Those who are fit.

[Guest Curious]

Those who maintain their abs and muscles, is it true that you count your calories for every single meal? Low carb, low fat and high protein, or are there guys who just eat what they want and spend 2 hours burning it off at the gym everyday.

[blowmenow]

I wish I hv the luxury of 2 hours gym everyday...

I am very conscious of wat I eat but not to the extend of counting the calories... (I am not the aunty type)  lol

[Guest :-(]

Eat first. Regret later.

 

I'm naturally slim and quite fit looking. Even after cancelling my gym membership for 5years, my friend still thought I go gym

[doncoin]

Not really. I focus more on watching what I eat than calories. Usually, I stick to high carb meals for breakfast and lunch, and dinner is typically low carb to none. I make sure there is protein with every meal and I don't drink soda at all. Even coffee is drank black. I enjoy steaming meat for dinner, i.e. fish or grounded chicken/turkey with tofu and some veggie garnish. 

 

I will indulge on the occasional ice cream and other desserts stuff, so it is not like I am always watching. 

 

You are what you eat.

[Guest Maths]

In order to lose fat, there is no other way but to create a calories deficit. It's more than just counting calories. For example, today is my gym day and I expect to burn 4000 calories throughout the day. So even if I eat 3500 calories (which is a lot for a 1.8m, athletic 75kg guy), I have a deficit. But I sacrifice muscle growth for fat loss. I try to minimise that by making sure most of my calories come from protein. If I'm bulking, I may eat 4500 calories. 

 

On days I don't gym, if I eat 3500 calories, I'll have a surplus because for my height and weight, just to stay alive and maintain body weight, my body needs to burn 2500 calories per day. 

 

So so the magical number you need to determine is how much calories your body needs and then adjust based on your activity level.

 

It gets more complicated. If you don't exercise, your body composition will start to become more fatty. So even if you eat to maintain your weight, you end up looking like crap.

 

In summary, no shortcut around BOTH proper eating habits and exercise.

[Guest Fatty]

No need.

 

Got food I eat, got time I sleep.

[Guest yttaF]

11 minutes ago, Guest Fatty said:

No need.

 

Got food I eat, got time I sleep.

 

And I guess it's all WP's fault, or is it all PAP's credit?

[Guest Guest]

5 hours ago, Guest Maths said:

In order to lose fat, there is no other way but to create a calories deficit. It's more than just counting calories. For example, today is my gym day and I expect to burn 4000 calories throughout the day. So even if I eat 3500 calories (which is a lot for a 1.8m, athletic 75kg guy), I have a deficit. But I sacrifice muscle growth for fat loss. I try to minimise that by making sure most of my calories come from protein. If I'm bulking, I may eat 4500 calories. 

 

On days I don't gym, if I eat 3500 calories, I'll have a surplus because for my height and weight, just to stay alive and maintain body weight, my body needs to burn 2500 calories per day. 

 

So so the magical number you need to determine is how much calories your body needs and then adjust based on your activity level.

 

It gets more complicated. If you don't exercise, your body composition will start to become more fatty. So even if you eat to maintain your weight, you end up looking like crap.

 

In summary, no shortcut around BOTH proper eating habits and exercise.

 

2500 CALORIES PER DAY JUST TO STAY ALIVE? Wow... you are very tall...

 

[SuperSentai]

9 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

 

2500 CALORIES PER DAY JUST TO STAY ALIVE? Wow... you are very tall...

 

Muscular people have higher metabolic rates as muscles consume more energy.

[Guest Slim]

See, by doing this, his face slimmed down. 

 

[LeanMature]

No fats, low carb, high protein if you really want a ripped and sinewy body. 

[Guest 72%dark]

Literally count calories, no, because to do that you need to know the caloric content of everything that you eat, which is difficult if you eat out a lot rather than prepare your own meals.

 

Watch what I eat, yes, in that I try to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables, more protein (because I work out 3–4 times a week), and less fat (avoiding fatty cuts of meat, fried foods, and only eating high sugar high fat desserts like ice cream once in a blue moon). I don't purposely limit my carb intake because I also do a lot of cardio (mainly running), but neither do I eat very large portions of carbs.

[Guest RMR & BMR]

I think there is a difference btw "Resting" and "Basic" metabolic rate. The former is when one is lying down and does absolutely nothing while the latter includes basic functions like getting around, going to work, walking to your car or bus stop etc.

So Guest Maths maybe correct to say at his Ht of 1.8m his BMR maybe 2500Cal

 

 

[Guest Genetic]

Genetic plays a very big part in everything including fitness, follows by diet (doesn't have to be strict, but at least disciplined) and then workout.

 

Looking at today's ST Mind Your Body feature of 48yo male 171cm 77kg. His weekly routine includes 30-50km run + 100-240km bike + 2-3km swim. He maybe very fit cardiovascularly but his bod is nowhere near lean tone nor muscular. ANd I don't think CHuanDo does half what he did in a week and yet his bod is way better without a doubt.

[Guest Guest]

3 hours ago, Guest Genetic said:

Genetic plays a very big part in everything including fitness, follows by diet (doesn't have to be strict, but at least disciplined) and then workout.

