Exercise doesn't cure obesity

I said it before, and I'll say it again, you must change your diet to successfully lose weight. Here's  more proof that exercise alone is not instrumental in helping lose weight.

"Physical fitness programs in schools improve many aspects of children's health, but they don't appear to combat obesity"

Thank you!  Sadly, the authors of this article and the doctors interviewed continue to cling to the idea that exercise has some impact.

"The failure to reduce BMI scores might have been because the programs did not offer enough vigorous activity [snip] the authors suggested.

[snip]

Louise Baur, from the University of Sydney in Australia, [snip] writes that reversing trends in childhood obesity requires a broader, long-term approach -- from healthier school meals to changes in how cities are developed so that they encourage more physical activity."

No, no, NO! Childhood obesity cures start IN THE HOME! (Sorry for shouting) Changing school meals helps and I am absolutely for PE because exercise improves one's all over health, but if we are battling FAT, and we are;

"The rate of childhood obesity in the United States has tripled in the past 40 years and similar increases are occurring in Canada and most of Europe"

then that fight begins at HOME. With momma and how she eats, her dietary habits, her food choices. It's simple, people!

No, THIS is why you're fat

I love, love, love the website This Is Why You're Fat. It's funny and a clever idea. But I am constantly floored by what folks think is UNhealthy.

Weekly you get the horrible carb bombs of breaded starches deep fried in death-by-soybean oil, weird conglomerations of sugary snacks and sweets, interspersed with the occasional monster food - a regular food, like a burger, supersized to the max. But the weird part is how people just cannot let go of the outdated concept that fat is bad for you.

Folks sitting in front of their computers of a morning shovelling in Cookie Crisp (for the virtuous:  whole wheat bagel with fat free 'cream cheese') are writhing with delighted revulsion at things like the Bacon Bomb and congratulating themselve for not eating such dangerous and fattening foods.

When are we going to UNlearn that fat and meat are bad for you?  How many people are going to have to die of carbohydrate-induced diseases before we get a clue?  Truth in advertising:


see more pwn and owned pictures

Epic WIN!

Alternately, we could just claim that we are not fat as Paul Campos seems to do in this article.  On the subject of 'bribing' scientists to support the views of an industry (in this case pharmaceuticals) - which I absolutely believe happens, BTW - wanders into the weird here with the so-called opinions of a fellow guest (supposedly a scientist):

"In this case, the program is to keep repeating the word "obesity" over and over again, like some sort of pseudo-scientific mantra, even though, as my dinner companion points out, there's hardly any evidence that the increasing weight of the population is actually a health problem"

WHAT? No evidence that increasing weight is a health problem? Hang on, let me clean my computer screen, here.  Did I accidently drink bourbon instead of coffee again this morning?!

From the CDC on diabetes alone:

"Diabetes affects at least 18 million people in the U.S., a number that has been growing more

rapidly than the general population since 1990. The rapid growth has occurred among those who
have the non-insulin dependent Type 2 variety of the disease (formerly known as adult onset
diabetes),"

[snip]
 
"The decade-plus growth trend

in prevalence, and its apparent acceleration starting at the end of the 1990s—which by all
accounts has continued into the 2000s—has led many observers to conclude that the U.S. is
experiencing a diabetes epidemic (Gorman 2003)."

[snip]
 
"Concern about growing diabetes prevalence is also based on observed growth in the prevalence

of obesity, a leading risk factor for diabetes, heart disease, and several other chronic diseases
(NIDDK 2004b)."

[snip]
 
"Figure 2 shows how the obese fraction of

the adult U.S. population, which grew only slightly from about 13% to 15% during the 1960s
and 1970s, rose increasingly fast during the 1980s and 1990s, and now stands at over 30% (CDC
2004b).

