I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, if it's not, forgive me.
I was dealt a pretty bad hand at birth; due to genes on my mother's side, I have pretty big legs. I became aware of it in elementary school. The rest of my body isn't exactly fit, but it's thin enough.
Anyone know if this can be dealt with reasonably? If so how?
What on earth does "pretty big legs" even mean?
I lack a better word for "fat".
real basic science suggests amputation to get rid of these problems.
I have the same problem, walking helps.. do a TON of walking, and I'm talking like 5 miles a day.
Find an aerobic exercise you enjoy (biking, running, swimming, whatever) and maintain around ~70% of your max heart rate for an hour or more per day. One mile a day is a start, but you'll need to slowly work your way up.
Eat a well-balanced diet, like a mediterranean diet. Eat meat rarely, junk food and condiments never, and a variety of fruits and vegetables. No juice unless you squeezed it yourself. No white bread. If it's been processed, it's probably not worth eating.
Weight loss = energy in < energy out. Exercise (a lot) more, eat less.
Alright, I'll take your word for it.
I'm led to understand that energy use by exercise is pretty insignificant in comparison to how much energy you use just to stay alive the rest of the time. So exercise is good for your health but not so much for weight loss. To lose weight, eat less (or better).
Thoughts?
Nah, eat better is probably a better advice.
Stop eating crap, I'd say.
No more carbohydrates. Say no to sugar.
>>10 Oh and by "no to sugar" I don't mean Diet Coke.
No fake sugar either unless you want to lose a kidney or somesuch.
>>9
Yeah, it's true we use far more energy just maintaining ourselves. Things are a bit more complicated than that though, due to adaptations we have.
Exercise does more than the immediate burning of energy. It raises your metabolism (swimming has a problem here due to cooling) and increases muscle mass, both which help burn more energy while idle. Since sleep causes things to slow down, if you do most of the exercise after waking up, your body will be running hotter for the rest of the day even if you just sit.
I don't know how much of a difference that makes, but a diet alone will just make your metabolism slow to compensate. If you reduce intake further, it'll start cannibalizing your body, using things other than fat first. Things you probably don't want it to be using.
As an aside, if >>1 is a worried about their legs, maybe some weights or other anaerobic activity for the upper body too; a uniform build helps appearances.
Thanks for all the help. But you're sure that I can do something about it if I try, right?
Unless your body is a freak of nature (very unlikely) or disobeys the first law of thermodynamics (even more unlikely), of course you can.
Besides, weight need not be a bad thing. A jujitsu teacher I knew was built like a truck: he had plenty of muscle, but also a fair bit of flab. If he got on top of you in a fight, which he was good at doing, it was game over.
if i spent time to exercise, i'd get fired.
>>15
Freaks of nature are by definition rare.
Yeah, mine fall out and get stuck between the couch cushions all the time. Don't yours?
http://www.google.com/search?q=aspartame+kidney
"Sucralose also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, and CALCIFICATION of the kidney. Note: if you experience kidney pain, cramping, or an irritated bladder after using sucralose in Splenda, stop use immediately. Dr. Janet Starr Hull"
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/nutraswt.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=saccharine+kidney
""Too much saccharine can interfere with liver metabolism and kidney functions. For those who have kidney and liver conditions, the presence of saccharine can pose an immediate threat. Symptoms include feeling nauseous or getting sick," Chiang said."
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/01/17/2003289412
>>20
How about some actual scientific literature instead of a google search that leads to Shirley's New-age Health website?
"Artificial sweeteners are not a healthy substitute for sugar. The body treats them as toxins, and in some, the effects can be widespread and serious."
"To make sucralose, three chlorine atoms are substituted for three oxygen-hydrogen groups on the sugar molecule turning it into a chlorocarbon. Chlorocarbons have been known to cause genetic, organ, immune and reproductive damage for some time, and they cause swelling of the liver as well as swelling and calcification of the kidneys."
http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/2007/02/24/artificial_sweeteners
When I see a hostname like "trusted.md", it does make me wonder if there is a reason I shouldn't be trusting them.