 

Looking at today's ST Mind Your Body feature of 48yo male 171cm 77kg. His weekly routine includes 30-50km run + 100-240km bike + 2-3km swim. He maybe very fit cardiovascularly but his bod is nowhere near lean tone nor muscular. ANd I don't think CHuanDo does half what he did in a week and yet his bod is way better without a doubt.

This Chuan Do guy looks creepy and unnatural to me. Must be some surgery or drugs involved.

Exercising is for good health and good looks, Not for better and more good looks as the aim. Why the comparison based on looks and muscles? 

[Guest Guest]

On 18/09/2017 at 7:09 PM, Guest Curious said:

Those who maintain their abs and muscles, is it true that you count your calories for every single meal? Low carb, low fat and high protein, or are there guys who just eat what they want and spend 2 hours burning it off at the gym everyday.

Frankly, i eat what i want, when I want. I am still muscled and my abs are rock solid. I rarely exercise exceot once a week fir 15mins with weights.

[doncoin]

I have to admit since I got the Apple Watch 2 years ago I have become a little obsessive with completing the activities rings daily.  I find it motivating to stay active just to complete the complete the rings. I tend to do cardio daily (for health reasons) for 40 minutes in the morning before work and lift weights in the evening for an hour every other evening. A girlfriend and I used to joke that we do "cake-cercise" We each have a slice of cake, and then we go to the gym to burn off the calories we just ate. 

[Guest Maths]

7 hours ago, Guest Genetic said:

Genetic plays a very big part in everything including fitness, follows by diet (doesn't have to be strict, but at least disciplined) and then workout.

 

Looking at today's ST Mind Your Body feature of 48yo male 171cm 77kg. His weekly routine includes 30-50km run + 100-240km bike + 2-3km swim. He maybe very fit cardiovascularly but his bod is nowhere near lean tone nor muscular. ANd I don't think CHuanDo does half what he did in a week and yet his bod is way better without a doubt.

That's because the guy does too much cardio and not enough resistance training. Moderate intensity cardio for hours is aging. Compare a marathon runner's body to a sprinter's. As you reach middle age, you should do less hours of cardio and go for hiit exercise. Best if you can add some weight training. Hiit and weights increase human growth hormone production, which help you stay looking young. For men, these exercises also increase testosterone and stave off muscle loss that typically comes with age. 

 

By comparison, it's obvious weight training continues to be a big part of Chuando's training routine. In any gym, you can find loads of people looking younger than their age. By combating the muscle loss, or even achieving muscle growth in middle age (much harder than in your 20s but possible), you also increase your metabolism and burn more fat.

 

I went from 100kg in my early 30s to 75kg doing lots of moderate intensity cardio, but remained what many calls skinny fat. Then I tried working with weights and the muscles slowly started growing. Surprisingly, the abs started appearing when I reduced the amount of time spent on cardio and changed the type of cardio.

 

Good point above about not counting calories but watching what you eat. I eat out mainly. I don't exactly count calories but I do estimate. Lots of good websites like Myfitnesspal have local food entries. But I do more than estimate calories, I also estimate my macros. If you want the muscles to grow, you gotta eat right.

[yoyo74]

I dont have those slim genes and my whole family is fat. I was slightly fat before but i slim down due to changes to low carb vegetarian diet plan.

In the morning i just eat an egg and a meal replacement shake.

During lunch time i normally eat some carbs like brown rice with 2 dishes of green vegetables and 1 egg dish.

During dinner time i just go all low carb and only eat a big bowl or pot of vegetables.

I do take high fat food also but i make sure the high fat food is of high nutritional value like nuts, seeds, avocados etc

I do not go to the gym but some of my friends think i go as i was fitter than most people. I do however exercise daily taking only 10 to 15mins per day and during one weekend join a jogging group to run about 5km.

My changes in my body frame definately is due to my diet plan as i have try to increase my exercise routine before and never slim down. Some times the more you exercise the more hunger you feel and thus lead to more eating.

My conclusion is if you want a fit body that others drools on you, either you be very strict and eat a very clean diet and with some few mins home exercise or you be lesser strict with your diet and put a hundred times more effort on exercising including wasting many hours at the gym.

I do not count calories too as i dont want to measure the weight of my food and calculate. Thats too much effort for my brains lol

I also have all the good habits like no smoking no drinking alcohol etc so there is no chance for a beer belly

Edited September 26, 2017 by yoyo74

[kidster]

I set a daily alarm to remind myself no food at 9pm even when I feel hungry. Only drinking plain water or milo is allowed!

[LeanMature]

The answer is eat RIGHT.  The hours you spent in the gym doesn't help if you eat a lot of junk.

[Guest Glyph]

I eat tons of junk but I'm still skinny af. lel

[EasleyLim]

9 minutes ago, Glyph said:

I eat tons of junk but I'm still skinny af. lel

 

stomach got worms lah

[blowmenow]

10 hours ago, yoyo74 said:

I dont have those slim genes and my whole family is fat. I was slightly fat before but i slim down due to changes to low carb vegetarian diet plan.

In the morning i just eat an egg and a meal replacement shake.

During lunch time i normally eat some carbs like brown rice with 2 dishes of green vegetables and 1 egg dish.

During dinner time i just go all low carb and only eat a big bowl or pot of vegetables.

