Another Healthy Living Thread

paint94979

Beer Nazi
Sep 18, 2006
11,715
8
38
37
Its just part of eliminating as many toxins as you can not sure why that's funny...

Also look into intermittent fasting like 18 hours of fasting with a 6 hour window to eat.
 

Mikey

Drag Racer
Jun 13, 2009
560
3
18
Pull ups
Push ups
Dips
Lunges
Deadlifts
Squats

Find you a barbell with some plates for deads and squats. Lightweight will still build good muscle


What he said
Plus avoid white foods such as sugar, all flour based products, dairy, white rice.

Potatoes, eggs, and avocados are good sources of protein and carbs.

All the sugar, flour, and white rice metabolizes into fat after just a small amount.
 

c20elephant

C20ELEPHANT
Apr 25, 2013
2,065
0
0
Phoenix, Arizona
Sugar yes, but what kind? Sugar in honey, fruits, naturally occurring is OK provided it part of the whole food and if diabetic you have to be careful. The one thing in the majority of processed foods that causes a lot more issues than you might think is high fructose corn syrup, diabetics are the most at risk and those not yet diabetic this stuff will help you along your way, google the junk you will be surprised.

Next time you're at the grocery take a look at the label on a say, a ketchup bottle then keep reading throughout the store, let us know what you find. Fill 80% of your diet (organic if possible, stay away from GMO's) with vegetables, cauliflower, cabbage, brussel sprouts, kale, spinach etc, raw almonds (roasted are a no-no for any nuts), hemp seeds, cocoa bits, acai juice. May I suggest Dr. Mercola, check out his website mercola.com lots of good info and products.

BTW Ezekiel bread bread does not metabolize like regular bread..
-
-
-
 
Last edited:

Mikey

Drag Racer
Jun 13, 2009
560
3
18
Sugar yes, but what kind? Sugar in honey, fruits, naturally occurring is OK provided it part of the whole food and if diabetic you have to be careful. The one thing in the majority of processed foods that causes a lot more issues than you might think is high fructose corn syrup, diabetics are the most at risk and those not yet diabetic this stuff will help you along your way, google the junk you will be surprised.

Next time you're at the grocery take a look at the label on a say, a ketchup bottle then keep reading throughout the store, let us know what you find. Fill 80% of your diet (organic if possible, stay away from GMO's) with vegetables, cauliflower, cabbage, brussel sprouts, kale, spinach etc, raw almonds (roasted are a no-no for any nuts), hemp seeds, cocoa bits, acai juice. May I suggest Dr. Mercola, check out his website mercola.com lots of good info and products.

BTW Ezekiel bread bread does not metabolize like regular bread..
-
-
-

I was referring to Man made sugars
Natural sugars don't break down as fast, but if you eat too much if them, you can gain weight.

I don't know about Ezekiel bread but it sounds like I'd have to go too far out of my way for it. I was referring to bread mad from any kind if flour.

Also I see you have done your homework on the condiments; they are packed with carbs, whether real sugar or high fructose corn syrup; both very bad for you. I tell people to read the back where the ingredients are and not the front of packages.

Bottom line is if God didn't make it, it's probably no good.
 

durallymax

New member
Apr 26, 2008
2,756
1
0
Under The Hood
By the best I meant the quality of the meat and not being raised in a farm full of chemicals and other harmful ingredients.
.

I was going to post a long response to this but then read your next comment. Not often you find someone that is not 100% in either direction when it comes to food stuff.

The term "chemicals" is dumb though. Everything in our foods, bodies and lives is made up of chemicals. Most chemicals can be harmful in one way or another, but are perfectly safe as well. Scientific illiteracy is a big issue that drives this food "craze". People don't understand chemicals, and can be easily led to believe anything. One that gets under my skin a lot is 2,4-D. Its the most popular broadleaf herbicide used in farming, however since it was a component of Agent Orange the public apparently has come to the conclusion we are using Agent Orange on our crops and this will cause health problems in everyone not eating organic. Now let me clarify this is not what "everyone" thinks, but I have heard this from far too many people. There are multiple issues with this belief though. Most importantly though is the fact that the issues with Agent Orange were not related to 2,4-D at all. They were related to the uncontrolled release of TCDD during the manufacture of 2,4,5-T which has not been used since the 70s.

