<p>Regarding the Healthy Eating Plate, I wondered what the scoop is on dairy. I love dairy. Where would I be without cheese, cottage cheese, etc, sniff, sniff? And it’s good for calcium right? I already eat a lot of nuts. I’m not sure how many more of those I should be consuming. I feel very proud of myself when I eat spinach, lol. Anyhow, I do associate dairy with calcium.</p>
<p>Your thoughts?</p>
<p>Here’s a link to a program that aired today on the Diane Rehm show about the recent study linking red meat and heart disease:</p>
<p>[New</a> Research On Red Meat And Heart Disease | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR](<a href=“Diane Rehm”>New Research On Red Meat And Heart Disease - Diane Rehm)</p>
<p>Guests
Dr. Michael Lauer director of the division of cardiovascular sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Dr. Stanley Hazen chair of the department of cellular and molecular medicine, Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner Research Institute.
Duffy MacKay vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition.
Shalene McNeill executive director of human nutrition research at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).</p>
<p>I listened to the program while I was doing my run/walk this morning. I think one of the best and perhaps most appropriate lines came from a physician caller who questioned the focus on this one specific dietary finding, and likened the possible action of avoiding red meat because of one study to reshuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Interesting program, not so much for the study, but the variety of questions people had and the clear lack of definitive evidence of any links of diet and disease.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am unconvinced that dairy is unhealthful. I do agree with the value of significant calcium in the diet. Since most people don’t get calcium from bone and joint broths, restricting dairy in the typical American diet would likely yield minor calcium deficiency. There also seems to be good reason (regarding coronary artery calcification) to avoid calcium supplementation and the calcium fortification found in most non-dairy substitute products, like soy milk. </p>
<p>In defending the Healthy Eating Plate, I assumed Harvard’s School of Public Health was driven by the desire to lower intake of dairy fat, which is mostly saturated. However, [here[/url</a>] they cite possible positive associations with prostate and ovarian cancers. I haven’t looked into that claim deeply, other than when I first it heard it a few years ago amid some other claims that have been squarely debunked (mostly those used to defend a move from vegetarianism to veganism). Here’s one report: [url=<a href=“Dairy products, calcium intake, and risk of prostate cancer in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial - PubMed”>Dairy products, calcium intake, and risk of prostate cancer in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial - PubMed]Dairy</a> products, calcium int… [Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI](<a href=“http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/]here[/url”>Healthy Eating Plate | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health). I’m not sure if Harvard has any stronger ground (hopefully some non-epidemiological research) that it’s basing that recommendation on. </p>
<p>I don’t eat many nuts, mostly because I find it hard to incorporate them into my calorie goals; they are mildly addictive. I also try to keep my polyunsaturated fat intake low (which indicts most nuts, except tropical ones like macadamia that are very low in polyunsaturates).</p>
<p>“3 bagels would make my stomach bloat to uncomfortable proportions!”
-nothing happened, I probably will see a weight gain today.
My standard first breakfast while still in bed around 3:30 - 5 am is 2 pieces of chocolate. I have hard time consuming anything smelly, unless I have been out moving already. Eggs or anything of this nature do not even taste the same in a morning vs later on. Bagels were not my first breakfast or breakfast of the day, they were re-occurring meal of the day with more things in the evening in a real food category including my favorite prunes, no bloating after them either.</p>
<p>“Where would I be without cheese, cottage cheese, etc, sniff, sniff?”
-if you ask me, nothing compares to munching nuts, peanuts, almonds, others. That is were I am. But I have a little bit of cheese every day and if I remember, I would have a bit of plain greek yougurt, but it is better be 2%, fat free is not as tasty. However the dairy favorite is definitely an ice cream. So if you mean an ice cream, I understand you, if you mean other stuff, I can easily live without.</p>
Deborah:
From everything I can piece together, the only real knock on full-fat dairy products is digestive problems for people who are lactose-intolerant.
If that’s not an issue, dairy is fine – except that it is very calorie dense. Whole milk is almost the perfect food for someone looking to get bigger. Ideal for kids, high school athletes, etc. That becomes an issue for people who are trying to lose weight. You can rack up some serious calories with dairy and cheese.
I drink 5 to 6 ounces of half n’ half every day and typically eat 1 to 2 ounces of cheese – mostly in salads, occasionally as a snack. i don’t drink milk because I just don’t like it. When I buy sour cream (to make blue cheese dip or whatever), I buy full-fat sour cream (it’ actually hard to find!)
Someone on the board, on a different thread, mentioned she/he was at the gym with the goal of burning 1200 calories - it may have been one of you. I just wanted to ask those of you on this thread if you burn that many in your exercise routine, and if so, how? I was so proud of myself the other day when my treadmill said I burned 450 calories in an hour - but fitday says I only burn 88 calories when I do half an hour of resistance training. Since I need the resistance training as much as the cardio, I am trying to figure out to balance the lack of calorie burning on that with the cardio. I barely have enough time in the day to work out an hour, which I am dedicated to do, it would take me 3 hours to burn 1200 calories - and all of that would be cardio. I would drop dead at the end and not be able to work out for 5 days afterwards.