 
From the JAMA:
 
"There has been a marked increase in overweight and obesity in the United States over the past 25 years, with the prevalence of obesity among adults aged 20 to 74 years rising from 13% to 31%.1-3 This increase in prevalence of obesity has occurred among both men and women and across all racial/ethnic and age groups. Prospective cohort studies as well as national surveys have shown that obese individuals have an increased risk of several adverse health outcomes, notably hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), arthritis, disability, and mortality.4-8"
 
More gems from Campos's article:
 
""Do you realize," she (this is the 'well-known scientist', remember) asks me, "that in the United States somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of everyone in their 50s, in every ethnic group, is supposedly overweight?" I do realize this, but I'm enjoying hearing somebody besides myself rant about the absurdity of such things for a change.

"What sort of sense does it make to classify a normal physical characteristic of an entire population as a disease?" she asks."


Now, perhaps I am totally misunderstanding Mr Campos's point here. The article is, after all, about the buying off of the scientific community by industry, something that I wholeheartledly agree happens. But it seems to me that Mr Compos and his 'well-known scientist dinner companion' are both out of their minds or, hey, maybe it's an April Fools joke.

America is eating itself to death, a trend that began when we slashed meat and fat in our diets and began loading everything we put in our mouths with carbohydrates/sugars.  Saying that it's not a problem will NOT make it go away. If you don't think it's a problem I challenge you to walk into your local Wal Mart and stand in one place for a few minutes, watching.

THESE are average Americans.

And they are ILL.

And here's the thing: a bit of body fat is no big deal. I do NOT think the BMI is accurate; it's a tenuous guess, at best. Anyone with higher than average muscle mass would throw a "false obese" number.
Nor do I think that one's 'ideal weight' is correct for everyone.  Bodyfat is not the main issue.  Fitness is.  We graze on carbs all day, our blood sugar stays high, we get no exercise, we get no sunshine, and an increasing number of us are unhealthily overweight.

It's the truth and it's a problem.

Smoke? Fat? Don't exercise? No prob. Eat meat? DIE!

More on the "meat will kill you!" witch hunt.

Mark Sisson over at Mark's Daily Apple blogged the subject as well, enumerating several points quite clearly. He also posted a quote from the conclusion of the study that left me gobsmacked:

"“Subjects who consumed more red meat tended to be married, more likely of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, more likely a current smoker, have a higher body mass index, and have a higher daily intake of energy, total fat, and saturated fat, and they tended to have lower education and physical activity levels and lower fruit, vegetable, fiber, and vitamin supplement intakes.”"

Uhh ... whut? More of the folks who croaked had higher BMI, lower fruit and veg intake, and were more likely smokers?  And I'd bet my last dollar consumed mass quantities of carbs and sugars daily (this is NOT the profile of a health food nut, folks). BUT IT WAS THAT DAMNED RED MEAT THAT KILLED 'EM!

This study just went from useless to stupid. The authors invalidated their own study in that one paragraph.

Science or news?

If you take the new report - on how red meat will kill you - to heart (lol!), you really need to read Dr Michael Eades's post over on his blog.

He debunks the study itself and offers up two different studies, that came out at the same time, that gave opposite results.

Just a teensy quote that says it all:

"The point of this post is that you shouldn’t get wound up about a study that gets reported throughout the media because there are more than likely other studies that are just as well done and just as important showing exactly the opposite findings that the press chooses to ignore. You’re not seeing the science as it is, you’re seeing the science as the press wants you to see it, which, typically, is the way that confirms the bias of members of the press."

(emphasis mine)

And if you're saying to yourself; "Oh, Blue, you're just farked off because it said something bad about meat!"; yes, I am, lol, but that's not it.

I am at heart a scientist and I just can't take seriously a study that gets a load of 50+ folks to record their diets (from memory) then carries on without noting what else the people are eating (most likely the crap Standard American Diet).  There wasn't a control group, either.  Heck, it doesn't even distinguish between whether the "red meat" is a fresh steak or a 1/4 lb of Spam.  Was the "white meat" a chicken breast broiled skin-on or 4 slices of FrankenTurkey luncheon meat ("chopped and formed"!) loaded down with sugars and salt?

Not enough data = useless study.  Sorry.

Lacto-Paleo Burgers!

Yeah, I know, you're saying, "Wait, hamburgers are pure meat, so they automatically are Paleo, right?"