Looking up the author for this article gives:
Vreni Gurd
Bachelor of Physical and Health Education, High Honours
Holistic Lifestyle Consultant, Level 2, Chek Insitute
Corrective Holistic Exercise Kinesiologist Level 3, Chek Institute
Certified Exercise Physiologist, Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP)
Not exactly the credentials of a biochemist.
sigh
There's a whole lot of bullshit medical advice out there. Is it so unreasonable to want source one can actually trust?
Fine, give me the name of a source you trust.
>>29
http://content.nejm.org
Search was unable to find any results for "sucralose".
Search was unable to find any results for "aspartame".
http://www.thelancet.com
No results for "sucralose".
10 results for "aspartame". Sorry, premium subscription needed to view the text.
Any other medical journal where one can actually look at the text?
"James Bowen, M.D., A physician, biochemist, and survivor of aspartame poisoning warns about yet another synthetic sweetener, Splenda.
In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies."
http://splenda.worldwidewarning.net/
http://www.wnho.net/splenda_chlorocarbon.htm
Please look at "Doctor" (I hear he has been delicensed but cannot find proof) James Bowen's associated website, and tell me if you think he is still credible.
Chem trials: http://www.wnho.net/chemtrailnews.htm
Fluoride: http://www.wnho.net/fluoridenews.htm
Genetically Modified foods: http://www.wnho.net/gmfoodnews.htm
Vaccinations: http://www.wnho.net/vaccinationnews.htm
And why, why, WHY would a "medical" website have a section dedicated to "pro marriage"? http://www.wnho.net/profamilynews.htm
Maybe it's because James Bowen is part of a batshit insane religious conspiratorial group, who thinks, and I quote:
"Open, Avid Zionists are the main force and
people, which I have had the most opposition from in
my efforts to alert the public and professions about
the deadly Aspartame! They have made it abundantly
clear: They see it as their patriotic duty to Zionism
and Israel to see to it that we succumb to Aspartame!
Masons and other Satanists have likewise done
everything they could to destroy me and my ministry!Open, Avid Zionists are the main force and
people, which I have had the most opposition from in
my efforts to alert the public and professions about
the deadly Aspartame! They have made it abundantly
clear: They see it as their patriotic duty to Zionism
and Israel to see to it that we succumb to Aspartame!
Masons and other Satanists have likewise done
everything they could to destroy me and my ministry!
>>32
Sorry, I didn't mean to post that quote twice.
You misspelled "chemtrails" there. I can see how this would easily happen, because this particular conspiracy theory is so insane, most sane people are incapable of understanding it when they are first told about it. It takes some time to acclimatize to the fact that people actually seriously and without irony believe this.
Studies with text available found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Articles commented in red, from a diet site, insightful:
http://www.diet-studies.com/splenda.html
"The feeding of sucralose, a new and high-intensity sweetener under regulatory review, resulted in" "an increase in the incidences of renal mineralization"
Cases stories
http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2006/02/sheilas_case_hi.html
"When I got pregnant with my son six years ago I found I couldn't eat or drink anything with an artificial sweetener in it. No, I did not get sick. My son, in utero, had a fit! Within five minutes of ingesting it, he would kick and jerk violently for a long time. My mother said it was just the carbonation. I told her it happened with the no-sugar hot chocolate, too. To prove it to her I drank a whole can of regular cola. We wait four hours and nothing. I then drank about half of a diet cola. Within five minutes my unborn baby was completely agitated. She never mentioned it again. ;)"
One of may quotes from articles on the ncbi.nlm.nih.gov website:
After a lengthy evaluation process, on
5 May 2006, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)
*published a 44-page report (EFSA 2006). *
*A summary comment of the EFSA report on *
ERF study included the following:
The increased incidence of lymphomas/leukaemias
reported in treated rats was unrelated to aspartame,
given the high background incidence of chronic
inflammatory changes in the lungs and the lack of
a positive dose–response relationship. … The
slight increase in incidence of these tumours in rats
fed aspartame is considered to be an incidental
finding of the ERF study and can therefore be dismissed.