<p>Did my company health fair screening- fasting finger prick.</p>
<p>BP 110/62
Glucose 97
Total Cholesterol 237 LDL 127 HDL 87
Triglycerides 117</p>
<p>I think this is OK.</p>
<p>It would take me about a 12 mile run to burn 1200 calories, which would be about 2 hours. Calorie counters on machines are not at all accurate. Weight training burns fewer calories unless you get your HR up, but it is still great for you and essential.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>dstark</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>He is retired so he can spend as much time as he wants to on the cardio equipment.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I can do that playing 2-3 hours of singles tennis. Or 90 minutes of singles tennis with a five mile run afterwards. BTW, I usually need significant sleep after those kinds of days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That fitday estimate for caloric burn during resistance training is not worth much; it will vary significantly based on the intensity of the bout. I don’t think it’s very practical to attempt to modulate calorie intake based on burn during activity other than low-intensity or medium-intensity steady state forms of cardio.</p>
<p>If you’re doing cardio merely for the health benefits of exercise, a one hour session in which you burn 450 calories is plenty. Burning any more would allow you to eat more calories while not affecting body weight, but it doesn’t really have much benefit beyond that. Recently, I was energized to do two back-to-back days of long cardio sessions (~9,000 calories burned overall), and I was pooped out for over a week despite doing my best to eat in compensation. I believe one should exercise so that it boosts their energy overall.</p>
<p>Too much cardio will impact your energy levels otherwise, too, leading to lower non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT), which can sometimes just about cancel out the extra calories you burn bringing yourself to exhaustion in the cardio sessions.</p>
<p>photoop:</p>
<p>I’ve never made any effort to estimate how many calories I burn during exercise, even though I have worn a heart-rate monitor that will “calculate” that data for every workout I’ve done for three years now.</p>
<p>I don’t think any of the estimates are accurate. Estimates for strength training are notoriously low.</p>
<p>But, from a practical standpoint (such as fat loss), looking at exercise in terms of “burning calories” can be a trap. Fat loss isn’t as simple as calories in/calories out. The type of calories you eat make a difference and the way you burn calories also makes a difference – in ways that impact metabolism. Plus, it’s easy to think, “oh, I burned x amount of calories i the gym so I can eat an extra x calories.”</p>
<p>And, I seriously doubt that anyone burned 1200 calories in the gym, especially 1200 calories over and above what you would be burning just to stay alive on the sofa eating bon-bons. Exercise is almost always a small percentage relative to the overall daily energy expenditure.</p>
<p>MOWC:</p>
<p>Looks like a cholesterol blood test party day. Those numbers look good to me…</p>
<p>Of course, you could also run across a doc who would want a statin to lower the LDL. Although they’d probably just recommend that you could try to exercise a little more! :)</p>
<hr>
<p>The good triglycerides to HDL ratio suggests that you aren’t insulin resistant. The conventional wisdom is that this ratio should be under 3:1. Thomas Dayspring says you really want to see 1:1 and that the “average” ratios are too high because they include so many people with insulin resistance. You are very close to that 1:1 ratio.</p>
<p>I knew this was the right place to ask my questions. All of your answers are very intelligent and I appreciate them.</p>
<p>I am definiately trying to lose weight - also to increase health. I’ve been exercising for years and years but I find it very difficult to motivate myself and tend to be a snail. Especially on the treadmill. I am just a slow moving person. And I agree with the calorie counts - they can’t possibly be correct. I just have a feeling I am doing well below the average as far as intensity and pushing and that’s why my weight is going in the wrong direction especially as I get older.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that dstark does four or five hours of
cardio - you can do that if you don’t have a job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that’s one of the weight difficulties of aging: less intensity to burn calories, and a slower metabolism with which to burn them. </p>
<p>You don’t need to burn lots of calories to lose weight, though; it can simply make it a bit easier because your overall intake can be larger, although by exactly how much is hard to say because each body burns a different amount of calories doing the same amount of exercise. Although what interesteddad wrote is true about the adaptive capacity of the metabolism in response to different foods (especially regarding the thermogenic effect of carbohydrates and protein and the low food-energy value of fiber), changes in body weight really are about thermogenesis: burning more calories than you take in. Try tracking your calories for a bit while attempting to maintain your weight. Once you settle on an approximate maintenance number, lower them about 200 or so, and your weight should slowly drop. If you keep protein sufficient, your body composition should improve too, as muscle will be well preserved.</p>
<p>Thanks, iDad. That was sort of my take.</p>
<p>I couldn’t do it very often. I do four for five hours of cardio hiking in the White Mountains and it wipes me out – to the point of needing a complete rest day, no ifs, ands, or buts…</p>
<p>I think that kind of approach fits more in the “crash diet” genre and probably isn’t a sustainable lifestyle change, even if you have the time…</p>
<p>photoop:</p>
<p>I look at exercise as something that improves my fitness. Lean muscle is my friend It makes me feel better. It makes my jeans fit better. And, it has fairly significant impact on my metabolism which makes my body less likely to store fat.</p>
<p>I think exercise, and especially resistance strength training, is very important, but I wouldn’t want to over-sell it for fat loss. Finding a diet that works and keeping that under control is the thing that really makes a difference. Exercise can be a motivational tool in that – a way to focus your visualization of yourself as a “fit” person which helps when walking by the Pringles display in the grocery store (“fit people don’t eat Pringles…”)</p>
<p>Pounding out hours of low intensity cardio has not generally proven to be an effective long term fat loss strategy. It works at first. Everything works at first, but you have to constantly keep increasing the mileage to get the same effect. Most people run out of hours in the day or their knees start complaining.</p>
<p>Half hour of stretch/strength/core.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but to be successful over the long haul, you have to get your body into that negative caloric balance without starving yourself. When I was losing 90 pounds, I wasn’t starving because I was burning 500 to 1000 calories a day from my stored fat. Hmmm… that’s a lot of saturated fat. I wonder if losing weight causes coronary artery disease? :)</p>
<p>I believe that I was successful losing weight, in part, because changes I made in my diet and exercise made it easier for my body to burn that stored fat. Burning that fat made me want/need to eat 500 to 1000 calories a day less food.</p>