I do take high fat food also but i make sure the high fat food is of high nutritional value like nuts, seeds, avocados etc

I do not go to the gym but some of my friends think i go as i was fitter than most people. I do however exercise daily taking only 10 to 15mins per day and during one weekend join a jogging group to run about 5km.

My changes in my body frame definately is due to my diet plan as i have try to increase my exercise routine before and never slim down. Some times the more you exercise the more hunger you feel and thus lead to more eating.

My conclusion is if you want a fit body that others drools on you, either you be very strict and eat a very clean diet and with some few mins home exercise or you be lesser strict with your diet and put a hundred times more effort on exercising including wasting many hours at the gym.

I do not count calories too as i dont want to measure the weight of my food and calculate. Thats too much effort for my brains lol

I also have all the good habits like no smoking no drinking alcohol etc so there is no chance for a beer belly

a lot of discipline required

but no pain no gain rite?

 

[Guest Glyph]

1 hour ago, EasleyLim said:

stomach got worms lah

 

Possibly. I should go get checked.

[yoyo74]

3 hours ago, blowmenow said:

a lot of discipline required

but no pain no gain rite?

 

Yes a lot of discipline is required.

Make sure the pain is from the strain of muscle and not from injury of muscle lol.

We all need motivation to do things.

How i get motivation for my vegetarian diet is by focusing my mind on standing in the shoes of the animals, feel their pain, fear and anguish during the process of waiting to get slaughter until the process actually being slaughter.

In our aj world most people would like to hug, cuddle, have fun and to have a lean fit bf. You want to have all this advantage than be one of the lean fit guys. This superficial motivation also leads to the good side effect of being healthy, energetic and higher chance of people falling in love with you.

[blowmenow]

1 hour ago, yoyo74 said:

Yes a lot of discipline is required.

Make sure the pain is from the strain of muscle and not from injury of muscle lol.

We all need motivation to do things.

How i get motivation for my vegetarian diet is by focusing my mind on standing in the shoes of the animals, feel their pain, fear and anguish during the process of waiting to get slaughter until the process actually being slaughter.

In our aj world most people would like to hug, cuddle, have fun and to have a lean fit bf. You want to have all this advantage than be one of the lean fit guys. This superficial motivation also leads to the good side effect of being healthy, energetic and higher chance of people falling in love with you.

u hv very high sense in being empathic for animals..

dats really commendable..

at one point I severely reduced my meat intake, but after some time, I am lost again to the 'worldly' food, like how I lose myself to the 'worldly' fun

I shd mingle more with vegans, but my circle of frens are very very few vegans

[xydboy]

On 9/19/2017 at 6:52 AM, Guest Guest said:

 

2500 CALORIES PER DAY JUST TO STAY ALIVE? Wow... you are very tall...

 

Not a reliable table. Such estimates neglect the factor on weight.  Looking at RMR equation (Miffin St jeor, McArdle, or even Harris benedict), many acknowledge the weight or body composition measurements to calculate the RMR.

On 9/19/2017 at 6:07 PM, Guest Genetic said:

Genetic plays a very big part in everything including fitness, follows by diet (doesn't have to be strict, but at least disciplined) and then workout.

 

Looking at today's ST Mind Your Body feature of 48yo male 171cm 77kg. His weekly routine includes 30-50km run + 100-240km bike + 2-3km swim. He maybe very fit cardiovascularly but his bod is nowhere near lean tone nor muscular. ANd I don't think CHuanDo does half what he did in a week and yet his bod is way better without a doubt.

Everything push to genes, then no need to put forth any argument. There is a part of genes, but there is also room for tr inability or nurturing. Putting the blame to genes is the easiest thing one can do but it does not resolve anything on hand. Don't over-estimate your genes because that's one one part of who you are. There are articles that suggest 50-50 of contribution from genes and nurturing. Its not just fitness, but also other traits. If genes determine your intelligence, then why go to school? Its the same reason since the very argument stems from genes playing a big part in everything in life.

[blowmenow]

4 hours ago, xydboy said:

Everything push to genes, then no need to put forth any argument. There is a part of genes, but there is also room for tr inability or nurturing. Putting the blame to genes is the easiest thing one can do but it does not resolve anything on hand. Don't over-estimate your genes because that's one one part of who you are. There are articles that suggest 50-50 of contribution from genes and nurturing. Its not just fitness, but also other traits. If genes determine your intelligence, then why go to school? Its the same reason since the very argument stems from genes playing a big part in everything in life.

nature vs nurture thing

its very true we cant blame gene and think we cant do anything anymore

my father had cancer before, my mum is diabetic, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so do I resigned to my fate to die of cancer and diabetes etc,

thinking its in my gene and I cant do anything about it?

[blowmenow]

9 hours ago, yoyo74 said:

Yes a lot of discipline is required.

Make sure the pain is from the strain of muscle and not from injury of muscle lol.

We all need motivation to do things.

How i get motivation for my vegetarian diet is by focusing my mind on standing in the shoes of the animals, feel their pain, fear and anguish during the process of waiting to get slaughter until the process actually being slaughter.

In our aj world most people would like to hug, cuddle, have fun and to have a lean fit bf. You want to have all this advantage than be one of the lean fit guys. This superficial motivation also leads to the good side effect of being healthy, energetic and higher chance of people falling in love with you.

