Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support 
Author Message
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support

|Stress is a setting condition sometimes
|and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on liver." And
|this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause, people should
|be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to binge on
|calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by selecting
actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other "support"
newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

People have spent ages on newsgroups patting each other on the back
but rarely, unless a "troll" comes along, is there any
straight-in-your-face discussion about these kinds of issues.



|The problem is that we are controlled by immediate consequences. "I'd love
|to give up smoking, but that means I'd go through withdrawal!" "I'd love to
|go on a diet, but that pie looks so great and it has apples and that has
|lots of vitamin C." etc.

|We tend to do what is immediately reinforcing and tend to avoid what is
|immediately punishing. For many of us unused to exercise, that means
|engaging in exercise is painful now and will be painful in the future. And
|saying no to great-tasting cooking.net">food is punishing, and so we say YES! even though
|it may well kill us in the long run.

This luxury to make indiscriminate, problem compounding decisions is a
relatively new phenom.  Go back to the mid 1800's or even the early
1900's when we had no name, no medical terminology, for stress.  Maybe
it was called "pressure" or some such but we didn't know it was a
disease state, however, we may have reacted by choosing to smoke
(more) or eat more, etc in an effort to mitigate the distress.

But the difference, the key difference, is that we engaged in problem
compounding activities unwittingly then. Hell, we didn't know smoking
was bad or that overeating was anything more than a method to become
less physically attractive.

Now  we select, knowingly, in all our superior education, and with
some happiness, wrong decisions for our health.

You see, Caleb, when you look at modern man and see behavior like
this, you have got to ask why is it that we do this to ourselves?  Are
we so woeful in God's sight that He has cursed us with ourselves?  Is
this paradox really not a paradox at all but simply an extension of
Eve's apple and the original curse that followed?

I don't know but here's what I do know.

I contend that when you look for the philosophical and metaphysical
reasons, you get insight.  There is logical progression that can allow
you to reason your way along.

Someone recently wrote me that it is the system of dieting that is NOT
the problem, that it is the people; weak-willed, insecure, cowardly,
unintinterested/incapable of facing their health issues dead on.  I am
not certain he is correct since I have identified, numerous times both
by research, by inductive and deductive reasoning, and by a large
sampling of empirical and anecdotal history, including my own, that
the commercial diet system has failure built right into it.

Are there so-called slobs who can't and never will push away from the
table?  Sure, let's put them aside.  They are not part of this
discussion since their lack of self-worth and suicidal mentality is
best dealt with by the psychological sciences.  Out of my field, out
of my capabilities to assist, out of my reach. Maybe they have a
legitimate beef with God, who created then without the resources to
deal effectively with their problems or, at least, has put up high
hurdles to jump.

That leaves a ton of folk who have the capabilities but fail to make
appropriate health choices. Now, is it the system that is failing them
or are they failing the system.

Until I saw the results of lowered cooking.net">food intake as a means of
controlling overeating and obesity, and see it work in the sorts of
folks who have the capabilities to make accurate health choices, it
came clear to my mind that the commercial diet system, with all its
complications and calorie counting and other highly inexact and mind
numbing "duties" and the complexity (the unbelievable complexity of
diets like Atkins) has a huge hand in this yo-yo cycle of dietary
failure on failure, failure, failure......

Look now where that brings us.  We have tossed away those that we
cannot help with simple manipulations of their health choices (the
ones who can't and never will be able to be helped conventionally) and
we are left with those who CAN and have shown to be consistently
successful with a lowered cooking.net">food intake approach be it Chung's Simple
Two Pound Diet or modifications of it.

One more group to consider.  Those who can but don't.  Three groups;
those who can't, those who have, those who can but don't.  Let's
examine the latter.

