PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else watch The Biggest Loser?



knelson
December 14th, 2006, 04:33 PM
I watched it some last season, but only caught the finale of this season that aired last night. Unbelievable! At least a couple people on the show lost over 50% of their original weight.

The winner, Erik, went from over 400 pounds to under 195. Look at these before and after photos:
http://www.nbc.com/The_Biggest_Loser/images/contestants/erik_before1.jpg
http://www.nbc.com/The_Biggest_Loser/images/contestants/erik_finale10.jpg

Hard to even believe this is the same guy!

scyfreestyler
December 14th, 2006, 05:10 PM
I believe it...his arms tell the tale. Just the same, it is nothing short of incredible what some of these people have accomplished. I have never watched the show but as reality shows go, I think it is probably the best one out there. Perhaps it might inspire some others who were in Erik's condition to do something about their current state of health. Kudos to him!

tulclark
December 15th, 2006, 06:00 AM
My wife keeps me informed. It's amazing! I wonder if he's been eating at Subway? He could be some real competition for Jared. :joker:

swimshark
December 15th, 2006, 12:16 PM
If they hadn't said that was Erik, I wouldn't have known. He looks amazing as do more than half the people who started. They are all inspiring. I only wish more people would get their health in check like these people did.

Alison

craiglll@yahoo.com
December 16th, 2006, 12:52 PM
Weight loss is an amazing thing. We who are skinny cna never really know wha *** takes to lose lots of pounds. My mother was a super jock when she was growing u in Iowa. Then she had 7 kids. Most of my memories of her were thinking that she must be sick because she always ate such weird things and was constantly taking "her special" pills (it was the 60s).

What is even more weird is that most of the diet information we have is based not on studies concerning over weight people or even normal wieght peope but diabetics.

valhallan
December 16th, 2006, 03:01 PM
Ironically New York is the first state in the country to ban the use of trans fats. He has a NY T-shirt in the before shot.


This show focuses on the importance of nutritional education and regular exercise (something lacking in our nation of abundance and creature comforts).

waves101
December 18th, 2006, 08:48 AM
Great show and very inspiring. I even got in a little trouble with my wife while we were watching it. Somehow we got to talking about eating healthy and I had to point out that while our dinners are complete nutritionally. They are far from the "healthy" meals the contestants have to eat. Cheese and Thousand Island dressing on salads are no-nos, canned fruit in syrup, etc. Don't fall into the same trap I did.

scyfreestyler
December 18th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Ironically New York is the first state in the country to ban the use of trans fats. He has a NY T-shirt in the before shot.


This show focuses on the importance of nutritional education and regular exercise (something lacking in our nation of abundance and creature comforts).


Trans fats are not the reason that anybody is fat. An unbalanced intake/burning of calories is what causes obesity. Trans fats are great for helping one to develop heart disease so I do try to avoid them. Having said that, it is a little troubling that a state is banning these fats to protect it's population. I would imagine that cigarettes cause just as much, if not more, damage to cardiovascular systems but somehow they are still legal. It bothers me when the state begins to limit what people are eating...this is not a mood altering drug we are talking about, it's a food.

knelson
December 18th, 2006, 06:29 PM
it's a food.

Is it? I would call partially hydrogenated oils more of a chemical process than a food.

I think it's great that NY is banning artificial trans fats and I hope others follow suit.

valhallan
December 18th, 2006, 06:56 PM
Partially hydrogenated oils are commonly found in processed foods like commercial baked products such as cookies, cakes and crackers, and even in bread. They are also used as cooking oils (called "liquid shortening") for frying in restaurants.

Top nutritionists at Harvard have stated as follows:

"By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,000 premature deaths annually."


30,000 to 100,000 premature deaths each year means between 82 and 274 each day!

aquageek
December 18th, 2006, 06:57 PM
It bothers me when the state begins to limit what people are eating...this is not a mood altering drug we are talking about, it's a food.

First quality post in a long time, amen to this.

As long as NY is legislating health, they'd be better served by making their fat populus work out 45 minutes a day than by banning food.

ljlete
December 18th, 2006, 07:34 PM
Knelson,

Hydrogenating an unsaturated fat (oil) is a chemical process.

Partially hydrogenated fats (oils) are a product of the process and something that one eats.

Leo

scyfreestyler
December 18th, 2006, 07:54 PM
Is it? I would call partially hydrogenated oils more of a chemical process than a food.

I think it's great that NY is banning artificial trans fats and I hope others follow suit.

Call it what you will. The fact of the matter is that it is much closer to a food product than a mood altering drug.

scyfreestyler
December 18th, 2006, 07:57 PM
Partially hydrogenated oils are commonly found in processed foods like commercial baked products such as cookies, cakes and crackers, and even in bread. They are also used as cooking oils (called "liquid shortening") for frying in restaurants.

Top nutritionists at Harvard have stated as follows:

"By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,000 premature deaths annually."


30,000 to 100,000 premature deaths each year means between 82 and 274 each day!
So why not cigarettes then? How about alcohol? These things kill, kill, and kill you know.

poolraat
December 18th, 2006, 08:05 PM
So why not cigarettes then? How about alcohol? These things kill, kill, and kill you know.

Trans fat is an easy target. There's too much money behind tobacco and alcohol to attack those industries. I read today (and I've heard this before) that marijuana is this nation's largest cash crop.

The Fortress
December 18th, 2006, 08:34 PM
Having said that, it is a little troubling that a state is banning these fats to protect it's population. It bothers me when the state begins to limit what people are eating...this is not a mood altering drug we are talking about, it's a food.

Yes, we should be able to eat food even if it kills us. We do have ample food labeling laws already in place to "protect" the population. As for fat kids, there are parents.

Some people would argue that marathoning might be too much of a good thing for the heart. Should we ban it? Of course not. But then I live in a state that just legislated marriage and is working on religion in schools, so I guess every basic right is free game nowadays. I think I will have a glass of wine before mood altering substances are banned. I read the warning label. I'm not pregnant and I'm old enough.

scyfreestyler
December 18th, 2006, 08:36 PM
Trans fat is an easy target. There's too much money behind tobacco and alcohol to attack those industries. I read today (and I've heard this before) that marijuana is this nation's largest cash crop.

I concur.

Trans fats are just the flavor of the week and an opportunity for some elected officials to pound their chests that they have done something for the community; or state in this case. I am all for labeling the product and educating the public about an ingredient's health implications but to ban something like this is really just...well, really just stupid. Nobody is forced to eat this stuff just as nobody is forced to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. Educate them and allow them to make their own decisions.

valhallan
December 18th, 2006, 08:49 PM
Matt,

I hear were you're coming from. The government should have it's limits. However...this stuff isn't food. Remember that wonderful sweetener called sacharin? Maybe 40 years ago there were many who felt the same way as you do now.

It's still unthinkable that people inhale cigarettes year after year without the slightest concern. (Right now though...it's easier for a kid to buy a pack of smokes than purchase a bottle of Robitusin!)

At the end of the day...if some of the herd is dying off...and they're too unaware to stop themselves...shouldn't someone step in and send them off onto the right path?

Tough question to answer. Maybe Darwin was right.

The Fortress
December 18th, 2006, 09:59 PM
It's still unthinkable that people inhale cigarettes year after year without the slightest concern. (Right now though...it's easier for a kid to buy a pack of smokes than purchase a bottle of Robitusin!)

At the end of the day...if some of the herd is dying off...and they're too unaware to stop themselves...shouldn't someone step in and send them off onto the right path?

Tough question to answer. Maybe Darwin was right.

Valhallan:

Do you really think people who smoke don't have "the slightest concern?" I think they do. They just ignore or suppress the concern because they are either: (1) addicted; (2) hoping miraculously to avoid cancer or some other insidious illness and thinking that perhaps it will strike some other poor soul; (3) intentionally living "in the moment" forgetting the potential impact while knowing it exists; or (4) chosing to do it because they like to smoke despite all the risks.

And there are folks "stepping in." There is labeling and warning a plenty. Speaking just for my neck of the woods, my kids are bombarded in school with anti-smoking, anti-drug, anti-obesity, pro-nutrition messages. And activity, as Geek suggested, is practically legislated in my house. But that is in my house, which is not a democracy or even a republic ...

So everyone's apprised unless they're living under a rock. People simply do not always make rational choices. Sometimes people just throw caution to the wind. That's why Darwin was right.

poolraat
December 18th, 2006, 10:41 PM
Do you really think people who smoke don't have "the slightest concern?" I think they do. They just ignore or suppress the concern because they are either: (1) addicted; (2) hoping miraculously to avoid cancer or some other insidious illness and thinking that perhaps it will strike some other poor soul; (3) intentionally living "in the moment" forgetting the potential impact while knowing it exists; or (4) chosing to do it because they like to smoke despite all the risks.

And (5) know it's bad and want to quit, but lack the willpower to do so.
It's a very addicting habit and quitting was one of the hardest things I've ever done.

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 01:38 AM
Trans fats are just the flavor of the week and an opportunity for some elected officials to pound their chests that they have done something for the community; or state in this case.

I think it was just New York City, wasn't it?

valhallan
December 19th, 2006, 08:33 AM
So everyone's apprised unless they're living under a rock. People simply do not always make rational choices. Sometimes people just throw caution to the wind. That's why Darwin was right.


Touche Madame.

Your point is well taken. Exactly why some parts of the herd will live on through future generations.

Something doesn't seem right however when big business is profiting at the expense of many...who can't say no to a super sized meal and a pack of Marlboro's.

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 08:34 AM
Touche Madame.

Your point is well taken. Exactly why some parts of the herd will live on through future generations.

Something doesn't seem right however when big business is profiting at the expense of many...who can't say no to a super sized meal and a pack of Marlboro's.

I can. No problem. I hate McDonalds. Can't you come up with something more tempting?

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 08:48 AM
Fortress/Sprinter Girl -
I could not agree with you more. It goes back to my whole "taking responsibility for yourself" thing. It's not the transfats that are the problem, it's the people eating them. Far too many people in our society just want to pass the buck to someone else rather than decide for themselves to be healthier.

It's like all those lawsuits against McDonald's ... for making people fat, for the hot coffee ... it's riddiculous.

Growing up my parents ate all sorts of "hearty" meals with butter, cream, and lots of fat, but they were both rail thin why - genetics was a part, but they also went outside and *gasp* played. They didn't sit inside and play video games, they didn't eat bags of chips and gallons of ice cream - those were rare treats.

I was always outside as a kid running around - it wasn't video games (they were around though), and lesson after lesson ...

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 08:51 AM
Something doesn't seem right however when big business is profiting at the expense of many...who can't say no to a super sized meal and a pack of Marlboro's.

Always convenient to blame the evil big business. They only sell what people buy, that's the way it works in America.

If I want to go eat a lard burger at lunch, I should be able to do so but then I shouldn't turn around and complain about being tubby or that I have "bad metabolism."

So, anyway, stayed at a hotel this past weekend with my family that has one of those free breakfast buffet things. I did an informal review of the crowd. The folks that were thin seemed to choose wisely - fruit, small portions, etc. Then, I noted a big family that had all their plates LOADED with the full-on fat daddy special (bacon, eggs, sausage, hasbrowns, and heaping helpings of each). Now, explain how removing trans fats is gonna stop those folks from loading up like it's the last meal they are gonna eat?

valhallan
December 19th, 2006, 08:54 AM
I can. No problem. I hate McDonalds. Can't you come up with something more tempting?

I'm with you. Je deteste la meme chose aussi.
As far as more tempting...perhaps Hooters.

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 08:57 AM
Always convenient to blame the evil big business. They only sell what people buy, that's the way it works in America.

If I want to go eat a lard burger at lunch, I should be able to do so but then I shouldn't turn around and complain about being tubby or that I have "bad metabolism."

So, anyway, stayed at a hotel this past weekend with my family that has one of those free breakfast buffet things. I did an informal review of the crowd. The folks that were thin seemed to choose wisely - fruit, small portions, etc. Then, I noted a big family that had all their plates LOADED with the full-on fat daddy special (bacon, eggs, sausage, hasbrowns, and heaping helpings of each). Now, explain how removing trans fats is gonna stop those folks from loading up like it's the last meal they are gonna eat?

Well said Geek!

swimr4life
December 19th, 2006, 09:36 AM
You know why people love to watch The Biggest Loser show?....It is because it shows people taking responsibility for themselves and doing something constructive to change their habbits to improve the quality of their lives. WHAT A CONCEPT!!! :rolleyes:


I am sick and tired of people always wanting to blame someone....anyone...else other than themselves for their problems, mistakes or misbehavior. It is very refreshing to see the people on the show working hard, being dedicated and changing their lives for the better. No, it isn't easy. I know cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, food....yada yada...are addicting and sometimes hard to kick. BUT come on. Take responsibility for your actions.

Phew....I feel better.

LindsayNB
December 19th, 2006, 10:13 AM
Of course, once you are past breeding age, Darwin isn't too concerned.

With an upside of 30,000 to 100,000 prevented premature deaths, what exactly is the downside that balances that? From the reports I've heard there are no mobs of consumers in Denmark upset about lack of access to trans fats there.

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 10:16 AM
I'm with you. Je deteste la meme chose aussi.
As far as more tempting...perhaps Hooters.

Valhallen:

Donc vous êtes pourtant us autre Français sur ce forum? Les sirènes ne tentent pas parce que je suis femme et la nourriture il y a non bon. Essayer encore. Quelque vin peut-être?

No McDonalds or Hooters for me today or anyday.

Geek, last time I was in NC, people were smoking like chimneys in every restaurant I entered. What gives down there?

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 10:21 AM
With an upside of 30,000 to 100,000 prevented premature deaths, what exactly is the downside that balances that?

Is trans fat the sole source of those deaths. Are any of those folks already obese? Do they have other conditions caused solely by trans fat? Do they exercise?