@yoyo74 u hv just inspired me to cut down my meat intake... thanks! today I try my best, no more food after 8 pm too

 

[tomcat]

 

20 hours ago, EasleyLim said:

 

stomach got worms lah

 

19 hours ago, Glyph said:

 

Possibly. I should go get checked.

 

this is gruesome, and not in stomach but gut/intestines.
http://news.medicaldailys.info/bodybuilders-colon-contains-10-lbs-of-meat-worms-video-inside/

 

meat creates a lot of cellular damage, aging and also if unclean or not properly cooked, leads to problems like the above.

notice the patient is not a skinny guy but a bodybuilder - he must be eating a lot of it.

to put on good muscle mass, the human needs varied protein groups - animal, eggs, plants, nuts, beans.

they are all protein but from different sources.

 

stay away from dairy as it is inflammatory, plus you dont need the extra cow hormones in milk.

 

lastly gut health is important. if the gut is lacking the flora to work, it cannot absorb

proper nutrients and encourage cell turnover.

managed to put on good musc mass while cutting down fat percentage this way.

strategic supplementation is also advised. 

 

 

[LeanMature]

25 minutes ago, tomcat said:

 

 

 

this is gruesome, and not in stomach but gut/intestines.
http://news.medicaldailys.info/bodybuilders-colon-contains-10-lbs-of-meat-worms-video-inside/

 

meat creates a lot of cellular damage, aging and also if unclean or not properly cooked, leads to problems like the above.

notice the patient is not a skinny guy but a bodybuilder - he must be eating a lot of it.

to put on good muscle mass, the human needs varied protein groups - animal, eggs, plants, nuts, beans.

they are all protein but from different sources.

 

stay away from dairy as it is inflammatory, plus you dont need the extra cow hormones in milk.

 

lastly gut health is important. if the gut is lacking the flora to work, it cannot absorb

proper nutrients and encourage cell turnover.

managed to put on good musc mass while cutting down fat percentage this way.

strategic supplementation is also advised. 

 

 

 

Is dairy inflammatory?  But that's a billion dollars industry.  Can substitute with soya ?

[tomcat]

32 minutes ago, LeanMature said:

 

Is dairy inflammatory?  But that's a billion dollars industry.  Can substitute with soya ?

 

There is a lot of research that shows the drinking of milk is culturally-linked, rather than nutritional reasons.

Humans are the only species to 1. ingest the milk of another animal as food and 2. to do it well into adulthood.
it is more than a little unnatural.

 

Plus, unless milked from a free range cow and taken unpasteurised, the milk does not have much benefit to it.

Dairy products are a bit more tricky, since they are processed. But if the source is bad, the products are no better.

 

Today, commercial farming also includes hormones as part of their rearing process, a lot of it goes back into the milk.

The cows are engorged and reproduce more than what is natural. And the level of somatic cells (white blood cells)

is quite high in cows that are stressed - basically the milk has high levels of pus in it.

 

If you visit a cancer doctor, upon first diagnosis, their advice would be to stop dairy and red meat.

Meat - to prevent more free radical cell damage, to reduce the creation of handicapped cells.

Milk - to reduce levels of inflammation in the body, so the immune system can recover.

Soy also has its own issues, but since Singapore seems to enforce non-GMO beans,

it is still okay to consume soymilk in moderation.

 

Tofu and soy products are in a bit of a grey zone, companies are not required to label where the beans are from.

Some men experience an increase in Estrogen when taking soy,

while others notice a trigger in their gout symptoms, as soy is high in purine.

 

Hope this helps, to good health~!

Knowledge is power.

 

 

[xydboy]

7 hours ago, blowmenow said:

nature vs nurture thing

its very true we cant blame gene and think we cant do anything anymore

my father had cancer before, my mum is diabetic, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, so do I resigned to my fate to die of cancer and diabetes etc,

thinking its in my gene and I cant do anything about it?

Many things you do now can lower your risk, such as engaging in more physical activity (i.e. 150 min of moderate intensity exercise a week). Blaming on genes is like blaming your parents for everything you have in life. Why resent to everything when you still have control over what you will be facing?

[xydboy]

50 minutes ago, tomcat said:

 

There is a lot of research that shows the drinking of milk is culturally-linked, rather than nutritional reasons.

Humans are the only species to 1. ingest the milk of another animal as food and 2. to do it well into adulthood.
it is more than a little unnatural.

 

Plus, unless milked from a free range cow and taken unpasteurised, the milk does not have much benefit to it.

Dairy products are a bit more tricky, since they are processed. But if the source is bad, the products are no better.

 

Today, commercial farming also includes hormones as part of their rearing process, a lot of it goes back into the milk.

The cows are engorged and reproduce more than what is natural. And the level of somatic cells (white blood cells)

is quite high in cows that are stressed - basically the milk has high levels of pus in it.

 

If you visit a cancer doctor, upon first diagnosis, their advice would be to stop dairy and red meat.

Meat - to prevent more free radical cell damage, to reduce the creation of handicapped cells.

Milk - to reduce levels of inflammation in the body, so the immune system can recover.

Soy also has its own issues, but since Singapore seems to enforce non-GMO beans,

it is still okay to consume soymilk in moderation.

 

Tofu and soy products are in a bit of a grey zone, companies are not required to label where the beans are from.

Some men experience an increase in Estrogen when taking soy,

while others notice a trigger in their gout symptoms, as soy is high in purine.

