as its not outlandish expensive or really bad to taste I am ok to give it a try. I might look into intermittent fasting for insulin sensitivity. But with so many things its hard to know what works. I just use my body as a testing lab to see what works for me. But still you never know. 

[robblok]

8 minutes ago, tominbkk said:

I was getting this thai sports massage where they use oil (well it feels like a sports massage) and this guy who I hadn't used before twisted my shoulder.  Then when I went to workout the next day it was painful and my arm was numb and tingly in certain positions.  I used some NSAIDS for a few days and it went away but was still tender.  It seems perfectly fine now for about the last three weeks but I'm going to give it a full 2 months before I go back to light weights.  I get really paranoid about injuries, and see way too many guys all bandaged up....that's not what I do weights for.  I love the challenge and how it  makes me feel but I can get my fitness other ways too.

sometimes its better to give things a rest then to start too early and make it worse. Too bad we dont know what is too early or too long. I was getting into using my elliptical  in the morning and lifting weights at night (7 days elliptical and 4 days weights). But I was hit by a bad case of flue and had to stop. Now i have to get back into it. But it seemed to help and gave me nice stamina while the lifting went better too. But morning cardio is hard (mentally)

[tropo]

On 5/27/2017 at 0:21 PM, JSixpack said:

 

A Little Bite Won’t Hurt”: The Failure of Moderation

 

 

But not much.   And simon43 might go for the cheap fruit wines!

 

Bourbon or scotch, neat = max taste-impact/calorie.

 

NO ICE CREAM.

 

 

Very dark chocolate once in a while. Better: Hershey's Natural cocoa! Max flavonoid/cal. :)

 

 

I have mastered the ability to eat ice cream, chocolate, cakes and other junk food moderately - it can be done.

 

What I would recommend is cutting back on something else on the days you partake if you're concerned about the extra calories.