True, true, and I love hamburger (but not as much as pork, lol), in it's natural state but I came across this delicious sounding recipe from marc over at Feel Good Eating.  I happened to have a half-pound of minced beef in my fridge and decided to make these babies today.  Well, NOM!

Here's my version of the recipe:

1/2lb minced beef (full fat ground beef)
salt/pepper/garlic/whatever turns you on!
1 small egg
minced onion
1oz cheese of choice


I'm keeping my carbs as close to zero as possible right now so I only used 1 slice of a medium onion.  I also omitted the cheese but only on accident - I tried to re-create the recipe from memory. D'oh! I will definately use the cheese next time!  Here's my 1/4lb patties:

Yep, I took my meat outside to take this snap. What? The light was better, lol.  I kept a sharp eye out for the cats.

Mine is not grass-fed beef (alas), and obviously, I minced my onions a lot smaller, and mine would be a lot eggy-er (they were, I had to take care making them into patties and transferring them into the pan, but it was pretty easy).

I also fried mine as well. If you want to grill my version, you'll need to lay foil on your open grill. My George Foreman Grill should handle my softer version just fine.

Anyway, here's the loving application of bacon grease to my big skillet:

Mmm ... bacon.  Y'know, these would ROCK with several slices of bacon on them. I'll try that next time.

And here's the finished burgers. Take Marc's advice and don't overcook. I got a bit zealous with mine and cooked them a bit too done.

You can see where I piled up all the little goodies from the bottom of the skillet on top of the burgers.

And they were deLISH!  Even without the cheese, they rocked.

Good food called bad, bad food called good?

One word: NOM!



I resent, however, the "heart problem" comments. See how the twisted mainstream of thought has influenced americans? "X amt of calories, and x amount of fat" No mention of carbs at all.

That's a shame.

It's actually a deadly shame. Americans have been duped into thinking that if they toss out the fatty sausage and eat the carb-bomb of a bisquit that they are being more healthy. They mollify themselves that they are 'lowering their cholesterol', all the while getting fatter and fatter and continuing to die of hert disease in droves!

And speaking of America's skewed perceptions of foods, check out this article on how sugar is now replacing High Fructose Corn Syrup in some foods. 25 years ago, HFCS replaced the sugar, now they're switching back because the public now view sugar as 'natural' and healthy.

The sad part is that they are BOTH horribly bad for us and our children. America is in the death grip of it's SWEET obsession and switching to sugar is NOT gonna slim us down, people!

"Dr. Robert H. Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco Children’s Hospital, said: “The argument about which is better for you, sucrose or HFCS, is garbage. Both are equally bad for your health.” "


Americans are addicted to sweet. Hooked to the point where it appears in even savoury foods. And we wonder why we are fat? Check out a katsup label. Between the loads of carbs our children shovel in, and the sweets, AND the hidden sugars ... well, gee, obese kids? No mystery there.

Scientists have this reaction to the new sugar craze:

"To researchers and nutritionists who study obesity and the effects of sugar on the body, the resurrection of sugar is maddening.

Pat Crawford of the Center for Weight and Health at the University of California, Berkeley, remembers when sugar was such a loaded word that cereal makers changed the name of products like Sugar Pops to Corn Pops.

Even though overall consumption of caloric sweeteners is starting to drop, Dr. Crawford says an empty calorie is still an empty calorie. And it does not matter whether people think sugar is somehow “retro,” a word used to promote new, sugar-based versions of Pepsi and Mountain Dew called Throwback.

“If people really want to go back to where we were, that means not putting sugar in everything,” she said. “It means keeping it to desserts.”"


Thank you! (Emphasis above is mine.)

Now, don't get me wrong, here. I am absolutely against HFCS. It's higher in fructose which adversely affects the liver, it may contain mercury, and, insidiously, it's in every farkin thing we eat! Why does salad dressing and mayonnaise have sweetener of ANY kind in?

I would choose sugar over HFCS any day, but the point is that I don't eat sugar of any kind, and I strictly limit the sugars I allow my kids and my diabetic husband to eat.  The saddest part is that I have to scour labels all day every day to look for HFCS, sugar, and that devil, soy, so that my family won't be eating that deadly crap.