The next issue with this is the idea that organic farming does not use "chemicals". Many are misled to believe this for some reason. Organic farmers are allowed to use organic chemicals, but not synthetic chemicals. Until recently the FDA/USDA did not really test or regulate many of the organic chemicals either, since they have started more research on them they have started to restrict their use. Which chemical is better? The money has all been put into synthetic chemicals because they are more effective with lower doses and fewer applications. Organic chemicals generally use older tech and require more applications with poorer results.

Of course this is not to say all organic farmers use chemicals. Just like non-organic farmers do not all use chemicals. The point I am driving home here is that unless you know the farmer, you don't know how the food was produced, all you know is the guidelines it is supposed to be produced under, and many do not understand those guidelines very well.

Another thing that really gets under my skin is the idea that we just blast our fields with every "chemical" under the sun for no reason, and over apply them. The best part though is that the public "sides" with farmers saying we are the "victims" and Monsanto is trying to line their pockets.

Unlike many homeowners lawns (one of the largest polluters of groundwater), we only apply what is needed. Not a little extra, just whats needed to get the job done. Why? Well it costs money and takes time. We don't want to waste either of them, so we only apply what is needed. We also only apply it to fields that need it. Periodic crop scouting lets you know if you need to spray a field or not. Every season is different. Theres some dumb farmers out there, but many are smart and don't just spray the same thing every year because grandpa did. We also don't just spray to eliminate a bug or weed just because. We keep up with current trends and if a weed or bug does not pose a yield threat we don't worry about it.

Fill 80% of your diet (organic if possible, stay away from GMO's) with vegetables, cauliflower, cabbage, brussel sprouts, kale, spinach etc, raw almonds (roasted are a no-no for any nuts), hemp seeds, cocoa bits, acai juice. May I suggest Dr. Mercola, check out his website mercola.com lots of good info and products.

COuld you elaborate on why you feel Organic and non-GMO is better?

I read through that site and its the same stuff as every other site. Not that its wrong, I just can't believe how many of the same exact stereotypes are spread across such a vast array of people. I guess when you have about 1% of the population actually engaged in farming, its easy to lead everyone to believe otherwise. I am not implying everything in modern ag is safe, or proper in everyones view, but it really bugs me how uneducated so many are about modern farming. If someone is educated on both sides and makes an informed decision, great. I have no beef, when they follow the herd my blood boils. The GMO topic I feel needs a lot more research from both sides, but when I saw that site stating that CAFO's force feed antibiotics I had to exit. Can't stand seeing yet another site misleading consumers against their nations family farms.

What people do in their own home is not my business, when they are "educating/informing" others, then I do feel compelled to educate them about the other side of the coin.

Bottom line is if God didn't make it, it's probably no good.

God didn't make a lot of the foods we eat. Corn is probably the best example of a man made crop.

Not only that butter from pasture grazed cows is SO much better than anything else.

Yellowchevy

In general or just the stuff you have bought? In General most can't tell the difference in a blind test, but since they made an "educated" decision they feel its better. The higher levels of "good fat" are sometimes there, but its not as drastic as with meat. Dairy animals diets are much different than beef.

It still comes down to the same issue I have with most people buying this stuff, they buy it because of the label. When you do this, you are no better than anyone else buying conventional products because you do not know how that food was produced, you assume you do, but you do not. Buying local or from a brand you know very well is the only way to know.
 

PACougar

Active member
Jun 27, 2012
2,105
1
36
41
El Dorado Hills, Ca
I was going to post a long response to this but then read your next comment. Not often you find someone that is not 100% in either direction when it comes to food stuff.

The term "chemicals" is dumb though. Everything in our foods, bodies and lives is made up of chemicals. Most chemicals can be harmful in one way or another, but are perfectly safe as well. Scientific illiteracy is a big issue that drives this food "craze". People don't understand chemicals, and can be easily led to believe anything. One that gets under my skin a lot is 2,4-D. Its the most popular broadleaf herbicide used in farming, however since it was a component of Agent Orange the public apparently has come to the conclusion we are using Agent Orange on our crops and this will cause health problems in everyone not eating organic. Now let me clarify this is not what "everyone" thinks, but I have heard this from far too many people. There are multiple issues with this belief though. Most importantly though is the fact that the issues with Agent Orange were not related to 2,4-D at all. They were related to the uncontrolled release of TCDD during the manufacture of 2,4,5-T which has not been used since the 70s.