If you can but don't, and I was one of those, first, do you have the
proper information?  I say, for the majority, no.  You end up in WW or
Ornish or whatever commercially failing diet regime and you get less
than a whole body, whole health approach.  And you get the trappings
(like special cooking.net">food or accessories or books or counting, journaling ad
infinitum - none of which are there, imo, for any other reason than
profit, to get you "hooked" in) that appear, at first blush, to be the
"way" but, in the end, as we all know by now, they will fail most
everyone except the corporate shareholders.

My contention is that it IS the system that is failing those folks who
can but don't since they are taught incorrectly, lead down the
proverbial primrose path, and come away wondering wthell went wrong,
what is wrong with them and why is it, with their capabilities, they
are "failures."  I find the whole of commercial dieting a revolting
betrayal, a greedy self-serving, knowingly-evil set of charlatans who
read the statistics and sell their garbage with impunity.

Many of these folks come to Usenet looking for answers like I did, and
what they get, in globs, is a continuation of the commercial dietary
scheme.  Examine high failure rates? HA!  Not if you want to be with
the in-crowd.  Usenet support, in diet groups, is not built around
maximizing the solutions, for life, of obesity but are structured for
the entertainment of the regular participants.  Why would we expect
more?  The "gods" they follow are flawed; the systems they willingly
bet on, like Las Vegas drunks, are predicated on failure.  Usenet
support?  Without factual discussion is nothing more than a community
looking for entertainment, back-patting their form of a
fraternity/sorority secret handshake.

Want proof?  Look a the posting histories and you can find the same
folks doing the same thing with the same success support rates (nearly
zilch) and match that against the newbies who flock in and fly out
like airplanes at O'Hare. Without the entertainment value, what keeps
these perennial bridesmaids coming back?  Search for Truth? Ever.

What a squandered opportunity.  Cazillions of folks, in an
international setting, the finest communication tool in the history of
Man, Usenet, fallen into the hands of the those who prefer their own
chuckles over the concerns and needs and health of others.

Soon, Caleb, I will fall back into the real world and contact these
newbies, by email, each and every one, as they come into Usenet with
the same hopes and expectations that I had.  I got lucky. I found an
answer in limited cooking.net">food intake, in an approach that focuses on health
not fat, on longevity not magical schemes.  An approach borne out of
years of dealing with folk, watching them fail, having them come to me
with their real faces, in real time, with real needs, sometimes on a
collision path with premature, preventable death.  Lost souls with
lost health and lost hope.  I have a lot of answers now.  I don't know
if I needed those answers more for myself or for them.

I tell you one thing that I don't ever advise. Because it isn't even
close to being an answer, a legitimate resource.

Usenet alt.support.diet.x.

So there we have it Caleb, those who cannot and never will, those who
have and will continue doing so (most of these are lowered cooking.net">food intake
advocates) and those who can and, hopefully, someday will. These are
my target group and the motivation I have to move forward comes
uniquely from them.



Tue, 31 May 2005 02:07:07 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support
You are discouraging those who have found hope.  What is your true motive
here?

Quote:
> |Stress is a setting condition sometimes
> |and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on liver."
And
> |this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause, people
should
> |be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to binge on
> |calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

> It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by selecting
> actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other "support"
> newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

> People have spent ages on newsgroups patting each other on the back
> but rarely, unless a "troll" comes along, is there any
> straight-in-your-face discussion about these kinds of issues.



> |The problem is that we are controlled by immediate consequences. "I'd
love
> |to give up smoking, but that means I'd go through withdrawal!" "I'd love
to
> |go on a diet, but that pie looks so great and it has apples and that has
> |lots of vitamin C." etc.

> |We tend to do what is immediately reinforcing and tend to avoid what is
> |immediately punishing. For many of us unused to exercise, that means
> |engaging in exercise is painful now and will be painful in the future.
And
> |saying no to great-tasting cooking.net">food is punishing, and so we say YES! even
though
> |it may well kill us in the long run.