There are many things that cause more deaths than that - cars, for example, alcohol for example.

The simple downside is that I don't need the government telling me what I can eat.

I find The Biggest Loser to be very inspirational. Notice how they lose weight by making the right diet and exercise decisions. Seems they don't need the government making those decisions for them.

LindsayNB
December 19th, 2006, 10:26 AM
Now, explain how removing trans fats is gonna stop those folks from loading up like it's the last meal they are gonna eat?

Hmm, removing trans fats will not solve every problem in the world, so saving a few tens of thousands of lives is clearly a waste of time. I question this logic.

LindsayNB
December 19th, 2006, 10:32 AM
Top nutritionists at Harvard have stated as follows:

"By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,000 premature deaths annually."


Is trans fat the sole source of those deaths.

If replacing the trans fats with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils prevents the deaths then the implication is that yes, the trans fats are the sole source of those deaths.

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 10:46 AM
Hmm, removing trans fats will not solve every problem in the world, so saving a few tens of thousands of lives is clearly a waste of time. I question this logic.

I think our difference of opinions is that you think it's acceptable for the government to tell me what I can and cannot eat. I prefer to leave decisions like that to the individual.

There are many things that cause tens of thousands of deaths each year. Which are you willing to leave to elected officials to decide? No thanks, I have enough gov't in my life as is.

Taking trans fat out of the hands of an obese population is like throwing a deck chair off the titanic.

gull
December 19th, 2006, 10:48 AM
That's an estimate of the number of deaths that would be prevented. Look, trans fats are bad. No question. But as others have pointed out, why not ban tobacco products as well? Obviously there is not a powerful and well-funded trans fat lobby.

Biggest loser? Geek in January at Charlotte. Just two words for you: Shock and awe, buddy.

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 10:54 AM
I did a quick google search and in 2002 there were 3842 deaths due to drowning in the USA.

And according to the CDC drowning is the seventh leading cause of unintentional injury deaths for all ages and the second leading cause of all injury deaths in children aged 1--14 years.

Maybe we should ban pools as well.

LindsayNB
December 19th, 2006, 11:08 AM
To make it even more explicit: there are things that have both costs and benefits, and there are things that don't appear to have any significant benefits, perceived or otherwise, while having significant costs.

If you ban tobacco or alcohol a lot of people will feel that you have taken something away from them that they value. Even more so for cars or swimming pools. In Denmark they banned trans fats and no one really noticed, the food producers adjusted their recipes and that was that.

swimr4life
December 19th, 2006, 11:10 AM
I did a quick google search and in 2002 there were 3842 deaths due to drowning in the USA.

And according to the CDC drowning is the seventh leading cause of unintentional injury deaths for all ages and the second leading cause of all injury deaths in children aged 1--14 years.

Maybe we should ban pools as well.

Using the same logic....Let's add automobiles- especially S.U.V.'s and trucks! They should be banned because they cause a lot of deaths. :dunno:

I agree with Geek. I really think the government has enough power over our lives. There is a fine line between the government "helping take care" of us and taking over our individual freedoms.

Yes, trans fats are bad for us. I have mixed emotions about the government stepping in and banning them and not alcohol and tobacco. Does that make sense to you? It all comes down to the almighty dollar and who has the most influence on the economy.

chaos
December 19th, 2006, 11:15 AM
I did a quick google search and in 2002 there were 3842 deaths due to drowning in the USA.

And according to the CDC drowning is the seventh leading cause of unintentional injury deaths for all ages and the second leading cause of all injury deaths in children aged 1--14 years.

Maybe we should ban pools as well.

maybe we should teach swimming in grade schools. many swimming programs are being cut from the public school system. nyc has to close stretches of beach in the summer due to lack of lifeguards.

trans fats are only popular because they are cheap...they don't make anything taste better.

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 11:23 AM
To make it even more explicit: there are things that have both costs and benefits, and there are things that don't appear to have any significant benefits while having significant costs.


There are huge costs associated with this decision. First, food producers have to change their manufacturing processes. That is a direct cost. Second, it's a further erosion of our ability to choose what we do with our lives.

And, what exactly is the benefit? We think fewer people will die but are we also going to eliminate the other things those people do that contribute to their deaths?

Here are other leading causes of deaths in the same general numbers as those allegedly caused by trans fats - adverse reactions to prescription drugs and sexual behaviors. Who is up for banning sex and prescription drugs?

Interestingly, there were no deaths due to marijuana, making smoking pot safer than swimming and eating a few sticks of margarine. So, ban margarine and swimming and legalize pot? Hmmm....

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 11:24 AM
From the reports I've heard there are no mobs of consumers in Denmark upset about lack of access to trans fats there.

I'm not sure Denmark and the United States are really comparable. I think more Americans like their lard burgers and would be bloody well yelling about it if they were deprived of them. Me, I don't eat them, but I surely don't want the government telling me that I can't. I would also like to continue having sex and taking prescription drugs.

chaos
December 19th, 2006, 11:29 AM
Interestingly, there were no deaths due to marijuana, making smoking pot safer than swimming and eating a few sticks of margarine. So, ban margarine and swimming and legalize pot? Hmmm....

now your on to something!
any swim meets in amsterdam?

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 11:29 AM
Using the same logic....Let's add automobiles- especially S.U.V.'s and trucks! They should be banned because they cause a lot of deaths. :dunno:

I agree with Geek. I really think the government has enough power over our lives. There is a fine line between the government "helping take care" of us and taking over our individual freedoms.

Yes, trans fats are bad for us. I have mixed emotions about the government stepping in and banning them and not alcohol and tobacco. Does that make sense to you? It all comes down to the almighty dollar and who has the most influence on the economy.


Precisely ... that's a slippery slope that can lead to major infringements on rights ... and right to dictatorship ...

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 11:31 AM
I'm all for making marijuana legal. The idea that the government can tell me I can't grow a plant is ridiculous. However, I don't think trans fats are the same at all. For one thing trans fats (the ones that are being banned) are not naturally occuring and they can be replaced by naturally occuring fats.

chaos
December 19th, 2006, 11:32 AM
I would also like to continue having sex and taking prescription drugs.

i like the direction this thread is taking....rock and roll?...anyone?

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 11:32 AM
I think more Americans like their lard burgers and would be bloody well yelling about it if they were deprived of them.

Lard doesn't contains trans fat, so they wouldn't be deprived of them.

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 11:38 AM
Lard doesn't contains trans fat, so they wouldn't be deprived of them.

I was just quoting Geek, Mr. Green thumb.:) Do Christmas cookies have trans fat cuz I'm about to go eat one?

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 11:49 AM
Yeah, I know, but I guess my point is I don't see this as just an extension of the "I'm fat so I want to blame someone" phenomenon. This isn't just about people overeating the wrong things. It's about something added to food that can kill you and could easily be replaced by something safer.

valhallan
December 19th, 2006, 11:50 AM
Valhallen:

No McDonalds or Hooters for me today or anyday.

Pardon mois Madame Papillion. I am completely in agreement with you.

I think we are all like minded in the fact that masters swimming isn't just a sport...but a lifestyle in which we exemplify good behavior for our children and those around us.

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 11:55 AM
Pardon mois Madame Papillion. I am completely in agreement with you.

Can't you see that I have given up le papillon because it is to hard on the shoulders? I am now a breaststroker. I think this may be my first day on the forum where I have actually read the words "I completely agree with you" a couple times. I may faint dead away before I even get my workout in.

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 12:01 PM
Market forces should dictate the fate of trans fats. The growth of the organic industry is a prime example of this, although it still cracks me up to see fat people at the health food store. Maybe they will die of an overdose of tofu and we can ban that instead of trans fats.

And, let's not be so tough on trans fats. After all, I was quite tubby last year when I tossed gull aside in the 500 free and I attribute that to trans fats. Now that I've dropped some weight, I'm fearful of the dire consequences of the lack of them in my blood. Fat and fit - the new American ideal!

scyfreestyler
December 19th, 2006, 12:03 PM
Biggest loser? Geek in January at Charlotte. Just two words for you: Shock and awe, buddy.


Wow! Gull is a witty fellow today!

LindsayNB
December 19th, 2006, 12:06 PM
I understand now, if we allow government to ban adding trans fats to foods today, we risk that they will ban selling crack in retail stores tomorrow.

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 12:12 PM
I understand now, if we allow government to ban adding trans fats to foods today, we risk that they will ban selling crack in retail stores tomorrow.


No but we risk them banning anything that is potentially fatal - cars, pools ... the question is where does their power stop?

scyfreestyler
December 19th, 2006, 12:14 PM
I understand now, if we allow government to ban adding trans fats to foods today, we risk that they will ban selling crack in retail stores tomorrow.

Crack is already banned. However, it does open the door for banning other things that are dangerous to one's health.

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 12:16 PM
As I sit here and eat lunch I note that my pack of Lance Crackers says boldly on the front "0g Trans Fat." Now, since we can still eat what we want in NC (and smoke, too) what is driving this? It's called market forces. So, if industry and consumers already feel trans fats are not good, why do we need the government to tell us?

The gov't has more pressing issues now, like why little kids in California are forced to swim outdoors in December for swim meets.

I personally believe that high fructose corn syrup plays a much more insidious role in our diet. Try going a single meal without that stuff.

LindsayNB
December 19th, 2006, 12:21 PM
Crack is already banned. However, it does open the door for banning other things that are dangerous to one's health.

I believe the above quote makes my point.

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 12:23 PM
The gov't has more pressing issues now.

I believe this is the other point.

LindsayNB
December 19th, 2006, 12:25 PM
No but we risk them banning anything that is potentially fatal - cars, pools ... the question is where does their power stop?

At the point where they try to ban things that people value enough to vote them out of office?

chaos
December 19th, 2006, 12:28 PM
At the point where they try to ban things that people value enough to vote them out of office?

yes, but a lot of stupid people vote

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 12:29 PM
yes, but a lot of stupid people vote

And it's a 2 process at a minimum (sometimes 6) and a lot more stupid people run ...

scyfreestyler
December 19th, 2006, 12:31 PM
The gov't has more pressing issues now, like why little kids in California are forced to swim outdoors in December for swim meets.




Amen to that!

poolraat
December 19th, 2006, 12:37 PM
As far as more tempting...perhaps Hooters.

I'm going to jump way off the subject here....

Did you hear that Hooters is opening a chain of home delivery restaurants?

They're calling them "Knockers".:rofl: :rofl:

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 12:42 PM
At the point where they try to ban things that people value enough to vote them out of office?

Generally the types of governments that ban personal liberties, including what we can't eat, aren't known for their willingness to accept the vote.

I've got something new to ban, noodles. They allow for lack of movement which contributes to obesity and poor physical fitness, and they never decay in a landfill.

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 12:45 PM
Generally the types of governments that ban personal liberties, including what we can't eat, aren't known for their willingness to accept the vote.

I've got something new to ban, noodles. They allow for lack of movement which contributes to obesity and poor physical fitness, and they never decay in a landfill.


Geek, I'm scared that I've been agreeing with all you are writing today ... I must leave now and seek professional help ....

some_girl
December 19th, 2006, 01:06 PM
Generally the types of governments that ban personal liberties, including what we can't eat, aren't known for their willingness to accept the vote.


Yeah, all those Danish coups and strongmen.

scyfreestyler
December 19th, 2006, 01:19 PM
I think the biggest loser is the person whose dietary decisions are made for him by his own government.

Perhaps some of the medical professionals on here can elaborate on this but I am quite positive that a few grams of trans fats scattered about in ones diet are not likely to kill them provided they have an otherwise healthy diet and exercise routine. The lawmakers who drafted this legislation are looking for a medical silver bullet. That one part of the US diet that is making people fat and subject to heart disease. The problem is that there is no ONE thing that is causing this problem. They are barking up the wrong tree and they need to understand that you can't legislate people into good health...it has to come from within. My personal opinion is that lawmakers should spend more time on issues like crime, jobs, infrastructure, schools, etc.

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 01:32 PM
As I sit here and eat lunch I note that my pack of Lance Crackers says boldly on the front "0g Trans Fat."

Which doesn't, by the way, mean there's no trans fat. It just means there's less than 0.5 g per serving. The only way to know for sure is to look at the ingredients list.

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 01:34 PM
The problem is that there is no ONE thing that is causing this problem.

No, but there is at least one thing that could be eliminated that would at least help, and that thing is trans fat.

swimshark
December 19th, 2006, 01:44 PM
[QUOTE=scyfreestyler;70936]Trans fats are not the reason that anybody is fat. An unbalanced intake/burning of calories is what causes obesity. Trans fats are great for helping one to develop heart disease so I do try to avoid them. Having said that, it is a little troubling that a state is banning these fats to protect it's population. [/QUOTE


There is an article in this month's Prevention Magazine that says that trans fats don't break down in the body so they do cause weight gain. So not only do trans fats cause cardiac problems but also weight gain. Personally I wish no govt had to ban them but I'm glad they did. I am one that avoids them like the plague but that means not really being able to enjoy a dinner or lunch out for fear of trans fats. My father-in-law died of a heart attack at 56. His wife cooked with trans fats. I fear for my husband since he grew up eating this same food. Now we know we can go to eat in NYC soon and know it's a bit better on our health and weight.

Alison

aquageek
December 19th, 2006, 01:55 PM
So not only do trans fats cause cardiac problems but also weight gain.

Taking in more than you put out causes weight gain. You could lose weight eating nothing but trans fats, mind you it wouldn't be so much fun.

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 02:01 PM
Trans fatty acids (commonly termed trans fats) are a type of unsaturated fat (and may be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated).

Trans fats occur naturally, in small quantities, in meat and dairy products from ruminants. Most trans fats consumed today, however, are industrially created as a side effect of partial hydrogenation of plant oils — a process developed in the early 1900s and first commercialized as Crisco in 1911. Partial hydrogenation changes a fat's molecular structure (raising its melting point and reducing rancidity) but this process also results in a proportion of the changed fat becoming trans fat.

