 |
|
|
|
Next: **OPPORTUNITY VIDEO***
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Nov 13, 2008
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:26 am
Post subject: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects
Archived from groups: soc>support>fat-acceptance, others (more info?)
|
|
|
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/12/excess-weight
-ups-risk-of-death-no-matter-where.html
Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects
But too much abdominal fat poses a bigger threat, study finds
Posted November 12, 2008
By Serena Gordon
HealthDay Reporter
WEDNESDAY, Nov. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Whether you're shaped like an apple
or a pear, if you're overweight, you have a higher risk of dying than
someone of normal weight, a new European study says.
Related News
Diets That Promote Health
Keeping Your Brain Fit
Good Parents, Bad Results
America's Best Hospitals
But, those who tend to collect their weight around the middle --
apple-shaped -- face an even higher risk of death than those whose excess
weight tends to settle in their hips and thighs -- pear-shaped.
"We found that a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of
death even for individuals who have the same BMI [body mass index, a ratio
of weight to height]," said the study's lead author, Dr. Tobias Pischon, of
the German Institute of Human Nutrition. "Therefore, you could say that
adipose [fat] accumulation in the abdominal region is even more detrimental
than just having an elevated BMI level," he added.
Previous research had linked abdominal fat with a higher risk of chronic
diseases. But past research generally hadn't assessed the risk of death in
those who were overweight and those who were overweight with more abdominal
fat, according to background information in the study.
The new research, published in the Nov. 13 issue of the New England Journal
of Medicine, included almost 360,000 people from nine European countries
who were part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and
Nutrition (EPIC).
In addition to weight information and whether or not the study participants
had died, the researchers also adjusted the data for education level,
smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity and height.
During a follow-up period of almost 10 years, slightly less than 15,000
people enrolled in the study had died.
Those with the lowest risk of death were men with a BMI of 25.3 and women
with a BMI of 24.3. A body mass index between 25 and 29.9 is considered
overweight, and a BMI over 30 is considered obese, according to the U.S.
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
Men with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 24 percent increased risk of death
compared to normal weight men. And women with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a
17 percent increased risk of death compared to their slimmer counterparts,
Pischon said.
When the researchers factored in abdominal fat, they found that men with
the largest waist circumference had more than double the risk of death, and
women with the largest waist circumference increased their risk of death by
78 percent.
"Having a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of death.
This is even true for people who -- in terms of BMI -- would be considered
as being normal weight," Pischon said.
Dr. Marc Siegel, an internist at New York University Langone Medical Center
in New York City, said, "Fat is a problem. Obesity of all kinds correlates
with heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and more. But, abdominal fat is a
more rudimentary indicator of risk.
"The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat
right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel
added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jan 01, 2007
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:11 am
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Nov 13, 6:45 am, pe... RemoveThis @somewherecook.com (Penny) wrote:
> http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/12/excess-...
> -ups-risk-of-death-no-matter-where.html
>
> Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects
> But too much abdominal fat poses a bigger threat, study finds
> Posted November 12, 2008
>
> By Serena Gordon
> HealthDay Reporter
>
> WEDNESDAY, Nov. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Whether you're shaped like an apple
> or a pear, if you're overweight, you have a higher risk of dying than
> someone of normal weight, a new European study says.
>
> Related News
> Diets That Promote Health
> Keeping Your Brain Fit
> Good Parents, Bad Results
> America's Best Hospitals
> But, those who tend to collect their weight around the middle --
> apple-shaped -- face an even higher risk of death than those whose excess
> weight tends to settle in their hips and thighs -- pear-shaped.
>
> "We found that a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of
> death even for individuals who have the same BMI [body mass index, a ratio
> of weight to height]," said the study's lead author, Dr. Tobias Pischon, of
> the German Institute of Human Nutrition. "Therefore, you could say that
> adipose [fat] accumulation in the abdominal region is even more detrimental
> than just having an elevated BMI level," he added.
