- This topic has 144 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by Aecetia.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 5, 2008 at 6:49 PM #164637March 5, 2008 at 6:49 PM #164949NavydocParticipant
There’s very interesting data coming out that if you cut your calorie consumption by approximately 20% you can actually add a similar percentage to your longevity.
The best thing you can do for your kidneys is eat a well balanced diet, including fat and carbs. These high protein diets put a hell of a strain on your kidneys while you’re on them. As far as your liver, the best thing you can do there is not drink alcohol.
Completely agree with you on the aerobic exercise. My comment was that the aerobics are not as important for weight loss as the strength training exercises are. As far as maintaining health, fitness and longevity, the aerobics are incredibly important. While there is no direct link between physical fitness and freedom from disease, there’s little question that if you’re physically fit you will have fewer illnesses and recover from them much more quickly. I also believe that regular aerobics also contribute to joint health, flexibility, and add to bone density. Although on the bone density issue the strength training is again more important. By the way, for those that want to defend alcohol for its cardioprotective benefits, regular exercise will do FAR more than a glass of red wine a day (sorry TG).
As far as the herbal stuff goes, no evidence that I’ve ever read says it makes any difference. I know it’s a huge industry, but until I see evidence I’ll save my money for my house down payment. Please note, I’m not casting aspersions on herbal supplements, they MAY turn out to be beneficial, but we just don’t know.
I for one plan to live a long time, and I find mixing anaerobic strength training with aerobics gives me the best chance to do that, and do it well. As far as the diets go, your body is an incredibly efficient nutrient processing plant. As long as it has the raw materials, and don’t fill it full of junk, it can make nearly everything it needs. I’ve been strength training for >10 yrs, have never taken any supplements, and would totally kick my 20 year-old ass.
March 5, 2008 at 6:49 PM #164959NavydocParticipantThere’s very interesting data coming out that if you cut your calorie consumption by approximately 20% you can actually add a similar percentage to your longevity.
The best thing you can do for your kidneys is eat a well balanced diet, including fat and carbs. These high protein diets put a hell of a strain on your kidneys while you’re on them. As far as your liver, the best thing you can do there is not drink alcohol.
Completely agree with you on the aerobic exercise. My comment was that the aerobics are not as important for weight loss as the strength training exercises are. As far as maintaining health, fitness and longevity, the aerobics are incredibly important. While there is no direct link between physical fitness and freedom from disease, there’s little question that if you’re physically fit you will have fewer illnesses and recover from them much more quickly. I also believe that regular aerobics also contribute to joint health, flexibility, and add to bone density. Although on the bone density issue the strength training is again more important. By the way, for those that want to defend alcohol for its cardioprotective benefits, regular exercise will do FAR more than a glass of red wine a day (sorry TG).
As far as the herbal stuff goes, no evidence that I’ve ever read says it makes any difference. I know it’s a huge industry, but until I see evidence I’ll save my money for my house down payment. Please note, I’m not casting aspersions on herbal supplements, they MAY turn out to be beneficial, but we just don’t know.
I for one plan to live a long time, and I find mixing anaerobic strength training with aerobics gives me the best chance to do that, and do it well. As far as the diets go, your body is an incredibly efficient nutrient processing plant. As long as it has the raw materials, and don’t fill it full of junk, it can make nearly everything it needs. I’ve been strength training for >10 yrs, have never taken any supplements, and would totally kick my 20 year-old ass.
March 5, 2008 at 6:49 PM #164966NavydocParticipantThere’s very interesting data coming out that if you cut your calorie consumption by approximately 20% you can actually add a similar percentage to your longevity.
The best thing you can do for your kidneys is eat a well balanced diet, including fat and carbs. These high protein diets put a hell of a strain on your kidneys while you’re on them. As far as your liver, the best thing you can do there is not drink alcohol.