The next issue with this is the idea that organic farming does not use "chemicals". Many are misled to believe this for some reason. Organic farmers are allowed to use organic chemicals, but not synthetic chemicals. Until recently the FDA/USDA did not really test or regulate many of the organic chemicals either, since they have started more research on them they have started to restrict their use. Which chemical is better? The money has all been put into synthetic chemicals because they are more effective with lower doses and fewer applications. Organic chemicals generally use older tech and require more applications with poorer results.

Of course this is not to say all organic farmers use chemicals. Just like non-organic farmers do not all use chemicals. The point I am driving home here is that unless you know the farmer, you don't know how the food was produced, all you know is the guidelines it is supposed to be produced under, and many do not understand those guidelines very well.

Another thing that really gets under my skin is the idea that we just blast our fields with every "chemical" under the sun for no reason, and over apply them. The best part though is that the public "sides" with farmers saying we are the "victims" and Monsanto is trying to line their pockets.

Unlike many homeowners lawns (one of the largest polluters of groundwater), we only apply what is needed. Not a little extra, just whats needed to get the job done. Why? Well it costs money and takes time. We don't want to waste either of them, so we only apply what is needed. We also only apply it to fields that need it. Periodic crop scouting lets you know if you need to spray a field or not. Every season is different. Theres some dumb farmers out there, but many are smart and don't just spray the same thing every year because grandpa did. We also don't just spray to eliminate a bug or weed just because. We keep up with current trends and if a weed or bug does not pose a yield threat we don't worry about it.



COuld you elaborate on why you feel Organic and non-GMO is better?

I read through that site and its the same stuff as every other site. Not that its wrong, I just can't believe how many of the same exact stereotypes are spread across such a vast array of people. I guess when you have about 1% of the population actually engaged in farming, its easy to lead everyone to believe otherwise. I am not implying everything in modern ag is safe, or proper in everyones view, but it really bugs me how uneducated so many are about modern farming. If someone is educated on both sides and makes an informed decision, great. I have no beef, when they follow the herd my blood boils. The GMO topic I feel needs a lot more research from both sides, but when I saw that site stating that CAFO's force feed antibiotics I had to exit. Can't stand seeing yet another site misleading consumers against their nations family farms.

What people do in their own home is not my business, when they are "educating/informing" others, then I do feel compelled to educate them about the other side of the coin.



God didn't make a lot of the foods we eat. Corn is probably the best example of a man made crop.



In general or just the stuff you have bought? In General most can't tell the difference in a blind test, but since they made an "educated" decision they feel its better. The higher levels of "good fat" are sometimes there, but its not as drastic as with meat. Dairy animals diets are much different than beef.

It still comes down to the same issue I have with most people buying this stuff, they buy it because of the label. When you do this, you are no better than anyone else buying conventional products because you do not know how that food was produced, you assume you do, but you do not. Buying local or from a brand you know very well is the only way to know.

Excellent post!
 

SmokeShow

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2006
6,818
34
48
43
Lawrenceburg, KY
I know PA, I LOVE it when he posts on these subjects!! In fact, I've used his post about the milk & "puss" on another forum to attempt to educate someone mislead & generally ignorant of the facts. ;)
 

c20elephant

C20ELEPHANT
Apr 25, 2013
2,065
0
0
Phoenix, Arizona
Sugar yes, but what kind? Sugar in honey, fruits, naturally occurring is OK provided it part of the whole food and if diabetic you have to be careful. The one thing in the majority of processed foods that causes a lot more issues than you might think is high fructose corn syrup, diabetics are the most at risk and those not yet diabetic this stuff will help you along your way, google the junk you will be surprised.

Next time you're at the grocery take a look at the label on a say, a ketchup bottle then keep reading throughout the store, let us know what you find. Fill 80% of your diet (organic if possible, stay away from GMO's) with vegetables, cauliflower, cabbage, brussel sprouts, kale, spinach etc, raw almonds (roasted are a no-no for any nuts), hemp seeds, cocoa bits, acai juice. May I suggest Dr. Mercola, check out his website mercola.com lots of good info and products.