Unlike other fats, trans fats are neither required nor beneficial for health.[1] Eating trans fat increases the risk of coronary heart disease.[2] For these reasons, health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans fats from partially hydrogenated oils are generally considered to be more of a health risk than those occurring naturally.[3]

Trans fats are increasingly being linked to chronic health conditions, are tightly regulated in a few countries, are mandatory on product labels in many others, and are the central issue in several ongoing lawsuits (particularly against fast food outlets). Many companies are voluntarily removing trans fats from their products, or establishing trans-free product lines.

Chemically, trans fats are made of the same building blocks as non-trans fats, but have a different shape. In trans fat molecules, the double bonds between carbon atoms (characteristic of all unsaturated fats) are in the trans rather than the cis configuration, resulting in a straighter, rather than a kinked shape. As a result, trans fats are less fluid and have a higher melting point than the equivalent cis fats.











That's from wikipedia

scyfreestyler
December 19th, 2006, 02:02 PM
[QUOTE=scyfreestyler;70936]Trans fats are not the reason that anybody is fat. An unbalanced intake/burning of calories is what causes obesity. Trans fats are great for helping one to develop heart disease so I do try to avoid them. Having said that, it is a little troubling that a state is banning these fats to protect it's population. [/QUOTE


There is an article in this month's Prevention Magazine that says that trans fats don't break down in the body so they do cause weight gain. So not only do trans fats cause cardiac problems but also weight gain. Personally I wish no govt had to ban them but I'm glad they did. I am one that avoids them like the plague but that means not really being able to enjoy a dinner or lunch out for fear of trans fats. My father-in-law died of a heart attack at 56. His wife cooked with trans fats. I fear for my husband since he grew up eating this same food. Now we know we can go to eat in NYC soon and know it's a bit better on our health and weight.

Alison


Are you trying to tell me that every gram of transfat that I ingest throughout my life will still be with me when I die? If so, I am not inclined to believe such a statement.

Did you know that corn does not break down well in the body? Have you noticed where it goes?


EDIT: I am not implying that transfats are dealt with as corn is (that was supposed to lighten the subject a little), but I don't think that those who are obese have 20-30 pounds of trans fat flowing through their veins either. Overweight people are overweight because they ingest more CALORIES than they burn.

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 02:30 PM
Overweight people are overweight because they ingest more CALORIES than they burn.

True, but the main discussion here hasn't been about obesity, it's been about whether trans fats should be banned. The two topics may be related, but I think they are two distinct topics.

gull
December 19th, 2006, 02:40 PM
I have no problem with the banning of trans fats (although they may be good for business!). What I take issue with is the belief that this will significantly impact either the overall health of our population or the prevalence of coronary artery disease (not to mention the incidence of obesity). Please note that I said significantly. I also find it ironic that we're not seeing a ban on tobacco products, the health risks of which vastly overshadow that of trans fats.

Caped Crusader
December 19th, 2006, 02:42 PM
Yeah, all those Danish coups and strongmen.

This is the best zing thus far.

valhallan
December 19th, 2006, 02:43 PM
Apparently Massachusettes will be the next place in the states to have the ban.

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=172807
BostonHerald.com

And to answer your question scyfreestyler...studies have shown that the bad cholesterol is raised considerably by consumption of this product. It does drop when removed from the diet. Being that you're a swimmer... a little taste of Oreos now and again might be Ok...or is it?

Just don't smoke them.

Caped Crusader
December 19th, 2006, 02:44 PM
I also find it ironic that we're not seeing a ban on tobacco products, the health risks of which vastly overshadow that of trans fats.

Precisely. I believe that they are at least banned in office buildings and some restaurants. I wish it were all.

SwimStud
December 19th, 2006, 02:52 PM
Precisely. I believe that they are at least banned in office buildings and some restaurants. I wish it were all.

*inserts tongue in cheek*

We need to bring back the pillory and the stocks for smokers! It would make a great Superbowl Halftime show!!

*grabs pitchfork*

FlyQueen
December 19th, 2006, 03:03 PM
I have no problem with the banning of trans fats (although they may be good for business!). What I take issue with is the belief that this will significantly impact either the overall health of our population or the prevalence of coronary artery disease (not to mention the incidence of obesity). Please note that I said significantly. I also find it ironic that we're not seeing a ban on tobacco products, the health risks of which vastly overshadow that of trans fats.


New York and Ohio have banned smoking in restuarants and bars, though the second hand effects of that are negative so it's not just the smoker killing themselves ...

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 03:03 PM
... a little taste of Oreos now and again might be Ok...or is it?

Oreos are OK now: http://www.bantransfats.com/theoreocase.html

Peter Cruise
December 19th, 2006, 04:33 PM
I can just see the next big crime drama series on tv now; TFP- New York: follow the adventures of an elite group of police food scientists - the Trans-Fat Police. This week's episode sees the squad execute a series of search warrants on home garbage cans leading to the epic confrontation with a group of little-league moms serving TF contaminated hotdogs at a neighbourhood tournament. Will our heroes survive the awesome counterattack of the enraged Louisville-slugger wielding moms? Tune in and see!

Caped Crusader
December 19th, 2006, 04:36 PM
Oreos are OK now: http://www.bantransfats.com/theoreocase.html

That's good because I was really sweating oreo consumption while I was breathing in second hand smoke while tossing down a marguerita at my favorite restaurant last week.

islandsox
December 19th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Well, no one is ever going to tell me what I can and cannot eat/drink. So with that said, I'm off to have an Angus Burger at my local pub. No police state for me!!! People who shove things in their mouth KNOW what they are doing; if they want to exit this world early, so be it. And the health care industry can blame it on obese people; at least we are contributing.

Hmmm...maybe an Angus Burger and Onion Rings.

Donna

SwimStud
December 19th, 2006, 08:55 PM
Well, no one is ever going to tell me what I can and cannot eat/drink. So with that said, I'm off to have an Angus Burger at my local pub. No police state for me!!! People who shove things in their mouth KNOW what they are doing; if they want to exit this world early, so be it. And the health care industry can blame it on obese people; at least we are contributing.

Hmmm...maybe an Angus Burger and Onion Rings.

Donna

You go Donna! :drink: <--one of these too :joker:

Caped Crusader
December 19th, 2006, 09:50 PM
I can just see the next big crime drama series on tv now; TFP- New York: follow the adventures of an elite group of police food scientists - the Trans-Fat Police. This week's episode sees the squad execute a series of search warrants on home garbage cans leading to the epic confrontation with a group of little-league moms serving TF contaminated hotdogs at a neighbourhood tournament. Will our heroes survive the awesome counterattack of the enraged Louisville-slugger wielding moms? Tune in and see!

Episode Two:

Geek/SCYFreestyler/HHowland/Fortress convene and swoop to Washington and Canada in Tom Cruise's private jet, dumping vats of TF on the very thin, tofu-eating, marijuana-growing greenies. They reciprocate by hiring and sending some_girl/smart_girl to Denmark to bring back the Danish strongmen to break the knees of the anti-government lard-endorsers. Gull is called in by beeper to survey the Tonya Harding-like damage and collect forensic evidence, including evidence of mood-altering drugs. He fires all CSI personnel on the scene who smoke. Who will be charged and for what crime? Tune in next week ....

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 10:38 PM
Of course, once you are past breeding age, Darwin isn't too concerned.

Aw. c'mon, I like Darwin. Natural selection requires a diversified population group, which according to posters we have. Obviously, avoiding a known poison is a possible adaptation for pre-breeders and post-breeders. So if some of us are sentient beings and already know that TFs are bad, a bunch of us will avoid them naturally. So maybe natural selection will cull the big bad TFs all by itself over time. But if we affirmatively eradicate TFs and all that other stuff that's bad for us, what happens to Darwin? He's all gone. Geek can't smoke in NC. And they're teaching that other stuff in schools.

The Fortress
December 19th, 2006, 11:42 PM
Episode Two:

Geek/SCYFreestyler/HHowland/Fortress convene and swoop to Washington and Canada in Tom Cruise's private jet, dumping vats of TF on the very thin, tofu-eating, marijuana-growing greenies. They reciprocate by hiring and sending some_girl/smart_girl to Denmark to bring back the Danish strongmen to break the knees of the anti-government lard-endorsers. Gull is called in by beeper to survey the Tonya Harding-like damage and collect forensic evidence, including evidence of mood-altering drugs. He fires all CSI personnel on the scene who smoke. Who will be charged and for what crime? Tune in next week ....


Not bad Grinch. But, since I'm under the influence of sex and prescription drugs, I'll try my hand at creative writing. Episode three:

Gull is sued for employment discrimination. When Geek is unavailable because he is hospitalized for excessive TF ingestion and overtraining, Gull hires the Grinch to bring a counter-claim alleging "truth as a defense" before Christmas. The other lawsuit between the thin greenies and the anti-government lards is stayed pending the FDA's fifteenth invesigation of TFs. The CPSC also gets involved to ensure that TFs are not hidden in the Easy Bake Oven products for children. Some_girl is brought up on conspiracy charges, but is so smart that she asks Fortress to find her a good criminal lawyer. There is no one on the forum that purports to have that job, so Fortress turns to ex-cop Peter Cruise in desperation. To be continued ....

knelson
December 19th, 2006, 11:53 PM
Hmmm...maybe an Angus Burger and Onion Rings.

Both perfectly easy to prepare with all natural ingredients and zero trans fats.

aquageek
December 20th, 2006, 07:51 AM
Both perfectly easy to prepare with all natural ingredients and zero trans fats.

What if I don't want to be forced to use your recipe? That's the point. You do what you want in your house and I'll do the same in mine.

chaos
December 20th, 2006, 08:06 AM
What if I don't want to be forced to use your recipe? That's the point. You do what you want in your house and I'll do the same in mine.

herein lies the issue of big bro stepping in to guide our population into making good choices. (as if they could)
go to a small grocery/deli in a poor neighborhood and try to purchase a bag of chips sans TF's. can' do it. enter an upscale grocery store/coop/whole foods, and you won't find a bag of chips that contain TF's.
where is the choice?

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 08:47 AM
I'll give you that some people are not educated enough to know the difference between good and bad carbs and to pick out the best sources of protein ... however, how do you not know that fruits and vegetables are better than chips and cookies?

Chaos brings up an interesting point though, junk food tends to faster and cheaper than the "good stuff". To counter that, however, my parents did not have a lot of money the first few years they were married and we still had food every night - healthy things. I grew up eating my fruits and vegetables. My mom still made healthy things on a tight budget with very few choices ...

aquageek
December 20th, 2006, 08:57 AM
where is the choice?

The Lance crackers I eat daily are available at every single store I've ever been in, city, suburbia, country, etc. They have no TFs, or as knelson educated me yesterday, have less than .5g of them, which apparently qualifies as 0 these days.

Most of the major snack producers are removing TFs from their chips. That's supply and demand at work.

And if you live in the inner city you aren't forced to eat crappy food. That's a fallacy perpetuated by those that advocate more intrusion into our lives.

Oh yeah, swimming is good for you, gotta get back to swimming related here.

chaos
December 20th, 2006, 09:05 AM
[QUOTE=aquageek;71174]
Most of the major snack producers are removing TFs from their chips. That's supply and demand at work.

QUOTE]

Not true...they began offering non TF alternatives (thats s&d ) but the removal of TF's... thats regulation.


i can't find those crackers anywhere.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 09:11 AM
[quote=aquageek;71174]
Most of the major snack producers are removing TFs from their chips. That's supply and demand at work.

QUOTE]
Not true...they began offering non TF alternatives (thats s&d ) but the removal of TF's... thats regulation.
i can't find those crackers anywhere.

I'd like in on the Lance crackers too. It's Darwinism, aka supply and demand. I prefer anthropology to economics.

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 11:01 AM
The Lance crackers I eat daily are available at every single store I've ever been in, city, suburbia, country, etc. They have no TFs, or as knelson educated me yesterday, have less than .5g of them, which apparently qualifies as 0 these days.

Most of the major snack producers are removing TFs from their chips. That's supply and demand at work.

And if you live in the inner city you aren't forced to eat crappy food. That's a fallacy perpetuated by those that advocate more intrusion into our lives.

Oh yeah, swimming is good for you, gotta get back to swimming related here.

Can we follow the food guidelines then and start rounding down times ...a 26.49 becomes a 26 flat?

aquageek
December 20th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Can we follow the food guidelines then and start rounding down times ...a 26.49 becomes a 26 flat?

I'm in favor of this. After all, 30 years ago when I was a kid, physical activity was defined as running, playing and producing sweat. Now, physical activity is walking. In another 30 years sitting on the couch will be a physical activity. Of course, we won't have trans fats thanks to the gov't so we'll all be healthy.

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 11:13 AM
What if I don't want to be forced to use your recipe? That's the point. You do what you want in your house and I'll do the same in mine.

The New York City law only applies to restaurants, I believe.

Use as much Crisco at home as you want.

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 11:14 AM
I'm in favor of this. After all, 30 years ago when I was a kid, physical activity was defined as running, playing and producing sweat. Now, physical activity is walking. In another 30 years sitting on the couch will be a physical activity. Of course, we won't have trans fats thanks to the gov't so we'll all be healthy.

No kidding Geek! By then we'll probably be in a Communist society, the government will give us our meals so they make sure we eat exactly right ...

I practically lived outside as a kid. I rode my bike everywhere, too ...

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 11:22 AM
No kidding Geek! By then we'll probably be in a Communist society, the government will give us our meals so they make sure we eat exactly right ...

You guys are taking this too far. The government has an obligation to create and enforce laws that promote public safety. By your reasoning the government should not enact any environmental or sanitation standards either. Heck, it's my yard, if I want to dump my used motor oil into the sewer I should be allowed too, right? What about speed limits, or heck, traffic laws of any sort? Why can't I just drive however I want?