(EFSA 2006)
The preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the
renal pelvis, ureter and bladder occurring primarily
in female rats along with renal calcification were
most probably treatment-related, at least at the
higher doses. It is widely accepted that the effect is
a high dose effect of irritant chemicals or chemicals
producing renal pelvic calcification as a result of
imbalances in calcium metabolism, specific to the
rat. The Panel considers that these effects are of no
relevance for humans. (EFSA 2006)
And as for
>The feeding of sucralose, a new and high-intensity sweetener
>under regulatory review, resulted in" "an increase in the
>incidences of renal mineralization
What "Diet-Studies" neglects to mention, is that this particular study also notes:
Renal mineralization has been observed in
rats following the feeding of lactose, sodium alginate,
magnesium oxide and in uninephrectomized rats
(rats in which one kidney has been removed) fed
high levels of sodium chloride.
and:
The committee concluded that no
available information on acid-modified starches
would lead one to suspect a hazard to the public when
used at current levels in foods.
I am slowly forming the image here that fear of aspartame is another kook affliction to be filed with chemtrails and morgellons.
Not to suggest, of course, anyone posting in this thread is a kook, but they might have been getting their information from one, at least indirectly.
The process by which aspartame gained FDA approval is rather suspect; however, if it was as much of a health risk as some people make it out to be, I think it would have become self-evident by now.
>>37 "...specific to the rat. The Panel considers that these effects are of no relevance for humans." Bad move. The Panel should have suggested to study these effects on humans, not dismiss it.
"...when used at current levels in foods." Yeah but one tends to use more sweetener, because fake sugar doesn't give any sugar rush. That stuff doesn't sweeten very much, In my experience one needs about 2x-3x more sucralose to get the same sweet taste as sugar. What is needed is a study of sucralose in humans in real conditions over a period of at least 6 months. And then check their kidneys for kidney stones.
Also if you read those Cases stories at >>36, you see that people don't associate their troubles with the sweetener they are using. Artificial sweeteners are supposed to be sugar-free, and therefore "healthy"! I have seen people getting gall bladder problems, getting those organs surgically removed, and they still continue to drink the same aspartame'd diet cokes afterwards... "but I want to stay slim!" :(
>That stuff doesn't sweeten very much
Are you kidding? Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar.
>What is needed is a study of sucralose in humans in real conditions over a period of at least 6 months. And then check their kidneys for kidney stones.
How about this one published in "Food and Chemical Toxicology"?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10882825
Granted, it was over 13 weeks (3 months rather than 6) but come on, 3 months is a long time to consistently consume something every single day, and should be adequate to see if there are any adverse effects or not.
Here are the key parts of the study that I've copied and pasted out of the article.
Urine was collected daily in 24-hr aliquots during
the 9-day period and was examined for pH,
ketones, blood, glucose, bilirubin, protein, urobili-
nogen, specific gravity, white cells, red cells, squa-
mous cells, crystals and organisms.
Urine was tested for crystals. That's the same thing as checking for kidney stones. If there is mineralization in the kidney, then there will be crystals in the urine.
There were no changes between initial and final
physical examinations in those completing the
study, and there was no evidence of weight loss.
The levels of sucralose used in these two studies
were in excess of expected human intakes.
Please note this. Humans consuming levels of sucralose greater than what would be expected for a normal daily intake, every day, for a period of 3 months, experienced no physical changes duing that 3 month period.
In order to assess the safety of a new food addi-
tive, long-term animal studies are conducted to
determine the highest daily dose that can be given
to test animals without adverse effects. In the sucra-
lose safety studies, no adverse effects were seen in
rodents given up to approximately 1500 mg/kg/day
for 104 wk (Goldsmith et al., 2000; Mann et al.,
2000a,b)
This is very important. Animals were given 1500 mg/kg/day for 104 weeks, with no adverse effects.
In their analysis, the researchers assumed
that sucralose would replace virtually all sweeteners
including sugar in all the food and beverage cat-
egories in which it would be approved for use. As it
is extremely unlikely that this would ever be the
case, the EDI provides an excessive estimate of how
much sucralose might be consumed. Despite this
very exaggerated set of assumptions, the mean estimated
daily intake of sucralose for people of all ages is 1.1
mg/kg/day (McNeil, 1987).
Compare this with the earlier paragraph. Animals tested can withstand 1500mg/kg/day with no adverse effects. The most sucralose that a human would conceivably consume, assuming that it replaced all sugar in every food and drink he consumed, is only 1.1mg/kg/day.