>
> Previous research had linked abdominal fat with a higher risk of chronic
> diseases. But past research generally hadn't assessed the risk of death in
> those who were overweight and those who were overweight with more abdominal
> fat, according to background information in the study.
>
> The new research, published in the Nov. 13 issue of the New England Journal
> of Medicine, included almost 360,000 people from nine European countries
> who were part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and
> Nutrition (EPIC).
>
> In addition to weight information and whether or not the study participants
> had died, the researchers also adjusted the data for education level,
> smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity and height.
>
> During a follow-up period of almost 10 years, slightly less than 15,000
> people enrolled in the study had died.
>
> Those with the lowest risk of death were men with a BMI of 25.3 and women
> with a BMI of 24.3. A body mass index between 25 and 29.9 is considered
> overweight, and a BMI over 30 is considered obese, according to the U.S.
> National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
The above would seem to be in contradiction of the attention grabbing
headline, since men with a BMI that puts them in the overweight group
had the lowest risk of death, And the study from a couple years ago
showed that people who were modestly overweight, but not obese had the
longest lifespan. The debate goes on.
>
> Men with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 24 percent increased risk of death
> compared to normal weight men. And women with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a
> 17 percent increased risk of death compared to their slimmer counterparts,
> Pischon said.
>
> When the researchers factored in abdominal fat, they found that men with
> the largest waist circumference had more than double the risk of death, and
> women with the largest waist circumference increased their risk of death by
> 78 percent.
>
> "Having a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of death.
> This is even true for people who -- in terms of BMI -- would be considered
> as being normal weight," Pischon said.
>
> Dr. Marc Siegel, an internist at New York University Langone Medical Center
> in New York City, said, "Fat is a problem. Obesity of all kinds correlates
> with heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and more. But, abdominal fat is a
> more rudimentary indicator of risk.
>
> "The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat
> right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel
> added. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 13, 2008
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:27 am
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
trader4.RemoveThis@optonline.net wrote:
> The above would seem to be in contradiction of the attention grabbing
> headline, since men with a BMI that puts them in the overweight group
> had the lowest risk of death, And the study from a couple years ago
> showed that people who were modestly overweight, but not obese had the
> longest lifespan. The debate goes on.
I think the issue is one of getting adequate nutrition
(vitamins/minerals/etc). People generally eat poorly so being "modestly
overweight" means you are likely getting more vitamins & minerals than
skinny people but the down side is you're getting more calories. At
some point the excess calories overcomes the better nutrition. This
same issue holds true for having a heart attack. Modestly overweight
people are more likely to survive a heart attack than skinny people.
However, eating well, like paleo, is going to prevent the heart attacks
in the first place and I "speculate" that it will increase longevity and
heart attack survivability.
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221.RemoveThis@newsguy.com - remove tongue to reply >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 13, 2008
Posts: 15
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:35 am
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Penny wrote:
> http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/11/12/excess-weight
> -ups-risk-of-death-no-matter-where.html
>
> Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects
> But too much abdominal fat poses a bigger threat, study finds
> Posted November 12, 2008
>
> By Serena Gordon
> HealthDay Reporter
>
> WEDNESDAY, Nov. 12 (HealthDay News) -- Whether you're shaped like an apple
> or a pear, if you're overweight, you have a higher risk of dying than
> someone of normal weight, a new European study says.
>
> Related News
> Diets That Promote Health
> Keeping Your Brain Fit
> Good Parents, Bad Results
> America's Best Hospitals
> But, those who tend to collect their weight around the middle --
> apple-shaped -- face an even higher risk of death than those whose excess
> weight tends to settle in their hips and thighs -- pear-shaped.
>
> "We found that a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of
> death even for individuals who have the same BMI [body mass index, a ratio
> of weight to height]," said the study's lead author, Dr. Tobias Pischon, of
> the German Institute of Human Nutrition. "Therefore, you could say that
> adipose [fat] accumulation in the abdominal region is even more detrimental
> than just having an elevated BMI level," he added.