 

Hope this helps, to good health~!

Knowledge is power.

 

 

What? milk is inflammatory? Where is the cancer doctor from? Well, many things in life is also inflammatory such as exercise. Refer to the site for more info on studies that debunked this myth https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-doctors-advice-on-cow-milk.t7899/

[tomcat]

47 minutes ago, xydboy said:

What? milk is inflammatory? Where is the cancer doctor from? Well, many things in life is also inflammatory such as exercise. Refer to the site for more info on studies that debunked this myth https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-doctors-advice-on-cow-milk.t7899/

 

Not sure if you have full access to this medical journal (Elsevier, PubMed, Cochrane Library),

but this is an undisputed study to my knowledge with regards to women's health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359127/

 

To date, there is little or no cancer studies of this nature in regards to men, because the focuses are still site-specific (prostate, bone, skin etc)

this is part of the problem because while Cancer manifests specifically to a certain organ or site

it is actually a disease of the immune system - the disconnection between what is harmful and useful within the body.

 

to date, there are 6 known triggers to cancer growth in the human body. 

while some things are carcinogenic by nature (radiation), there are other smaller factors like diet, and even stress that contributes.

in regards to diet, the main issue is cellular damage. (free radicals, rapid oxidative stresses etc), where the cells are damaged/handicapped but not killed entirely.

these cells, as all cells do, then continue to replicate and when composed in large quantities, will start as a cancerous emboli.

 

this is how and why the body "grows" its own cancer cells.

the immune system (depending on overall health, lifestyle practices and genetics) will determine whether these will continue to multiply

or it will be detected, removed or maintained as low amounts. studies also show that at any given time, most of us have cancer cells,

just in low amounts, or they are unresponsive to further growth.

you are correct to say that even exercise is inflammatory, but the body experiences many types of inflammation.

some are visible (soft tissues, muscle, joint) but many happen internally. but basically all inflammations work as temporary processes

a heightened process of recovery.

 

however when inflammation is present within the body for long periods of time, the white blood cells and the immune system is compromised

because the body cannot regulate itself effectively anymore. it is operating unnaturally, 

often the immune system is the first to lapse, and this is where things start to become problematic, not just in regards to cancer.

if you want to take a simplistic approach to this, i am sorry to say that there is no surface level understanding.

you cannot understand the big picture unless you dive deep and read the journals, consider all the findings.

 

basically you have to do the work and make up your mind for yourself.

 

worst is that modern medicine is slow to catch up to research, and even then in America, there are billion dollar industries implicated.

many stakeholders who would rather these damaging info about their products/businesses remain rumours or conspiracy theories.

 

you can either believe it or not, but the evidence speaks for itself: for me from what I know empirically from cancer patients

(some who relapse, others who succumb, and some that do survive) and also through what i have invested my own time to study,

 

at the end of the day, you are more than welcome to accept or refute - a full grown adult can make its own mind up.

it really does not matter to me, i am just sharing is all.

 

 

 

 

 

[xydboy]

1 hour ago, tomcat said:

 

Not sure if you have full access to this medical journal (Elsevier, PubMed, Cochrane Library),

but this is an undisputed study to my knowledge with regards to women's health.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359127/

 

To date, there is little or no cancer studies of this nature in regards to men, because the focuses are still site-specific (prostate, bone, skin etc)

this is part of the problem because while Cancer manifests specifically to a certain organ or site

it is actually a disease of the immune system - the disconnection between what is harmful and useful within the body.

 

to date, there are 6 known triggers to cancer growth in the human body. 

while some things are carcinogenic by nature (radiation), there are other smaller factors like diet, and even stress that contributes.

in regards to diet, the main issue is cellular damage. (free radicals, rapid oxidative stresses etc), where the cells are damaged/handicapped but not killed entirely.

these cells, as all cells do, then continue to replicate and when composed in large quantities, will start as a cancerous emboli.

 

this is how and why the body "grows" its own cancer cells.

the immune system (depending on overall health, lifestyle practices and genetics) will determine whether these will continue to multiply

or it will be detected, removed or maintained as low amounts. studies also show that at any given time, most of us have cancer cells,

just in low amounts, or they are unresponsive to further growth.

you are correct to say that even exercise is inflammatory, but the body experiences many types of inflammation.

some are visible (soft tissues, muscle, joint) but many happen internally. but basically all inflammations work as temporary processes

a heightened process of recovery.

 

however when inflammation is present within the body for long periods of time, the white blood cells and the immune system is compromised

because the body cannot regulate itself effectively anymore. it is operating unnaturally, 

often the immune system is the first to lapse, and this is where things start to become problematic, not just in regards to cancer.

if you want to take a simplistic approach to this, i am sorry to say that there is no surface level understanding.

you cannot understand the big picture unless you dive deep and read the journals, consider all the findings.

 

basically you have to do the work and make up your mind for yourself.

 

worst is that modern medicine is slow to catch up to research, and even then in America, there are billion dollar industries implicated.

many stakeholders who would rather these damaging info about their products/businesses remain rumours or conspiracy theories.