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 11:28 AM
I think the government should ban all the bottled water that's supposedly keeping us hydrated. Once the bottle is empty, everyone keeps re-filling it despite the bacteria left inside. After a couple refills, it's like toilet water. This should be banned so we do not poison ourselves at swim practice. Then swim children would be safe too. Plus, then we can just skip all the recycling we're doing.

I did read today that the FDA is attempting to step in to mandate more prominent labeling of NSAIDs. They want to make clear that if you drink too much and take NSAIDs because you're in pain from too much swimming, you will shut down your liver. Won't more "prominent" labeling work just as well for TFs?

And what about those laws that won't let us purchase alcohol on Sundays? Isn't that a little Colonial era? Why do we only promote "public safety" on Sunday? Aren't we killing each other by drinking and driving on other days as well?

I'm happy to round down my times too. Maybe I'd have a "major breakthrough" in a 50.

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 11:31 AM
You guys are taking this too far. The government has an obligation to create and enforce laws that promote public safety. By your reasoning the government should not enact any environmental or sanitation standards either. Heck, it's my yard, if I want to dump my used motor oil into the sewer I should be allowed too, right? What about speed limits, or heck, traffic laws of any sort? Why can't I just drive however I want?

Speed Limits are for sissys ... kidding ...

First of all most of my posts are very sacrastic with that stuff. I fully understand that the government has a responsibility to keep us safe. I question at what point do they cross over the line and where is the line?

I also think that it's somewhat of a crock, because people need to take responsibility for themselves to make smart choices. The government is playing mom and dad, here's what you can eat, here's what you can't.

I'm actually all for getting rid of transfats, but have the companies do it, don't make it a law.

Does anyone watch Boston Legal? They had an episode where some governor banned red meat because he feared a mad cow outbreak ...

SwimStud
December 20th, 2006, 11:40 AM
I think the government should ban all the bottled water that's supposedly keeping us hydrated. Once the bottle is empty, everyone keeps re-filling it despite the bacteria left inside. After a couple refills, it's like toilet water.


Toilet water is drinking quality water. Shower water is drinking quality water. A few refills and the bacteria are not going to hurt you unless you are leaving the empty container for days and not rinising it.

Bottled water should be banned...it's a con.
:2cents:

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 11:43 AM
I'm actually all for getting rid of transfats, but have the companies do it, don't make it a law....Does anyone watch Boston Legal? They had an episode where some governor banned red meat because he feared a mad cow outbreak ...

I think there are TFs on Boston Legal. There sure is a lot of cigar smoking and scotch sippin' going on. Maybe they'll be featuring TFs or NSAIDs next.

islandsox
December 20th, 2006, 11:46 AM
Knelson,

Come to Roatan and you will see NO laws enforced because we have two police and you have to pick them up yourself if you want something resolved. They don't have cars or phones. So, it is like the Wild West down here; and driving? Yikes!! The taxi drivers stop dead in the street to chat with friends; Yes, multiple rear-end accidents and everyone just keeps going. No one has license plates, no cars have seat belts (except us Americans). It is a free-for-all.

And after watching what the island people eat down here (sugar out of the bag, flour tortillas, rice, few vegies), I am a saint with my Angus Burger and Onion Rings and rum and coke. But this thread has influenced me today, I am going with a mixed salad for lunch with some potato chips :joker:ing of course!!!

And I like Heather's idea about rounding off times; if this new rule goes into effect, can I tell people my 18.6 mile swim is really 19 miles?

Donna

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 11:55 AM
And what about those laws that won't let us purchase alcohol on Sundays? Isn't that a little Colonial era?

Definitely. I can't believe these blue laws are still on the books. So much for separation of church and state...

Caped Crusader
December 20th, 2006, 11:58 AM
I have no problem with the banning of trans fats (although they may be good for business!). What I take issue with is the belief that this will significantly impact either the overall health of our population or the prevalence of coronary artery disease (not to mention the incidence of obesity). Please note that I said significantly. I also find it ironic that we're not seeing a ban on tobacco products, the health risks of which vastly overshadow that of trans fats.

I agree with Gull, although I'm ticked that he hasn't thanked me for writing a story about him.

On the other hand, the point about the governement having other more important things to do is also valid. I read too. I read that the suicide rate has spiked among troops sent to Iraq. Isn't that problem a little more significant than TFs?

Islandsox, I have been to the Caribbean. There clearly are no speeding and drinking laws whatsoever. Likewise, when I took my family to Costa Rica a few years back, one of my teenagers described it as the "land of underage drinking and driving." He liked speeding around in his ATV on the beaches.

aquageek
December 20th, 2006, 12:00 PM
You guys are taking this too far. The government has an obligation to create and enforce laws that promote public safety.

Stopping people from eating unhealthy food does not have anything to do with public safety. After all, a big lardo in an SUV that mows down a skinny, environmentally friendly tree-hugger mobile, is going to probably survive precisely because they are fat and can't squeeze into a Yaris or Prius.

I would argue it's in the public safety interest to keep people plump and encourage over-consumption of TFs so that larger safer vehicles continue to be sold and utilized.

LindsayNB
December 20th, 2006, 12:02 PM
[Please excuse that this post is a little "dated", I wrote it this morning and couldn't post it due to the site maintenance.]

I think that the number of posters here who appear to believe that the problem with trans fats is that they make you obese is a good illustration of the problem. The real problem with trans fats is that they affect blood cholesteral levels resulting in coronary heart disease. You can be fit and trim and have clogged up arteries.

It is important to note that New York has banned high levels of trans fats in restaurant food, they haven't legislated what you can eat at home or the levels of trans fats in packaged foods that already have labels listing the levels of trans fats. A possible alternative to the ban on trans fats in unlabeled restaurant food might be to require restaurants to prominantly label the food in ways that can't easily be overlooked by consumers, e.g. "This menu item contains 12.5 times the recommended daily limit of trans fats. Excessive consumption of trans fats kill an estimated 30,000-100,000 Americans each year". I suspect that most restaurants would simply remove the trans fats instead of putting such a label in their menu.


I think the biggest loser is the person whose dietary decisions are made for him by his own government.

This is the basis of our difference of opinion, I think the biggest losers are the people who die unnecessarily and the children, spouses and friends they leave behind.

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 12:07 PM
LindsayNB, do you really thinking banning transfats in restaurants is going to stop all of those deaths?

People will find it in other sources, or die from related heart type illnesses ... it's not like stop serving it in restaurants and all of a sudden there will be 50,000 less deaths ...

SwimStud
December 20th, 2006, 12:16 PM
LindsayNB, do you really thinking banning transfats in restaurants is going to stop all of those deaths?

People will find it in other sources, or die from related heart type illnesses ... it's not like stop serving it in restaurants and all of a sudden there will be 50,000 less deaths ...

Yes banning TF will just drive it underground where it will become the new narcotic of choice. Our kids will be going to TF raves out in barns in the middle of nowhere. TF cartels wil spring up and become a major problem for the inner cities, and eventually, the rural areas. It will overload our already stretched law enforcement agencies, and worst of all: There will be even more lawyers (I mean is that possible?) clogging the judicial system with their cases related to TF addiction and crime.
:2cents:

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 12:19 PM
Yes banning TF will just drive it underground where it will become the new narcotic of choice. Our kids will be going to TF raves out in barns in the middle of nowhere. TF cartels wil spring up and become a major problem for the inner cities, and eventually, the rural areas. It will overload our already stretched law enforcement agencies, and worst of all: There will be even more lawyers (I mean is that possible?) clogging the judicial system with their cases related to TF addiction and crime.
:2cents:

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

LindsayNB
December 20th, 2006, 12:21 PM
I am just using the numbers attributed to the dieticians at Harvard for the number of premature deaths that could be prevented by substituting non-trans fats for trans fats. I did not state that a restaurant ban alone would result in that reduction.

I am quite surprised by the "they will just find another way to kill themselves" line of reasoning. It would be interesting to know what percentage of people who die from CHD "want to die", I am working on the assumption that it isn't that high a percentage.

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 12:22 PM
How about how many of them have been told to make dietary changes and start exercising, stop smoking and/or drinking, but DECIDE not to ...

aquageek
December 20th, 2006, 12:28 PM
BTW - no trans fat in Crisco, just checked the label

The use of the term premature makes this all very hard to understand.

Let's take your average super-sized American, with the elastic jeans, sweatshirt and fanny pack, commonly found at suburban hobby stores. I'll give you that taking away their trans fat will completely eliminate the premature heart attack (although unlikely in all cases). The trouble is the diabetes, CHD, sedentary lifestyle, high bp, high cholesterol will kill them just the same, maybe in a year or two if not prematurely.

I completely agree that removing trans fats is a useful thing to do. It should be part of an overall overhaul of the habits and MUST NOT be dicatated by some [probably plump] federal or state beurocrat.

SwimStud
December 20th, 2006, 12:31 PM
I am just using the numbers attributed to the dieticians at Harvard for the number of premature deaths that could be prevented by substituting non-trans fats for trans fats. I did not state that a restaurant ban alone would result in that reduction.

I am quite surprised by the "they will just find another way to kill themselves" line of reasoning. It would be interesting to know what percentage of people who die from CHD "want to die", I am working on the assumption that it isn't that high a percent.

I am in seriousness somewhat aligned with Lindsay on this. I don't want to be told what not to eat etc, but people are not fully aware (yet) of the dangers. Smoking and drug etc we all know the risks, so yes people choose that option.

Something in food that not everyone is fully aware about may need to be guarded against. Whereas overeating and not excercising is usually a choice, and most people know this is not good for health.

Banning a substance which can benefit most people's health, when they may not be aware of it, I think, is not a bad thing. For instance, I was not aware of the TF issue until this post--I am not kidding.
Now I may still eat stuff with TF in it but at least I know that I can check into it if I have concerns; so education may also be a good idea.

For me it isn't so much of a "you can't eat this" thing as a ""we don't want you cooking in this and selling it" thing.

Lastly, a good number of, not all, weight issues are caused by humoungous sized portions of food that get served up in diners and restaurants. Overeating becomes a bad habit, and getting a small meal is somewhat "un-American" and would give rise to a customer complaint I am sure. People need education on this too. As an example: 1/2lb burger, fries, and 1pint milkshake is not a good daily meal--as scrumptious as it is. There are so many areas to target on this health issue. Focusing on one is never the solution.

gull
December 20th, 2006, 12:32 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here--the banning of trans fats will not significantly alter the incidence of coronary artery disease nor the death rate. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but our expectations need to be realistic.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 12:34 PM
Episode 4:

Cruise has not returned. Some_girl is out on bail looking for a lawyer. After interviewing Gull and Lindsay, the FDA determines, after the usual agonizingly slow analysis, that TFs are a teensy bit bad for the heart even though they have the economic benefit of promoting purchases of fat-mobile SUVs. Geek sues the FDA under the First Amendment, alleging that the FDA ruling constitutes prohibited recipe selecting and that TFs have nothing to do with "public safety" and should therefore be unregulated. Lindsay files an amicus brief in the case questioning Geek's logic and citing quotes from Harvard geeks. Geek responds that the First Amendment imposes no obligation to say something meaningful. Meanwhile, NY diners are healthy, but Richjb has gone off the deep end. He discovers his kids at a TF rave and has a heart attack. An examination by Gull reveals no TFs in his system. To be continued ...

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 12:51 PM
To be completely honest I'm not really opposed to banning transfats ... as far as I am concerned take them out of everything ... I just think it's a slippery slope ... aspartame posioning has killed people, and lead to cancer in rats ...
Guns are dangerous and kill (don't give me the guns don't kill people, people kill people crap either) ... I'm in favor of more strict hand gun laws, too ...

The question is where does it end ... why were transfats put into food in the first place and how many deaths are we really preventing? I think we may delay them, but prevent them? I doubt it ...

scyfreestyler
December 20th, 2006, 12:54 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here--the banning of trans fats will not significantly alter the incidence of coronary artery disease nor the death rate. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but our expectations need to be realistic.


I happen to think that the limb you are on is a rather strong one.

I am no MD but I suspect that many lives could be saved each year by people eating a more balanced diet (not neccesarily devoid of trans fats or red meat either), exercising even a little bit (20 minutes of activity that will raise your heart rate above normal), and having regular checkups to monitor their well being (checking things like BP, Lipids, pulse, blood sugar, etc).

SwimStud
December 20th, 2006, 12:58 PM
Hey I have a fat free yoghurt--blueberry...it's good to know I won't be clogging my arteries...

...wait a minute...what are all those scientific names in the ingredients list...I thought blueberry yoghurt was just stale milk and bluberries...perhaps a little sugar...:eek:

LindsayNB
December 20th, 2006, 01:04 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb here--the banning of trans fats will not significantly alter the incidence of coronary artery disease nor the death rate. That's not to say it shouldn't be done, but our expectations need to be realistic.

Craig, are you contesting the posted numbers attributed to Harvard or saying those numbers do not constitute a significant decrease?

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 01:14 PM
It would be interesting to know what percentage of people who die from CHD "want to die", I am working on the assumption that it isn't that high a percentage.

I agree. No one who dies from CHD "wants to die." They just refuse to change their behavior so that they "won't die." Sometimes, and I'm only saying sometimes because I know people who have changed their lives, these folks won't even change their behavior after they are diagnosed. They prefer to keep eating what they're eating or doing what they're doing. Or sitting on the coach. Do you know how many people are diagnosed with cancer, want to live, and still keep right on smoking?

So maybe banning TFs will make some small headway on all this, but is it really "significant?" As for those left behind, I agree that is very sad. Parents should be better role models.

scyfreestyler
December 20th, 2006, 01:17 PM
Craig, are you contesting the posted numbers attributed to Harvard or saying those numbers do not constitute a significant decrease?

