Confused about the whole calories in/out

[HomersGone]

so according to different calcultations (different forumlas used)  my BMR is 1700-1600, i eat 1400 calories per day and i burn 400calories/day from excercise according to fitbit. Im aiming for a weight loss of 0.5kg/week, it says i'm under budget all the time still ahvent lost a thing 🙂

calorie out is all the time around 3k thats including my BMR i guess + excercises.

i think the weightlifting mode is overestimating the calories otherwise i should be lean by now 😉

[oh_suzanney]

There are a few things that could be going on here:

1) you are underestimating your calories in.

2) you are overestimating your calories out 

3) you have an underlying health problem that needs to be assessed by your doctor.

Calories out is your TDEE. Includes BMR, non-exercise calorie burn, and exercise. Are you noticing that clothes are fitting better, even though the scale isn't showing a weight loss? As your body composition changes, the scale will lie to you.

My advice would be to be strict with yourself for about a month with measuring/weighing food and logging it, as well as trying to cut out white flour, white sugar, and alcohol (if applicable). See if that helps. Everything changed for me when I got a food scale and started using it for everything that wasn't a single-serve package or otherwise easily quantifiable. What I was "estimating" at 4oz of chicken breast, or 1/2 cup of rice, etc.,was easily double that, and thus, double the calories.

ALSO - you need to make sure you're eating enough that you're "in zone" for your weightloss goals. Eating too little is counter-productive, and many people say you shouldn't eat below your BMR. Side note: your BMR doesn't include calories burned while doing everyday tasks like moving around, walking through shops, etc. It is, simply put, just the calories your body uses to keep you alive and keep all your organs functioning. You don't cut back on intake based on BMR, you cut back on intake based on TDEE.

Here's a handy TDEE calculator and accompanying article.

https://healthyeater.com/important-tool-weight-loss

Good luck!

[bikerhiker]

---

@HomersGone wrote:

so according to different calcultations (different forumlas used)  my BMR is 1700-1600, i eat 1400 calories per day and i burn 400calories/day from excercise according to fitbit. Im aiming for a weight loss of 0.5kg/week, it says i'm under budget all the time still ahvent lost a thing 🙂

calorie out is all the time around 3k thats including my BMR i guess + excercises.

i think the weightlifting mode is overestimating the calories otherwise i should be lean by now 😉

---

Calories In Calories Out (CICO) is an oversimplification way of explaining how the human body takes in energy and expends it.  If it takes in the same amount of energy as it expends out, then you will not have a weight loss.  If it takes in less amount of energy for the same effort of work for the body to expend then you will have a weight loss.

But as I said, it is an oversimplification way of explaining basically what the first law of thermodynamics said.  And that is, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transferred to another form.  In the case of a human physiology, if you eat more than your body needs, then the excess energy will then be converted to body fat and stored.  

But CICO does not take into account that the 3 macro nutrients, carbohydrates, protein and fat all go through different metabolic pathways and therefore use different amount of energy.  Also CICO does not take into account hormones at play which can foster or maintain weight gain.  CICO also does not consider "Body Fat Set Point", which is a homeostasis point of what our body needs to maintain body fat mass vs lean mass.  And the body will resist all attempts in caloric deficit by causing you to be in a state of hunger and low in metabolic rate rather than in a state of satiety.  The Body Fat Set Point is regulated by the hypotalamus, a small region inside your brain, which happens to be the command center for the central nervous system.  While there is no definite method of moving the body fat set point so we can be less obese, I had listed several methods that had shown in research to have an effect in moving the set point under (how to reduce weight effectively).  

CICO also does not take into account good vs bad calories.  100 calories of Fructose (the sugary kind you find in pop, donuts etc.) is not the same as 100 calories of Protein.  100 calories of Fructose will cause you to be hungry soon and will lead you to eat more, whereas 100 calories of Protein will put you in a state of satiety longer, thus making you eat less.

CICO also does not take into account sleep pattern and stress management.  Remember the hypotalamus?  The small region of the brain that, when in fight or flight mode (feeling helpless, hopeless, despair, can't do anything about, fear and stress) when triggered will through the adrenal glands secrete hormones adrenaline and cortisol.  While cortisol helps manage stress, too much of it makes you want to eat more.

CICO also does not address what or which fat it is reducing.  There are 2 kinds of fat, visceral fat and subcutaneous fat.  Visceral fat (which we can not see) is fat deposits coated around your organs, your heart, your kidneys, liver and digestive systems.  This is the fat that you want to loose, but CICO does not tell you definitely if you are guaranteed to loose only visceral fat.  Subcutaneous fat (which we can see, because it's under the skin) is the fat that most diet plans focus on.  Which is why it is deceptive to say that lean skinny people are healthy, because they don't look fat.  The fact of the matter is, lean and skinny people also has heart and type 2 diabetes too!!  And obese people, while they made look fat, may actually be healthier than skinny people.  Looks can be deceiving.. 