BTW Ezekiel bread bread does not metabolize like regular bread..
-
-
-

I was going to post a long response to this but then read your next comment. Not often you find someone that is not 100% in either direction when it comes to food stuff.



COuld you elaborate on why you feel Organic and non-GMO is better?

I read through that site and its the same stuff as every other site. Not that its wrong, I just can't believe how many of the same exact stereotypes are spread across such a vast array of people. I guess when you have about 1% of the population actually engaged in farming, its easy to lead everyone to believe otherwise. I am not implying everything in modern ag is safe, or proper in everyones view, but it really bugs me how uneducated so many are about modern farming. If someone is educated on both sides and makes an informed decision, great. I have no beef, when they follow the herd my blood boils. The GMO topic I feel needs a lot more research from both sides, but when I saw that site stating that CAFO's force feed antibiotics I had to exit. Can't stand seeing yet another site misleading consumers against their nations family farms.

What people do in their own home is not my business, when they are "educating/informing" others, then I do feel compelled to educate them about the other side of the coin.


The thought did occur to when I posted about GMO's that a number of farmers were on this site so this was expected to some degree. I had not until just last night queried these terms (see below) on Google and the results are to say the least about GMO's are not helping our food sources at all. GMO's cannot be traced to directly to human diseases such as cancer etc. but I for damn sure know that it is not helping.

Are GMO’s allowed in Europe

<O:pIs Monsanto allowed in Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

<O:pMy reading and research for me was not based on just how good or bad GMO's are, mine started two years ago when I was diagnosed with two types of cancer that's when he GMO questions started popping up in that research. For about a year and a half, 40+ hours a week reading about cancer and what my options were. (Chemotherapy and Radiation not for me) It came down to several issues, my immune was a wreck, my past behavior in my 20's and 30's, and the quality of foods I eat so eliminating GMO's was a no brainer..</O:p
<O:p
</O:pSo you see, I'm not a sterotype, un-educated, did not do my research for the statement I made as you implied me of not doing/being in your post....</O:p
</O:p

BTW, did you know the NCI stops tracking cancer patients on their database after five years, why, you are either "cured" in the 5 years (term used loosley)or dead. Then after the five years is when cancers from radiation and chemotherapy and a myriad of other health issues start to show up, I even stated this to one of my oncologists, look up iatrogenic not a word you use around your doctor. You are more likely to die of the "cancer treatments" than cancer...

</O:p
 
Last edited:

durallymax

New member
Apr 26, 2008
2,756
1
0
Under The Hood
The thought did occur to when I posted about GMO's that a number of farmers were on this site so this was expected to some degree. I had not until just last night queried these terms (see below) on Google and the results are to say the least about GMO's are not helping our food sources at all. GMO's cannot be traced to directly to human diseases such as cancer etc. but I for damn sure know that it is not helping.

Are GMO’s allowed in Europe

Is Monsanto allowed in Europe

My reading and research for me was not based on just how good or bad GMO's are, mine started two years ago when I was diagnosed with two types of cancer that's when he GMO questions started popping up in that research. For about a year and a half, 40+ hours a week reading about cancer and what my options were. (Chemotherapy and Radiation not for me) It came down to several issues, my immune was a wreck, my past behavior in my 20's and 30's, and the quality of foods I eat so eliminating GMO's was a no brainer..

So you see, I'm not a sterotype, un-educated, did not do my research for the statement I made as you implied me of not doing/being in your post.

BTW, did you know the NCI stops tracking cancer patients on their database after five years, why, you are either "cured" in the 5 years (term used loosley)or dead. Then after the five years is when cancers from radiation and chemotherapy and a myriad of other health issues start to show up, I even stated this to one of my oncologists, look up iatrogenic not a word you use around your doctor. You are more likely to die of the "cancer treatments" than cancer...

First off, I did not state or imply that you were a stereotypical uneducated person who did not do their research. I stated that the site you suggested has a lot of the same stereotypical "facts" that can be misleading. I apologize if you thought I was saying you are uneducated, I was not. I did ask for your reasoning behind not liking GMO's and got very little info other than you "dont feel they are helping". Fair enough though.

As for Europe, that topic comes up all the time. Many are under the assumption that GMO's are banned in Europe. This is true but false. GMO's have stricter regulations in Europe and can be approved for use, as many already have. The regulations differ for the intended use of the product as well. Some of Monsanto's products are in these approved GMO's.

