Oh, brother (I roll my eyes)

Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in
this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when
dealing with nutrition.. :-)

Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in
health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie, most people, on
the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of
journals, (ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you
really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for
anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl
referenced:

Basically, it goes like this. Researches noticed that obesity was a
rarity in the typical Chinese individual in rural areas. Furthermore,
even though they did notice that the typical Chinese in these rural
areas did in fact have a more active lifestyle, they didn't feel that
this contributed to the overall picture. Even though the author of
this study, like many early onset studies, was quick to point out that
more investigation needs to be done to know for sure, lets just assume
for this case he is correct and that he was just trying to cover his
butt!! :-)

I am very appreciative that you sent this journal, pearl, because it
really does help me to further show the rest of the people reading
this posting something that it seems that you already know very well,
which is that the "Power of balancing diets" is very effective!

It should be noted, though, that I really wish this author would have
been a little more specific on the food ratios involved, but lets just
make some quick assessments to the approx. diet ratios he provided and
assume an approx. 30/55/15 ratio. This means that 30% of the
individuals diet is coming from protein sources, 55% is coming from
carbohydrate sources, and about 15% from fat. No to bad balancing...
Also, the majority of all of their carbs and proteins are coming from
rich vegetables (ie. Very Low GI carb sources)... Even better!!! :-)

OK. Now, where is the "magic" here? Well, as my father used to say,
there is dozens of ways to skin a cat. In this case, they are doing
it in two ways.

Why is the rural chinese carb sources so good? (ie. low GI)
===========================================
Well, this journal does a wonderful job in explaining this.
Basically, for the rural Chinese, all their diet revolves around
non-refined carbohydrates, which they also use as their primary
protein source, and it all comes from rich plants. (ie. Think about
"dark" vegetables, such as spinach, broccoli, etc... great stuff!!)
As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is where the "basic thermo
laws" cannot be really be applied, because it would only disregard how
complex the human body is anyway. Don't believe it?? Well consider
this…

Lets just say that I ate 2000 kcal of broccoli at one time, which I
might add is about 3 1/2 pounds, but hey, lets say I am really
hungry!! :-) Would my digestive system uptake 2000 kcal?? Nope...
Why?? Well, its because your body only has a limited "window" so to
speak when it can extract energy from food, which is no more than 3
hours to 4 hours for most people. After this time, the food has past
on lower in the intestines and is no longer assessable for extracting
nutrients. For broccoli, it takes the body a long time to extract
energy from it, so it would not be able to get even 1/8th of the
glucose out of that broccoli that I ate.. Have no fear, though, as
the bacteria in your colon will have a party when they see the extra
carbs coming their way, and unfortunately, it will come at your
personal expense in the way of excess gas release!! Opps, sorry..…

Also, it should be noted that this 3 hour to 4 hour digestion "window"
is the whole reason why nutritionists want you to eat 5 to 6 meals a
day. Basically they are trying to get you to eat every 3 hours so
that that body has consistent levels of energy... Also, for most
people, the typical standing energy requirement is only about 300
calories over a 3 hour period. This varies per person, though, due to
what is known a a persons Lean Body Mass indicator, which is the
amount of fat you are carrying minus your total weight. This is the
main reason why nutritionists when to do a BF% test on you when you
come in.

So, then am I trying to say that when given 2000 kcal at one time your
body cannot take it all in? Nope. It just depends on the type of
food that it is getting…. For instance, lets just say that instead of
getting my 2000 kcal from broccoli, I instead choose to get it from a
high quality candy, which we are going to say is straight
dextrose/glucose. (ie. Lets think pixie sticks/smarties here). In
the case of the candy, your body would in fact VERY quickly absorb
that 2000 kcal. (ie. In about 20 mins assuming an empty stomach)
Unfortunately, though, because your system has no use for 2000 kcal at
one time, so much hits the blood stream so fast, when your pancreas
responds with in huge insulin spike to allow the new found energy to
be used, and then you fat cells would just have a party gobbling it
up!!! :-)
===========================================