 

you can either believe it or not, but the evidence speaks for itself: for me from what I know empirically from cancer patients

(some who relapse, others who succumb, and some that do survive) and also through what i have invested my own time to study,

 

at the end of the day, you are more than welcome to accept or refute - a full grown adult can make its own mind up.

it really does not matter to me, i am just sharing is all.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, indeed studies on cancer and bovine milk consumption are more site/organ specific. I'm rather intrigued by the undisputed study that you mentioned. I was looking at their methodology, and it seems like they did not correct or control for other lifestyle/diet variables such as physical activity, consumption of vegetables, etc. This is in contrast to Wang et al (2015) who looked at consumption of milk and mortality (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/25/1/25_JE20140081/_pdf). I did not scrutinised the questionnaire that was used, so details on the exact questions that they ask were taken as it was written in the text. It is also interesting to find a fellow like yourself who enjoy investing time in such literature. Perhaps you might also want to look at the following meta analysis:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jon_Fryzek/publication/291341085_Dairy_consumption_and_CVD_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis/links/573b427708ae9ace840ea39b.pdf (not related to cancer, but on CVD, something worth examining) 

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/7/9/5363/htm (mortality rate on all cause, CVD, and cancer)

 

Of course, this list is not exhaustible, there are many other meta analysis/systematic review available out there, that could give a different finding depending on their acceptance limits.

Edited September 28, 2017 by xydboy

[tomcat]

42 minutes ago, xydboy said:

Yes, indeed studies on cancer and bovine milk consumption are more site/organ specific. I'm rather intrigued by the undisputed study that you mentioned. I was looking at their methodology, and it seems like they did not correct or control for other lifestyle/diet variables such as physical activity, consumption of vegetables, etc. This is in contrast to Wang et al (2015) who looked at consumption of milk and mortality (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/25/1/25_JE20140081/_pdf). I did not scrutinised the questionnaire that was used, so details on the exact questions that they ask were taken as it was written in the text. It is also interesting to find a fellow like yourself who enjoy investing time in such literature. Perhaps you might also want to look at the following meta analysis:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jon_Fryzek/publication/291341085_Dairy_consumption_and_CVD_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis/links/573b427708ae9ace840ea39b.pdf (not related to cancer, but on CVD, something worth examining) 

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/7/9/5363/htm (mortality rate on all cause, CVD, and cancer)

 

Of course, this list is not exhaustible, there are many other meta analysis/systematic review available out there, that could give a different finding depending on their acceptance limits.

Well, there are differences depending on the focus of the study itself.

 

Wang et al considered factors such as sleep, exercise, even level of education,

but focuses purely on milk consumption.

D. Ganmaa's study looks into various types of dairy products, (cheeses, yogurts, butters, ice cream, milks)

and is focused entirely on women. 

 

Pretty common in the field because scientists are free to set up their controls and boundaries.

In terms of academic/scientific politics, there are even some studies that are hot and "trending", 

with just enough measures to qualify. This is becoming more common, unfortunately.

 

For Ganmaa, it is her sheer tenacity over 20+ years of study, and one good thing is that she focuses on

endometrial growths. This is especially important because growths that start here

are the most virulent for women as it often changes to become more than one type of cancer.

So yea, it is about the big picture, each journal article/finding is one small piece of the puzzle.

Not many people will want to revisit and invest the time and energy to do this, but to each his own.

 

Of course, there are the readings and data, and then there is real life experience in seeing

a human being transformed by cancer - some bounce back simply by treatment and diet change.

some succumb to complications not even directly linked to the cancer but rather the chemo/operations.

 

others even simply maintain their cancer status, somehow the body finds synergy and is able to 

operate without much pain or interference. quality of life decreases slightly, but the patient sees this

as a comfortable trade-off compared to the fatigue and taxing nature of cancer treatments that

is even then not a guaranteed success.

 

and sure, it would be also crazy to not conduct certain trials on myself too.

I have cut out milk and dairy for 5 years now, found improvement to allergies and other benefits.

when i do suddenly ingest (knowingly or not), i can feel the effect on the body (sinus especially)

same for red meat, and the impact on reversing aging - skin laxity and also less volume loss.

 

aging well is also supported by cyclical turnovers, antioxidants and gut health.

or even simpler measures such as sunscreen.

whole foods and also moderate mindful exercise (weight training, swimming, cross training, trekking)

adds to the strength and constitution of the body.

 

if these are benefits others can enjoy as well, it would be a waste for me to hoard this knowledge for myself alone.

 

so i absorb the research, internalise it, condense it, (sometimes it confirms what I already found out, 

and sometimes it provides an alternative understanding to an issue i have not looked into before) and

wherever is suitable, try to share.

 

Knowledge is Power. even if it is not the power to take over the world or something

it is the knowledge that there is always more than one option/eventuality,

so we can at least make intelligent informed decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[xydboy]

3 hours ago, tomcat said:

Well, there are differences depending on the focus of the study itself.

 

Wang et al considered factors such as sleep, exercise, even level of education,

but focuses purely on milk consumption.

D. Ganmaa's study looks into various types of dairy products, (cheeses, yogurts, butters, ice cream, milks)

and is focused entirely on women. 

 

Pretty common in the field because scientists are free to set up their controls and boundaries.

In terms of academic/scientific politics, there are even some studies that are hot and "trending", 

with just enough measures to qualify. This is becoming more common, unfortunately.