Completely agree with you on the aerobic exercise. My comment was that the aerobics are not as important for weight loss as the strength training exercises are. As far as maintaining health, fitness and longevity, the aerobics are incredibly important. While there is no direct link between physical fitness and freedom from disease, there’s little question that if you’re physically fit you will have fewer illnesses and recover from them much more quickly. I also believe that regular aerobics also contribute to joint health, flexibility, and add to bone density. Although on the bone density issue the strength training is again more important. By the way, for those that want to defend alcohol for its cardioprotective benefits, regular exercise will do FAR more than a glass of red wine a day (sorry TG).
As far as the herbal stuff goes, no evidence that I’ve ever read says it makes any difference. I know it’s a huge industry, but until I see evidence I’ll save my money for my house down payment. Please note, I’m not casting aspersions on herbal supplements, they MAY turn out to be beneficial, but we just don’t know.
I for one plan to live a long time, and I find mixing anaerobic strength training with aerobics gives me the best chance to do that, and do it well. As far as the diets go, your body is an incredibly efficient nutrient processing plant. As long as it has the raw materials, and don’t fill it full of junk, it can make nearly everything it needs. I’ve been strength training for >10 yrs, have never taken any supplements, and would totally kick my 20 year-old ass.
March 5, 2008 at 6:49 PM #165052NavydocParticipantThere’s very interesting data coming out that if you cut your calorie consumption by approximately 20% you can actually add a similar percentage to your longevity.
The best thing you can do for your kidneys is eat a well balanced diet, including fat and carbs. These high protein diets put a hell of a strain on your kidneys while you’re on them. As far as your liver, the best thing you can do there is not drink alcohol.
Completely agree with you on the aerobic exercise. My comment was that the aerobics are not as important for weight loss as the strength training exercises are. As far as maintaining health, fitness and longevity, the aerobics are incredibly important. While there is no direct link between physical fitness and freedom from disease, there’s little question that if you’re physically fit you will have fewer illnesses and recover from them much more quickly. I also believe that regular aerobics also contribute to joint health, flexibility, and add to bone density. Although on the bone density issue the strength training is again more important. By the way, for those that want to defend alcohol for its cardioprotective benefits, regular exercise will do FAR more than a glass of red wine a day (sorry TG).
As far as the herbal stuff goes, no evidence that I’ve ever read says it makes any difference. I know it’s a huge industry, but until I see evidence I’ll save my money for my house down payment. Please note, I’m not casting aspersions on herbal supplements, they MAY turn out to be beneficial, but we just don’t know.
I for one plan to live a long time, and I find mixing anaerobic strength training with aerobics gives me the best chance to do that, and do it well. As far as the diets go, your body is an incredibly efficient nutrient processing plant. As long as it has the raw materials, and don’t fill it full of junk, it can make nearly everything it needs. I’ve been strength training for >10 yrs, have never taken any supplements, and would totally kick my 20 year-old ass.
March 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM #164781CardiffBaseballParticipantDoc there seems to be a lot of guys who now say do aerobics if you must, but it’s probably better to mix strength training with some anaerobic sprint training. It doesn’t have to be a sprint, but something that within 15-20 seconds has you maxed out. Actually the interval could possibly last up to a minute. Anyway I would suppose this kind of training is likely a bit hard for someone obese but most of the literature I am reading says steady-state aerobics aren’t that valuable. Also they seem to say if you feel you must, it might be better to take an hour walk up and down hills than to jog (harder on the joints. Curious of your thoughts.
Also while I am not low-carbing per se, when I do lo-carb I seem to feel a whole lot better. I do recall once getting a sore kidney so I backed off. One type of moderate low-carb diet says eat all the veggies you want, keep fruits to a couple a day, and try to lay off the bread/pasta/sweets. Actually one sandwich at lunch on whole grain bread was thought to be still within moderate lo-carb guidelines.
Again curious about what you think.
I think losing weight is more of a calorie-in type thing where you lose weight simply by cutting calories. It’s just that I seem to eat less when lo-carbing.