> This luxury to make indiscriminate, problem compounding decisions is a
> relatively new phenom.  Go back to the mid 1800's or even the early
> 1900's when we had no name, no medical terminology, for stress.  Maybe
> it was called "pressure" or some such but we didn't know it was a
> disease state, however, we may have reacted by choosing to smoke
> (more) or eat more, etc in an effort to mitigate the distress.

> But the difference, the key difference, is that we engaged in problem
> compounding activities unwittingly then. Hell, we didn't know smoking
> was bad or that overeating was anything more than a method to become
> less physically attractive.

> Now  we select, knowingly, in all our superior education, and with
> some happiness, wrong decisions for our health.

> You see, Caleb, when you look at modern man and see behavior like
> this, you have got to ask why is it that we do this to ourselves?  Are
> we so woeful in God's sight that He has cursed us with ourselves?  Is
> this paradox really not a paradox at all but simply an extension of
> Eve's apple and the original curse that followed?

> I don't know but here's what I do know.

> I contend that when you look for the philosophical and metaphysical
> reasons, you get insight.  There is logical progression that can allow
> you to reason your way along.

> Someone recently wrote me that it is the system of dieting that is NOT
> the problem, that it is the people; weak-willed, insecure, cowardly,
> unintinterested/incapable of facing their health issues dead on.  I am
> not certain he is correct since I have identified, numerous times both
> by research, by inductive and deductive reasoning, and by a large
> sampling of empirical and anecdotal history, including my own, that
> the commercial diet system has failure built right into it.

> Are there so-called slobs who can't and never will push away from the
> table?  Sure, let's put them aside.  They are not part of this
> discussion since their lack of self-worth and suicidal mentality is
> best dealt with by the psychological sciences.  Out of my field, out
> of my capabilities to assist, out of my reach. Maybe they have a
> legitimate beef with God, who created then without the resources to
> deal effectively with their problems or, at least, has put up high
> hurdles to jump.

> That leaves a ton of folk who have the capabilities but fail to make
> appropriate health choices. Now, is it the system that is failing them
> or are they failing the system.

> Until I saw the results of lowered cooking.net">food intake as a means of
> controlling overeating and obesity, and see it work in the sorts of
> folks who have the capabilities to make accurate health choices, it
> came clear to my mind that the commercial diet system, with all its
> complications and calorie counting and other highly inexact and mind
> numbing "duties" and the complexity (the unbelievable complexity of
> diets like Atkins) has a huge hand in this yo-yo cycle of dietary
> failure on failure, failure, failure......

> Look now where that brings us.  We have tossed away those that we
> cannot help with simple manipulations of their health choices (the
> ones who can't and never will be able to be helped conventionally) and
> we are left with those who CAN and have shown to be consistently
> successful with a lowered cooking.net">food intake approach be it Chung's Simple
> Two Pound Diet or modifications of it.

> One more group to consider.  Those who can but don't.  Three groups;
> those who can't, those who have, those who can but don't.  Let's
> examine the latter.

> If you can but don't, and I was one of those, first, do you have the
> proper information?  I say, for the majority, no.  You end up in WW or
> Ornish or whatever commercially failing diet regime and you get less
> than a whole body, whole health approach.  And you get the trappings
> (like special cooking.net">food or accessories or books or counting, journaling ad
> infinitum - none of which are there, imo, for any other reason than
> profit, to get you "hooked" in) that appear, at first blush, to be the
> "way" but, in the end, as we all know by now, they will fail most
> everyone except the corporate shareholders.

> My contention is that it IS the system that is failing those folks who
> can but don't since they are taught incorrectly, lead down the
> proverbial primrose path, and come away wondering wthell went wrong,
> what is wrong with them and why is it, with their capabilities, they
> are "failures."  I find the whole of commercial dieting a revolting
> betrayal, a greedy self-serving, knowingly-evil set of charlatans who
> read the statistics and sell their garbage with impunity.