This brings me to my next point, a real blood boiler. MONSANTO MONSANTO MONSANTO. My god what is it with people and assuming GMO=Monsanto. I have a hard time debating those who simply go off about Monsanto and not the real issue at hand. Its like hating all Hybrid cars because of the Prius. There are a lot of companies that are involved with GMO's, many larger that Monsanto however Monsanto is the leading company in GMO seeds and makes headlines everywhere due to some of their shady business practices. I'm not going to say they are an upstanding company, but the issue is not the ethics of one company, the issue IS GMO's.

One of the hot topics many like to pick on is Monsanto's technology agreements. This is where activists try to make farmers feel good by stating we are the victims. They are quick to point out the few cases of farmers who were sued because of Monsanto's traits ending up in a neighboring field, etc. I don't know the details of every case, and there are always multiple sides to every story. What I do know is that the company has a right to protect their intellectual property. Without this agreement in place a farmer could buy the seed, harvest it and then save it for the following year. It is theft in a way and its very hard to police it and control it. I don't fault any of the companies for wanting to protect what is theirs. Do I feel everything is fair and that they offer this tech in an open market with fair prices? Not necessarily, but I don't think it would be fair to force them to not have any sort of protection on what is theirs either. If a farmer saves seed, plants it and then sells that for profit (in any form), that is a form of theft. It is a complicated situation, but it is theft none-the-less. If that farmer produced their own seed to begin with it would not be theft. Am I saying all of the lawsuits were warranted and fair? Nope, but look at every other industry and all of their lawsuits, then tell me there isn't a handful that seem unfair or "stupid".

GMO's and health have always been a big issue for some reason. Many scientists will agree that the direct effects on a human ingesting a GMO are far less a concern as the effects on other factors such as the environment. Something like BST for example shows no effects on humans in many, many studies, but the issues that can result from poor animal management can be amplified with the use of BST and that is an issue that can lead to a poor quality product and negative impact on the environment.

I too have been diagnosed with Cancer (Stage 4b Hodgkins) and something I've noticed is that people often look for something/someone to blame for their diagnosis. When I was diagnosed, I really didn't care what caused it because it had already happened. At that point all that I cared about was getting rid of it. The known causes for HL are few and were not things that would have contributed to me developing it. I got the lectures from some about doing the "natural" treatments and such, but with the advanced stage of my HL and the pain I was in at the time, I felt like taking the route suggested by my doctors. Am I saying "big pharma" is honest and that nothing else works? Nope, but I had more confidence in treatments that had been working at the time than I did in something I knew little about and would have to pay for out of pocket. I got the lectures about the natural treatments from a few people and to be honest I'm glad I didn't listen to them, one nearly died until he was able to recover to the point he could go through traditional chemo. Since then he's been much much better and was going through some research trials. As for me, the first traditional treatment regimen that lasted 6 months failed. The secondary treatment showed very little results. The third treatment showed great results after only two rounds and being a therapeutic treatment, had very little side effects. I'm now awaiting results tomorrow to see if I do radiation next, or get to go through with my Stem Cell Transplant right away. I'm all for finding new ways to cure different types of cancer, and if there's natural ways that work great. Personally though, i'm very young, just got married and i'm really not at the point in my life where I want to be one of the volunteers to "risk it" trying to find a natural way to cure me. What I do know is that stell cell transplants are currently one of the only proven long term cures for many types of cancers especially lymphomas. Without a transplant, the 5 year survival rate for people like me with Refractory HL that had two treatments fail is less than 8%. That number is not very old either actually.

I am not sure what kind of doc's you must have, but all of mine are very open and honest about risks with treatments, especially secondary cancers. I do not know if the NCI does or does not track anything after 5 years, but someone does because there is a lot of information about the risks of developing secondary cancers due to the treatments. Off the top of my head IIRC I have a 16% chance of developing some form of leukemia in the future. You know what? I'm alive today, and thats what matters. Once I have a PET come back nearly 100% clean, the doc isn't just going to throw me out the door and be done. They monitor you very close for the rest of your life, if you so choose. So while the risks of a cancer due to treatment are there, the odds of them catching it before it becomes a serious issues are much greater. The beauty of it all is that you can do what you want also, I have no say in it and I'm not here to tell you otherwise. Just stating what I chose and why.