Think about it Lindsay, when somebody suffers an MI is the doctor going to tell him that TF was the problem and cutting this from his diet will prevent further ER trips? Only if he's a quack or if the person's primary caloric supply is from TF's. There are so many things that influence a persons risk of CAD that banking on a TF ban to save lives is absurd. How about genetic predisposition? Maybe we need to start genetically engineering people to have a more robust coronary artery system. In addition, what are food services going to cook with instead of these TF's? More butter? Great. That will make everything allright..cardiothoracic surgeons are going to be sent packing. :rofl:

In the end, it seems foolish to ban TF's when something like cigarettes does far more damage to people everyday and provides an inconvenience to non-smokers in the form of a foul odor. People need to take resposiblity for their own actions, and that includes diet.

swimshark
December 20th, 2006, 01:22 PM
Got this off a healt web site - health castle. So we're not out of the woods with the banning of Trans Fats

"Saturated Fat - Palm Oil is the source
Many packaged cookies now boast that they contain 0 g of trans fat. However this comes with a sacrifice. In order to minimize or eliminate the use of trans-fat laden partially hydrogenated oil, some food manufacturers replace it with saturated-fat laden palm oil and palm kernel oil.

Numerous health authorities have warned against the use of palm oil in packaged foods. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute warned that "a high content of saturated fat... found in ..... palm kernel oil, palm oil, coconut oil and cocoa butter" put people at risk for having heart attack or stroke. Indeed, the World Health Organization had also warned that there is "convincing evidence" that palmitic acid increases the risk of heart disease.

Alternatives to Palm Oil?
Oils with lower levels of saturated fat and higher levels of polyunsaturated fat are healthier alternatives. The Centre for Science in the Public Interest suggested manufacturers to use non-hydrogenated soy, canola, corn and peanut oils as well as more stable oils such as high-oleic sunflower or canola oil or low-linolenic soybean oil.

What Packaged Foods contain Palm Oil?
Palm oil is mostly found in following food categories:

cookies
crackers
graham cracker pie crust
microwave popcorn"

SwimStud
December 20th, 2006, 01:27 PM
What Packaged Foods contain Palm Oil?
Palm oil is mostly found in following food categories:

cookies
crackers
graham cracker pie crust
microwave popcorn"

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm pop-corn! .....kettle or regular?

swimshark
December 20th, 2006, 01:29 PM
I also had some of my memory facts wrong about the Prevention article. forgive me since I was going off the article which I read several weeks ago. I have it in front of me now.

"Your Waistline's Worst Enemy"

A calorie's a calorie, right? Now so fast. Wake Forest Univ School of Medicine researchers found that trans fats releases more calries than other fats during digestion. Their test monkeys which metabolize fats like humans, gained three times more weight on and 8% trans fat diet than others fed the same number of calories but no trans fat. Although the average woman gets 3.9 g of trans fats per day from patrially hydrgenated oils, we found one stick of margarine with 3.5 g in a single tablespoon. Go trans-free by checking labels for the phrase partially hydrogenated oils..."

Prevention, December, 2006, page 57.

Alison

chaos
December 20th, 2006, 01:31 PM
In the end, it seems foolish to ban TF's when something like cigarettes does far more damage to people everyday and provides an inconvenience to non-smokers in the form of a foul odor. People need to take resposiblity for their own actions, and that includes diet.

the sale of cigs is banned to minors, if those guidelines were followed for TF's, that would seem like a reasonable compromise and help bring the libertarians and lefties together. can't we all just get along. at my next party, i will be sure to have a bowl of pork rinds next to the lance crackers. the minors only choice will be dry cheerios.

from the left,
db

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 01:38 PM
the sale of cigs is banned to minors, if those guidelines were followed for TF's, that would seem like a reasonable compromise and help bring the libertarians and lefties together. can't we all just get along. at my next party, i will be sure to have a bowl of pork rinds next to the lance crackers. the minors only choice will be dry cheerios.from the left,db

Hey. Watch out there. Lack of foundation. Can't you be a libertarian on certain issues and a leftie? I've been a Democrat my whole life, raised by a family of democrats. Besides, I read that most of the alleged libertarians were not actually ingesting TFs, just getting on the case of folks who couldn't resist them. And are we not supposed to refrain from discussing political nuances unrelated to swimming, like the seepage of certain things into public schools? From the left, Vesper.

P.S. I love to swim. I'm going to swim any minute now before my kids get home from the public schools.

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Yeah, people are going to kill themselves anyway, but you can at least go after the low hanging fruit, and trans fats are one of those.

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 01:42 PM
BTW - no trans fat in Crisco, just checked the label

The regular, blue labeled Crisco has trans fat. They now sell a "zero trans fat" version that comes in a green can.

aquageek
December 20th, 2006, 01:50 PM
The regular, blue labeled Crisco has trans fat. They now sell a "zero trans fat" version that comes in a green can.

My blue label version has 0g. Maybe they do this in NC realizing we still smoke too much.

Anyway, it's interesting that the market is adapting to this trend and doing it without government legislation. Typically, things work better without the gov't getting involved. This would be a prime example, along with the public waking up to the luncacy of that Atkins diet.

chaos
December 20th, 2006, 01:56 PM
[QUOTE=The Fortress;71254] And are we not supposed to refrain from discussing political nuances unrelated to swimming, like the seepage of certain things into public schools? From the left, Vesper.

QUOTE]
I was hoping to get this thread locked out.....I quit

geochuck
December 20th, 2006, 01:56 PM
I need fat, I am shrinking away. I love these fat little chorizo, spicy sausages they have here in Mexico. I am sure I am down to 230 or 240 lbs. My wife told me I need to get a 2 size smaller speedo.

Question for Lindsay what age were you when you passed the breeding age.

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 02:03 PM
My blue label version has 0g. Maybe they do this in NC realizing we still smoke too much.

Anyway, it's interesting that the market is adapting to this trend and doing it without government legislation. Typically, things work better without the gov't getting involved. This would be a prime example, along with the public waking up to the luncacy of that Atkins diet.



Yeah, fellow liberals! Fortress, I think we are long lost twins seperated at birth by a few years ... I too am a dem, raised by dems ...


AMEN to the Atkins diet being crap, too ... is AMEN too religious?

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 02:14 PM
Yeah, fellow liberals! Fortress, I think we are long lost twins seperated at birth by a few years ... I too am a dem, raised by dems ...

AMEN to the Atkins diet being crap, too ... is AMEN too religious?



More than a few years... Uh, at 45, I could almost be your mom if I didn't strongly approve of birth control and other small items guaranteed by the right to privacy. But I'm not past the "breeding age" yet. :rofl: So maybe you can be my baby sister separated by half the country.


As long as you're not in a public school, you can say AMEN. I hate diets. The Atkins diet will likely cause CHD. No one's going to disagree with Geek on that issue. Who diets anyway? (You don't need to if you're looking like Natalie.) And aren't we posters all eating reasonably nutritionally? If not, aren't we going to be eating our hats? Although I betcha some of us are :drink: and taking those NSAIs ... Then there are those folks smoking in NC ... except Gull.

scyfreestyler
December 20th, 2006, 02:17 PM
Although I betcha some of us are :drink: and taking those NSAIs ...


Moderation is key.

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 02:21 PM
My blue label version has 0g. Maybe they do this in NC realizing we still smoke too much.

Must be. They figure they gotta give you people a fightin' chance.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 02:23 PM
[quote=The Fortress;71254] And are we not supposed to refrain from discussing political nuances unrelated to swimming, like the seepage of certain things into public schools? From the left, Vesper.

QUOTE]
I was hoping to get this thread locked out.....I quit

Mr Lefty DB:

Nice try. It might work. Someone who swims 67 x 50 fly is a quitter?!?! Why quit, when we're having such fun? From the left, Masai Warrior.

gull
December 20th, 2006, 02:25 PM
Craig, are you contesting the posted numbers attributed to Harvard or saying those numbers do not constitute a significant decrease?


Those numbers are estimates. And at the end of the day, I do not believe we will see a statistically significant decline in either the incidence of CAD or the death rate by banning trans fats. Again, that's not to say they shouldn't be banned. But in the big scheme of things, it's a drop in the bucket.

By the way, you can always tell a Harvard man, you just can't tell him much.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 02:28 PM
By the way, you can always tell a Harvard man, you just can't tell him much.

Yes, I have found that to be true in my own life. :rofl:

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 02:32 PM
By the way, you can always tell a Harvard man, you just can't tell him much.

Freshman student: Excuse me, could you tell me where the library's at?

older student: At Harvard, we never end a sentence with a preposition.

freshman: Sorry. Could you tell me where the library's at, A-hole?!

scyfreestyler
December 20th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Freshman student: Excuse me, could you tell me where the library's at?

older student: At Harvard, we never end a sentence with a preposition.

freshman: Sorry. Could you tell me where the library's at, A-hole!

LOL!

Makes me think of Bill O'Reilly!

Anyhow, my cardiologist graduated from Harvard Law School, and then went on to get his MD, FACC. Either he was confused as a youth or he really loved school. Anyhow, he is a very quiet and softspoken person...nothing like the Harvard reputation that is so common.

FlyQueen
December 20th, 2006, 02:37 PM
LOL!

Makes me think of Bill O'Reilly!

Anyhow, my cardiologist graduated from Harvard Law School, and then went on to get his MD, FACC. Either he was confused as a youth or he really loved school. Anyhow, he is a very quiet and softspoken person...nothing like the Harvard reputation that is so common.


My exboyfriend graduated from Harvard law school. Super nice guy ... not at all a Harvard snob ...

scyfreestyler
December 20th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Just listening to Dr. Dean Edell speak about this whole trans fat issue. He feels very strongly that there will be "no demostrable reduction in either heart disease, heart attack, etc. due to these bans". "These bans" was with reference to the introduction of a bill to ban TF in the state of Mass.

He also mentioned what somebody else already brought up here about what will be used in place of these TF's, most notably tropical oils that are really no better for you.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 04:51 PM
I just got home from the grocery store. As I was inspecting the Lays potato chips (0 g TF, probably means .5 TF), I saw two videos: Biggest Loser Workouts, #1 and #2. Do you think there's any swimming going on in those videos?

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Do you think there's any swimming going on in those videos?

Probably not, but Endless Pools was actually a sponsor last year (not sure about this year), so it's possible! I'm guessing the workout videos would concentrate on exercises people can do in their own homes.

scyfreestyler
December 20th, 2006, 04:58 PM
An RN friend of mine tells me that there is something related to the lymph system that is in the upper body, thoracic duct I think, which is stimulated by the motions of freestyle swimming and symphony orchestra conducting. Apparently they were looking for long lived professions and symphony orchestra conductor came up as one of the longest. After determining that lifestyle and lack of stress were not causal (lifestyle choices were not the greatest amongst these people I understand) it was found that the stimulation of this lymph system component was key in keeping these people healthy for long periods of time. The MD who was giving this speech at the hospital dinner said that swimming gave a very similar "massage" to this lymph component and would be a great choice for exercise.

Any thoughts on this?

dorothyrde
December 20th, 2006, 05:01 PM
Runner up Suzie last year swims laps. They sometimes have pool challenges, and it is clear who swims and who does not.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 06:32 PM
Question for Lindsay: What age were you when you passed the breeding age.

Interesting point, George. But maybe Lindsay was just being forum-ish in her provocative comment and you've now called her on it. Very uncivil of you. So I guess Darwinism still applies to you and all the men here for sure. So what're you doing eating all that junk food and TFs down in Mexico? Exercising your basic right to eat? Are you doing any swimming to stay healthy?

geochuck
December 20th, 2006, 06:40 PM
Some of the biggest losers float like corks.

knelson
December 20th, 2006, 06:44 PM
But maybe Lindsay was just being forum-ish in her provocative comment

I would think someone who changes their avatar so much would pay more attention to others' avatars! :)

Caped Crusader
December 20th, 2006, 06:46 PM
An RN friend of mine tells me that there is something related to the lymph system that is in the upper body, thoracic duct I think, which is stimulated by the motions of freestyle swimming and symphony orchestra conducting. Apparently they were looking for long lived professions and symphony orchestra conductor came up as one of the longest. After determining that lifestyle and lack of stress were not causal (lifestyle choices were not the greatest amongst these people I understand) it was found that the stimulation of this lymph system component was key in keeping these people healthy for long periods of time. The MD who was giving this speech at the hospital dinner said that swimming gave a very similar "massage" to this lymph component and would be a great choice for exercise.

Any thoughts on this?

Well, if we want our kids to live a long healthy life, we can rip them out of all existing activities and have them play violin and swim. As a side benefit, we won't have to argue endlessly about which sport deserves the most "respect." It'll be swimming if you value a long life. (I guess we could still argue about which sport is best if we want to live a short risk-filled life full of MonkeyLaLas and TFs.) Do you think guitar would work instead of violin? Are fiddling and swimming the only two activities that stimulate that particular lymph system?

geochuck
December 20th, 2006, 06:49 PM
Interesting point, George. But maybe Lindsay was just being forum-ish in her provocative comment and you've now called her on it. Very uncivil of you. So I guess Darwinism still applies to you and all the men here for sure. So what're you doing eating all that junk food and TFs down in Mexico? Exercising your basic right to eat? Are you doing any swimming to stay healthy? Trans fats are an essential part of the north American diet what could we possibly replace them with.

We should all eat the three most important food groups, transfats, eggs, and red meat.