> Many of these folks come to Usenet looking for answers like I did, and
> what they get, in globs, is a continuation of the commercial dietary
> scheme.  Examine high failure rates? HA!  Not if you want to be with
> the in-crowd.  Usenet support, in diet groups, is not built around
> maximizing the solutions, for life, of obesity but are structured for
> the entertainment of the regular participants.  Why would we expect
> more?  The "gods" they follow are flawed; the systems they willingly
> bet on, like Las Vegas drunks, are predicated on failure.  Usenet
> support?  Without factual discussion is nothing more than a community
> looking for entertainment, back-patting their form of a
> fraternity/sorority secret handshake.

> Want proof?  Look a the posting histories and you can find the same
> folks doing the same thing with the same success support rates (nearly
> zilch) and match that against the newbies who flock in and fly out
> like airplanes at O'Hare. Without the entertainment value, what keeps
> these perennial bridesmaids coming back?  Search for Truth? Ever.

> What a squandered opportunity.  Cazillions of folks, in an
> international setting, the finest communication tool in the history of
> Man, Usenet, fallen into the hands of the those who prefer their own
> chuckles over the concerns and needs and health of others.

> Soon, Caleb, I will fall back into the real world and contact these
> newbies, by email, each and every one, as they come into Usenet with
> the same hopes and expectations that I had.  I got lucky. I found an
> answer in limited cooking.net">food intake, in an approach that focuses on health
> not fat, on longevity not magical schemes.  An approach borne out of
> years of dealing with folk, watching them fail, having them come to me
> with their real faces, in real time, with real needs, sometimes on a
> collision path with premature, preventable death.  Lost souls with
> lost health and lost hope.  I have a lot of answers now.  I don't know
> if I needed those answers more for myself or for them.

> I tell you one thing that I don't ever advise. Because it isn't even
> close to being an answer, a legitimate resource.

> Usenet alt.support.diet.x.

> So there we have it Caleb, those who cannot and never will, those who
> have and will continue doing so (most of these are lowered cooking.net">food intake
> advocates) and those who can and, hopefully, someday will. These are
> my target group and the motivation I have to move forward comes
> uniquely from them.



Tue, 31 May 2005 03:28:19 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support


Quote:
> You are discouraging those who have found hope.  What is your true motive
> here?

His goal is to get replies.  Quit replying to him, and he'll go away.


Tue, 31 May 2005 03:01:08 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support
Feedrus. said:

Quote:
> |Stress is a setting condition sometimes
> |and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on liver." And
> |this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause, people should
> |be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to binge on
> |calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

> It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by selecting
> actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other "support"
> newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

Not really. Like minded individuals congregate for support and commeraderie.
Here we find a diet a group. People here are dieting.

The end.

///Snipped 47Gb of mind numbing blather.///



Tue, 31 May 2005 03:01:12 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support

Quote:

>Feedrus. said:

>> |Stress is a setting condition sometimes
>> |and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on liver." And
>> |this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause, people should
>> |be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to binge on
>> |calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

>> It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by selecting
>> actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other "support"
>> newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

>Not really. Like minded individuals congregate for support and commeraderie.
>Here we find a diet a group. People here are dieting.

But they never leave.

-Scott Johnson
 "Always with the excuses for small legs.  People like you are
  why they only open the top half of caskets." -Tommy Bowen



Tue, 31 May 2005 03:55:42 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:28:19 -0600, "becky brown"

|You are discouraging those who have found hope.

What real hope have they found? Another pass at a near-guaranteed
failure, commercial diet?

Lady, that's not hope that is delusion.

| What is your true motive
|here?

Why would you think I only have one and why would you necessarily
think I would discuss my personal business and motivations on a
crapped out public forum like alt.support.diet.x?



Tue, 31 May 2005 04:09:56 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support

Quote:


> >Feedrus. said:

> >> |Stress is a setting condition sometimes
> >> |and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on liver." And
> >> |this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause, people should
> >> |be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to binge on
> >> |calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

You might want to read up on stress physiology, I'd suggest the book
"Why Zebras Don't get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky.