Being diagnosed with Cancer leads many people to eating a healthier diet as well. This is where a lot of the GMO & Organic "feel good" craze comes from IMO. When many people decide to eat healthy they turn to the internet for research. What is the latest health craze? Organic, GMO-Free, Pasture raised, Gluten-Free (odd), all Natural, etc etc. So when these people are making their choices they automatically choose foods that meet these criteria. After a short while on this new diet they feel amazing, and proceed to tell others how great they feel. Often times they give credit to the criteria listed as the main reason they feel so great. However, if you look deeper into their story, you often learn that they went from eating junk, to eating less processed more wholesome foods with a greater emphasis on fruits/veggies that they often lacked before. I haven't run into many people that went from eating a very healthy diet, to simply cutting out GMO's and noticing they "feel better". Placebo effect yes, but if you do it blind many don't notice the difference short term. I am not stating GMO's are healthy, or make the world a better place, I am simply stating there is as much evidence proving them beneficial as there is proving them evil.

While on the topic of GMO's and cancer, its important to bring up the topic of GMO foods versus GMO's in general. One of the GMO's I have recieved during my treatments is Filgrastim which is used to promote white blood cell growth. Without this, harvest of stem cells from blood through apheresis would not be economical, and a true bone marrow transplant would have to be performed which is much more invasive and very painful. Insulin is something more people can relate to, a large portion of the insulin produced is a GMO. These are just a few of the things in our lives that we don't necessarily eat, but that still benefit from GMO technology.

What is my point in all of this GMO rambling? The simple fact that a blanket statement that GMO's are all bad, is very childish. GMO technology itself can be very beneficial, it can also be very harmful, as with many new technologies. More people need to invest more time and money into researching each GMO on an individual basis to determine the risks and benefits, then decide what to do with that GMO. Simply wanting a ban on all GMO's is not the answer, and it shouldn't be. Why go backwards on technology because some examples of it are not necessarily good. There is also the fact that negative and positive effects need to be strongly looked at. Hydric acid has killed thousands and thousands of people, yet it would be impossible to ban and its benefits far outweigh the risks. Scientific illiteracy is a big issue as I explained in a previous post.



I could continue one, but don't have much to debate as your post didn't contain much of an opinion of why you choose organic and non-GMO. I'd love to go more in depth on the organic topic, but am running short on time for tonite.

Good luck with your health.

Thanks.
 

durallymax

New member
Apr 26, 2008
2,756
1
0
Under The Hood
Since there's no response and Cancer is a "hot" topic, perhaps the decline in cancer deaths may help reinforce the point that GMO's are not directly killing us all due to cancer. The actual cancer rate number is a hard one to really make a statement on. Personally I say it has gone down because you need to consider the fact we are finding cancer much sooner in patients. This is largely responsible for the big drop in deaths. Overall the per capita cancer rate has stayed close to the same. GMO's became popular in the 90s when it comes to food. If they were all killing people I would assume the cancer rates would be climbing.


Once again I am not saying GMO's are good, I just feel the statements about the direct consumption of GMO products leading to increased rates of cancer is false or irrelevant. The majority of the population eats them daily without issue. I think the real issue with GMO's may lie in other areas versus the direct consumption of a GMO.
 

c20elephant

C20ELEPHANT
Apr 25, 2013
2,065
0
0
Phoenix, Arizona
Post the site where you pulled this information from for cancer rates and the five year window of tracking I mentioned has a lot to do with those numbers. Very few cancers have a direct cause but a lifestyle that weakens part of the body. A cancer cell is a cancer cell is a cancer cell (and it mutates)you have them in your body no matter what. When allowed to reproduce unchecked by the weakened immune system the cancer cells setup "shop" in the weakest part of the body. Plain and simple, you have a weakened immune system, so I doubt the GMO's GMO provide the proper nutrients their organic counterparts do to rebuild the immune system.... but hey your a farmer you should know more than me about nutrient value than I...

I also question why you have a button on Monsanto, has to be some connection between Monsanto and you, and you may blindly follow the bouncing ball of treatment your doctor prescribes for you, your choice. Have you read about the treatments NOT allowed in the US, some good reading.
 