 

For Ganmaa, it is her sheer tenacity over 20+ years of study, and one good thing is that she focuses on

endometrial growths. This is especially important because growths that start here

are the most virulent for women as it often changes to become more than one type of cancer.

So yea, it is about the big picture, each journal article/finding is one small piece of the puzzle.

Not many people will want to revisit and invest the time and energy to do this, but to each his own.

 

Of course, there are the readings and data, and then there is real life experience in seeing

a human being transformed by cancer - some bounce back simply by treatment and diet change.

some succumb to complications not even directly linked to the cancer but rather the chemo/operations.

 

others even simply maintain their cancer status, somehow the body finds synergy and is able to 

operate without much pain or interference. quality of life decreases slightly, but the patient sees this

as a comfortable trade-off compared to the fatigue and taxing nature of cancer treatments that

is even then not a guaranteed success.

 

and sure, it would be also crazy to not conduct certain trials on myself too.

I have cut out milk and dairy for 5 years now, found improvement to allergies and other benefits.

when i do suddenly ingest (knowingly or not), i can feel the effect on the body (sinus especially)

same for red meat, and the impact on reversing aging - skin laxity and also less volume loss.

 

aging well is also supported by cyclical turnovers, antioxidants and gut health.

or even simpler measures such as sunscreen.

whole foods and also moderate mindful exercise (weight training, swimming, cross training, trekking)

adds to the strength and constitution of the body.

 

if these are benefits others can enjoy as well, it would be a waste for me to hoard this knowledge for myself alone.

 

so i absorb the research, internalise it, condense it, (sometimes it confirms what I already found out, 

and sometimes it provides an alternative understanding to an issue i have not looked into before) and

wherever is suitable, try to share.

 

Knowledge is Power. even if it is not the power to take over the world or something

it is the knowledge that there is always more than one option/eventuality,

so we can at least make intelligent informed decisions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its good, but I think in such studies, if the study design or control parameters are not strict, then wouldn't it confound the findings? If we were to look at the international cancer research agencies, things like consumption of vegetables/fruits, physical activity, etc are all possible confounders. I do agree that it is a good study in design, but if correction is not done for these parameters, then the modelling itself would not be an accurate reflection of what it truly is. Its not a RCT, but regression and/or modeling requires correction of factors (especially for cohort/cross sectional/retrospective based). That's the idea of epidemiological studies right? Its about the strength of the numbers. Not forgetting that such studies is not meant to show a cause and effect, more about the associated risk. Last but not least, thanks for sharing such wonderful content.

 

On a side note, various regulatory agencies (such as Cancer research UK, international agency for research on cancer/ WHO) have not mentioned anything about the detrimental status of milk/dairy products. This was reflected in the European Code against Cancer (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26164654) and also on their respective website (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/diet-and-cancer/food-controversies#food_controversies3). Even looking at the WCF endometrial cancer report (http://www.wcrf.org/sites/default/files/Endometrial-Cancer-2013-Report.pdf) (http://wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/our-cancer-prevention-recommendations), many of these parameters was listed that played a role in the impact of cancer, yet how much of these were corrected during the study (Ganmaa and colleagues)?

Edited September 28, 2017 by xydboy

[Guest Fit middle]

Sometimes, I think we think too much.

For me, basic foods like eggs and milk are for those fragile young lives so are very nutritious and simple to absorb. It's nature's best foods even for human. Therefore I trust my own instincts and eat these foods.

 

Time and again those scientific studies keep contradicting themselves back and forth. We only need common sense and eat in moderation, exercise in moderation. I recently went for the cheap $5 medical checkup. I passed all checks with very good physiological numbers but the doctor still tell me I'm slightly overweight. That's so textbook recitation. 

 

But again I believe that being slightly overweight is a positive buffer against sickness as long as my checkup figures are good. I can easily lose weight and it's shocking that I could easily lose 10kg just by eating one meal each day for 2 weeks. I don't feel any difficulties from hunger pangs. But when I looked into the mirror and I don't like the leaner look. I can imagine why when some friends are very sick, their weights went go down that fast. 

 

I ate eggs, drink milk and regained my weight again. I still prefer my softer muscles that look smoother and rounder. 

 

[xydboy]

4 minutes ago, Guest Fit middle said:

Sometimes, I think we think too much.

For me, basic foods like eggs and milk are for those fragile young lives so are very nutritious and simple to absorb. It's nature's best foods even for human. Therefore I trust my own instincts and eat these foods.

 

Time and again those scientific studies keep contradicting themselves back and forth. We only need common sense and eat in moderation, exercise in moderation. I recently went for the cheap $5 medical checkup. I passed all checks with very good physiological numbers but the doctor still tell me I'm slightly overweight. That's so textbook recitation. 

 

But again I believe that being slightly overweight is a positive buffer against sickness as long as my checkup figures are good. I can easily lose weight and it's shocking that I could easily lose 10kg just by eating one meal each day for 2 weeks. I don't feel any difficulties from hunger pangs. But when I looked into the mirror and I don't like the leaner look. I can imagine why when some friends are very sick, their weights went go down that fast. 

 

I ate eggs, drink milk and regained my weight again. I still prefer my softer muscles that look smoother and rounder. 

