199.8 lbs
You know when Christy and I go out places and see people we haven't seen for the last 3 months, a question will invariably be raised, "Did you lose weight?" Why, yes. Yes I have. Then I start talking, flailing my hands and arms more than an entire all male hairdresser production of Moulin Rouge performed on meth. I get really excited and I want to desperately over share. Then the question becomes more pointed: "How?"
Now that's where I screech to a halt. My answer is short and succinct, "I eat like a pig and changed the way I look at food." That answer interests me so very little. What really gets my motor running is the 'why'. I know it bores the living shit out of everybody else but that's what makes this whole thing more of a science experiment and less of a diet. I have become my own researcher and I doubt there is anything about obesity and weight loss in the main media the last three months that has escaped my withering eye. We're talking everything from Sumo wrestlers doing marathons to new breakthroughs on highly resistance starches. Those types of things are usually starting points to explore some actual papers by actual scientists. Top men. Yes, top men. Heck, I have even clicked through on health ads that tout "The Most Amazing Diet Breakthrough!" Upon clicking on one today, I came across something curious.
The majority of these ads are lead ins to another long form ad that tells you nothing except vague enticements like, "What if we told you there is a particular sugar derived from sugar cane that will help save your life!?" To find out about these "amazing science breakthroughs" you have to order the pamphlet, brochure or supplement in its entirety. The ad I clicked on was no different except, armed with a bit of knowledge, I knew exactly what they were touting even though they didn't come right out and say it. They were talking about Policosanol.
Despite what wikipedia states in the link for Policosanol, there is a lot of self experimenters out there who have taken measurements of their cholesterol independently and have found it effective in lowering bad cholesterol while increasing the good stuff. Why Cuban scientists have found it effective while the remainder of western scientists do not is anybody's guess. My guess? Policosanol is relatively cheap while similar pharmaceutical drugs are incredibly expensive. I have also come to question how experiments are done and who pays for them directly or indirectly. You should too. It was only 50 years ago we were being told about the incredible health benefits of smoking. Why you have phenylephrine in your over the counter cold medicine now as opposed to pseudoephedrine has more to do with the German drug company GMBH's lobbying than any real need to slow methamphetamine use and production in the United States. By the way, phenylephrine was rejected time and time again by companies over the past 30 years because it was ineffective. In 2006 another study still found it to be ineffective.
Why is your Nyquil filled with the stuff then? GMBH has pushed for legislation at the state and federal level to eliminate pseudoehpedrine under the guise that it was a way of controlling the growing meth problem. Why? So they can replace it with the only thing out there - phenylephrine. It's one of those win-win scenarios for everyone. The state looks like it is trying to control a growing problem and GMBH gets to sell it's patented molecule almost exclusively to the entire population of the United States.
Pharmaceuticals like to play both sides of the fence - the supplement side and the drug side. If you have joint pain you simply could increase your dietary intake of mustard. But that's too simple isn't it? Why not pick up some Glucosamine instead? It's natural and touted everywhere but mustard seed extract is something that has been known about for years and is far cheaper. See how that works? It's one of the few instances where the 'how' trumps the 'why'.
With this experiment I have been driven to find out why certain things work while other things don't. Some things are so common sense while others take a bit of digging. I like the digging part. It's what drives archaeologists, physicists and philosophers. When you find out 'why', then you have the key to even the most complex and confusing of subjects. Believe me, new dietary information comes fast and furious and trying to figure it all out can be like reading Chinese rocket manuals translated back and forth from Sanskrit. The body is a complex system and anyone who will try and tell you otherwise should not be trusted. They will get you to focus on the 'how' part without ever mentioning the 'why' part.
Now that's where I screech to a halt. My answer is short and succinct, "I eat like a pig and changed the way I look at food." That answer interests me so very little. What really gets my motor running is the 'why'. I know it bores the living shit out of everybody else but that's what makes this whole thing more of a science experiment and less of a diet. I have become my own researcher and I doubt there is anything about obesity and weight loss in the main media the last three months that has escaped my withering eye. We're talking everything from Sumo wrestlers doing marathons to new breakthroughs on highly resistance starches. Those types of things are usually starting points to explore some actual papers by actual scientists. Top men. Yes, top men. Heck, I have even clicked through on health ads that tout "The Most Amazing Diet Breakthrough!" Upon clicking on one today, I came across something curious.