>
> Previous research had linked abdominal fat with a higher risk of chronic
> diseases. But past research generally hadn't assessed the risk of death in
> those who were overweight and those who were overweight with more abdominal
> fat, according to background information in the study.
>
> The new research, published in the Nov. 13 issue of the New England Journal
> of Medicine, included almost 360,000 people from nine European countries
> who were part of the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and
> Nutrition (EPIC).
>
> In addition to weight information and whether or not the study participants
> had died, the researchers also adjusted the data for education level,
> smoking status, alcohol consumption, physical activity and height.
>
> During a follow-up period of almost 10 years, slightly less than 15,000
> people enrolled in the study had died.
>
> Those with the lowest risk of death were men with a BMI of 25.3 and women
> with a BMI of 24.3. A body mass index between 25 and 29.9 is considered
> overweight, and a BMI over 30 is considered obese, according to the U.S.
> National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
>
> Men with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 24 percent increased risk of death
> compared to normal weight men. And women with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a
> 17 percent increased risk of death compared to their slimmer counterparts,
> Pischon said.
>
> When the researchers factored in abdominal fat, they found that men with
> the largest waist circumference had more than double the risk of death, and
> women with the largest waist circumference increased their risk of death by
> 78 percent.
>
> "Having a large waist circumference is related to a higher risk of death.
> This is even true for people who -- in terms of BMI -- would be considered
> as being normal weight," Pischon said.
>
> Dr. Marc Siegel, an internist at New York University Langone Medical Center
> in New York City, said, "Fat is a problem. Obesity of all kinds correlates
> with heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and more. But, abdominal fat is a
> more rudimentary indicator of risk.
>
> "The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat
> right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel
> added.
>
>
>
Carbohydrates drive insulin drives fat accumulation.
Being fat is merely a consequence of eating carbs. >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 106
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Penny wrote:
> Men with a BMI between 30 and 35 had a 24 percent increased risk of death
> compared to normal weight men.
But with a quality of life that is twice that of the normal weight men,
they are still ahead by 75%.
> When the researchers factored in abdominal fat, they found that men with
> the largest waist circumference had more than double the risk of death, and
> women with the largest waist circumference increased their risk of death by
> 78 percent.
The largest women are still ahead by 22%, and the largest men by 50%.
> "The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat
> right, exercise and reduce stress. Fat is bad for you, period," Siegel
> added.
Eating flavorless food sucks ass. Exercise sucks ass... That's a much
lower quality of life. I'll gladly trade in some quantity for some
quality. Thanks anyhow... >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 16, 2005
Posts: 11
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Like flavorless steaks smothered in mushrooms and lamb chops seasoned with
garlic salt and a tossed salad with ranch dressing and Brussels sprouts in a
sauce of cream and cheese. You obviously have never eaten at my house.
The Master wrote:
| Eating flavorless food sucks ass. Exercise sucks ass... That's a
| much lower quality of life. I'll gladly trade in some quantity for
| some quality. Thanks anyhow... >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 13, 2008
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
> Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects
> But too much abdominal fat poses a bigger threat, study finds
Above association may be linked to environmental pollutants since they
tend to be lipophilic and stored in fatty tissues such as adipose. See
below. Abdominal fat is a bigger threat because that is primarily
where ingested pollutants get stored.
> "The bottom line is, if you want to live a long and healthy life, eat
> right, exercise and reduce stress ...
In addition, avoid ingesting, breathing and contacting pollutants.
Animal based dietary fat is the most common source.
-----------------
White adipose tissue: storage and effector site for environmental
pollutants.
White adipose tissue (WAT) represents a reservoir of lipophilic
environmental pollutants, especially of those which are resistant to
biological and chemical degradation - so-called persistent organic
pollutants (POPs). Large amounts of different congeners and isomers of
these compounds exhibit a variety of adverse biological effects.
Interactions among different classes of compounds, frequently with
opposing effects, complicate hazard evaluation and risk assessment.