Quote:

> >> It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by selecting
> >> actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other "support"
> >> newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

That's because the people on most support groups are booger eating
morons who don't even know enough to know what they don't know.  Then
they argue with people who do know like you folks will most likely argue
with me.  

It's a shame that I'm:
a. so rude
b. so right

Here's your answer.

Stress is a physiologically adaptive response, causing a monstrous
number of physiological processes to take place.  This includes
mobilization of liver glycogen to maintain {*filter*} glucose, as well as
increased glucose uptake into muscles (to fuel the crisis).  It also
includes mobilization of fatty acids in case one needs to fuel longer
term energy needs.  There are dozens of other things that take place,
get Sapolsky's book if you want to learn something.

After a stress response has ended, a biologically good approach is to
refill fuel stores.  Since you have depleted primarily glucose stores
(and a little bit of fat stores), this means bingeing on high calorie
high sugar foods.

So think about what happens in a chronic stress situation: you are
constantly mobilizing (or at least trying to) energy stores.  In
addition, chronically high cortisol appears to induce leptin resistance.
 This means that various neurochemicals in the brain (notably
neuropeptide Y and corticotrophin releasing hormone, NPY and CRH
respectively) are affected and this tends to stimulate appetite.  NPY
tends to promote carb cravings in an attempt to raise leptin to
normalize NPY levels.

Chronically high cortisol also induces insulin resistance which means
that your cells are essentially 'starving' even in the presence of high
cooking.net">food availibility.  This sends even more signals to eat more carbs even
though you may already be eating plenty.

I haven't looked into it extensively, but it wouldn't surprise me if
there was also dysregulation in serotonin levels with chronic stress.
Low serotonin (think depression) tends to promote carb cravings as the
insulin response helps to raise serotonin, at least acutely.  There's a
reason that depressed folks binge on junk food: they are self-medicating
with carbohydrates.

In addition to this, some people appear to simply have biologies that
tend towards higher stress responses (a researchers named Per Bjorntorp
has done a lot of work on this in terms of a neuroendocrine stress model
of obesity).  They not only have marginally higher levels of stress
hormones at rest, but they tend to overproduce those same hormones in
response to stress (Sapolskly talks about this in his book, some folks
over-react both emotionally and biochemically and there's no real
distinction there to the tiniest of stresses).  So it's a double whammy:
certain folks are not only running a semi-chronic stress profile to
begin with, but they over-respond to even minor stressors which makes it
even worse.

And now you booger eating morons know...the rest of the story.

Lyle



Tue, 31 May 2005 04:42:44 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support


Quote:



> > >Feedrus. said:

> > >> |Stress is a setting condition sometimes
> > >> |and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on
liver." And
> > >> |this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause,
people should
> > >> |be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to
binge on
> > >> |calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

> You might want to read up on stress physiology, I'd suggest the book
> "Why Zebras Don't get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky.

> > >> It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by selecting
> > >> actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other
"support"
> > >> newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

> That's because the people on most support groups are booger eating
> morons who don't even know enough to know what they don't know.  Then
> they argue with people who do know like you folks will most likely argue
> with me.

> It's a shame that I'm:
> a. so rude
> b. so right

> Here's your answer.

> Stress is a physiologically adaptive response, causing a monstrous
> number of physiological processes to take place.  This includes
> mobilization of liver glycogen to maintain {*filter*} glucose, as well as
> increased glucose uptake into muscles (to fuel the crisis).  It also
> includes mobilization of fatty acids in case one needs to fuel longer
> term energy needs.  There are dozens of other things that take place,
> get Sapolsky's book if you want to learn something.

> After a stress response has ended, a biologically good approach is to
> refill fuel stores.  Since you have depleted primarily glucose stores
> (and a little bit of fat stores), this means bingeing on high calorie
> high sugar foods.