Lastly, CICO also does not take into account the "SALT" content in most diet.  We mostly need about 1500mg of salt, but most diet contain way too much salt.  What does too much salt do to you?

1, High blood pressure

2, Bloat

3, Weight gain 

*To successfully reduce weight, one must

1, Have a healthy balanced diet consist of high fibre "LOW GLYCEMIC INDEX" carbs, Polyunsaturated fats and lean protein (lean meat, chicken, fish or organic WHEY protein with the least chemicals) and low salt content

2, Have a regular exercise routine and maintain it (this helps promote the digestive and circulatory system)

3, Have a good night of sleep (deep REM sleep, not just light sleep)

4, Have an effective stress management protocol to lower cortisol levels

5, Be happy.

Hope this helps.

[HomersGone]

Thanks for the long and thorough explanation. My macros are usually C:32% P:37% F:31%. I don't eat bad calories my sodium is around 1000mg and most of my protein comes from whey,fish,lean chicken and cheese and milk. I dont eat easy sugar as I'm below 30g on weekly intake 

[bikerhiker]

---

@HomersGone wrote:

Thanks for the long and thorough explanation. My macros are usually C:32% P:37% F:31%. I don't eat bad calories my sodium is around 1000mg and most of my protein comes from whey,fish,lean chicken and cheese and milk. I dont eat easy sugar as I'm below 30g on weekly intake 

---

While a number of sites recommend sugar intake no more than 30g for male adults and slightly less for female adults, the human body is not designed to process more than 15g of sugar.  More than that, large amount of insulin kicks in in the attempt to keep glucose level in check, because glucose itself at high levels is toxic.

High glycemic index simple carbohydrates is also easy sugar, because it is easy to breakdown and be absorbed in your system.  White rice, white potatoes and baked goods are examples of HGI carbohydrates and can raise your sugar intake on top of the 30g you consumed on a weekly intake.

[HomersGone]

My sugar comes from fruits and vegetables mostly, I only eat whole weat bread and pasta. Anywho I think you are only overcomplicating a simple thing, burn more than you eat and you should lose weight. 2 months ago I was only eating fried food and junk food for 20years now I'm dieting now and eating healthier I lost 8kg so that's that. If I were to follow what HGI food I should have and avoid everything it would not be sustainable in the long run.

[GershonSurge]

@bikerhiker.

I'm afraid I disagree with you about the importance of high glycemic index foods. Using this rationale, a Snicker's bar is healthier than a white potato. The ideal breakfast would be a glass of olive oil because it has no sugar.

Glycemic index is only measured when food is eaten after fasting and by itself. When a white potato is eaten with other foods containing fiber, the total glycemic index changes. Yes, other kinds of potatoes are higher in other nutrients, but the white potato is a complete food, and people have tested living only on white potatoes and a small amount of oil. Potatoes by themselves don't have enough fat in them.

The concept I'm getting at is called "Unique positioning." Scientists discover an important nutrient -- say gluten. Yes, some people have gluten sensitivity, but the number is small. Before long, you see "Gluten Free" on many foods and people think they are healthier. Recently, I saw the word "Protein" on a package of tortillas. The ingredients were essentially the same as the package next to it.

You have to be careful of the term "sugar intake." The way the story goes, carbs turn to glucose. Glucose is sugar. Refined sugar is bad for you. Don't eat carbs. Eat meat instead. The way it should go is complex carbs turn to glucose. The glucose turns to glycogen Glycogen is stored in our muscles and liver. It is converted back to glucose when our body needs energy. Complex carbs are energy food. 

The human body does not have the capability to turn carbs to fat except in tiny amounts in laboratory controlled condition or periods of near starvation. The process is called de novo lipogenesis. Any excess creates a desire to exercise. If the person doesn't exercise, they are burned off by turning them to heat by vibrations at the cellular level.

 Another example of unique positioning is "fiber." Back in the 70's, people were taking fiber supplements with their bacon after Dr. Denis Burkitt discovered there were virtually no attacks in Uganda over a 17 year period. He credited the high fiber content of the food, but seemingly missed the connection with not eating animal products.

You say the body isn't designed to process more than 15 grams of sugar. My diet is about 77% carbs, 8% fat and 13% protein. I eat about 3,200 calories a day to maintain my weight. That means I'm consuming about 616 grams of complex carbohydrates (sugar) a day. Yet, if I understand you correctly, my body is only designed to process 15 a day. I'm far from being diabetic.