WAT is the key organ for energy homeostasis and it also releases
metabolites into the circulation and adipokines with systemic effects
on insulin sensitivity and fuel partitioning in muscles and other
tissues. Its beneficial role is lost in obesity when excessive
accumulation of WAT contributes to severe diseases, such as diabetes.
POPs may crossroad or modulate the effect of endogenous ligands of
nuclear transcription factors, participating in differentiation,
metabolism and the secretory function of adipocytes. These mechanisms
include, most importantly: i) endocrine disrupting potency of POPs
mixtures on androgen, estrogen or thyroid hormone metabolism/functions
in WAT, ii) interference of dioxin-like chemicals with retinoic acid
homeostasis, where impact on retinoid receptors is expected, and iii)
interaction with transcriptional activity of peroxisome proliferator-
activated receptors is likely. Thus, the accumulation and action of
POPs in WAT represents a unitary mechanism explaining, at least in
part, the effects of POPs in the whole organism. By modulating WAT
differentiation, metabolism and function, the POPs could affect not
only the physiological role of WAT, but they may also influence the
development of obesity-associated diseases. PMID: 16925464
-----------------
Common Mito Toxins
Metals
Mercury (fish, analgams)
Aluminum (cooking ware)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Manganese
Fluoride (city water)
Thallium
Pesticides
Organochlorines: DDT, lindane, chlordane, endrin, etc.
Organophosphates: parathion, etc.
DEET
Pyrethroids
Rotenone
Herbicides
Paraquat
PCBs
Dioxin
PAH and PM
Smoking
Vehicle exhaust
Ethanol, Toluene, Benzene
Trans fatty acids
Hydrogenated oils
Drugs
H2-receptor antagonist, cimetidine, ranitidine
Antibiotics, chloramphenicol, tetracyclines
Phthalates (plasticizers) >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 106
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
>> What's for lunch?
>
> Zero point honme made butternut squash soup and a fresh ciabata roll with
> olives in... Followed by a locally (organically) grown Egremont Russet.
> Yum... Lunch for fewer than 4 points.
*laugh*
"We don't count calories" - Weight Watchers...
Instead, they count "points". Correct me if I'm wrong, but each point is
worth a calorie range, yes? I *THINK* each point is worth a block of 50
calories, such that if a food item is worth 50 or 99, it's worth 1 point,
and from 100 to 149 it's worth 2 points.
So, instead of counting calories, you count points. But each point is
worth calories, so you do count calories but just call them by a different
name. But hey, that's just nit picking on my part... My bad. >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 23
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The Master wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
>
>>> What's for lunch?
>>
>> Zero point honme made butternut squash soup and a fresh ciabata roll
>> with olives in... Followed by a locally (organically) grown Egremont
>> Russet. Yum... Lunch for fewer than 4 points.
>
> *laugh*
> "We don't count calories" - Weight Watchers...
They don't claim that. They just make it easier.
>
> Instead, they count "points". Correct me if I'm wrong, but each point
> is worth a calorie range, yes? I *THINK* each point is worth a block of
> 50 calories, such that if a food item is worth 50 or 99, it's worth 1
> point, and from 100 to 149 it's worth 2 points.
No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that
still have a calorific value in the strictest sense. Most are
vegetables with a high fiber content to help offset the calorific value.
Points are calculated using both calories and saturated fats per 100g,
in food where points are allocated (I think they may also include fiber
in the calculations in the USA, but I'm not sure). Fats and pure sugar
are given a much higher points per 100g ratio than fruit and vegetables
and lean meats, for example. Fruits and things like potatoes have a
lower point score than bread per 100g.
>
> So, instead of counting calories, you count points. But each point is
> worth calories, so you do count calories but just call them by a
> different name. But hey, that's just nit picking on my part... My bad.
Indeed. It's designed to get you away from strict calorie counting and
work on a balanced diet, as well as being designed to make it easy for
everyone to work with, including the number-challenged like myself.
There is also the Core plan, where you don't count points at all.
If it works for you, use it. There is no one true path to a healthy
weight range for your skeletal frame and activity level.