Greens are not part of my diet and fruits are out of order.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 06:51 PM
I would think someone who changes their avatar so much would pay more attention to others' avatars! :)

I noticed yours, Kirk. ;) It's all skin. I don't even see any fastskin there. Nice stoke too. You know how exciting good technique is.

aquageek
December 20th, 2006, 07:12 PM
Geez, get a room.

scyfreestyler
December 20th, 2006, 07:37 PM
Well, if we want our kids to live a long healthy life, we can rip them out of all existing activities and have them play violin and swim. As a side benefit, we won't have to argue endlessly about which sport deserves the most "respect." It'll be swimming if you value a long life. (I guess we could still argue about which sport is best if we want to live a short risk-filled life full of MonkeyLaLas and TFs.) Do you think guitar would work instead of violin? Are fiddling and swimming the only two activities that stimulate that particular lymph system?

It was not violin, it was the work of the conductor who moves his/her arms in a motion that stimulates the lymph system much the same way swimming does.

Hey, any exercise is great I think. I am not trying to argue that swimming is best, I was just pointing out a factoid..or theoroid as it might be called.

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 07:41 PM
A study was conducted in the mid-20th century where the oldest people on earth were interviewed. It found that the following factors contributed to their longevity:

None of the old people had any kind of arthritis - not one of them
None of them ever took any food supplements of any kind
All of the centenarians he met did some kind of physical activity everyday
Most of them had a garden to grow some of their own foods
Almost all of them were actively involved with their communities
They ate whole, organically grown grains, seeds, legumes, berries, fruits and vegetables
The small amounts of flesh products consumed were chemical-free
They consumed some form of raw or clabbered milk product almost daily
They expelled waste daily without signs of constipation or incontinence
They were happy and content with their lot in life
They were invariably compassionate, altruistic and spiritualNo sex, prescription drugs, alcohol, NSAIDs or TFs on that list.

Caped Crusader
December 20th, 2006, 07:51 PM
It was not violin, it was the work of the conductor who moves his/her arms in a motion that stimulates the lymph system much the same way swimming does.

Hey, any exercise is great I think. I am not trying to argue that swimming is best, I was just pointing out a factoid..or theoroid as it might be called.

Sorry, I misread. Wasn't trying to argue. Was making a joke about the recent "Swimmers get no respect" thread.

Well, maybe this means that other activities involving continuous overhead motions may promote longer life. Painters? Cheerleaders? Carpet weavers in Morocco?

poolraat
December 20th, 2006, 07:52 PM
I need fat, I am shrinking away. I love these fat little chorizo, spicy sausages they have here in Mexico.


Chorizos are great. Have you tried the Basque version?

SwimStud
December 20th, 2006, 08:46 PM
A study was conducted in the mid-20th century where the oldest people on earth were interviewed. It found that the following factors contributed to their longevity:

None of the old people had any kind of arthritis - not one of them
None of them ever took any food supplements of any kind
All of the centenarians he met did some kind of physical activity everyday
Most of them had a garden to grow some of their own foods
Almost all of them were actively involved with their communities
They ate whole, organically grown grains, seeds, legumes, berries, fruits and vegetables
The small amounts of flesh products consumed were chemical-free
They consumed some form of raw or clabbered milk product almost daily
They expelled waste daily without signs of constipation or incontinence
They were happy and content with their lot in life
They were invariably compassionate, altruistic and spiritualNo sex, prescription drugs, alcohol, NSAIDs or TFs on that list.

Hey If sex means 5-10years less at the wrinkly end, I'll go with sex...actually extra sex and less longevity...

The Fortress
December 20th, 2006, 09:26 PM
Geez, get a room.

Geek:

You do realize this is Vesper from Casino Royale, right? I'm assuming you saw the movie? I just hope you weren't eating that TF contaminated popcorn during the movie. But if you were, I respect your right to contaminate yourself.

Caped Crusader
December 20th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Hey If sex means 5-10years less at the wrinkly end, I'll go with sex...actually extra sex and less longevity...

No worries there Dude. Now, I'm not a Harvard man, although I might recognize one. They should be listened to generally. I went to Cornell, as you may recall from the college thread. There is a little study from Cornell Med on this issue. Sex keeps you younger. It increases endorphins, which lowers stress. I can also help you avoid arthritis and other illnesses. But you must avoid fatty foods. So go to it.

Also, didn't I read something about the sport of swimming actually increasing one's sex drive?

Caped Crusader
December 21st, 2006, 12:04 AM
A study was conducted in the mid-20th century where the oldest people on earth were interviewed. It found that the following factors contributed to their longevity:

None of the old people had any kind of arthritis - not one of them
None of them ever took any food supplements of any kind
All of the centenarians he met did some kind of physical activity everyday
Most of them had a garden to grow some of their own foods
Almost all of them were actively involved with their communities
They ate whole, organically grown grains, seeds, legumes, berries, fruits and vegetables
The small amounts of flesh products consumed were chemical-free
They consumed some form of raw or clabbered milk product almost daily
They expelled waste daily without signs of constipation or incontinence
They were happy and content with their lot in life
They were invariably compassionate, altruistic and spiritualNo sex, prescription drugs, alcohol, NSAIDs or TFs on that list.

Were any of these old folks living in the US? I wonder. If lifestyle is pivotal in aging and it's not just genes and Darwinism, I don't think so. I think aging varies across cultures. For example, I believe a big factor in aging is stress. We all seem somewhat stressed out. I am. The traffic in my manual transmission BMW is killing me. I think many of us may be missing the siesta, the daily meditation, the 4-6 week vacation, the extra long chats with friends over the MonkeyLalas, and the extra massages to relax one and build the immune system. We may also be following Geochuck's lead and eating too much red meat. Shouldn't we be ingesting olive oil, veggies, fish and wine? Or is that new Mediterranean diet as bad as Atkins? I just know that all that organic, chemical-free stuff costs a lot of money at Whole Foods.

islandsox
December 21st, 2006, 09:54 AM
Putting aside the gene pool, two of my grandparents lived to be over 100 and they lived on a small farm. The other two lived in the city and passed on in their 70s. The difference I saw was this: the farming grandparents grew all of their own food (cattle, lamb, chickens), and vegetables. They were self-sufficient; had no telephone, no TV, etc. They fried most of their food or roasted it. Used fresh butter, cream. Laundry was done on scrub board, etc. The biggest "stress" level was whether dinner would be an hour late. Their kids took the bus to school or walked (not safe now, of course).

The city grandparents had more conveniences; they bought all of their food, had a car, phone, etc. They were always busy running around trying to get things done: tags for the car, paying electric bill, standing in line at the bank, taking their kids back and forth to school, and participating in more activities than they had time for. When pizza and hamburgers came into play, their eating changed due to convenience. Faster became a way of life. They left good, sensible eating as a thing of the past due to time constraints.

The farming grandparents were not obese and both passed in their sleep. The city grandparents both had serious heart problems which took them.

I don't have stress anymore after moving here. My biggest stress is where to swim on a given day.

And I love steak, just can't get it here very often. I have a hard time buying into some foods being taboo because an expert goes on TV to tell us so (remember in the late 80s, the high carb foods were endorsed by doctors and then they changed their minds when people started packing on pounds?), I am not sure after watching my farming grandparents. And eggs were bad for awhile and now they are okay again.

I'll go with common sense. But I'll still have my Angus Burger and Onion Rings every couple of weeks!!!! No food police for me. But I most certainly hope that I got my farming grandparents genes; if you never hear from me again, it'll be because I didn't:rofl:.

Donna

The Fortress
December 21st, 2006, 09:56 AM
Were any of these old folks living in the US? I wonder. If lifestyle is pivotal in aging and it's not just genes and Darwinism, I don't think so. I think aging varies across cultures. For example, I believe a big factor in aging is stress. We all seem somewhat stressed out. ...Shouldn't we be ingesting olive oil, veggies, fish and wine? Or is that new Mediterranean diet as bad as Atkins? I just know that all that organic, chemical-free stuff costs a lot of money at Whole Foods.

I think the study included persons from all over the world in non-stressed out cultures. I'm screwed because I don't grow my own veggies,eat seeds, meditate or always purchase organic food.

I have read that there is a theory that we should all starve ourselves. I think there are studies (are they on humans?) that say a severely restricted calorie diet may increase life span. But that doesn't sound any fun. You might not be damaging your DNA, but you're damaging the fun component of life.

I'd rather eat and exercise. Interestingly, when I first started swimming again with a very informal masters group, the brochure I picked up was entitled "Fountain of Youth." I think exercise substantially helps. I have read that weight lifting helps too, even if may not help with particular swimming events like that 1650 you love. After 50, if you're not doing some resistance exercise, your muscle mass dramatically declines. If you lose muscle, you sap strength, lower your metabolism, put extra strain on the heart, and fail to help out your other systems. I'm thinking I should lift weights today.

SwimStud
December 21st, 2006, 09:59 AM
Eat and drink what you want but in moderation. Exercise enough. Laugh.

I'll trade that for dying peacefully in my sleep at 75-80.

The Fortress
December 21st, 2006, 10:11 AM
Putting aside the gene pool, two of my grandparents lived to be over 100 and they lived on a small farm. The other two lived in the city and passed on in their 70s.

I don't have stress anymore after moving here. My biggest stress is where to swim on a given day. Donna

Well, you're gonna outlive me then because I'm pretty stressed out living here in urban suburbia with traffic and three busy kids. And the upcoming holidays are not helping out in the stress department.

I had a grandmother who lived to 106. Had her own apartment until cataracs forced her into a nursing home. She walked everywhere, was always chatting with friends, ate seeds and fruit and forced that stuff on me when I visited as a youngin.

FlyQueen
December 21st, 2006, 10:23 AM
I have 3 of 4 grandparents still alive. All are well into their 80s. Two (my mom's parents) have had heart surgery, but that was years and years ago, and honestly not really a big deal. Grandpa H has diabetes but otherwise is in great health. He told me Howland's don't get old they just wrinkle. He still volunteers at the hospital and goes ballroom dancing with his wife 3 x/week. About 10 years ago when he was a mere 77 he kicked my butt on the dance floor at my cousin's wedding. I have great genetics, but do as much as I can to help them along ...

Did you all hear about the 97? year old that died in a shoot out with police in Florida I think? That's how I want to go ... at 97 in a shootout with police (with no one besides me getting hurt)

scyfreestyler
December 21st, 2006, 10:38 AM
The caloric restriction lending itself to a longer lifespan bears some truth. I think it was Cornell University that is doing the experiment with some monkeys but there was an article about it in the NYTimes a few weeks ago.

The Fortress
December 21st, 2006, 10:52 AM
I think it was Cornell University that is doing the experiment with some monkeys but there was an article about it in the NYTimes a few weeks ago.

So we're back to Darwinism and its applicability? Or is that just apes?

Are you restricting your calories, SCY? Or sticking with the "everything in moderation" theory?

SwimStud
December 21st, 2006, 12:29 PM
I read this article today about internal and external fat...very interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VHHBGIYC3HCU1QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/health/2006/12/21/ftfat121.xml

scyfreestyler
December 21st, 2006, 01:26 PM
So we're back to Darwinism and its applicability? Or is that just apes?

Are you restricting your calories, SCY? Or sticking with the "everything in moderation" theory?
No apes or darwinism, just a scientific study about caloric restriction that is using monkeys for subjects. Their physiology is similar to ours and it is much easier to lock monkeys up and restrict their diet than to do the same to humans.

Probably a bit of both actually. I seldom eat to the point of excess or feeling "bloated". It is also rare that I indulge in any one particular food at any one time. I am quite aware of what foods I eat and how much of them I eat. Not to the point of being obsessive but I am determined to remain thin and healthy through diet and exercise.

Caped Crusader
December 21st, 2006, 02:32 PM
I am quite aware of what foods I eat and how much of them I eat. Not to the point of being obsessive but I am determined to remain thin and healthy through diet and exercise.

Me too. But my wife thinks I'm obsessive.

But are you living a stress-free meditative life as well? And if we're not, but we clean up our act later in life and become yoga junkies, does that get rid of/mitigate the stress-induced prior damage? I'm just wondering if there's any hope for me after retirement.

scyfreestyler
December 21st, 2006, 02:37 PM
Stress free? Ha! Unfortunately not. Not since my hourly wage jobs have I been stress free, but I think I generally handle stress pretty well. I try not to stress about things that are out of my control, and often times that includes certain aspects of my health. I exercise regularly, eat pretty well, don't smoke, drink very little, etc. I do what I can to stay healthy but I am not going to stress about every little study that is released about how we need to take this and that vitamin but avoid bottled water and only sleep on your right side during a full moon. Life is too short to worry that much.

valhallan
December 21st, 2006, 03:24 PM
Holiday Season Party-Eating Etiquette, Rules & Tips
From the King of Eating...
When attending a Christmas/Holiday Party, here are some tips and Special Rules to make your time more enjoyable and guarantee a return invitation next year...

1. Avoid carrot sticks and celery!
Anyone who puts these rabbit-food substances on a holiday buffet table is clueless of the Christmas spirit. In fact, if you see carrots, leave immediately. Go next door, where they're serving rum balls and pork ribs.

2. Drink as much eggnog as you can. And quickly!
Like fine single-malt scotch or a great bottle-fermented trippel, it's rare. In fact, it's even rarer than single-malt scotch or trippel! You can't find it any other time of year except now. So drink up! Who cares that it has 10,000 calories in every sip and contains 55 undeveloped chicken embyoes? Hell, it's vapors are fattening! It's not as if you're going to turn into an eggnog-aholic or something. It's a treat. Enjoy it. Have one for me. Have two. It's later than you think. It's Christmas! Tax Season is right around the corner!

3. If something comes with gravy, use it.
That's the whole point of gravy. Gravy does not stand alone. Pour it on. Make a volcano out of your mashed potatoes. Fill it with gravy. Eat the volcano. Repeat. If there are no mashed taters, smother your cheesecake in it!

4. Speaking of mashed potatoes?
Always ask if they're made with skim milk, whole milk or heavy artery-clogging cream. If it's skim, pass. Why bother? It's like buying a sports car with an automatic transmission or going to a Martini Bar and asking for a light beer... Just sick! If it's whole milk, it's socially acceptable and you really don't want to seem like an ungrateful guest, do you? However, if made with heavy cream, just eat it out of the bowl and offer to be adopted! These people are the real thing! Move in right away! Before they know what hit them!