 

Science/research is not about absolute. Today they might be right, tomorrow they might not. But its the best way to validate and provide sound treatments/guidelines to humanity. Passing all checks with good physiological numbers is one thing, but the measurement of obesity is not all numbers. Or not all of it. Things like BMI, waist to hip ratio, body composition, etc, they are a reflection of yourself. Just because you got good blood pressure numbers doesn't mean you pass the rest (e.g. blood glucose, cholesterol, etc). Of course you can lose weight by not eating. its just mere calories in and out (thermodynamic laws).

[Guest ALeBOY]

It is true that genes plays big part, like in my case i have to double my diet and exercise compared to others as i can gained easily and very difficult to lose fat, as maybe because my mom is fatty. Sometimes im a bit jealous on people who can eat what they want and can just not work out as hard as im but still looks better in physique and never get fat easily even they eat normal food or hawker food everyday.

[LeanMature]

I had been drinking milk since day one and still is until today.  Whether inflammatory or not, it's already too late.  Don't really heck care with these science and research studies, in the end we might end up drinking water for survival.  I mean purified water.

[auri]

1 hour ago, LeanMature said:

I had been drinking milk since day one and still is until today.  Whether inflammatory or not, it's already too late.  Don't really heck care with these science and research studies, in the end we might end up drinking water for survival.  I mean purified water.

 

Ha ha, so true...

I don't think I have come across any thing/food that is free from some sort of problem!

meat - cancer

dairy - inflammatory/ cancer

fish - heavy metals

vegetables - pesticides

etc ...

 

[Guest Genetic]

On 9/28/2017 at 2:18 AM, xydboy said:

 

Everything push to genes, then no need to put forth any argument. There is a part of genes, but there is also room for tr inability or nurturing. Putting the blame to genes is the easiest thing one can do but it does not resolve anything on hand. Don't over-estimate your genes because that's one one part of who you are. There are articles that suggest 50-50 of contribution from genes and nurturing. Its not just fitness, but also other traits. If genes determine your intelligence, then why go to school? Its the same reason since the very argument stems from genes playing a big part in everything in life.

I am not saying everything pushed to genes, of cos there is a part for nurture too, but how much? 50-50? well that depends on what attributes we are talking about. 

 

Genes played a very important role in body weight, (though lifestyle may have an equal or smaller role). If not why classify people into endo meso and ectomorph? I have friends who are obese, whose parents and siblings are equally obese and they have to really try v hard to slim down and maintain their weight vs those naturally skinny ones who can eat a lot and yet not gain weight.

 

Similar for intelligence, if you are smart, no need to study very (note the emphasis on "very") hard and still can pass exams, study harder and you ace it. If born intellectually challenged, perhaps can pass exams if studied hard, but no matter how much hard work you put in you can never top the school. That is sadly the truth and I see it all the time.

[yoyo74]

On 9/29/2017 at 10:20 AM, Guest ALeBOY said:

It is true that genes plays big part, like in my case i have to double my diet and exercise compared to others as i can gained easily and very difficult to lose fat, as maybe because my mom is fatty. Sometimes im a bit jealous on people who can eat what they want and can just not work out as hard as im but still looks better in physique and never get fat easily even they eat normal food or hawker food everyday.

Genes play a part but that does not mean it cannot be over come. My father is fat, my mother is fat and my brother also fat with a whopping 120kg. I was slim during kids time cause my brother rush and eat all the nice unhealthy food my parents left for us making me mentally unhealthy while physically healthy lol. When I got enough money to buy my own food, this is the time where i start to get fat. Its a change of my diet that i finally slim down again. As for hawker food, not all is unhealthy. My lunch time is practically always same stuff, buy brown rice from vegetarian stall add 2 green vegetable dish and egg dish. The egg dish i try to get those hard boil one if available. I think this way of eating is cheap and healthy hawker center food.

[aelwaien]

@tomcat and @xydboy

Thank u for the gentlemanly debate

It was certainly an enjoyable read for me

[xydboy]

On 9/29/2017 at 5:34 PM, Guest Genetic said:

I am not saying everything pushed to genes, of cos there is a part for nurture too, but how much? 50-50? well that depends on what attributes we are talking about. 

 

Genes played a very important role in body weight, (though lifestyle may have an equal or smaller role). If not why classify people into endo meso and ectomorph? I have friends who are obese, whose parents and siblings are equally obese and they have to really try v hard to slim down and maintain their weight vs those naturally skinny ones who can eat a lot and yet not gain weight.

 

Similar for intelligence, if you are smart, no need to study very (note the emphasis on "very") hard and still can pass exams, study harder and you ace it. If born intellectually challenged, perhaps can pass exams if studied hard, but no matter how much hard work you put in you can never top the school. That is sadly the truth and I see it all the time.

Genes play an important role yes, but what has it got to do with somatotyping? Its simplistic to put everyone into strict 3 forms when a mixed form (e.g. endo-meso) do exist. This was exemplified in Parnell (1954), citing the original Sheldonian's somatotyping efforts. Lets not turn this into a nurture and nature debate. The main idea that I want to bring forth is not to put too much "credit" on the genes part. It does serve any purpose where everyone just shove the answer of genes up people's face during a debate. But nevertheless, if you are interested in the nature vs nurture debate and how I acquire the approx 50-50, have a read at this journal article published very recently (http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/full/ng.3285.html?foxtrotcallback=true) using 50 years of data (17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, across 39 different countries).