I like WW and it suits *me* to do things this way. I'd suggest folk
wanting to shed weight try it. I lost 5 stone following WW, and kept
all of it off for over three years. Health issues and stress have meant
I've drifted a bit in the last few months, and now need to shed the last
stone again, but that is MY responsibility. WW works - it's people who
don't. Stress nibbling and lack of regular exercise due to various ills
mean I'm not as lean and fit as I need to be to maintain constant pain
at a bareable level. With a bit of luck, that is behind me and I can
now get back to where I'm happy with my weight. I feel at my best at
about 10 stone. Much more than that and the joint pain intensifies,
especially in the knees. Much less and I look gaunt and skinny.
Bleargh to both!
I'd never tell anyone that it's the ONLY way to do things, but the low
fat diet certainly suits my battered innards (I'm wheat intollerant and
can no longer process fats properly), and the general philosophy of
moderation in all things combined with healthy exercise* and varied and
interesting food, keeps me out of the wheelchair. Long may that continue!
*I walk and I swim. On a good day in the pool I can do 1600m (about an
imperial mile) in slightly under an hour. On a REALLY good day' I'll
walk 8 miles along Hadrian's Wall or The North Downs Way, or do 80
lengths (2,000m)in the pool . On a bad day I'm lucky to get my head off
the pillow. I try to take one decent walk and 3 swimming sessions per week.
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 106
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that still
> have a calorific value in the strictest sense.
But are "0" points because they are less then 50.
> Points are calculated using both calories and saturated fats per 100g, in
> food where points are allocated (I think they may also include fiber in the
> calculations in the USA, but I'm not sure).
That makes it sound like an actual formula. But take a look at the
prepared dinners/lunches they sell at the grocery store. 0 to 49 calories
is 0 points, 50 to 99 calories is 1 point, 100 to 149 is 2 points, etc. I
have yet to find a single "Weight Watchers" food product sold at the
stores, that does not follow the above pattern. If you are aware of one,
please let me know because I would love to be proved wrong. >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 13, 2008
Posts: 15
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Kate XXXXXX wrote:
> The Master wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
>>
>>>> What's for lunch?
>>>
>>> Zero point honme made butternut squash soup and a fresh ciabata roll
>>> with olives in... Followed by a locally (organically) grown Egremont
>>> Russet. Yum... Lunch for fewer than 4 points.
>>
>> *laugh*
>> "We don't count calories" - Weight Watchers...
>
> They don't claim that. They just make it easier.
I make it easier too. By not eating any carbs. I don't need to count
zilch. I can eat as much as I want. I never go hungry. I even forget to
eat sometimes. I'm always satisfied with the food I eat. And I still
lose fat all the while.
>>
>> Instead, they count "points". Correct me if I'm wrong, but each point
>> is worth a calorie range, yes? I *THINK* each point is worth a block
>> of 50 calories, such that if a food item is worth 50 or 99, it's worth
>> 1 point, and from 100 to 149 it's worth 2 points.
>
> No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that
> still have a calorific value in the strictest sense. Most are
> vegetables with a high fiber content to help offset the calorific value.
>
> Points are calculated using both calories and saturated fats per 100g,
> in food where points are allocated (I think they may also include fiber
> in the calculations in the USA, but I'm not sure). Fats and pure sugar
> are given a much higher points per 100g ratio than fruit and vegetables
> and lean meats, for example. Fruits and things like potatoes have a
> lower point score than bread per 100g.
>>
>> So, instead of counting calories, you count points. But each point is
>> worth calories, so you do count calories but just call them by a
>> different name. But hey, that's just nit picking on my part... My bad.
>
> Indeed. It's designed to get you away from strict calorie counting and
> work on a balanced diet, as well as being designed to make it easy for
> everyone to work with, including the number-challenged like myself.
> There is also the Core plan, where you don't count points at all.
>
> If it works for you, use it. There is no one true path to a healthy
> weight range for your skeletal frame and activity level.