5. Do not have a snack before going to a party
...in an effort to control your eating. The whole point of going to a Christmas party is to eat other people's food for free. Lots of it. Hello?

6. Under no circumstances should you exercise between now and New Year's.
You can do that in January when you have nothing else to do. This is the time for long naps, which you'll need after circling the buffet table while carrying a 10-pound plate of food and that gallon-vat of eggnog.

7. Mark your territory!
If you come across something really good at a buffet table, like venison ribs, frosted Christmas cookies in the shape and size of Santa or any form of home-made chocolate chip anything, position yourself near them and don't budge. Have as many as you can before becoming the center of attention. They're like beautiful XXXL Eeyore or Grumpy sweatshirts at the Disney store. If you leave them behind, you're never going to see them again.
By the way, for you PC idiots, yes, Reindeer IS VENISON! 'Tis the season, ya know! Just like SPAM is made from people! It's made from PEOPLE, for Christ's sake!

8. Same for pies.
Apple. Pumpkin. Mincemeat. Have a slice of each. Or, if you don't like mincemeat, have two apples and one pumpkin. Always have three. When else do you get to have more than one dessert? President's Day?

9. Did someone mention fruitcake?
Granted, it's loaded with the mandatory celebratory calories, but avoid it at all cost. I mean, c'mom, have some standards, Man!

10. One final tip:
If you don't feel terrible and experiencing pre-puke feelings when you leave the party or get up from the table, you haven't been paying attention. Reread tips; start over, but hurry, January is just around the corner.

Remember this motto to live by:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cigar in mouth, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO! What a ride!"

The Fortress
December 21st, 2006, 03:48 PM
1. Avoid carrot sticks and celery!
Anyone who puts these rabbit-food substances on a holiday buffet table is clueless of the Christmas spirit. In fact, if you see carrots, leave immediately. Go next door, where they're serving rum balls and pork ribs.

Remember this motto to live by:

"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, cigar in mouth, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO! What a ride!"


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I think Dave "Chaos" Barra is serving up those pork ribs to us libertines at his house. I agree, you gotta walk on the wild side sometimes.

islandsox
December 21st, 2006, 04:57 PM
Angela Bassett (Hollywood) is on the air diet now. That's what she calls it since she eats 3 apples a day, raw spinach, 20 almonds a day and water. She runs, lifts weights, looks great, but it sounds more like a coffin diet than air diet to me.

Both my parents are in their late 90s now; smoked and drank heavy for years but stopped both when they entered their 70s. They eat balanced (except my mom--not much food at all), so I am hoping I got some of their genes to keep me around enjoying all you fine folks here at USMS.;)

Donna

The Fortress
December 21st, 2006, 09:28 PM
Angela Bassett (Hollywood) is on the air diet now. Donna

The air diet? I hate Hollywood and its fixation with the anorexic look. Atkins, Mediterranean, air diet, South Beach diet, the cigarette diet ... I do know people who swear by the South Beach diet, but it's supposed to be a rough first two weeks. Thankfully, dieting is not regulated by the federal or state governments yet.

I know one day my metabolism will probably slow to a crawl, but right now I don't diet at all. I just try to eat reasonably nutritiously, and I actually like fruit and salads. I snack all the time after 7:00 pm contrary to what Oprah says. I don't have too much of a sweet tooth fortunately. I'd rather drink my calories anyway. But really, the air diet? I'd rather die. Eating away from the far left.

The Fortress
December 21st, 2006, 10:12 PM
I read this article today about internal and external fat...very interesting

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml;jsessionid=VHHBGIYC3HCU1QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/health/2006/12/21/ftfat121.xml


Ok, I actually read that. First, I'm glad to know that gluttony was not the invention of Christianity. One less thing for it to claim. "Tofi?" (thin outside, fat inside) That is the strangest word ever. They actually use that word in the UK and not Hollywood? Geek must comment on this, but we seem to have lost him...

I also don't like BMI and agree that it's a "crude" measure. You can have someone who's relatively lean but muscular, i.e. mesomorphic, and they test high for BMI. Bunch of BS. Why if BMI were the real measure, half the world could be prescribed diet pills.

I think it is interesting, and Islandsox would find it so, that they said that you could be large and physically active and in a perfectly healthly state. Long live Islandsox!

Caped Crusader
December 21st, 2006, 10:32 PM
Holiday Season Party-Eating Etiquette, Rules & Tips
8. Same for pies.
Apple. Pumpkin. Mincemeat. Have a slice of each. Or, if you don't like mincemeat, have two apples and one pumpkin. Always have three. When else do you get to have more than one dessert? President's Day?

9. Did someone mention fruitcake?
Granted, it's loaded with the mandatory celebratory calories, but avoid it at all cost. I mean, c'mom, have some standards.

I like pies. Islandsox said that there "was only one fruitcake in the world" and he apparently identified himself on the NSR thread.

Caped Crusader
December 21st, 2006, 10:54 PM
Both my parents are in their late 90s now; smoked and drank heavy for years but stopped both when they entered their 70s.Donna

So I guess that means you can still clean out your system after its contaminated or you can de-stress your life after stressing yourself out. I think SCY is right, you can't stress over things you can't control. Vitamin D -- is it in or out? Are we using sunscreen or not? Or we taking glucosamine or not? Are antioxidants effective or not?

Oh, are they? Anyone taking alpha lipoic acid? Are antioxidants regulated or do they just have that "the FDA has not approved the statements" on the bottle stuff? I haven't done that research. Someone must know. My buddy who owns some a "whole food" type store says that if you only take 3 things, it should be a multi-vitamin, CoQ10 and glucosamine. He says the glucosamine really helps dogs with arthritis, for all you posters with dog avatars.

SwimStud
December 21st, 2006, 11:02 PM
. My buddy who owns some a "whole food" type store says that if you only take 3 things, it should be a multi-vitamin, CoQ10 and glucosamine. He says the glucosamine really helps dogs with arthritis, for all you posters with dog avatars.

What about dogs who have bad shoulders from years of doggy paddle?

Caped Crusader
December 22nd, 2006, 10:27 AM
What about dogs who have bad shoulders from years of doggy paddle?

Dude, what's got you on a shoulder rant? :dedhorse: :dedhorse: :dedhorse:

Do you want to sit at that shoulder table with the cute girls and Wookie?

And you didn't even have the decency to answer any of my questions... Back to the grind.

SwimStud
December 22nd, 2006, 10:32 AM
Dude, what's got you on a shoulder rant? :dedhorse: :dedhorse: :dedhorse:

Do you want to sit at that shoulder table with the cute girls and Wookie?

And you didn't even have the decency to answer any of my questions... Back to the grind.

It has to have been the Sake...
What questions??

Caped Crusader
December 22nd, 2006, 10:35 AM
I think SCY is right, you can't stress over things you can't control. Vitamin D -- is it in or out? Are we using sunscreen or not? Or we taking glucosamine or not? Are antioxidants effective or not?

Oh, are they? Anyone taking alpha lipoic acid? Are antioxidants regulated or do they just have that "the FDA has not approved the statements" on the bottle stuff? I haven't done that research. Someone must know.

These questions. Now I have to stop playing around here and go back to work so I can afford xmas and my fun car.

SwimStud
December 22nd, 2006, 10:45 AM
So I guess that means you can still clean out your system after its contaminated or you can de-stress your life after stressing yourself out. I think SCY is right, you can't stress over things you can't control. Vitamin D -- is it in or out?OUT Are we using sunscreen or not? YES Or we taking glucosamine or not? Are antioxidants effective or not? YES-Green Tea has an "effect" on me

Oh, are they?WTH Anyone taking alpha lipoic acid? Just that one time in CollegeAre antioxidants regulated or do they just have that "the FDA has not approved the statements" on the bottle stuff? You pays your money and takes your choice. I haven't done that research. Someone must know. You think so? My buddy who owns some a "whole food" type store says that if you only take 3 things, it should be a multi-vitamin, I do. CoQ10 Is that like WD-40? and glucosamine Yes but not with Chrondroitin. Chrondroitin: BAD. He says the glucosamine really helps dogs with arthritis, for all you posters with dog avatars. Ever see how an arthritic dog livens right up when it goes outside in the snow? ICE WORKS

Answers posted in your quote, Mr Super Hero "pantyhose with knickers on the outside" Guy.

SwimStud
December 22nd, 2006, 11:05 AM
Double post oops

gull
December 23rd, 2006, 12:19 PM
My buddy who owns a "whole food" type store says that if you only take 3 things, it should be a multi-vitamin, CoQ10 and glucosamine.

And I'm sure he'd be happy to sell those to you. However, by law supplements do not need to be effective to be sold. Neither Coenzyme Q10 nor glucosamine are of any proven benefit, having been studied in large randomized clinical trials. Likewise, when studied individually, megadoses of vitamins are not helpful and in some cases may be harmful (Vitamins E and C, to name two).

Caped Crusader
December 23rd, 2006, 01:09 PM
And I'm sure he'd be happy to sell those to you. However, by law supplements do not need to be effective to be sold. Neither Coenzyme Q10 nor glucosamine are of any proven benefit, having been studied in large randomized clinical trials. Likewise, when studied individually, megadoses of vitamins are not helpful and in some cases may be harmful (Vitamins E and C, to name two).

Thanks Gull. Glucosamine seemed to help my dog in his old age. I actually don't take anything beside a multi-vitamin. What about the anti-oxidants?

gull
December 23rd, 2006, 02:08 PM
Antioxidants have been studied and thus far do not seem to be effective.

The Fortress
December 23rd, 2006, 02:14 PM
Antioxidants have been studied and thus far do not seem to be effective.

My father the doc did not believe in supplements either, of course that was many years ago.

So is there anything that will help besides eating seeds and chemical free food and being "invariably compassionate, altruistic and spiritual?" (I mean, aside from swimming.)

scyfreestyler
December 23rd, 2006, 02:41 PM
And I'm sure he'd be happy to sell those to you. However, by law supplements do not need to be effective to be sold. Neither Coenzyme Q10 nor glucosamine are of any proven benefit, having been studied in large randomized clinical trials. Likewise, when studied individually, megadoses of vitamins are not helpful and in some cases may be harmful (Vitamins E and C, to name two).
The only requirement is that they do not claim to cure any disease. They can sell something that claims to strengthen your heart or improve your vision but a claim to cure cancer is a no no. It is a pretty sad state of affairs because people get taken by these scams every day of the week.

islandsox
December 23rd, 2006, 04:11 PM
I guess I'll have to jump in on the controversy. So, are there no benefits whatsoever to vegies that are loaded with antioxidants? What about red wine? Doesn't that grape do something great for us beside making us want another glass? Why do all the docs on talk shows praise antioxidants?

Wait, I know, they are the new recruits to the food police trying to get us to eat our vegies to keep our weight down so the health companies won't have to fork over more $$$$$.

Here's a statement that may blow some people away. And I have my coat of armour on for all the bullets that may come my way: I say NO to sunscreen. After I saw the study the Mayo Clinic did, I threw mine away.

Okay, I'm ready for the bullets to fly, see? I have my protective eyewear on.:cool:

Donna

gull
December 23rd, 2006, 06:26 PM
I guess I'll have to jump in on the controversy. So, are there no benefits whatsoever to vegies that are loaded with antioxidants?

That's not what I said. What I said is that supplementing your diet with antioxidants (like CoQ, Vit E or C) is of no proven benefit.

Raising HDL (good cholesterol) was supposed to be a good thing; it turns out that may not be the case.

chaos
December 23rd, 2006, 06:31 PM
Antioxidants have been studied and thus far do not seem to be effective.

great, now i will stop adding pomegranite juice to my martinis!

islandsox
December 23rd, 2006, 06:46 PM
Gull,

I misread, sorry.

Donna

scyfreestyler
December 23rd, 2006, 11:06 PM
Raising HDL (good cholesterol) was supposed to be a good thing; it turns out that may not be the case.

Really? Please enlighten us. I have always paid more attention to the LDL number but I know many people who are quite concerned about having an HDL number under 50.

gull
December 24th, 2006, 09:09 AM
Pfizer recently halted a study of a drug which raises HDL due to an excess number of deaths. It's now thought that HDL may be more complex than previously believed.

ljlete
December 24th, 2006, 11:08 AM
Gull,

Unless you work in a different department of Pfizer than I do, we don't know what the cause of the excess deaths was. (If you do work in Clinical Development, then you shouldn't be posting this information here;) ). The trial was stopped because there were more deaths in the torceptrapib arm than there were in the control arm. The over site committee only sees that data and does not attempt to find a cause and effect relationship. While it is really far fetched, it could be simply that there were 30 participants all in the same bus that ran off the road. It will take several months before we know.

The point to be learned here though is that pharmaceutical companies are, in fact, companies that spend huge amounts of money to test scientific theories. Pfizer spent in excess of $800 million on the clinical trials alone to test whether raising HDL makes you healthier. Science has shown that those who have higher HDL are healthier but we don't know if externally forcing it higher does the same. In this specific case, it has been reported that torceptrapib did raise blood pressure in some patients. Others have reported that their CETP inhibitors are not raising BP so it does not appear to be a class effect. So right now, we have to wait for the analysis of each of the deaths to determine what the cause of the excess deaths was.

Leo

gull
December 24th, 2006, 11:29 AM
Gull,
Unless you work in a different department of Pfizer than I do, we don't know what the cause of the excess deaths was. (If you do work in Clinical Development, then you shouldn't be posting this information here;) ). The trial was stopped because there were more deaths in the torceptrapib arm than there were in the control arm. The over site committee only sees that data and does not attempt to find a cause and effect relationship. While it is really far fetched, it could be simply that there were 30 participants all in the same bus that ran off the road. It will take several months before we know.