March 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM #165095CardiffBaseballParticipantDoc there seems to be a lot of guys who now say do aerobics if you must, but it’s probably better to mix strength training with some anaerobic sprint training. It doesn’t have to be a sprint, but something that within 15-20 seconds has you maxed out. Actually the interval could possibly last up to a minute. Anyway I would suppose this kind of training is likely a bit hard for someone obese but most of the literature I am reading says steady-state aerobics aren’t that valuable. Also they seem to say if you feel you must, it might be better to take an hour walk up and down hills than to jog (harder on the joints. Curious of your thoughts.
Also while I am not low-carbing per se, when I do lo-carb I seem to feel a whole lot better. I do recall once getting a sore kidney so I backed off. One type of moderate low-carb diet says eat all the veggies you want, keep fruits to a couple a day, and try to lay off the bread/pasta/sweets. Actually one sandwich at lunch on whole grain bread was thought to be still within moderate lo-carb guidelines.
Again curious about what you think.
I think losing weight is more of a calorie-in type thing where you lose weight simply by cutting calories. It’s just that I seem to eat less when lo-carbing.
March 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM #165104CardiffBaseballParticipantDoc there seems to be a lot of guys who now say do aerobics if you must, but it’s probably better to mix strength training with some anaerobic sprint training. It doesn’t have to be a sprint, but something that within 15-20 seconds has you maxed out. Actually the interval could possibly last up to a minute. Anyway I would suppose this kind of training is likely a bit hard for someone obese but most of the literature I am reading says steady-state aerobics aren’t that valuable. Also they seem to say if you feel you must, it might be better to take an hour walk up and down hills than to jog (harder on the joints. Curious of your thoughts.
Also while I am not low-carbing per se, when I do lo-carb I seem to feel a whole lot better. I do recall once getting a sore kidney so I backed off. One type of moderate low-carb diet says eat all the veggies you want, keep fruits to a couple a day, and try to lay off the bread/pasta/sweets. Actually one sandwich at lunch on whole grain bread was thought to be still within moderate lo-carb guidelines.
Again curious about what you think.
I think losing weight is more of a calorie-in type thing where you lose weight simply by cutting calories. It’s just that I seem to eat less when lo-carbing.
March 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM #165112CardiffBaseballParticipantDoc there seems to be a lot of guys who now say do aerobics if you must, but it’s probably better to mix strength training with some anaerobic sprint training. It doesn’t have to be a sprint, but something that within 15-20 seconds has you maxed out. Actually the interval could possibly last up to a minute. Anyway I would suppose this kind of training is likely a bit hard for someone obese but most of the literature I am reading says steady-state aerobics aren’t that valuable. Also they seem to say if you feel you must, it might be better to take an hour walk up and down hills than to jog (harder on the joints. Curious of your thoughts.
Also while I am not low-carbing per se, when I do lo-carb I seem to feel a whole lot better. I do recall once getting a sore kidney so I backed off. One type of moderate low-carb diet says eat all the veggies you want, keep fruits to a couple a day, and try to lay off the bread/pasta/sweets. Actually one sandwich at lunch on whole grain bread was thought to be still within moderate lo-carb guidelines.
Again curious about what you think.
I think losing weight is more of a calorie-in type thing where you lose weight simply by cutting calories. It’s just that I seem to eat less when lo-carbing.
March 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM #165198CardiffBaseballParticipantDoc there seems to be a lot of guys who now say do aerobics if you must, but it’s probably better to mix strength training with some anaerobic sprint training. It doesn’t have to be a sprint, but something that within 15-20 seconds has you maxed out. Actually the interval could possibly last up to a minute. Anyway I would suppose this kind of training is likely a bit hard for someone obese but most of the literature I am reading says steady-state aerobics aren’t that valuable. Also they seem to say if you feel you must, it might be better to take an hour walk up and down hills than to jog (harder on the joints. Curious of your thoughts.