>
> I like WW and it suits *me* to do things this way. I'd suggest folk
> wanting to shed weight try it. I lost 5 stone following WW, and kept
> all of it off for over three years. Health issues and stress have meant
> I've drifted a bit in the last few months, and now need to shed the last
> stone again, but that is MY responsibility. WW works - it's people who
> don't. Stress nibbling and lack of regular exercise due to various ills
> mean I'm not as lean and fit as I need to be to maintain constant pain
> at a bareable level. With a bit of luck, that is behind me and I can
> now get back to where I'm happy with my weight. I feel at my best at
> about 10 stone. Much more than that and the joint pain intensifies,
> especially in the knees. Much less and I look gaunt and skinny. Bleargh
> to both!
>
> I'd never tell anyone that it's the ONLY way to do things, but the low
> fat diet certainly suits my battered innards (I'm wheat intollerant and
> can no longer process fats properly), and the general philosophy of
> moderation in all things combined with healthy exercise* and varied and
> interesting food, keeps me out of the wheelchair. Long may that continue!
>
> *I walk and I swim. On a good day in the pool I can do 1600m (about an
> imperial mile) in slightly under an hour. On a REALLY good day' I'll
> walk 8 miles along Hadrian's Wall or The North Downs Way, or do 80
> lengths (2,000m)in the pool . On a bad day I'm lucky to get my head off
> the pillow. I try to take one decent walk and 3 swimming sessions per
> week. >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 23
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The Master wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't that simple. There are loads of zero point foods that
>> still have a calorific value in the strictest sense.
>
> But are "0" points because they are less then 50.
>
>> Points are calculated using both calories and saturated fats per 100g,
>> in food where points are allocated (I think they may also include
>> fiber in the calculations in the USA, but I'm not sure).
>
> That makes it sound like an actual formula.
It is.
> But take a look at the
> prepared dinners/lunches they sell at the grocery store. 0 to 49
> calories is 0 points, 50 to 99 calories is 1 point, 100 to 149 is 2
> points, etc. I have yet to find a single "Weight Watchers" food product
> sold at the stores, that does not follow the above pattern. If you are
> aware of one, please let me know because I would love to be proved wrong.
Why on earth should I waste my time looking at those? I cook real food
from raw ingredients every day. I weigh the ingredients that need
weighing and point them according to the published points list. I don't
even keep a few handy in the freezer for days I can't cook: I have home
made portions of things cooked previously in there instead (there are
three of us: lots of recipes are for 4 portions, so the last one gets
frozen). I use WW recipes or adaptations of other recipes or methods of
cooking classic dishes that I point according to the weight of the
ingredients using the lists. I've adapted a lot of my own recipes to
low fat cooking methods and worked out the points per portion.
Food is only partly about fuel/calories. Much to do with food is to do
with physical sensation as you eat (the smell, the texture, the blending
of flavours, the feeling of satisfaction after eating good food well
prepared), the social interaction (both during cooking and during the
meal: I often cook 'socially' - while friends and family are there,
helping, watching, nattering... ), and nurturing.
I don't make my own pasta very often, or tomato puree (though hubby and
son do make their own tomato ketchup from raw tomatoes and things,
including home made red wine vinegar!), but other than those and the
occasional tin of soup or tomatoes, most of the food in this house
starts as raw ingredients (I'm reminded of a friend who reported that
her daughter's boyfriend complained 'There's nothing to eat in this
house! It's all INGREDIENTS!' She and I have twin cupboards, I think).
I don't make my own sausages because it's messy and we have several
excellent and prize-winning butchers close by who make their own (if you
want to see where the pork sausages come from, wander out into the
orchard and make friends with the Saddlebacks rooting amonst the tree...
), and I don't make my own venison burgers. The other burgers we buy
are locally made lamb burgers (I don't eat those because the fat content
is too high for me) or Aberdeen Angus steak burgers.
