I just read a fascinating article in "Bottom Line Personal." It posited that one could lose, and keep off, weight by essentially having dinner at breakfast, and breakfast at dinner. (Lunch would be basically neutral, with just enough food to slake hunger.)
The theory is that, due to inactivity in the evening, the body cannot process a large dinner, converting much of it to fat.
The piece was very convincing to me, and I might give it a try.
Dinner at breakfast sounds quite revolting.
Actually, the best recommendation is to eat small meals throughout the day, and lay off of snacks in the evening.
The Reverse Diet: Lose All the Weight You Want by Reversing Your Meals
by Tricia Cunningham and Heidi Skolnik, MS, CDN, FACSM
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper." That popular saying goes to the heart of this amazingly effective new diet plan, which has people eat dinner foods for breakfast and breakfast foods for dinner--or choose their own menus from the approved food list. Dieters don't have to stress over counting calories or feel deprived at all--just reverse the order of their meals and watch the pounds drop away.
Tricia Cunningham developed the Reverse Diet, went on to lose over 170 pounds, and has maintained her weight-loss for over seven years. In The Reverse Diet book, Tricia and nutritionist Heidi Skolnik explain why the diet works--and how it also improves metabolism, body composition, and energy and promotes better health.
To help people get started on the diet, the authors provide numerous delicious meal plans and recipes, along with motivation, tips, and support. For people who are tired of diets that restrict favorite foods or require complicated meal planning, the Reverse Diet is just what they need--a program that's easy to understand, easy to stick to, and remarkably effective at promoting weight loss for life.
--reversedietsolution.com
RULE:
Eat less and move more....
cicerone imposter wrote:Actually, the best recommendation is to eat small meals throughout the day, and lay off of snacks in the evening.
For example: Sumo wrestlers eat once a day, this maximizes weight gain.
Miller wrote:RULE:
Eat less and move more....
And people think weight loss is complicated.....go figure.
i have a copy of a german postcard (ca. 1900) portraying one PETER VARADY , a hungarian KOLOSSALMENSCH (a large guy
) who weighed in at 416 pounds , had a chest measurement of 216 cm and travelled with a circus - i guess a fair number of people easily outstrip that weight today .
hbg
Here is a great piece that says a lot about Bush, et al.
^7/16/07: The Waiting Game
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Being without health insurance is no big deal. Just ask President Bush.
"I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said last
week. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."
This is what you might call callousness with consequences. The White
House has announced that Mr. Bush will veto a bipartisan plan that would
extend health insurance, and with it such essentials as regular checkups
and preventive medical care, to an estimated 4.1 million currently
uninsured
children. After all, it's not as if those kids really need insurance --
they
can just go to emergency rooms, right?
O.K., it's not news that Mr. Bush has no empathy for people less
fortunate than himself. But his willful ignorance here is part of a
larger picture: by and large, opponents of universal health care paint a
glowing portrait of the American system that bears as little resemblance
to reality as the scare stories they tell about health care in France,
Britain, and Canada.
The claim that the uninsured can get all the care they need in emergency
rooms is just the beginning. Beyond that is the myth that Americans who
are lucky enough to have insurance never face long waits for medical care.
Actually, the persistence of that myth puzzles me. I can understand how
people like Mr. Bush or Fred Thompson, who declared recently that "the
poorest Americans are getting far better service" than Canadians or the
British, can wave away the desperation of uninsured Americans, who are
often poor and voiceless. But how can they get away with pretending that
insured Americans always get prompt care, when most of us can testify
otherwise?
A recent article in Business Week put it bluntly: "In reality, both data
and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long
or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems."
A cross-national survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund found that
America ranks near the bottom among advanced countries in terms of how
hard it is to get medical attention on short notice (although Canada was
slightly worse), and that America is the worst place in the advanced
world if you need care after hours or on a weekend.
We look better when it comes to seeing a specialist or receiving
elective surgery. But Germany outperforms us even on those measures --
and I suspect that France, which wasn't included in the study, matches
Germany's performance.
Besides, not all medical delays are created equal. In Canada and
Britain, delays are caused by doctors trying to devote limited medical
resources to the most urgent cases. In the United States, they're often
caused by insurance companies trying to save money.
This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark
Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his
insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only
later," writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the
insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I
had, to avoid all the approvals by going to ?'Tier II,' which would have
meant higher co-payments."
He adds, "I don't know how many people my insurance company waited to
death that year, but I'm certain the number wasn't zero."
To be fair, Mr. Kleiman is only surmising that his insurance company
risked his life in an attempt to get him to pay more of his treatment
costs. But there's no question that some Americans who seemingly have
good insurance nonetheless die because insurers are trying to hold down
their "medical losses" -- the industry term for actually having to pay
for care.
On the other hand, it's true that Americans get hip replacements faster
than Canadians. But there's a funny thing about that example, which is
used constantly as an argument for the superiority of private health
insurance over a government-run system: the large majority of hip
replacements in the United States are paid for by, um, Medicare.
That's right: the hip-replacement gap is actually a comparison of two
government health insurance systems. American Medicare has shorter waits
than Canadian Medicare (yes, that's what they call their system) because
it has more lavish funding -- end of story. The alleged virtues of private
insurance have nothing to do with it.
The bottom line is that the opponents of universal health care appear to
have run out of honest arguments. All they have left are fantasies:
horror fiction about health care in other countries, and fairy tales
about health care here in America.
-------------------------------------------------------
And...the data from the above study was posted elsewhere on this site.
The study didn't differentiate, between routine, urgent and critical/emergency vists and as a result is worthless.
Top number : 65%...Australia
Bottom number: 35%...Canada
Nonsense!
Quote:This can lead to ordeals like the one recently described by Mark
Kleiman, a professor at U.C.L.A., who nearly died of cancer because his
insurer kept delaying approval for a necessary biopsy. "It was only
later," writes Mr. Kleiman on his blog, "that I discovered why the
insurance company was stalling; I had an option, which I didn't know I
had, to avoid all the approvals by going to ?'Tier II,' which would have
meant higher co-payments."
Basically, the professor at UCLA was cheap and wanted good health coverage but at a cheap price. I hope he's modified his policy.
Krugman is a syndicated columnist. This was taken from the NYTs.
Miller wrote:
Source of article?
Advocate wrote:Krugman is a syndicated columnist. This was taken from the NYTs.
What Miller certainly knows.
Miller wrote:Top number : 65%...Australia
Bottom number: 35%...Canada
Nonsense!
You ridicule away the numbers you disagree on yet you want a source for the article Advocate wrote? You do this very often actually, instead of bringing evidence to counter an argument you simply state that it is false, and it simply doesn't hold water in a debate. If you want to be taken seriously you at the very least need to keep the same standard of evidence that the other debaters keep.
Miller rarely, if ever, presents evidence for her claims. Her questions are so ridiculous, I let her questions stay unanswered, because most people with sense knows how ridiculous her questions are.
It's interesting that there's an article in this morning's San Jose Merc about "Universal coverage goal needs local help." To summarize, our county has cut the number of uninsured children from 70,000 in 1997 to about 11,000 today at a cost of about $11 million to have 100 percent coverage. What Miller fails to understand is that the majority of people, both democrats and republicans, by a majority of about 80 percent believes this is the right thing to do.
Miller also fails to understand the relationship between good health and school success; she doesn't give a hang about the future of our children and the economy, because she already has hers. Small minds always misses the big picture.
U.S. life span shorter
August 11, 2007 05:08:02 PM PST
Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.
For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.
Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.
"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
Haha, miller. You're grand.