Is there anyway I can slow absorption of high GI foods?
===========================================
Its funny you say ask that.. Yes it is very possible... :-)

Have you ever wondered why in the old days people would eat cookies
and milk? Well, even if they did not realize it at the time, what
they were actually doing was using the milk, which will turn to a
medium GI (ie. 32/100 in fact) solid in the stomach, and slow down
the absorption of the cookie. No, you certainly are not going to turn
the cookie into a broccoli type low GI source, but at least you will
not get a dramatic blodd sugar spike as you would without the milk.
Milk is really good at helping for slowing carb and protein uptake.
This is why body builders will blend their protein shakes with milk if
they want a slower protein digestion. Other good sources for slowing
nutriet absorbtions are any types of fats.... (NOTE: Obviously
unsaturated are best for you, but we will leave this discussion for
another day!! :-)
===========================================

OK. Then what can I learn from this study?
===========================================
Lets say we take that Chinese rural culture and "westernize" them a
little bit shall we?? (ie. Way to go McDonalds!! :-) Instead of all
of the wonderful rich vegetables they are eating now, how about if we
replace a little bit of that with some good old fashion "bleached
white breads", instant rice, baked potatoes, candy, ice cream, etc.
(ie. All High GI carbe). By picking all high GI sources, you allow
the body to dramatically increase that amount of calories it can
uptake at one time. Unfortunately, though, all you are going to do is
save this extra energy as fat!! NOOOOO.... :-)
===========================================

Finally. I like these diet ratios in this study. I want to give them
a try. Is there any downsides??
===========================================
Even though a 30/55/15 diet is actually pretty good, especially
considering the amounts of rich vegetables, the only real issue you
will have deals with the reduced proteins. By reducing your proteins
to such low levels, you will establish a much leaner muscular profile
and find it considerably more difficult to build additional muscle
mass at any real quanity when you are doing any high weight strength
exercising.

Hence, this would also seem pretty consistent, as the typical rural
Chinese is lean and slender. In fact, I think that most Chinese were
slender until our western concepts got a hold of them!! ;-) As long as
you are OK with the reduced ability for muscle tone / definition,
this, then give this diet ratio's a shot and see if you like them!!
Just the shear amount of vegetables alone is making me hungry!! :-)
===========================================

(NOTE: Basal metabolic rate and metabolic rate are for the most part
interchangeable. When a person is referring to Basal rate, they are
trying to say the "Resting Metabolic Rate", or another way of putting
your "average" rate throughout the day.)

Don't know if you were looking for this information, but if so, did
this help any Pearl? Got additional questions in reference to this??

Jim Carver


"pearl" wrote in message ...
One thing that's often brought up in a lot of bogus sounding promotions is
that there are apparently certain types of food or combinations of food that
can raise people's metabolism. Does that claim have any veracity?

No. No food (ie. Assuming no stimulants are added) is able to "raise
your metabolic rate".

...

Energy Balance: Interpretation of Data from Rural China
T. Colin Campbell, PhD
Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University
..
Data pertinent to the issue of energy balance and body weight
control obtained in a comprehensive study of diet, lifestyle and
disease mortality in 65 counties (130 villages, 6500 adults) of
rural China (Chen et al. 1990) were used for the analysis. After
adjusting the food intake data to represent a reference male
adult involved in the least physical activity and representing the
same body weight, total calorie intake (40.6 kcal/kg BW) was
about 30% higher in China when compared with an average
adult American male (30.6% kcal/kg BW), yet the body mass
index for the Chinese male was about 25% lower (20.5 vs.
25.8 kg BW/m2). Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5%
of energy), relatively low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in
fiber (33 g/day), representing a diet unusually rich in plant
based foods (e.g., including about 90% of the total protein).

It is believed that the excess energy intake among the Chinese
is mostly attributed to their greater physical activity, although
some unknown but significant and probably difficult to measure
amount could be due to increased energy expenditure
associated with non-post prandial basal metabolism. ......'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

...