Last edited:

PACougar

Active member
Jun 27, 2012
2,105
1
36
41
El Dorado Hills, Ca
Post the site where you pulled this information from for cancer rates, very few cancers have a direct cause but a lifestyle that weakens part of the body. A cancer cell is a cancer cell is a cancer cell you have them in your body no matter what. When allowed to reproduce unchecked by the weakened immune system the cancer cells setup "shop" in the weakest part of the body. Plain and simple, you have a weakened immune system, so I doubt the GMO's GMO provide the proper nutrients their organic counterparts do to rebuild the immune system.... but hey your a farmer you should know more than me about nutrient value than I...

I also question why you have a button on Monsanto, has to be some connection between Monsanto and you, and you may blindly follow the bouncing ball of treatment your doctor prescribes for you, your choice. Have you read about the treatments NOT allowed in the US, some good reading

I've never understood this. What are you basing this on? I've seen plenty of people say the same thing, but it always comes down to their own doubts without any facts behind them. I'm honestly not trying to provoke anyone, I would really like to understand why people go with their "feeling" rather than actual facts?
 

c20elephant

C20ELEPHANT
Apr 25, 2013
2,065
0
0
Phoenix, Arizona
I've never understood this. What are you basing this on? I've seen plenty of people say the same thing, but it always comes down to their own doubts without any facts behind them. I'm honestly not trying to provoke anyone, I would really like to understand why people go with their "feeling" rather than actual facts?

I spent a year and half close to 50 hours a week researching information after I was diagnosed with two types of cancer this subject popped up more often than not and I was not even looking for it. To date three tumors near my spine are no longer detectable via a PET scan, still working on the other cancer. I have had two neck surgeries with no Chemotherapy, Radiation and using high quality foods, vitamins, exercise, and specialized herbs known for centuries to treat cancers.

May I ask do you have any facts to deny the claims, it would take me months to go back through the thousands of sites I have read, ranging from the bunk sites to PubMed, spend some time doing your own research the result can be alarming if you go past the first 1500 google searches and keep digging.

Edit: How can you cure cancer when the cells are always in your body?
 
Last edited:

coldLBZ

New member
Apr 22, 2007
2,344
0
0
39
Alberta, Canada
Bump:)

So about a year later not much has changed. I'm 5'11" and 196 lbs.

I was doing good for a bit, got down to about 190 lbs from the diet changes and light exercise. Then some personal problems surfaced and I got down to about 175 lbs from basically not eating and not sleeping. Once I decided I was done with that bullshit I went straight into working 90 hours a week, and my diet took a beating. So basically I'm getting started over again.

So what are you guys eating these days?
 

cstephens93

New member
Oct 13, 2014
677
0
0
31
Tallahassee, FL
I've been cutting from 202lbs since April for a cruise that took place this week. Was down to about 171lbs last week. All with just a slight caloric deficit over time. Calories in vs calories out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

JoshH

Daggum farm truck
Staff member
Vendor/Sponsor
Feb 14, 2007
13,736
805
113
Texas!!!
I need to start eating healthier and working out regularly. I'm 6'3" and currently weigh 255. A few years ago, I was up to almost 300, and that was a big wake up call that I needed to do something. I started eating better, and dropped 40 lbs pretty easily, but I've slacked off and been at this weight for a couple of years now. When I joined the Air Force, I dropped down to almost 200 by the time I was out of basic training, and jumped back up to about 215-220 for most of the rest of my time in the service. I'd like to get back down to somewhere around there but with a little more muscle mass than I had then. I'm fairly strong, but I'd like to have a little more strength and flexibility. My mid 30s have definitely creeped up on me, and I need to make a change before my age gets the better of me. I think I'm going to look into some of the ideas shared in this thread.
 

c20elephant

C20ELEPHANT
Apr 25, 2013
2,065
0
0
Phoenix, Arizona
Just wait til your 50's, my BP 117/75 pulse at 84. If I lose about 5-10lbs it should drop a bit more. I'm at 175lbs. and the body index states I should be about 145-150lbs. Where I'm at now I'm size proportionate height 5'6" neck size 17" chest size 39" and waist is 34", 2 more inches off the waist and maintain that size into my 60's if I live that long....
 