The majority of these ads are lead ins to another long form ad that tells you nothing except vague enticements like, "What if we told you there is a particular sugar derived from sugar cane that will help save your life!?" To find out about these "amazing science breakthroughs" you have to order the pamphlet, brochure or supplement in its entirety. The ad I clicked on was no different except, armed with a bit of knowledge, I knew exactly what they were touting even though they didn't come right out and say it. They were talking about Policosanol.
Despite what wikipedia states in the link for Policosanol, there is a lot of self experimenters out there who have taken measurements of their cholesterol independently and have found it effective in lowering bad cholesterol while increasing the good stuff. Why Cuban scientists have found it effective while the remainder of western scientists do not is anybody's guess. My guess? Policosanol is relatively cheap while similar pharmaceutical drugs are incredibly expensive. I have also come to question how experiments are done and who pays for them directly or indirectly. You should too. It was only 50 years ago we were being told about the incredible health benefits of smoking. Why you have phenylephrine in your over the counter cold medicine now as opposed to pseudoephedrine has more to do with the German drug company GMBH's lobbying than any real need to slow methamphetamine use and production in the United States. By the way, phenylephrine was rejected time and time again by companies over the past 30 years because it was ineffective. In 2006 another study still found it to be ineffective.
Why is your Nyquil filled with the stuff then? GMBH has pushed for legislation at the state and federal level to eliminate pseudoehpedrine under the guise that it was a way of controlling the growing meth problem. Why? So they can replace it with the only thing out there - phenylephrine. It's one of those win-win scenarios for everyone. The state looks like it is trying to control a growing problem and GMBH gets to sell it's patented molecule almost exclusively to the entire population of the United States.
Pharmaceuticals like to play both sides of the fence - the supplement side and the drug side. If you have joint pain you simply could increase your dietary intake of mustard. But that's too simple isn't it? Why not pick up some Glucosamine instead? It's natural and touted everywhere but mustard seed extract is something that has been known about for years and is far cheaper. See how that works? It's one of the few instances where the 'how' trumps the 'why'.
With this experiment I have been driven to find out why certain things work while other things don't. Some things are so common sense while others take a bit of digging. I like the digging part. It's what drives archaeologists, physicists and philosophers. When you find out 'why', then you have the key to even the most complex and confusing of subjects. Believe me, new dietary information comes fast and furious and trying to figure it all out can be like reading Chinese rocket manuals translated back and forth from Sanskrit. The body is a complex system and anyone who will try and tell you otherwise should not be trusted. They will get you to focus on the 'how' part without ever mentioning the 'why' part.
The only varmints that are more weaselly then the pharmaceuticals are the oil barons. There is more money in the symptoms then the cure.
ReplyDelete**Love some Lennox**
Aspartame (aka "Nutrasweet") was classified as a TOXIN when it first was introduced to the FDA in 1973.
ReplyDeleteFast forward to 1981. Ron Reagan is in the White House. His golfing partner also so happened to be the head of Searle corporation, manufacturers of...you guessed it...Nutrasweet.
Suddenly, it was no longer a toxin, but the great hope for weight loss for all Americans! "Introducing Diet Coke...you're gonna drink it just for the taste of it," so went the 1982 introductory jingle.
Never mind that it is banned pretty much everywhere else. And never mind that I am hopelessly addicted to the stuff.
Let's not forget that Searle is also a pharma. The things that phenylalanine and sucralose (Splenda) do to your personal biome is frightening. I try to avoid both as much as possible and "treat" myself once a week. A diet soda can stop a diet in a heartbeat. I have taken to sauerkraut and greek yogurt to counteract the effects. It seems to be the antidote LOL.
ReplyDelete