There is more, but one point per post is enough.

[bikerhiker]

---

@HomersGone wrote:

My sugar comes from fruits and vegetables mostly, I only eat whole weat bread and pasta. Anywho I think you are only overcomplicating a simple thing, burn more than you eat and you should lose weight. 2 months ago I was only eating fried food and junk food for 20years now I'm dieting now and eating healthier I lost 8kg so that's that. If I were to follow what HGI food I should have and avoid everything it would not be sustainable in the long run.

---

When we eat, there are 3 processes ;

1, Ingestion

2, Digestion

3, Absorption

Any carbohydrates has to go through these stages and then get converted into sugar to be absorbed into the bloodstream.  You have no control on how these energy is used by your body, but you do have control on how much you can put into your mouth.  

The result is weight loss.  You are not seeing it yet, though I think you need to take sometime to see some results.  Having said that, it really does not matter if you get the macros, sugar and salt under control.  It only matters if you are loosing both visceral and subcutaneous fat which you haven't yet seen.  Eating a healthy diet is just one equation in weight loss, but exercising and managing stress and sleep also contribute to weight loss.  It is not an over complication at all, but the diet industry like oversimplication, because CICO sells trackers and diet plans.

Having said that, there are 3 kinds of glycemic index foods.

1, High Glycemic index

2, Medium Glycemic index

3, Low Glycemic index

It is true that going from HGI to LGI is a stretch for a number of people.  Which is why most Registered Dietician will recommend transitioning people from HGI to MGI foods before going to LGI.  The body needs time to adapt to changes in the diet.  Just like you can't start running before you know how to walk first.  Likewise, you can't run a marathon tomorrow without training.

[bikerhiker]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

@bikerhiker.

I'm afraid I disagree with you about the importance of high glycemic index foods. Using this rationale, a Snicker's bar is healthier than a white potato. The ideal breakfast would be a glass of olive oil because it has no sugar.

Glycemic index is only measured when food is eaten after fasting and by itself. When a white potato is eaten with other foods containing fiber, the total glycemic index changes. Yes, other kinds of potatoes are higher in other nutrients, but the white potato is a complete food, and people have tested living only on white potatoes and a small amount of oil. Potatoes by themselves don't have enough fat in them.

The concept I'm getting at is called "Unique positioning." Scientists discover an important nutrient -- say gluten. Yes, some people have gluten sensitivity, but the number is small. Before long, you see "Gluten Free" on many foods and people think they are healthier. Recently, I saw the word "Protein" on a package of tortillas. The ingredients were essentially the same as the package next to it.

You have to be careful of the term "sugar intake." The way the story goes, carbs turn to glucose. Glucose is sugar. Refined sugar is bad for you. Don't eat carbs. Eat meat instead. The way it should go is complex carbs turn to glucose. The glucose turns to glycogen Glycogen is stored in our muscles and liver. It is converted back to glucose when our body needs energy. Complex carbs are energy food. 

The human body does not have the capability to turn carbs to fat except in tiny amounts in laboratory controlled condition or periods of near starvation. The process is called de novo lipogenesis. Any excess creates a desire to exercise. If the person doesn't exercise, they are burned off by turning them to heat by vibrations at the cellular level.

 Another example of unique positioning is "fiber." Back in the 70's, people were taking fiber supplements with their bacon after Dr. Denis Burkitt discovered there were virtually no attacks in Uganda over a 17 year period. He credited the high fiber content of the food, but seemingly missed the connection with not eating animal products.

You say the body isn't designed to process more than 15 grams of sugar. My diet is about 77% carbs, 8% fat and 13% protein. I eat about 3,200 calories a day to maintain my weight. That means I'm consuming about 616 grams of complex carbohydrates (sugar) a day. Yet, if I understand you correctly, my body is only designed to process 15 a day. I'm far from being diabetic.

There is more, but one point per post is enough.

---

For a sedentary person, the human body isn't meant to process more than 15gram of sugar.  But if you have a daily exercise routine of both cardio and strength or if you run a marathon or do an ironman event, then yes you can exceed that 15 gram of sugar as you need to maintain the glycogen storage for the type 1 muscle fibres so it can perform on longer events.  I believe, if my memory serves me correct, that AHA recommends 37.5g of sugar for male adults, slightly less for female adults.

Most carbohydrates, except fibre, are broken down into sugars during digestion which are then absorbed into the blood stream (from Mosby's medical text book page 554 that I used for my nursing).  I am fully aware of some sites and some medical professionals who like to play with words to try and define carbohydrates this and that, because there is a huge industry and lobby groups that these people want to protect from going bankrupt and millions of jobs and profits lost.  Anyhow, I don't want to go into this as this has no relations to the topic.  