Other things I make rather than buy include Christmas puddings and
cakes, shortbread, mincemeat, rumtopf, jam, lemon curd, mayonaise,
cakes, pesto, tapinade, marzipan, a few pickles and cutneys (we eat very
little of those), sloe and damson gins, macaroons, custard (from eggs,
not the powder type), meat balls, fishcakes, curry pastes (you get the
most wonderful aromas as you roast and grind your own spices), and
marinades. I've even been known to buy liver and lights and make my own
haggis (but I draw the line at tripe and sauerkaut: the first if foul
and the second a waste of a good cabbage). If son & friends want pizza
for lunch on a Warhammer day, I make that, crust and all.
I'm more a Jamie Oliver/Nigella Lawson type of a cook than a Delia Smith
sort.
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 07, 2007
Posts: 106
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
>> That makes it sound like an actual formula.
>
> It is.
>
>> But take a look at the prepared dinners/lunches they sell at the grocery
>> store. 0 to 49 calories is 0 points, 50 to 99 calories is 1 point, 100 to
>> 149 is 2 points, etc. I have yet to find a single "Weight Watchers" food
>> product sold at the stores, that does not follow the above pattern. If you
>> are aware of one, please let me know because I would love to be proved
>> wrong.
>
> Why on earth should I waste my time looking at those?
For starters, it proves that the "formula" argument is bullshit. I doubt
very much that their prepared meals follow a complex formula to calculate
their point value, and the pattern of calories to points that I mention is
"just a fluke".
Unless you wish to argue that there is two different point scales, one for
pre-packaged food and another for home made food, I see no way to accept
both your argument and what I have actually seen on nutrition labels
required by federal law...
Sorry, but I will decide to believe what I actually see.
> I weigh the ingredients that need weighing and
> point them according to the published points list.
Ever consider the possibility that your list is probably based on
calories? >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 23
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The Master wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
>
>>> That makes it sound like an actual formula.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>>> But take a look at the prepared dinners/lunches they sell at the
>>> grocery store. 0 to 49 calories is 0 points, 50 to 99 calories is 1
>>> point, 100 to 149 is 2 points, etc. I have yet to find a single
>>> "Weight Watchers" food product sold at the stores, that does not
>>> follow the above pattern. If you are aware of one, please let me
>>> know because I would love to be proved wrong.
>>
>> Why on earth should I waste my time looking at those?
>
> For starters, it proves that the "formula" argument is bullshit. I
> doubt very much that their prepared meals follow a complex formula to
> calculate their point value, and the pattern of calories to points that
> I mention is "just a fluke".
>
> Unless you wish to argue that there is two different point scales, one
> for pre-packaged food and another for home made food, I see no way to
> accept both your argument and what I have actually seen on nutrition
> labels required by federal law...
>
> Sorry, but I will decide to believe what I actually see.
>
>> I weigh the ingredients that need weighing and point them according to
>> the published points list.
>
> Ever consider the possibility that your list is probably based on calories?
Calories plus grams of sat fats (plus fiber in the USA). I enter the
data for any food I know these per 100g OR per measured portion and can
calculate the points value at the press of a button.
So, if the Kcals for a portion is 194, and the sat fats is 3, the
portion has 3.5 points. Likewise, if something is 345 Kcals and 16g of
sat fats per 100g, then I know that the points value is 9 per 100g.
Once I know the portion size of the food, I can work out the points
value of the portion and decide if I want it or if I'd rather have
something like an apple. Say the portion size is 25g for a snack bar
with those values per 100g (this is fairly typical), then my bar is
worth 2.25 points. As we only count halves, this would count as 2.5
points. I'd probably rather have the apple, for half a point. Apples
are generally much nicer than commercial snack bars, especially our
locally grown ones. It's hard to beat the smell, taste and texture of a
new season Egremont Russet from that orchard out the back...
It's sometimes fun to work out the points value of a food and then work
out how much more and much better food you can have for fewer points. A
slice of Starbucks fairly ordinary passion cake is 12 points. I work on
18 points a day. No way am I going to waste all those points on that
chunk of artificial cake like substance when I can have two home cooked
meals, a skinny latte from a DECENT coffee shop, plus a lovely fresh
fruit salad for less than that, leaving me plenty of points to go home
and have venison casserole, fresh veg, new potatoes and a banana the
size of a Zeppelin!