In terms of human consumption, a 160-lb (73 kg)
adult would have to drink *1500 12-oz (360 ml) soft*
drinks sweetened with sucralose every day to con-
sume an amount comparable to the highest
no-adverse-affect level.
Similarly, a 50-lb (23 kg) child would have to drink
480 12-oz (360 ml) sucralose-sweetened soft drinks
daily to reach the HNEL.
This is important too. For an adult human to even approach the limit of having adverse effects, he would have to consume 1500 12 ounce soft drinks sweetend with sucralose per day.
Both of the human studies show that sucralose is
well tolerated in healthy volunteers, even when
dosed subchronically at levels greater than would
be consumed during normal patterns of use.
And of course this last paragraph pretty much sums it up.
>Are you kidding? Sucralose is 600 times sweeter than sugar.
As I said, I had to use 2-3x more than the recommended dose to get the same taste. The box says 1 pill = 1 sugar cube, I found this claim not accurate.
>3 months is a long time to consistently consume something every single day, and should be adequate to see if there are any adverse effects or not.
It took me several months to develop kidney stones after I switched from sugar to fake sugar. And I was healthy before taking it.
As http://www.diet-studies.com/splenda.html points out,
Aspartame Case story
http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/1106/dynamic_case_history_1.php
"
It took about 4 weeks to clear my system out, but after that I was a brand new person! No more spasms whatsoever.
Now, I had one more final visit with this cardiologist to see how I was doing. I walked into his office with such a gleam in my eyes and told him I solved my illness! I gave him a 20-page printed report on ASPARTAME and the 96 symptoms related to ASPARTAME. He threw the report back to me and said, "Take this home with you. It was the caffeine that was your problem!!!!!"
"
>As I said, I had to use 2-3x more than the recommended dose to get the same taste.
Regardless, you would still be safe taking many hundreds of times the reccommended dose as the study shows.
>only eight subjects, and healthy adults.
This is just proof they didn't actually read the article. There were two studies conducted, one involved 8 people and lasted 17 days, and in the second one which lasted 13 weeks:
A total of 118 subjects were recruited, of which
108 completed the study. Of these, 77 received
sucralose (47 males, 30 females) and 31 received
fructose (17 males, 14 females) (Table 1). 10 sub-
jects withdrew from the study, three of these taking
sucralose and seven taking fructose. None of the
withdrawals in the sucralose group was due to
adverse experiences. Withdrawals in the sucralose
group were due to a loss of appetite during wk 2, a
concern about consuming low-calorie sweeteners
and non-compliance with the dosing schedule.
>13 weeks is not "long-term".
Yes it is. Long enough to determine if there are any ill effects. You say you didn't develope kidney stones until several months after you switched from real sugar to artificial sweeteners, but if that was the cause of mineralization, it would have began immediately and early signs would have shown up in tests, particularly if you were consuming significantly more than the reccommended daily dose, every single day, for 3 months, as the participants of this study were. They may not have had actual "stones" within that 3 month period, but mineral crystals would most definitely have been present in their urine.
>what about the effects on children? Or people who aren't that healthy? Usually the ones switching to fake sugar are doing it because they have physical problems
Okay, how about this study which was specifically oriented towards overweight children? http://www.abstracts2view.com/pas/view.php?nu=PAS6L1_895
Overweight children used sucralose as a replacement for sugar for a period of 6 months, and at the end of that period, they had managed to significantly decrease their BMI. The article doesn't mention anything specifically about kidney stones, but I imagine if all of the children in the study (or at least a noticeable portion of them) began developing kidney stones or other health problems, someone would have taken notice.
That site is trying to sell you "detox vitamins" in the sidebar next to the text. In other words, it's almost certainly lying. It is about as far from a reliable source as you can get.
>>45 It's "almost certainly lying" because they are selling vitamins? I don't get it. Vitamins are bad? Or selling them is bad?
>>44 Well fine, maybe I'm special and have an allergy to fake sugar over a long period of time. Although, I see all those real life case stories and I can't keep wondering.