Suffice to say, you build glycogen storage by training for an event.  If you train for a marathon, then you will build glycogen storage that will help you last a full marathon.  Your body won't build glycogen storage that last for a full marathon for a person who only does 30 min cardio per day.  Any excess sugar is then converted into body fat and stored in cells.  This is where I think you're confused about glycogen storage.  And there are 2 muscle groups; type 1 muscle fibre known as slow twitch, and type 2 muscle fibres known as fast twitch.  Slow twitch is for endurance and tire later; whereas fast twitch is for speed and strength, but tire easily.   I know for a fact that my doctor told me last year that my blood glucose level was border line diabetic, when people commented that I was lean (not fat, except for a slight large belly fat) and fit and that I was on a meal plan the same as I was running a marathon.  I was also running 10k @ 45min, a little slower than my 35-38min race pace.  If it's about glycogen storage and I was running marathons and ultra marathons for years, then my blood sugar level and insulin level should not be border line if I stopped running marathons.  But this was not the case for me last year, which came as a shock to me as previous years, my BSL was perfect.  Again, this was explained by my doctor, a medical professional.  So nothing is so black and white.  

Everything our body does, breathing, drinking water, peeing and eating (ingestion, digestion and absorption) all need energy and as we are active, we need more energy to be able complete our daily events, be it running a marathon, walking 5 miles a day or swimming for 30 minutes.  If someone consumes a lot of calories and exercise a lot, then this is normal and you'll loose weight when there is a caloric deficit or you are in a slow steady state cardio that helps promote burning of a higher proportion of fat. 

[bikerhiker]

Glycemic index explanation..

Foods with a high glycemic index raises your blood sugar faster than foods that have a lower glycemic index.  I've included an explanation from the Canadian Diabetes Association which explains better than me.

Why should I eat foods with a lower glycemic index?

A low GI diet can help you:

• Decrease risk of type 2 diabetes and its complications
• Decrease risk of heart disease and stroke
• Feel full longer
• Maintain or lose weight

https://www.diabetes.ca/diabetes-and-you/healthy-living-resources/diet-nutrition/the-glycemic-index

[GershonSurge]

@bikerhiker,

I appreciate you taking the time to give a reference. On the surface, it appears to support your position, and if I only stayed on that page of the website, I'd have thought they were recommending a good diet. However, I clicked on recipes and found disaster. Before you check that page, please read this website thoroughly.

Keep in mind, Dr. McDougall has been treating diabetes at his 10-day live in program for many years. He also treats it at another facility in Santa Rosa. He cures most cases of type 2 diabetes in this 10 days and all of them shortly after. He reduces the need for medication for type 1 and type 1 1/2 diabetes. In type 1 1/2, the pancreas produces insulin, but not enough.

Let's agree neither one of us recommends eating junk food. Pay special attention to the role of fat in causing type 2 diabetes. It's not all about complex carbs.

Now, look at the recipes on the Canadian Diabetes page. Many of them are full of diabetes causing fat. It can't do anything but slow the progress. These recipes will never cure diabetes.  

[bikerhiker]

@GershonSurge

I was expecting that you'll find that in the diabetes page on nutrition.

In medical science, it is all about mitigating risks of developing certain diseases. There is no such thing in life as "ZERO" risk.  Even you step out the door, you are at risk of being killed by a car, a gunshot etc.  But what we can do is mitigate the risks and reduce it to the minimum. 

 Which is why I understood what you are trying to tell me so I don't need to dispute and disagree with you on that note.  But the Diabetes website is focused on risk reduction on Type 2 diabetes for people, like myself, who has a family history of Type 2 diabetes.  So for me, this risk alone outweighs other risk factors.  Same with someone who has the potential APOe4 gene that leads to Alzheimer's Disease and some doctors recommend certain diet and exercise routine to reduce that risk, but raises other risk factors too.  With life, there's little means of a free lunch.

Anyhow, I have followed a modified version of the dietary requirements from the Diabetes Canada and approved by my doctor, so here's my Trendweight.  I'm loosing weight and loosing fat as my waist line is down to 31" from 34".  I can now, for the first time, wear all my pants from 10 years prior.  I don't anymore need any stronger proof than that! 🙂

I'm now lowering my goal to 142lbs from 145lbs, which was my former race weight and the weight that helped me pass BSL all the time.

https://trendweight.com/u/88c9e827c69d4e/

[Dominique]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

Pay special attention to the role of fat in causing type 2 diabetes.