J Clin Gastroenterol. 1986 Aug;8(4):451-3.
Energy intake and body weight in ovo-lacto vegetarians.
Levin N, Rattan J, Gilat T.
Vegetarians have a lower body weight than omnivores. In
this study the relationship between the weight/height ratio and
food consumption was evaluated in 92 ovo-lacto vegetarians
and 113 omnivores in Israel. The average weight of the
vegetarians was significantly lower than that of the omnivores
(60.8 kg vs. 69.1 kg), even though the vegetarian diet supplied
a significantly higher amount of calories than the nonvegetarian
diet (3,030.5 cal/day vs. 2,626.8 cal/day). Consumption of fat
was similar in both groups. Carbohydrate consumption was
higher in the vegetarians while protein consumption was lower.
The prevalence of obesity was significantly lower in the
vegetarian group (5.4%) as compared to 19.5% among the
omnivores. The lower body weight of vegetarians despite a
higher caloric intake is of considerable interest.
PMID: 3760524

Jim Carver wrote:

Way to go Pearl! It seems that we have a good number of members in
this group that have a pretty good understanding of knowledge when
dealing with nutrition.. :-)

Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in
health of some sort,

She does not. She performs foot massage
("reflexology"), and she renders quack medicine,
specifically using a worthless piece of pseudo-medical
equipment called a "zapper"
(http://www.ess-in.com/index.htm;
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cer/clark.html).
She has no legitimate medical training from any
accredited institution of any kind, and in fact has
never even attended university. She is the very worst
kind of fraud and quack. Her real name is Lesley, and
the total of any "professional background" is her
attendance, for a few months, at some "reflexology"
school in London.

She does NOT subscribe to PubMed, despite her linking
ot the *abstracts* (but not the articles), and she has
never read any medical article in her life. She's a
QUACK from start to finish, and a reflexive liar.

or just is a pretty smart cookie,

She is a liar and a QUACK.

most people, on
the other had, are very intimidated by reading these types of
journals,

Lesley has NEVER read an article in one of these journals.

(ie. Put to sleep after about 5 mins of reading. Can you
really blame them?? :-) I will try to break it down a little for
anyone else that did not choose to read the journal study pearl
referenced:

The journal article Lesley DID NOT READ, because she
has ZERO education that would enable her to read it and
make a bit of sense of it.


Basically, it goes like this.

Basically, it goes like this: Lesley doesn't know WTF
she's talking about with *any* of this.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 16:31:15 -0400, Jackie Patti wrote:

usual suspect wrote:

Ipse dixit. Any dietary intake (other than water) in a normal person
will result in serum glucose increase followed by a rise in insulin.
That's nature. Too bad Dr Atkins never really grasped it.

You're both wrong.

Protein and carbs raise insulin and blood sugar. For Type 1 diabetics
who inject, one has to take into account both protein and carb amounts
to determine the necessary amount of insulin. Protein causes much
smaller spikes that carb, but it has an effect.

Fat has almost no effect itself. Fat slows the absorption of carbs and
protein, resulting in a slower rise, but the same amount of rise occurs.
But pre fat has little effect on either blood sugar or insulin
production, it's just not relevant itself.

I never said that anything you eat does not cause an insulin response.
Heck, insulin responses have been documented for people who think about
food. Nonetheless, insulin response is much less for certain foods like
protein and fat.

By the way, talk about ipse dixit. The "usual suspect" has said nothing
but opinions. And really, all nutritional "science" is nothing but
opinions anyway. There's no real "science" involved. It's more along the
lines of "who's paying for this study."


Ipse dixit and an overly-simplistic explanation. First, you should
distinguish between simple and complex carbohydrates. Second, you need
to note that each of those causes a different surge in serum glucose
levels and hence a different reaction in insulin response.

For diabetics, complex carbohydrate doesn't help much, it's the same
amount of sugar, unless you're talking fiber which isn't processed by
humans at all.