> So think about what happens in a chronic stress situation: you are
> constantly mobilizing (or at least trying to) energy stores.  In
> addition, chronically high cortisol appears to induce leptin resistance.
>  This means that various neurochemicals in the brain (notably
> neuropeptide Y and corticotrophin releasing hormone, NPY and CRH
> respectively) are affected and this tends to stimulate appetite.  NPY
> tends to promote carb cravings in an attempt to raise leptin to
> normalize NPY levels.

> Chronically high cortisol also induces insulin resistance which means
> that your cells are essentially 'starving' even in the presence of high
> cooking.net">food availibility.  This sends even more signals to eat more carbs even
> though you may already be eating plenty.

> I haven't looked into it extensively, but it wouldn't surprise me if
> there was also dysregulation in serotonin levels with chronic stress.
> Low serotonin (think depression) tends to promote carb cravings as the
> insulin response helps to raise serotonin, at least acutely.  There's a
> reason that depressed folks binge on junk food: they are self-medicating
> with carbohydrates.

> In addition to this, some people appear to simply have biologies that
> tend towards higher stress responses (a researchers named Per Bjorntorp
> has done a lot of work on this in terms of a neuroendocrine stress model
> of obesity).  They not only have marginally higher levels of stress
> hormones at rest, but they tend to overproduce those same hormones in
> response to stress (Sapolskly talks about this in his book, some folks
> over-react both emotionally and biochemically and there's no real
> distinction there to the tiniest of stresses).  So it's a double whammy:
> certain folks are not only running a semi-chronic stress profile to
> begin with, but they over-respond to even minor stressors which makes it
> even worse.

> And now you booger eating morons know...the rest of the story.

> Lyle

Uh Lyle, maybe you could write a new book. The Booger Eating Morons Diet
Book.


Tue, 31 May 2005 04:25:44 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support

Quote:






> > > >Feedrus. said:

> > > >> |Stress is a setting condition sometimes
> > > >> |and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on
> liver." And
> > > >> |this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause,
> people should
> > > >> |be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to
> binge on
> > > >> |calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

> > You might want to read up on stress physiology, I'd suggest the book
> > "Why Zebras Don't get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky.

> > > >> It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by selecting
> > > >> actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other
> "support"
> > > >> newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

> > That's because the people on most support groups are booger eating
> > morons who don't even know enough to know what they don't know.  Then
> > they argue with people who do know like you folks will most likely argue
> > with me.

> > It's a shame that I'm:
> > a. so rude
> > b. so right

> > Here's your answer.

> > Stress is a physiologically adaptive response, causing a monstrous
> > number of physiological processes to take place.  This includes
> > mobilization of liver glycogen to maintain {*filter*} glucose, as well as
> > increased glucose uptake into muscles (to fuel the crisis).  It also
> > includes mobilization of fatty acids in case one needs to fuel longer
> > term energy needs.  There are dozens of other things that take place,
> > get Sapolsky's book if you want to learn something.

> > After a stress response has ended, a biologically good approach is to
> > refill fuel stores.  Since you have depleted primarily glucose stores
> > (and a little bit of fat stores), this means bingeing on high calorie
> > high sugar foods.

> > So think about what happens in a chronic stress situation: you are
> > constantly mobilizing (or at least trying to) energy stores.  In
> > addition, chronically high cortisol appears to induce leptin resistance.
> >  This means that various neurochemicals in the brain (notably
> > neuropeptide Y and corticotrophin releasing hormone, NPY and CRH
> > respectively) are affected and this tends to stimulate appetite.  NPY
> > tends to promote carb cravings in an attempt to raise leptin to
> > normalize NPY levels.

> > Chronically high cortisol also induces insulin resistance which means
> > that your cells are essentially 'starving' even in the presence of high
> > cooking.net">food availibility.  This sends even more signals to eat more carbs even
> > though you may already be eating plenty.