I'm not a biochemist but I suspect that fake sugar changes the acid balance of the kidneys, because fake sugar is a base(alkaline). Acidity is what prevents stones from developping. As fake sugar isn't assimilated by the body it ends up in the kidneys and stones get formed, or something.
My point is, if one does not want to use real sugar, he should not use fake sugar either. Stay away from both.
>>46
People lie easily when it serves to make them a profit. In this case, the percieved intent is that visitors will believe they have been poisoned by aspartame, and purchase the detox vitamins in order to cure themselves. Website owner profits.
I'd be equally skeptical of a site that claimed "Aspartame is perfectly safe" and then attempted to sell you some.
> I'm not a biochemist
And this is the problem with most "real life case stories." Who are you people to attribute your woes to fake sugar? Remember, correlation does not equal causation.
Right, that's the basic idea. Anybody who tells you that you are ill, and then wants to sell you the cure, is not somebody you should trust. You should certainly not trust their products, but neither should you trust their claims in the first place.
This is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and certainly isn't peculiar to the internet, but has existed throughout human history.
>As fake sugar isn't assimilated by the body it ends up in the kidneys and stones get formed, or something.
Actually, since it isn't absorbed by the body (nutrients and such are mostly absorbed in the small intestine and they enter the blood stream from there) most of it passes straight through your intestine, into your colon, and out of the body in your feces. It shouldn't ever pass through your kidneys.
>Who are you people to attribute your woes to fake sugar?
Actually I'm very skeptical of you guys trying to pass off fake sugar as completely inoffensive. Refined sugar (or fake sugar) is not needed for survival, it's a taste thing. Sugar was originally a luxury and not part of the normal diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar#Sugar_as_food
As for websites selling vitamins, for one thing websites cost money. The other thing is that other vitamins sellers may be untrusty. I have seen vitamins for children with the dreaded "contains a source of phenylalanine" message written on them.
> Actually I'm very skeptical of you guys trying to pass off fake sugar as completely inoffensive.
Nobody's trying to do that. We're just not accepting hyperbolic claims by untrustworthy sources.
> Refined sugar (or fake sugar) is not needed for survival, it's a taste thing. Sugar was originally a luxury and not part of the normal diet.
I'm not really sure what you are getting at here? How does this relate to the discussion at hand?
> As for websites selling vitamins, for one thing websites cost money.
That is not the point, and you know it. Re-read >>49.
Well fuck you guys. After reading this thread I went to the doctor and was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. Obviously anonymous bulletin boards cause cancer. They should be banned.
Well, if you MUST know, white sugar is healthier than brown sugar.
Discuss.
>>54
Brown sugar is white sugar with the molasses added back in. You saying molasses is bad for us?
>>55
I thought it was sugar that had never had the molasses taken out in the first place. In any case, maybe molasses is bad for you. I don't know, I've never seen any evidence to indicate one way or the other. I'd have to see some proof before I'd accept it though.
Oh my god, the brown sugar vs white sugar debate again! I mean, one day. Martin Luthers' string talked about a dream, and that was a dream where brown sugar had the same rights as white sugar to be added to cornflakes. In white milk, that is.
Jeez... you racists never stop do you?
> I thought it was sugar that had never had the molasses taken out in the first place.
That's raw sugar. I've heard that it was illegal to sell for human consumption in the USA until recently, supposedly due to the high level of impurities.
There was a debacle about a century ago, where refined sugar manufacturers took pictures of harmless but nasty-looking microorganisms found in or on pretty much anything one consumes, and told the media "these are lurking in your brown sugar!" Apparently we still haven't quite recovered from it.
No... that sounds nothing at all like the skeptical position on GW.
What on earth are you talking about? Why are you posting in truisms?
I think he posted in the wrong thread.
>1 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2007-01-29 06:19 ID:1U5WwnP7 [Del]
>I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, if it's not, forgive me.
>I was dealt a pretty bad hand at birth; due to genes on my mother's side, I have pretty big legs. I became aware of it in elementary school. The rest of my body isn't exactly fit, but it's thin enough.
> Anyone know if this can be dealt with reasonably? If so how?
This whole sugar discussion, albeit interesting, is a bit too off topic for my taste, even though OP probably was one of the people discussing it.