My husband is not diabetic nor insulin resistant. He can eat several
oversized pieces of chocolate cake and his blood sugar does not rise...
though of course insulin levels do. But since he is not insulin
resistant, he doesn't need insane levels of insulin to handle the sugar.
His bg doesn't ever go over 100 no matter whether he eates well or
eats crap.

A small plate of pasta causes my blood glucose to rise to nearly 400. A
candy bar does the same. A couple slices of whole wheat bread, made
from freshly ground grain at home and a healthy as it can be, does the
same. There's a difference in how long it takes for my blood glucose to
go to insane levels, but it does regardless of whether the carbs are
"complex" or not. By the time it hits my blood stream, it's glucose no
matter how complex it starts out. Since I'm extremely insulin
resistant, any large dose of carbs causes insane levels of insulin to be
secreted - which don't work effectively due to the IR - and therefore my
blood sugar goes crazy. There are no "good" carbs for *me* except fiber.

I totally agree with this. This is why GI is bogus.


Third, you're
ignoring the fact that the body evolved to secrete insulin in response
to food -- period. Etc.

You're ignoring the fact that the majority of our evolution occured
pre-agriculture, when the defacto diet for the human race was a low-carb
diet. Agriculture has not existed long in evolutionary terms - we did
not evolve to eat hundreds and hundreds of grams of carb daily all year
round.

Approximately 25% of the populaiton is estimated to be insulin
resistant. Throughout evolution, this was a good thing... these were
the people who stored fat in summer when carbs were more available and
therefore most likely to survive winter. But given that the grocery
store is now available 365 days per year, the same ability to store fat
effectively is no longer a positive survival trait. Evolution has not
yet caught up with agriculture.

And won't for another thousand years.


Juices usually contain vitamins and minerals (apple juice excluded).
They can be part of a healthy diet in moderation.

On low-carb, I eat about three times as much vegetables as I did all
produce (including fruits and juices) before, so I doubt I'm getting
less vitamins and minerals by skipping juice.

Unless you consider destroying the pancreas, ruining my cholesterol
levels, damaging my kidneys, increasing my risk of heart disease,
potential blindness, increased infections, risk of amputation and an
early death to be part of your definition of "healthy" - juice cannot be
part of a healthy diet for *me*, unless your idea of "moderation" is
measured in micrograms.

Juices raise blood sugar much more than fruits, and you lose the benefit
of fiber. Juice can be a reasonable food choice for those whom are not
insulin-resistant, sure beats choices like junk food, but even for those
without insulin resistance, it's not as good a food choice as whole
fruit.


Eat fruit.

One should eat fruit. It's high in fiber and contains (egads!) carbs
which help the body function properly.

There's plenty of fiber in vegetables and in low-carb fruits (such as
some berries and melons). No one has to risk amputation, impotence or
blindness to get fiber.

There is *nothing* provided by non-fiber carbs to the body that cannot
be provided with protein and/or fat.

The notion that a low-carb diet is unhealthy is just ridiculous. I eat
about the same amount of meat as before and much more vegetables, in
place of starches and sweets. About the only "unhealthy" bit of my diet
is I could probably improve things by decreasing my dairy intake a bit,
I tend to go a bit overboard with yogurt and cheese and such. But
there's nothing inherently unhealthy about limiting carbohydrate.


When I said, "Eat fruit," I meant that it's much better to eat fruit than
juice. Juice has no redeeming qualities in my mind. I agree with you --
I feel so much better on low carb than I felt on low fat. Low fat sucks.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

Ignoramus20355 wrote:

That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

That question has been long answered:

lack of discipline
lack of self respect
immaturity

Have you not seen undisciplined, non self-respecting, immature slim
people? If what you mentioned was a real cause of obesity , such people
would not exist. But, I see loads of such people.

For me, with my blood sugar uncontrolled, it was hunger.

When you're severly insulin resistant, your body learns to overproduce
insulin, which can result in severely low blood sugar... which feels
like ravenous, starving-to-death hunger.

When you're severly insulin resistant, the high blood sugar does not
enter your cells properly, and they *are* starving. This also causes
insane, mind-boggling hunger.