> > I haven't looked into it extensively, but it wouldn't surprise me if
> > there was also dysregulation in serotonin levels with chronic stress.
> > Low serotonin (think depression) tends to promote carb cravings as the
> > insulin response helps to raise serotonin, at least acutely.  There's a
> > reason that depressed folks binge on junk food: they are self-medicating
> > with carbohydrates.

> > In addition to this, some people appear to simply have biologies that
> > tend towards higher stress responses (a researchers named Per Bjorntorp
> > has done a lot of work on this in terms of a neuroendocrine stress model
> > of obesity).  They not only have marginally higher levels of stress
> > hormones at rest, but they tend to overproduce those same hormones in
> > response to stress (Sapolskly talks about this in his book, some folks
> > over-react both emotionally and biochemically and there's no real
> > distinction there to the tiniest of stresses).  So it's a double whammy:
> > certain folks are not only running a semi-chronic stress profile to
> > begin with, but they over-respond to even minor stressors which makes it
> > even worse.

> > And now you booger eating morons know...the rest of the story.

> > Lyle

> Uh Lyle, maybe you could write a new book. The Booger Eating Morons Diet
> Book.

Boogers are a good source of glycosaminoglycans, good for connective
tissue health.  Why do you think little kids heal so fast?  ;)

Lyle



Tue, 31 May 2005 04:51:40 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support
Lyle,

Have your researches led you to anything that suggests ways in which a
person could bring down their stress hormones and/or improve the cells'
resistance to those stress hormones--a resistance which  I just read in an
abstract posted over on alt.support.diabetes appears to be linked to
diabetes?



Tue, 31 May 2005 04:29:58 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support


Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support


| There's a
|reason that depressed folks binge on junk food: they are self-medicating
|with carbohydrates.

I'll buy into the physiochemical argument, have seen it explained this
way before.

It doesn't explain an increase in smoking and certainly does not
explain, in the case of other non-nutrinal responses to stress, why
people choose such poor, compounding decisions.  That's actually what
I am looking for.  That question probably is not found in Science.



Tue, 31 May 2005 04:39:55 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support

Quote:

> On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:28:19 -0600, "becky brown"

> |You are discouraging those who have found hope.

> What real hope have they found? Another pass at a near-guaranteed
> failure, commercial diet?

Like the "eat two pounds of cooking.net">food and lose weight" diet?

Quote:
> Lady, that's not hope that is delusion.

> | What is your true motive
> |here?

> Why would you think I only have one and why would you necessarily
> think I would discuss my personal business and motivations on a
> crapped out public forum like alt.support.diet.x?

There ya go -- THAT's the way to sell your buddy Jose Chung's diet
program! Call your intended marks a "crapped out public forum"!

Dawn



Tue, 31 May 2005 04:52:03 GMT
 Failing, failing, failing........and Newsgroup Support


Quote:






> > > > >Feedrus. said:

> > > > >> |Stress is a setting condition sometimes
> > > > >> |and an excuse oftentimes. As my wife has said, "No one binges on
> > liver." And
> > > > >> |this goes along with your reasoning. (If stress was the cause,
> > people should
> > > > >> |be able to binge on liver. But they clearly don't. They tend to
> > binge on
> > > > >> |calorie-rich, tasty foods.)

> > > You might want to read up on stress physiology, I'd suggest the book
> > > "Why Zebras Don't get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky.

> > > > >> It's the continuing paradox of why we compound problems by
selecting
> > > > >> actions that compound problems.  No one on this or any other
> > "support"
> > > > >> newsgroup has even taken a swinging shot at why this is.

> > > That's because the people on most support groups are booger eating
> > > morons who don't even know enough to know what they don't know.  Then
> > > they argue with people who do know like you folks will most likely
argue
> > > with me.