It's exhausting and it makes me angry and it's all the brainchild of these producers of corn, soy, and sugar who manipulate the masses into thinking these poisons are ok.

Do YOU try to limit sugars and carbs to keep your family healthy?

Frugal / thrifty, and healthy? Yep!

One of my fave diet bloggers, Mark Sisson over at Mark's Daily Apple, blogged this post that warmed my frugal wee heart: his Depression Diet - 6 ways to eat healthy on a strict budget.

Ahh, thrift and dieting, two subjects with which I am intimately familiar!

I especially like number one, and echo it. Keep it simple. I'm Paleo, so simple is my middle name. My fave meal is a huge hunk of meat, dry seasoned and fried or broiled, and raw or steamed veg. Nom!  Like my Dear Husband, Bodog: it's cheap, easy, and goooooood. LOL!

So here are my Big Three suggestions for eating healthily, or even to lose weight, whilst pinching pennies:

1) Grow your own.

Srsly. If you live in a tiny apartment 6 stories up, you probably have a balcony, right?  Even if you don't, I'll bet you have windows, lol! You can grow many veg and most herbs in containers quite easily. Lots of them will thrive on the sill of a sunny window.

If you have any land at all you can tuck a wee garden into any spot that gets adequate sunlight or just do container gardening on your patio. Watch for new construction or neighbours putting trees in and ask for those huge black plastic planters that trees come in. Or make your own out of 5 gallon buckets (almost any restaurant has oodles they throw away) or cut down rubbish bins or, if you're handy, make wooden planters and line them with thick plastic sheeting.

The added bonus is that a lot of your kitchen waste can be composted to make rich soil for your new plants. Super thrifty recycling person, you!

If you live away from town, check local ordinances and see if you can keep chickens or rabbits. Obviously there's the not-a-pet factor to be considered - you can't name them and love them, sorry - and the gotta-kill-them thing as well. I have no problem killing chickens but couldn't bring myself to kill our rabbits. You have to go with what you're comfy with.

If you want to do stock-keeping with out the death part, then you can keep chickens for eggs. They will be happy to provide excellent fertilizer for that new garden as well.

2) Buy in bulk.

Yes it's a royal pain in the arse to take that huge wodge of ground beef and divide it up into 1/4lb patties. Especially when the stores have those cute, already formed, patties (of, usually lower fat (nooo!!!) ground chuck) and, really, who has time? It's not that much more expensive and I've still got to pick up John's dry cleaning and take Noah and Trinyti to soccer and then there's the car making that weird noise ...

Snap out of it!  I'm busy as all hell, too, but it only takes 15 minutes to divide up those big packs of chops, chicken, or whatever into meal-sized portions, wrap, and toss in the freezer.  I do it whilst waiting for my coffee to brew in the mornings or waiting for my two youngest to finish their snacks.  The savings are substantial.

3) Make your own.

Mark has an excellent page on making your own condiments.  I myself just made my first batch of fresh, homemade mayonnaise. If you like soup for work, ditch that crap on-the-go Frankensoup and buy a Thermos like mine, make your own delicious variety, and take it with you. Freeze the excess so that you don't end up taking the same flavour 10 days in a row.

Take a week-end morning to cook several casseroles (my oven will hold 4) all at once, cool and freeze for hurry-up meals. Better yet, come in that afternoon and divide up the cooled casseroles into individual portions, wrap, and freeze. This works great for folks with only a tiny freezer. You can also put together one-dish meals and freeze them uncooked, for days when you're rushed but have the time to cook - but not prepare - supper.

Use that crock pot! I found mine (it's a 5-quart Rival Crock-Pot like this one) 20 years ago in a thrift store and it's been chugging along ever since. I've aquired 2 more the same way. You can toss a whole, frozen chicken in a crock pot in the morning and it will be a tender, succulent meal by suppertime. Nothing gets easier than that!

So those are my big three suggestions to go along with Mark's on how to save money on your groceries whilst staying healthy and even whilst losing weight. What do YOU do on a tight budget to keep healthy food on the table?  I'd especially love to hear from dieters!