Last edited:

cstephens93

New member
Oct 13, 2014
677
0
0
31
Tallahassee, FL
I need to start eating healthier and working out regularly. I'm 6'3" and currently weigh 255. A few years ago, I was up to almost 300, and that was a big wake up call that I needed to do something. I started eating better, and dropped 40 lbs pretty easily, but I've slacked off and been at this weight for a couple of years now. When I joined the Air Force, I dropped down to almost 200 by the time I was out of basic training, and jumped back up to about 215-220 for most of the rest of my time in the service. I'd like to get back down to somewhere around there but with a little more muscle mass than I had then. I'm fairly strong, but I'd like to have a little more strength and flexibility. My mid 30s have definitely creeped up on me, and I need to make a change before my age gets the better of me. I think I'm going to look into some of the ideas shared in this thread.


Lifestyle changes that need to be made are small and maintainable. There's no need to cut out stuff like sugar/flour/carbs completely. It's all about moderation.

As far as GMO's, Gluten, processed food goes, there's overwhelming evidence showing that these are safe. (Gluten is fine unless you have celiac disease)

If it is your personal choice to avoid GMOs, thats fine. Here is a collection of 600+ studies showing their safety http://gmopundit.blogspot.no/p/450-published-safety-assessments.html

If you want to learn more about nutrition one of the best sources is a guy named Lyle McDonald. His website is bodyrecomposition.com

Simple things like switching to diet sode instead of regular soda can help cut out calories (there are multiple studies showing the safety of aspartame)

Or not slamming down Waffle House after a night of drinking (once alcohol is in your system, oxidation of alcohol is prioritized over everything else meaning fat and carbs are more likely to be stored as dietary fat)
 

coldLBZ

New member
Apr 22, 2007
2,344
0
0
39
Alberta, Canada
Just a quick update:

I've been trying to eat a little better and cut back on the smoking. Haven't weighed myself in a while, but my blood pressure is 136/88 which is a big deal for me (used to be 190ish/150ish).
The other day I went to the gym before work with a co-worker who also does triathalons. He basically wanted me to run lol.
Ended up running about 2 miles, topping out a 6mph. Max heart rate was 153.
 

durallymax

New member
Apr 26, 2008
2,756
1
0
Under The Hood
Post the site where you pulled this information from for cancer rates and the five year window of tracking I mentioned has a lot to do with those numbers. Very few cancers have a direct cause but a lifestyle that weakens part of the body. A cancer cell is a cancer cell is a cancer cell (and it mutates)you have them in your body no matter what. When allowed to reproduce unchecked by the weakened immune system the cancer cells setup "shop" in the weakest part of the body. Plain and simple, you have a weakened immune system, so I doubt the GMO's GMO provide the proper nutrients their organic counterparts do to rebuild the immune system.... but hey your a farmer you should know more than me about nutrient value than I...

I also question why you have a button on Monsanto, has to be some connection between Monsanto and you, and you may blindly follow the bouncing ball of treatment your doctor prescribes for you, your choice. Have you read about the treatments NOT allowed in the US, some good reading.

Sorry, haven't been on for awhile and just saw this.

Here is one study worth the read on the declining rate of cancer.

http://m.cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/69/16/6500.long


Why do you feel a "GMO" doesn't provide the nutrients an "Organic" crop can?

The above question cannot be answered easily for two reasons.

First, what do you consider organic? Or what do you assume organic means?

Second, what specifically do you define as a GMO? "GMO" itself means basically nothing, even the governing bodies are having a very hard time attempting to define GMOs because it's not possible. Any way that you could label them would include too many big words for a label and would be appealing to consumers.

Do you define them as anything

Not found in nature?

That has not been genetically altered?

That has not been genetically altered by humans?

That has not been genetically altered through traditional breeding techniques?

That has been altered in a "lab"?

That contains transgenic DNA?


Transgenic DNA is what many say classifies a GMO, so what about other ways of editing genes without transgenic DNA. Is that GMO? What about mutagenesis?

I mention Monsanto as their name is synonymous with GMO in the "Anti" Crowd. Read through Mercolas site, it's everywhere. It annoys me to no end, and no I have no affiliation with them but I am patiently waiting for my shill check.

I am not blindly following my doctors treatments. Over a year cancer free though.

I have done a lot of reading on various things, perhaps you'd like to do some reading on "Dr." Mercola?

Sent from my SM-N910R4 using Tapatalk