> > > It's a shame that I'm:
> > > a. so rude
> > > b. so right

> > > Here's your answer.

> > > Stress is a physiologically adaptive response, causing a monstrous
> > > number of physiological processes to take place.  This includes
> > > mobilization of liver glycogen to maintain {*filter*} glucose, as well as
> > > increased glucose uptake into muscles (to fuel the crisis).  It also
> > > includes mobilization of fatty acids in case one needs to fuel longer
> > > term energy needs.  There are dozens of other things that take place,
> > > get Sapolsky's book if you want to learn something.

> > > After a stress response has ended, a biologically good approach is to
> > > refill fuel stores.  Since you have depleted primarily glucose stores
> > > (and a little bit of fat stores), this means bingeing on high calorie
> > > high sugar foods.

> > > So think about what happens in a chronic stress situation: you are
> > > constantly mobilizing (or at least trying to) energy stores.  In
> > > addition, chronically high cortisol appears to induce leptin
resistance.
> > >  This means that various neurochemicals in the brain (notably
> > > neuropeptide Y and corticotrophin releasing hormone, NPY and CRH
> > > respectively) are affected and this tends to stimulate appetite.  NPY
> > > tends to promote carb cravings in an attempt to raise leptin to
> > > normalize NPY levels.

> > > Chronically high cortisol also induces insulin resistance which means
> > > that your cells are essentially 'starving' even in the presence of
high
> > > cooking.net">food availibility.  This sends even more signals to eat more carbs
even
> > > though you may already be eating plenty.

> > > I haven't looked into it extensively, but it wouldn't surprise me if
> > > there was also dysregulation in serotonin levels with chronic stress.
> > > Low serotonin (think depression) tends to promote carb cravings as the
> > > insulin response helps to raise serotonin, at least acutely.  There's
a
> > > reason that depressed folks binge on junk food: they are
self-medicating
> > > with carbohydrates.

> > > In addition to this, some people appear to simply have biologies that
> > > tend towards higher stress responses (a researchers named Per
Bjorntorp
> > > has done a lot of work on this in terms of a neuroendocrine stress
model
> > > of obesity).  They not only have marginally higher levels of stress
> > > hormones at rest, but they tend to overproduce those same hormones in
> > > response to stress (Sapolskly talks about this in his book, some folks
> > > over-react both emotionally and biochemically and there's no real
> > > distinction there to the tiniest of stresses).  So it's a double
whammy:
> > > certain folks are not only running a semi-chronic stress profile to
> > > begin with, but they over-respond to even minor stressors which makes
it
> > > even worse.

> > > And now you booger eating morons know...the rest of the story.

> > > Lyle

> > Uh Lyle, maybe you could write a new book. The Booger Eating Morons Diet
> > Book.

> Boogers are a good source of glycosaminoglycans, good for connective
> tissue health.  Why do you think little kids heal so fast?  ;)

> Lyle

Well in that case, we should amend the target audience to athletes. We all
know the stresses they place on their connective tissue.

How about the The Booger Eating Athlete's Diet and Rehab Book for a
project??



Tue, 31 May 2005 05:07:47 GMT
 
 [ 52 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4]

 Relevant Pages 

1. George Bush - Failed Christian, Failed CEO

2. Lyle: any clue on how to bring down cortisol etc? was Re: Failing, failing, failing........and

3. Ten ways to guarantee that your support group will fail

4. Edward J. Stazel, a nursing assistant in Spokane County (NC10022432) failing to respond to charges alleging he failed to comply with a prior order

5. When Kaiser Managed Health FAILS - Jewish CA Community Rallies

6. AWSJ: Millions of Chinese men fail to find a wife

7. RESULT: talk.politics.aids fails 119: 43

8. Fwd: Anonymous message failed (wrong password)

9. RESULT: sci.med.veterinary moderated fails 403:314

10. Failed bypass grafts

11. RESULT: soc.senior.* reorganization all groups fail


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software