The points system just makes it easier for me to calculate what I need
for the day, and to work out my food treats if I want one.
--
Kate XXXXXX R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore! >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"The Master" wrote in message
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Kate XXXXXX wrote:
>
>>> That makes it sound like an actual formula.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>>> But take a look at the prepared dinners/lunches they sell at the grocery
>>> store. 0 to 49 calories is 0 points, 50 to 99 calories is 1 point, 100
>>> to 149 is 2 points, etc. I have yet to find a single "Weight Watchers"
>>> food product sold at the stores, that does not follow the above pattern.
>>> If you are aware of one, please let me know because I would love to be
>>> proved wrong.
>>
>> Why on earth should I waste my time looking at those?
>
> For starters, it proves that the "formula" argument is bullshit. I doubt
> very much that their prepared meals follow a complex formula to calculate
> their point value, and the pattern of calories to points that I mention is
> "just a fluke".
>
Actually their prepared meals do follow the same formula as all other foods.
I've calculated them out myself to insure that the points value is correct
for the listed nutrition information. There have been a couple of times
when they changed the recipe, updated the nutrition info and missed
correcting the points value.
> Unless you wish to argue that there is two different point scales, one for
> pre-packaged food and another for home made food, I see no way to accept
> both your argument and what I have actually seen on nutrition labels
> required by federal law...
>
As I stated, I've made the calculations and the formula is the same. It
works for both prepackaged and homemade meals. It is a function of
calories, fat (increases the point value), and fiber (decreases the point
value but there is a limit on the effect of the fiber).
> Sorry, but I will decide to believe what I actually see.
>
You can find the equation by Googling it. Since you probably will not
believe me or anyone else, find the equation and run the calculations
yourself. If you don't believe that the equation you find using Google is
correct, then wade through the copyright/patent information.
>> I weigh the ingredients that need weighing and point them according to
>> the published points list.
>
> Ever consider the possibility that your list is probably based on
> calories?
I've run ingredients through the equation and get the same as the published
list of points. If you do not believe me, get the equation and test it
yourself. A teaspoon of cooking oil is less than 50 calories but the point
value is greater than 0.
The formula is designed to favor low calorie, high fiber items like fruits
and vegetables. >> Stay informed about: Excess Weight Ups Risk of Death, No Matter Where It Collects |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Fat Acceptance Pioneer Death Toll - Fat Acceptor: Age: Cause: Catherine Honeyman 40 Breast cancer Margaret Wetherbee 45 Massive infection Susan Mason 47 Unknown Joy Hilbert 40 Post Operative Complications Barb Colgin Vance Unknown Unknown Leslie Dimaggio 60 Cancer Ray..
Honda Says No to Seat Belt Extenders: Larger Passengers at.. - THE FAT EPIDEMIC / Fighting the Stigma Excerpt from "Citing Intolerance, Obese People Take Steps to Press Cause" By CAREY GOLDBERG Little Help From the Law Many of the daily battles some fat people face do not lend themselves to the courtro...
Excess Protein -- Fat or Feces? - LOL -- but seriously, I heard or read once that excess protein is simply excreted out. I also read, much more often, that excess protein becomes fat (and I thought only excess carbs can become fat). So what, exactly, is excreted in the form of feces? ....
If Excess Protein Turns into Fat... - Then how come the body can't use stored fat when it needs protein? What, biochemically speaking, prevents it from turning fat back into protein the way it apparently turns fat back into sugar? (I'm assuming that 'cause stored fat is used for energy,..
Excess Abdominal Fat is Not Only Ugly, but Extremely Dange.. - Did you know that the vast majority of people in this day and age have excess abdominal fat? The first thing that most people think of is that their extra abdominal fat is simply ugly, is covering up their abs from being visible, and makes them self.. |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