This hunger cannot be "cured" by eating, blood glucose levels have to be
stabilized before it is cured. Until blood glucose is stabilized, the
person suffers severe and painful hunger. Willpower does not work well
in the face of pain.

I *enjoy* hunger on low-carb. It feels kinda good. I mean, skipping a
meal, or going a half day without food, the sorta empty feeling in my
stomach, and the weird growls... it's not painful at all. It's an
interesting feeling. It's not a strong feeling, it's easy enough to
ignore if I'm doing something else or just too lazy to feel like fixing
food... because it doesn't *hurt*.

The amount of discipline necessary to eat reasonably is much easier when
you're not in literal pain from hunger. The willpower involved is
minimal. Not that discipline isn't required, I still want a slice when
the homemade bread comes out of the oven. But it doesn't physically
hurt to deny myself like it did before.

My "natural" appetite on low-carb results is such that some days I have
difficulty eating as much as 1200 calories. It's just not the same
thing as attempting to restrict calories while suffering painful hunger
at all.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Crafting Mom wrote:

Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did
not before. You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise
the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had
said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by
exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control?

Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a day
you've exercised control.

Yes, but...

The amount of discipline required to control food intake with
uncontrolled blood sugar is such that I'd have to focus *tons* of energy
to do it. I'd not be able to be a productive worker, a good wife and
mother, nor get my butt to the gym regularly if I had to use up all that
psychic energy just to control food. Food would have to become my
life's obsession to control myself while suffering with uncontrolled
blood sugar.

If I *had* to choose between being slim and being completly
dysfunctional in every other area of my life, the only responsible and
mature decision would be obesity.

There is discipline required on low-carb, but a much lesser amount. I
can focus a reasonable amount of discipline to the subject of food and
still have plenty leftover for my other responsibilities and chores and
such.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Jackie Patti wrote:

Crafting Mom wrote:

Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you
did
not before. You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise
the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had
said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by
exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control?

Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a
day you've exercised control.

Yes, but...

The amount of discipline required to control food intake with
uncontrolled blood sugar is such that I'd have to focus *tons* of energy
to do it. I'd not be able to be a productive worker, a good wife and
mother, nor get my butt to the gym regularly if I had to use up all that
psychic energy just to control food. Food would have to become my
life's obsession to control myself while suffering with uncontrolled
blood sugar.

Oh exactly. No question about it. That is how I lost my weight. All I am
saying is at some point self-discipline and conscious choice plays a role.
Like yourself, I don't need nearly the mental energy I used to when my
blood sugar was out of control. For me, a low-carb diet comprised of
natural foods is a self-contained appetite suppressant. And I can relate
to what you said in your other post, about the type of *real* hunger that
between meals is extremely *tolerable*, due to it not being as intense as
the constant drive to eat eat eat. I often like that empty feeling in my
stomach. It's completely different from the insatiable drive to eat
constantly, isn't it?

--
The post you just read, unless otherwise noted, is strictly my opinion
and experience. Please interpret accordingly.

Bob in CT wrote:
Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank
too much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because
you consume
way too many calories.

That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.

Moral weakness?

Yes.

This is ridiculous!

Why?

Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight.

Why not?

And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either,

I know, but maybe some day you'll learn better.

as
the common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that
low fat = terrible.

Maybe someday you'll learn that dietary extremism of any variety (e.g.,
low-carb) is terrible. It'll take you some time to fall off this bandwagon, too.
Why do you like following dietary fads?

Ignoramus20355 wrote:
No, I did not. I simply made weight loss a priority. But I always had a
more or less same amount of discipline.

Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you did
not before.
of course.

You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise
the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had
said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by
exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control?

Nothing wrong with it, but the veggy freaks and fat taunters allege
that I did not have that discipline. I did have it.

With the exception of "pearl" and her fruity and irrelevant posts, the veggie
freaks haven't responded in this thread. I believe Jon's already agreed with you
about discipline. It's your maturity that needs a boost.