The point to be learned here though is that pharmaceutical companies are, in fact, companies that spend huge amounts of money to test scientific theories. Pfizer spent in excess of $800 million on the clinical trials alone to test whether raising HDL makes you healthier. Science has shown that those who have higher HDL are healthier but we don't know if externally forcing it higher does the same. In this specific case, it has been reported that torceptrapib did raise blood pressure in some patients. Others have reported that their CETP inhibitors are not raising BP so it does not appear to be a class effect. So right now, we have to wait for the analysis of each of the deaths to determine what the cause of the excess deaths was.


I don't work for Pfizer. And I didn't say that the cause of death was known. But there was an excess number of deaths, and the trial was halted. In general, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee will not act precipitously to halt a large multicenter trial.

My point was not to find fault with Pfizer. My point was that medicine is not always intuitive. Low HDL is bad, high HDL is good, so raising a low HDL should be beneficial, correct? Perhaps it's the wrong drug (or the wrong class of drug). Or perhaps, as some have postulated in the cardiology literature, HDL is more complex than we thought.

craiglll@yahoo.com
December 24th, 2006, 01:17 PM
have only one more thought about this. The big difference between many bad unhealthy htings we put in to our bodies and transfats is that frequently we don't even know that transfats are involved.

scyfreestyler
December 24th, 2006, 03:21 PM
have only one more thought about this. The big difference between many bad unhealthy htings we put in to our bodies and transfats is that frequently we don't even know that transfats are involved.

I would agree with that statement. I have developed an ability to determine, with a relatively high degree of accuracy, which foods contain trans fats and which do not. But this is only after I have been reading labels and seeing a trend as to which types of foods are most likely to contain these fats.

ljlete
December 24th, 2006, 05:24 PM
Pfizer recently halted a study of a drug which raises HDL due to an excess number of deaths. It's now thought that HDL may be more complex than previously believed.

Gull,

When you follow the first sentence by the second, the implication is that you are connecting these two thoughts (especially when you only have a two sentence response.) Your two sentences standing alone are true statements. Trying to draw a connection between the two at this point is not.

Leo

Caped Crusader
December 24th, 2006, 05:29 PM
I have developed an ability to determine, with a relatively high degree of accuracy, which foods contain trans fats and which do not. But this is only after I have been reading labels and seeing a trend as to which types of foods are most likely to contain these fats.

Matt:

Since I'm only takng multi-vitamins, can you share your knowledge and list some of these food types?

gull
December 24th, 2006, 05:40 PM
When you follow the first sentence by the second, the implication is that you are connecting these two thoughts (especially when you only have a two sentence response.) Your two sentences standing alone are true statements. Trying to draw a connection between the two at this point is not.

I thought my post was fairly straightforward, but then again I do not have any financial ties with Pfizer (and neither did the trial's Data and Safety Monitoring Committee, for obvious reasons). Rest assured that other pharmaceutical companies will be reassessing their own CETP inhibitors currently in the pipeline. Vioxx seemed like a good idea at one time, also.

We are way off topic here. The take home message was (and is) to exerxcise caution when taking supplements.

scyfreestyler
December 24th, 2006, 05:52 PM
Matt:

Since I'm only takng multi-vitamins, can you share your knowledge and list some of these food types?

I am not sure how multi-vitamins tie into this but some of the foods that are typical of being laden with TF's are frozen pizza's, ready to bake cinnamon rolls/breakfast rolls/etc, ready bake cookies....

In general, anything that is quick to prepare is a prime suspect for TF's. It is so easy to check a label for these things that it's hard to imagine needing a law to protect people from them.

scyfreestyler
December 24th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Perhaps the way in which the HDL was raised is the problem. Things like olive oil, fresh fish, nuts, and exercise are most likely a better way to boost the HDL number than with meds.

gull
December 24th, 2006, 06:02 PM
Perhaps the way in which the HDL was raised is the problem. Things like olive oil, fresh fish, nuts, and exercise are most likely a better way to boost the HDL number than with meds.

Exactly. That's the real question, isn't it?

ljlete
December 24th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Exactly. That's the real question, isn't it?

Absolutely. The theory is that raising HDL is good for you then again the theory that lowering LDL is good for you seems to be OK. We have to try it out. Maybe olive oil imparts some other beneficial effect.

The bottom line is just try to live a life of moderation and you won't get in too much trouble.

Leo

BTW Vioxx had indications of significant increase in blood pressure from the initial clincal trials. Outcome was predicatable.

gull
December 26th, 2006, 09:18 AM
BTW Vioxx had indications of significant increase in blood pressure from the initial clincal trials. Outcome was predictable.

The problem with Vioxx (and other drugs in that class) is the relatively selective inhibition of Cox-2, which was thought to be beneficial in that there would be sparing of the gastric mucosa (fewer ulcers). However, by failing to inhibit Cox-1, synthesis of thromboxane (which plays a role in platelet aggregation and clot formation) could continue. Aspirin (and other nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents) are nonselective, inhibiting both Cox-1 and Cox-2. Again, what intuitively seemed like a good idea really wasn't in the end.

SwimStud
December 26th, 2006, 09:22 AM
I don't watch this show but judging by my consumption the past few days I may be making an appearance! :rofl:

Plenty of TFs for me this festive season!

islandsox
December 26th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Gull and Leo,

I just had to drop a quick thought here on Vioxx since I had to take this drug for a time and it was wonderful. But, my doctor would only keep me on it for about one week a month & inbetween he used others. The warning was on my RX bottle and it was "limited" to only so many pills. Most of the people who had serious problems with it never stopped taking it, they were taking it daily and some for years. I had to draw from this that they were taking entirely too much of it and some paid a big price.

I wonder why in the beginning the restrictions were on it, and then either removed or some people/doctors just ignored it. :confused:

Donna

SwimStud
January 3rd, 2007, 11:02 AM
TF's in the news today!

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/03/news/companies/bc.starbucks.transfats.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007010305

craiglll@yahoo.com
January 3rd, 2007, 01:22 PM
I din't see this mentioned.

One problem with transfat, alcohol, and smokiing is that the state ends up paying greatly at the end-of-life of those who are over-weight, smoked or drank heavily. I once was told by a public health official that the state is more likely to pay for the end-of-life medical expenses for people who are morbidly obesse, who smoked, or who were very heavy drinkers than it is for people who die but were atheletic/healthy when living. Also, these expenses are greater fro people who are obese, heavy drinkers and smokers.

The state does have a stake, if you will, in trying to control certain behaviors.

scyfreestyler
January 3rd, 2007, 01:27 PM
It is possible to be healthy and be obese (perhaps not morbidly so)...but being a heavy drinker or smoker makes being healthy nearly impossible.

It is because of this that I feel the state could get more bang for it's buck by placing more emphasis on alcohol abuse and cigarette smoking. Perhaps cigarette smoking could be curbed by legalizing small amounts of marijuana. It appears to be much less carcinogenic than cigarettes and might actually have some health benefits.

FlyQueen
January 3rd, 2007, 01:28 PM
Not to make this take even more of a political turn, but ... sentencing someone to death actually costs the system more than a life sentence ... the costs of the appeal and all out weighs the cost of keeping them in prison for life, yet all sorts of people still believe in the death penalty ... (I do not, but not for costs, and we certainly don't need to go down this road as I think it will NOT be pretty)

So back to good ole transfats ... yum! haha

SwimStud
January 3rd, 2007, 01:51 PM
Not to make this take even more of a political turn, but ... sentencing someone to death actually costs the system more than a life sentence ... the costs of the appeal and all out weighs the cost of keeping them in prison for life, yet all sorts of people still believe in the death penalty ... (I do not, but not for costs, and we certainly don't need to go down this road as I think it will NOT be pretty)

So back to good ole transfats ... yum! haha

Apparently breaststrokers are immune to the effects of TransFats too...man it is good being great!

craiglll@yahoo.com
January 4th, 2007, 01:30 PM
It is possible to be healthy and be obese (perhaps not morbidly so)...but being a heavy drinker or smoker makes being healthy nearly impossible.

It is because of this that I feel the state could get more bang for it's buck by placing more emphasis on alcohol abuse and cigarette smoking. Perhaps cigarette smoking could be curbed by legalizing small amounts of marijuana. It appears to be much less carcinogenic than cigarettes and might actually have some health benefits.

No it isn't. People who are obesse have end-of-life expenses that are very close to people who smoked. They also tend to have a wider variety of illnesses that smokers don't have.

scyfreestyler
January 4th, 2007, 01:35 PM
No it isn't. People who are obesse have end-of-life expenses that are very close to people who smoked. They also tend to have a wider variety of illnesses that smokers don't have.

Hmm? I would have to disagree with you on that generalization. I stand by my statement that is is more likely for an obese person to lead a healthy life than for a smoker or heavy drinker. Being 40 pounds overweight will generally not wreak as much havoc with your body as inhaling carcinogens or consuming copious amounts of alcohol.

scyfreestyler
January 4th, 2007, 01:56 PM
I should add that I am basing this upon my own small group study of people that I know. Totally scientific, I know.

Anyhow, the majority of people I know who have died relatively early on, did so because of smoking. Many of the obese people I know do have issues such as borderline type 2 diabetes or problematic joints, but they can breathe well, don't have cancer, don't have emphysema, don't rely upon oxygen, don't need to live in an assisted care facility, etc.

I can see what you are saying but from my narrow sample group I would take being overweight over being a smoker any day of the week.

I have watched two relatives die very uncomfortably in the last few years because of smoking..it's ugly and I hope I never have to see it again.

FlyQueen
January 4th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Hmm? I would have to disagree with you on that generalization. I stand by my statement that is is more likely for an obese person to lead a healthy life than for a smoker or heavy drinker. Being 40 pounds overweight will generally not wreak as much havoc with your body as inhaling carcinogens or consuming copious amounts of alcohol.

Define copious amounts ... remember, I'm a flyer ...

scyfreestyler
January 4th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Define copious amounts ... remember, I'm a flyer ...


Well, I would opine that anything over 2 drinks per day would be excessive. I have been known to drink more than that, sometimes within a half hour, but that is quite rare. I don't think that an occassional drunk fest is going to kill you but drinking a six pack or a bottle of wine a night is bound to have some ill effects on one's body.

The Fortress
January 4th, 2007, 02:42 PM
Well, I would opine that anything over 2 drinks per day would be excessive. I have been known to drink more than that, sometimes within a half hour, but that is quite rare. I don't think that an occassional drunk fest is going to kill you but drinking a six pack or a bottle of wine a night is bound to have some ill effects on one's body.

I think that's probably right, although it depends somewhat on age, size, sex, health and how fast you drink. But I know an awfully lot of folks having a couple of glasses of wine every night ... They aren't all flyers.

SwimStud
January 4th, 2007, 02:51 PM
I think that's probably right, although it depends somewhat on age, size, sex, health and how fast you drink. But I know an awfully lot of folks having a couple of glasses of wine every night ... They aren't all flyers.

At my last check up in Sept. I told the doc I had been drinking a couple of pretty strong rum and cokes a night. She said it was fine. Provided that I could stop for a month if she told me too (if liver was inflamed--which it wasn't).
I would think 2 glasses of red or white, or a few beers each night isn't going to matter for this community...healthwise. In fact it might make me contemplate swimming fly!
:joker:

nkfrench
January 4th, 2007, 03:22 PM
... but drinking a six pack or a bottle of wine a night is bound to have some ill effects on one's body.

It might make you gain weight! Not just the calories from the drinks, but the munchies to go with and the decreased probability that you'll make it to morning practice. It's just not fair...

geochuck
January 4th, 2007, 04:11 PM
I was talking today to a very fit looking person, slim and trim. He told me he had drunk a bottle of rum 2 days ago and was rushed to the hospital and they kept him there overnight he said they could not get his heart rate below 150 for 20 hrs.

When he was talking to me he was drinking a bottle of beer and had another at the ready.

After hearing his story I thought he was the biggest loser I have ever met and I don't mean losing weight.

SwimStud
January 4th, 2007, 10:30 PM
I was talking today to a very fit looking person, slim and trim. He told me he had drunk a bottle of rum 2 days ago and was rushed to the hospital and they kept him there overnight he said they could not get his heart rate below 150 for 20 hrs.

When he was talking to me he was drinking a bottle of beer and had another at the ready.

After hearing his story I thought he was the biggest loser I have ever met and I don't mean losing weight.

George if this guy was older than 30 he needs help...I did all my stupid religious boozing between ages 15 and 20 then I wised up and only did it periodically...I can still get "religious" now and then but if I was ever hospitalised for drinking like that I think I'd be concerned.

ensignada
January 4th, 2007, 11:26 PM
George if this guy was older than 30 he needs help...I did all my stupid religious boozing between ages 15 and 20 then I wised up and only did it periodically...I can still get "religious" now and then but if I was ever hospitalised for drinking like that I think I'd be concerned.

At the university where my husband teaches, the paper used to publish in the campus "police blotter" incidents of alcohol poisoning (for which a student had to be rushed to a hospital). The paper stopped that practice after it was discovered that the various classes (fresh, soph etc) had a competition going to see who had the most cases of alcohol poisoning.

Totally depressing.:shakeshead:

SwimStud
January 4th, 2007, 11:34 PM
At the university where my husband teaches, the paper used to publish in the campus "police blotter" incidents of alcohol poisoning (for which a student had to be rushed to a hospital). The paper stopped that practice after it was discovered that the various classes (fresh, soph etc) had a competition going to see who had the most cases of alcohol poisoning.

Totally depressing.:shakeshead:

It's a growing problem. I had a friend who stopped breathing 3 times in Jamaica because he over did it. He is very lucky. He wasn't trying to binge...he just didn't pay attention to how much he was drinking...triple B52's...