"Veganism is eco-friendly" gets spanked

Brilliant brilliant post by Monica over at FA/RM on carnivory -vs- veganism and the impact on the environment.

"First, the assertion that humans evolved as vegetarians, or that their most recent common ancestor was vegetarian, has been blown out of the water. [snip] should people have the right to eat the diet they are designed evolutionarily to eat, the diet that is in their own best interest? Or should they eat a vegan diet to "save the planet"? [snip] If you believe a vegan diet is optimal, that's fine for you, but there are serious issues with the scientific basis of such an argument from an evolutionary and nutritional standpoint. And certainly such a diet shouldn't be foisted on humans everywhere for political reasons"

(Emphasis mine) Hear, hear! Its bad enough that our own government actually presents an absurdity like the food pyramid as fact (and foolish people eat it up, literally, and grow fatter and more unhealthy each day) without them wanting to legislate how we eat.

"How does the caloric intake differ between vegans and carnivores or even vegans and meat-heavy omnivores? If Good Calories, Bad Calories is any indication, those with carb-heavy (read: plant-heavy) diets are driven to ingest more calories. I've certainly found this to be true in my own experience. A meat-heavy diet, at least as far as my own personal experience, results in spontaneously reduced caloric intake of as much as 800 calories daily. That's something that is never accounted for in the "carbon footprint" calculations. And honestly, what quantity of greenhouse gases are produced by grain- and legume-fed vegetarians? Beans, beans, the musical fruit, the more you eat the more you toot. Seriously, eating high-carb plant foods causes the production of more intestinal gas. I'm not sure what the chemical composition of that gas is, but the presence of the gas is something everyone who has switched from a high carb to a low carb diet, or spends a lot of time around bean-eating vegetarians, can amply attest to."
 
And what about the millions of beloved pet dogs and cats - once top predators - who now eat diets composed primarily of grains? Are they not all contributing to methane production now?
 
"Another problem is the simplistic assumption about modern-day vs. ancient production of CO2 and methane from cattle. Actually, I'm not even sure the vegan "climate change" activists or their followers want to consider this. There are currently about 100 million head of cattle in the United States. Most of our cattle are grain-fed for at least part of their lives and grain-fed cattle produce about twice as much methane as grass-fed cows. However, they are not grain-fed their entire lives. My best estimate is that at any given point, around 25 million head are being fed this way. Estimates of the number of bison present in pre-settlement times is also as high as 100 million head, with bison being about twice as big as cows. [snip] I'm not sure how many head of bison were turned over yearly to predation or hunting. Today, approximately 1/4 of the national herd of cattle makes its way into the food chain yearly. But assuming that grass-fed bison produce similar amounts of methane to grass-fed cows, and that there could have been twice as much bison biomass as current cattle biomass, that means there were probably very similar amounts of methane being produced all along and that this hasn't changed much historically. This pretty much blows away the argument that we should consider cattle per se a significant problem when it comes to global warming."
 
And that's just the United States and just considering buffalo, not any other large herbivores that used to be abundant.
 
But her best points were about Soybeans and how much mechanation is required to process them into food products. I guess all those huge machines are eco-friendly?  NOT.
 
The best point is this: "Soy is often shipped up from South America, grown on land where rainforests once grew." I wonder how many veg-heads who constantly sneer at us meat-eaters know this? Acres and acres of primal forest are being cut down every day to grow the soybeans (which contain phytoestrogens, antinutrients, and toxins) that make up their fake so-I-can-feel-like-I'm-eating-a-REAL-burger faux Frankencrap.



Thanks to Richard Nikoley over at his Free The Animal blog for the link!

Paleo is not magic, just sensible.

Love this post by Skylar Tanner on the realities of a paleolithic / caveman / primal diet.

"why do I generally follow a paleo diet and encourage my clients to do the same? For my clients, it is for the reasons I listed above: increased protein and fat lead to a spontaneous reduction in caloric intake. On top of this, most people are eating a shit-tastic western diet to begin with, so any move toward preparing food themselves whilst eating more fresh fruit and veggies is a step in the right direction. Once they’re prepping their food, a person learns what real portion sizing is, reducing their crappy food chemical consumption, and, sometimes, learn to like different foods they never considered. A nice side effect is that people seem to unlearn the notion of “clean your plate”and stop eating when satisfied."