...
That's right. I was just hoping that somehow, I could find some way
to not be hungry after I ate enough to maintain weight.

Sounds like you also have some issues which have led you down the path of serial
eating disorders. You should try behavioral therapy or counseling.

Crafting Mom wrote:

I often like that empty feeling in my
stomach. It's completely different from the insatiable drive to eat
constantly, isn't it?

Yes, it feels interesting. Not bad or painful, just sorta... weird.
Like... who knew my belly made these weird noises and could feel almost
ticklish inside?

We almost need a different word for hunger to distinguish it from the
bg-inspired variety, which is so totally different.


--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Hello again Rubystars!

So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is
helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them
every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched
over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's
helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the
caffeine part was helping.

I thought this question would be coming. This was reason I put in the
NOTE statement in the last posting about noting that all stimulants
are not the same.... :-)

To answer your question. Unfortunately, no... Caffeine, by itself,
does not provide much of an elevated metabolic rate increase, but is
OK as an appetite suppression substance. To be effective, though,
about 100mg (ie A large cup of coffee) is required. With your Diet
Coke approach, you are only getting 31mg per 8oz serving.

Now, one thing that I got allot of, even from some doctors, is that
metabolic raising substances simply do not work. I find this very
comical in that metabolic enhancers was whole reason the amphetamine
class of stimulants were created. (ie. Remember the 70's when doctors
would just prescribe a "wonder pill" to solve any overweight
problems?) Amphetamines were so powerful, in fact, and addictive for
that matter, that the FDA decided that they were a little too risky
for most people to mess with... I certainly see and respect their
position on this matter... Just to note, I support the FDA on most of
their stances...

Just so that you can build some respect for some in the industry in
reference to metabolic enhancing products, the lets talk about the
most famous of them all, being the ECA stack.

(NOTE: Unfortunately, though, the Ephedra part of this stack was
banned by the FDA earlier this year, but you will see that knowing its
history will be helpful to you in looking at how the next generation
products work...)

What is an ECA stack, and how/why did it work?
======================================
The ECA stack as most people know it, actually stands for
Ephedra/Caffeine/Asprin. This blend was effectively brought to us by
the body building community in trying to develop ways for them to "cut
down" when preparing for competitions. No, not all body builders are
meat heads. Some are actually very intelligent! Did it work?? You
betcha it did... Very effective, and here is why..

I don't want to bring the whole "body enzyme" thing into the picture,
because I think it probably would just zone out most people, so I will
describe the process in a easiest manner possible. If you are looking
for a more textbook explanation of exact chemical releases and enzyme
blocking involved, let me know, and I can explain further. For now,
though, I will just keep it simple to understand...

Basically, Ephedrine (which is the active ingredient in Ephedra)
stimulates the autonomic nervous system in many ways. In fact,
ephedrine is one of main drugs asthma sufferers use everyday. When
you blend ephedrine with caffeine, though, the two mimic the effects
of true amphetamines, which as you know now are very powerful
stimulants. The thing to understand the most, though, is that when
adding these two stimulants together, there is an increased release of
a body chemical called "nor-ephinephrine". In addition, something
called the "beta-2-androgenic receptors" in the body is stimulated.
OK other than those two techno jargon words, that isn't too bad is
it??... Now lets look at what the Aspirin is for??

Well, the aspirin side of the "ECA stack" has been and continues to be
a little controversial. Basically, aspirin was added to the stack
about 11 years ago and they were using it to block an additional body
enzyme to aid its "effectiveness", so to speak, of the overall
process. Once again, if you want a more technical description of why,
let me know. Primarily the reason most companies left Aspirin in was
due to the fact that it was noticed that it was very effective in
going at abdominal fat sections. Why, this is, no one really knew for
sure, but the speculation was that it was due to the fact that
thinning the blood helps get additional blood supply to abdominal fat
section area. I personally think this is a little "magic fluff" for
my tastes, but most body builders swear by it, and who am I to
disagree with the people that know it best?? :-)
======================================