Also while I am not low-carbing per se, when I do lo-carb I seem to feel a whole lot better. I do recall once getting a sore kidney so I backed off. One type of moderate low-carb diet says eat all the veggies you want, keep fruits to a couple a day, and try to lay off the bread/pasta/sweets. Actually one sandwich at lunch on whole grain bread was thought to be still within moderate lo-carb guidelines.
Again curious about what you think.
I think losing weight is more of a calorie-in type thing where you lose weight simply by cutting calories. It’s just that I seem to eat less when lo-carbing.
March 6, 2008 at 8:05 AM #16484334f3f3fParticipantI don’t see anything bitter or negative about the original post. There is so much truth in it, you’d have to be blind not to recognize it. It seems that his statements are not aimed at doctors but the “health care system”, just as was Micheal Moore’s Sicko. Having experience of health care systems in different countries, the thing that immediately strikes you about the US system, is that the word “care” sits uncomfortably with the notion of shareholders versus policy holders. Having said that, there is no perfect solution, and criticisms can easily be leveled at any large organization, where traditionally emotions run high. But on balance, an individual’s health should take priority over just about anything -it’s about survival- and a nation that offers health care as a ‘right’ gets my vote.
March 6, 2008 at 8:05 AM #16515634f3f3fParticipantI don’t see anything bitter or negative about the original post. There is so much truth in it, you’d have to be blind not to recognize it. It seems that his statements are not aimed at doctors but the “health care system”, just as was Micheal Moore’s Sicko. Having experience of health care systems in different countries, the thing that immediately strikes you about the US system, is that the word “care” sits uncomfortably with the notion of shareholders versus policy holders. Having said that, there is no perfect solution, and criticisms can easily be leveled at any large organization, where traditionally emotions run high. But on balance, an individual’s health should take priority over just about anything -it’s about survival- and a nation that offers health care as a ‘right’ gets my vote.
March 6, 2008 at 8:05 AM #16516334f3f3fParticipantI don’t see anything bitter or negative about the original post. There is so much truth in it, you’d have to be blind not to recognize it. It seems that his statements are not aimed at doctors but the “health care system”, just as was Micheal Moore’s Sicko. Having experience of health care systems in different countries, the thing that immediately strikes you about the US system, is that the word “care” sits uncomfortably with the notion of shareholders versus policy holders. Having said that, there is no perfect solution, and criticisms can easily be leveled at any large organization, where traditionally emotions run high. But on balance, an individual’s health should take priority over just about anything -it’s about survival- and a nation that offers health care as a ‘right’ gets my vote.
March 6, 2008 at 8:05 AM #16517234f3f3fParticipantI don’t see anything bitter or negative about the original post. There is so much truth in it, you’d have to be blind not to recognize it. It seems that his statements are not aimed at doctors but the “health care system”, just as was Micheal Moore’s Sicko. Having experience of health care systems in different countries, the thing that immediately strikes you about the US system, is that the word “care” sits uncomfortably with the notion of shareholders versus policy holders. Having said that, there is no perfect solution, and criticisms can easily be leveled at any large organization, where traditionally emotions run high. But on balance, an individual’s health should take priority over just about anything -it’s about survival- and a nation that offers health care as a ‘right’ gets my vote.
March 6, 2008 at 8:05 AM #16525834f3f3fParticipantI don’t see anything bitter or negative about the original post. There is so much truth in it, you’d have to be blind not to recognize it. It seems that his statements are not aimed at doctors but the “health care system”, just as was Micheal Moore’s Sicko. Having experience of health care systems in different countries, the thing that immediately strikes you about the US system, is that the word “care” sits uncomfortably with the notion of shareholders versus policy holders. Having said that, there is no perfect solution, and criticisms can easily be leveled at any large organization, where traditionally emotions run high. But on balance, an individual’s health should take priority over just about anything -it’s about survival- and a nation that offers health care as a ‘right’ gets my vote.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.