(*snort* "most people are eating a shit-tastic western diet to begin with")

"There’s nothing magic about paleo diets: increased fats and protein mean increased satity. Increased fresh ingrediants, better food prep, less processed crap."

Good points, (and I concur) though I agree more with Dr. Dan over At Darwin's Table:

"The controversial point he makes that I know will ruffle some feathers is that weight is all a matter of calories in vs calories out. I have written a post on this which can be found here. Speaking of simplistic arguments I think that this is definitely one that needs to be reconsidered by scientists. Obviously, energy and calories are important and saying that they are not is a little extreme. But we are not robots we are biological entities and therefore there is far more complex systems at work that can’t be explained by such a simple equation. "

I agree. Gary Taubes in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories talks about the importance of FAT and how you can eat an 1800 calorie diet of fat-full foods and lose weight but stall out on an 800 calorie diet packed with carbs. How can this be if it's just calories in / calories out?



"As for learning about portion controls. I still have huge meals and yet now I am losing weight. I have eaten limited calories in the past and not lost weight but on paleo it IS easier. What I have learn’t is to eat the right foods - but these are probably lower in calories."

Ditto this from my own personal experience. I also eat enormous meals. I eat only when I'm hungry and I'm like a snake who's eaten a rat most of the day - stuffed. I think it's not that Paleo foods are nesessarily lower in calories, but that what you eat satisfies you so you eat less per day.





Having said all that I actually really enjoyed his post. Its challenging


"

Too fat to work?

Here's a facer for ya:

Family who is "too fat to work" seek more money for food from government.

Philip Chawner, 53, and his 57-year-old wife Audrey weigh 24st (336 lbs). Their daughter Emma, 19, weighs 17st (238 lbs), while her older sister Samantha, 21, weighs 18st (252 lbs).
The family from Blackburn claim £22,508 (over $31,000) a year in benefits, equivalent to the take-home pay from a £30,000 salary.
the Chawners, haven't worked in 11 years, claim their weight is a hereditary condition and the money they receive is insufficient to live on.
Mr Chawner said: "What we get barely covers the bills and puts food on the table. It's not our fault we can't work. We deserve more.""

Setting aside the utterly ridiculous notion of a government that would completely support a family who claimed they were "too fat to work" and that it was 'hereditary", let's examine their diet, shall we?

"The family claim to spend £50 a week on food and consume 3,000 calories each a day. The recommended maximum intake is 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men."

Uh, OK, there's a red flag, there, folks.

""We have cereal for breakfast, bacon butties for lunch and microwave pies with mashed potato or chips for dinner," Mrs Chawner told Closer magazine."

DING! DING! DING!


"All that healthy food, like fruit and veg, is too expensive. We're fat because it's in our genes. Our whole family is overweight," she added."

No, you're fat because your diet is 70% carbohydrates.  Simple solution: quit whinging, cut out all cereal, bread, piecrust, and potatoes, add some leafy or cruciferus green veg and more cheap, fatty cuts of meat with the money that's freed up. Voila!  Cured! 

Emma, said: "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise" she said "We all want to lose weight to stop the abuse we get in the street, but we don't know how."

You don't have to exercise.  Just put the fork down.  Reduce your portion sizes, dump those carbs which are making you hungry, eat more fat and protein, and stop blaming everyone but yourself.

Article win, blog fail

Brilliant article about an epileptic girl whose life has changed since beginning a high-fat diet. Via Mark Sisson's Daily Apple blog, one of my fave straightforward health blogs.

And on a snarky note, if you're feeling brave, my food-related vent over on the Thrifty Mom blog.

Butter vindicated and a solemn vow

I've sung the praises of eggs and how they've gotten a bad rap, and now I've found a great article on the wonders of a truely delicious natural food: Butter.