OK. If Ephedra was effect, why was it banned by the FDA?
======================================
Several reasons. Some of which were political in nature. It seems
there is allot of bad blood between the FDA and the largest supplier
of ephedra for normal consumers being Metabolife. Historically over
the last decade, it seems that the FDA has a track record of not
liking the herbal market simply due to the fact that congress never
gave them much authority over it. If you don't like this, then I
would encourage you to contact your senator and congressmen and state
your opinion. This track record is clearly established, and certainly
goes against the intent of what congress was trying to do when then
pass a bill that essentially created the herbal market... Overall,
though, this is still a small reason to the overall pictu

Banning Reasons:
1) Ephedra was primarily banned because of abuse by people that would
simply use it only and not improve anything else on the nutritional
and diet side. Not smart, because an ECA stack is certainly too
strong a stimulant blend to use for people who are not used to working
out regularly in intense manners.

2) Because of the increased "metabolic rate", its use would hamper
your body's ability to regulate body temps. This is normally not an
issue, but if you are on high doses and then go out into 96F
weather, you can get into a heat stroke situation very rapidly. Even
more frustrating to medical professionals, was the fact that when a
person did develop a heat stroke condition and were admitted into the
emergency room, they were almost powerless to do much about it other
than put the person in a tub of ice and hope for the best. I
certainly can understand how frustrating this must have been...

3) Like most good solutions, as soon as one good product comes out, a
large number of imitation products also came on the market. They also
were making all sorts of bogus claims about their product trying to
get an "edge" on the competition. Funny thing was, though, they all
were working off the same principles and typically the same dosages...

Was Ephedra that dangerous??
======================================
No.. If used properly it was not.. Most knowledgeable fitness
professionals agree to this fact… Interestingly enough, the Chinese
has used it for over 4000 years with little to no problems. I must
admit that more than one of Chinese immigrant has chuckled at me in
discussing Ephedra... "Stupid Americans" as they say it.. :-)
======================================

What is industries "new product" now that Ephedra is gone?
======================================
As of now, the jury is still out on where we go from here. Some
companies just increased the caffeine amounts. No smart, as this just
give people the shakes and creates a mild case of paranoia at large
dosages of caffeine...

Some, have replaced Ephedra which its "sister" herb being Green Leaf
Extract. Even though so far Green Leaf Extract looks promising,
because of the higher dosage required, it has been noticed to show
some issues on liver function tests. (ie. Slight liver damage)
Not too nice to think about, but remember that the liver is the only
organ in the body that can regenerate itself..... That certainly is
no excuse to abuse it, though… That's just not nice!! :-)

Also, another herb called Bitter Orange Extract is now being tried to
replaced ephedra, but it also seems to have allot of the same issues
as Green Leaf...

Finally, I should bring up Ginseng as another option. When people
talk about ginseng, though, they are talking about energy enhancing…
Also there are several different forms of ginseng, but the Korean
Panax Ginseng is clearly the best from an energy standpoint.
======================================

OK. Should I try a metabolic enhancer right now?
======================================
Personally, I wouldn't. Not until we know a little more about how
everything will shake out in the industry. Let some of those "amateur
scientists", who I admit are a critical part of science in general,
play for a while until some sort of standard principle is agreed upon.

If you want to try being one of these "amateur scientists", though, I
say go for it!! This risk profile is not too bad… Below is a good
link if you are interested. Also, just to let you know, most body
builders swear by products from a company called Ergopharm, (ie. Go
Patrick A. Go!!… Sorry, inside joke…) so if you do decide to go this
route, you might want to try their metabolic enhancer product. I
think it is called ErgoLean MC, but I am not sure and I know nothing
more about it.

Additional Quality herbal link:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/goalherbal.htm
======================================

Jim Carver


======================================
"Rubystars" wrote in message . com...
"Jim Carver" wrote in message
snip explanation
Helpful?

Yes, thanks.

Got any addition questions on this subject or something
else?

So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is
helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them
every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched
over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's
helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the
caffeine part was helping.

-Rubystars