(lol, before you Paleolithic purists jump on me, let me remind you that I'm a Lacto-Paleo type person. I do feast on both butter and cheese.  Mmmm ... cheese.)

Anyway, there are several intersting point and a sobering conclusion that talks about the death of the family farm (such as the one on which I live and raise my family) and how nice it was to have the natural foods like milk and eggs and veg readily available and free of pesticides and hormones.

Point number one: Butter does NOT cause heart disease, duh.

"Heart disease was rare in America at the turn of the century. Between 1920 and 1960, the incidence of heart disease rose precipitously to become America's number one killer. During the same period butter consumption plummeted from eighteen pounds per person per year to four. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in statistics to conclude that butter is not a cause."

"A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine."

Wowzer.  Those highly processed, hydrogenated grain/legume oils - especially soy - are killing us.

But the most sobering thing to me was this:

"Who benefits from the propaganda blitz against butter? The list is a long one and includes orthodox medicine, hospitals, the drug companies and food processors. But the chief beneficiary is the large corporate farm and the cartels that buy their products--chiefly cotton, corn and soy--America's three main crops, which are usually grown as monocultures on large farms, requiring extensive use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. All three--soy, cotton and corn--can be used to make both margarine and the new designer spreads. In order to make these products acceptable to the up-scale consumer, food processors and agribusiness see to it that they are promoted as health foods. We are fools to believe them."

Amen, sisters.

I don't eat corn, soy, or ... erm, cotton *imagines sucking on a cottonball* so I don't get any of that nasty over-processed fake butter stuffs.  But, for the sake of thrift, my family does.  Does yours?

I vow here and now to replace my family's oleo with butter (once the current tub runs out, natch). I'm also experimenting with making our own mayonnaise.  I'll have to juggle a few things to justify the cost of the butter.  Hey, perhaps the savings from making the mayo will help, LOL!

Hmm ... perhaps it's time to finally get a milk cow.

Live the Diet

I was visiting one of my diet forums and mulling over the folks who had "fallen off the wagon" (many over the holidays - my vent on overeating over the holidays here) and were back to try to re-lose their weight.  Many of them had done this many times.  Side by side with them are the post along the lines of "I know this isn't a quick fix, but do u think I can loose 30lbs by June?  i want 2 B ready for swimsuit season!"

In addition to the bad grammar, these folks are just a little sad.  They are kidding themselves and won't admit it. They are addicts just as if they smoked or drank.

I've said it before and I'll say it a million times: there is no magic pill. No diet on earth will allow you to lose weight, get in shape, and then go back to eating like you used to.

Some people can't seem to grasp that and hurl themselve fruitlessly into diet after diet (or like these ladies, the same diet over and over).

Read my lips: your diet is a permanent change in lifestyle. Find a way to eat that is healthy and makes you happy, move your body a bit, drink some water, and stick with it. Live the diet. It will become routine and you will be healthy. Aristotle put it better than I ever could:

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit."

 I worry that, with some, it takes a catestrophic event to nudge them into the needed lifestyle change.  My husband, Bodog is an excellent example. A type 1 diabetic, he loved and ate all the high carb death foods: boxed rice sides, mac and cheese, mashed potatoes, and loads of bread, buns, crackers and heavily breaded meats (when he ate them), almost no fruit and veg, sugary snacks and candy, bunches of frozen crap when I didn't cook.

Basically, the typical SAD (Standard American Diet).
He had a heart attack at age 34 (last year) and they put 2 stents in his heart.

I immediately put him on a version of my diet, slashed his carbs to under 80/day, increased his protein and fats, and today his cholesterol and blood pressure are normal, his heart echo looks great, and he feels 100% better. He also lost 25lbs.

I am NOT taking credit BTW, or even touting my Paleolithic / Low Carb lifestyle (though I do think it's healthier).  All the credit goes to him.  The person who had the wherewithal to start eating healthy and to stick with it. He has a wife and 5 small children who love and irritate him and he apparently would like us to keep doing that for a while.

Is there anyone who would be devestated it YOU had a heart attack right now? I'll bet there are a bunch. Think about that.  Think about them.