[...]

full of diabetes causing fat.  

---

Notwithstanding your well-known aversion for dietary fat, type 2 diabetes isn’t caused by intake of dietary fat. Just like most chronic diseases aren’t caused by a eating a single food or food category, they are the result of multiple factors.

Have a look at the (multiple) risk factors for type II diabetes. There are some you can’t really do much about (e.g. race, the genes you inherited), but many are evitable:

• being overweight
• being physically inactive
• having high blood pressure

If you do what it takes to avoid having the above risk factors (regardless of your chosen way of eating), you will likely avoid becoming diabetic. You will note all these risk factors are inter-related: if you’re physically active, you’re less likely to become overweight and have high blood pressure, if you’re overweight, you’re more likely to have high blood pressure etc.

[bikerhiker]

There are 2 common types of diabetes and 1 uncommon; Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes and Gestational Diabetes.

Type 1 diabetes happens more commonly in the younger population, but can occur at any age and mostly found in Northern American and European countries.  People of East Asian descent has less Type 1 diabetes compared to Caucasians.

Whereas

Type 2 diabetes happens more commonly and at a higher risk of developing with African, Latino and Asian descent as well as Native Americans.  Up to 95% of Asian descent have been found to have Type 2 diabetes.  1 out of 6 Asian American living in N.Y.C has diabetes Type 2.  Up to 45% of Asians living in N.Y.C is likewise pre-diabetic.  Type 2 diabetes occurs with people who are over 40, overweight and has a family history of this type of diabetes.  The usual measure is to reduce the risk is through a healthy diet and exercise.

Gestational diabetes is a condition common to the Asian population; so the caucasian population may not have heard of it.  This symptom occurs during pregnancy and they have to learn to control their blood sugar level too.

Dietary fat is also important in our diet and that is because, we have two types of vitamins.

Vitamin C & B Complex are water-soluble and Vitamin A, D, E, K are fat-soluble vitamin.

What is a fat-soluble vitamin?  It simply means that these vitamins can only dissolve in dietary fat and not water (a very common misconception!).  Any unused fat-soluble vitamins will be stored the same way as fat, in fatty tissues with some complications.  These "fear based" dietary fat research honed in on these complications.  Like cherry picking an issue for a specific monetary cause, without looking at the overall bigger picture and other risk factors of not having enough daily requirements of those water-soluble vitamins.  These risks magnified for aging adults, because the aging process affects the body's ability to absorb certain vitamins, which then complicates the matter further with older adults averting from dietary fat which then cause other health related issues. 

So what do Vitamin A, D, E, K do for us?

Vitamin A - Growth; vision, healthy hair, skin and resistance to infection

Vitamin D - Promote healthy bones

Vitamin E - Normal reproduction and formation of red blood cells, muscle function

Vitamin K - Blood clotting.

These vitamins are actually an essential maintenance courses for people who have Type 2 diabetes, but also Type 1, because the symptoms of diabetes is as follows.

• Excessive thirst 

• Increased urinary frequency 

• Unusual weight loss 

• Blurry vision 

• Increased hunger 

• Increased skin, bladder or gum infections 

• Irritability 

• Tingling or numbness in hands or feet 

• Slow to heal wounds 

• Increased unexplained fatigue 

So as you can see here, these fat-soluble vitamins are helpful in preventing or maintaining the diabetic or pre-diabetic symptoms necessary for clients who are at risk for Type 1, Type 2 and Gestational Diabetes.  But in order to dissolve these vitamins, you need to have dietary fat, which is why some of the recommended dietary plans for diabetes contain a healthy proportion of dietary fat. 

Sources for Asian diabetes figure (Joslin Diabetes Center - Asian American Diabetes Initiative)

[GershonSurge]

@bikerhiker,

I can't see any of what you said. What I do see is that when people migrated away from old poor people's high-carb, low-fat diets, they got all of the standard American diseases. It has nothing to do with heredity. it has to do with what they eat. These diseases hardly existed in the "old countries" until the 80's. They did have diseases associated with sanitation and parasites.

It's useless to go on because nobody reads any research I suggest. They'd rather stick with their high fat disease-causing diets. 

@Dominique

The Mayo Clinic said type 2 diabetes is chronic, which means incurable in medical language. Since people are curing it with ease, the rest of the reference is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, there is no money in curing degenerative diseases through diet. Most insurances won't pay for it. Profit-centered medicine is useless, and that's pretty much all that is left. 

[bikerhiker]

@GershonSurge

I suppose you aren't aware that Asian's pervalence in Type 2 diabetes predates modern day diet introduction?  If the rise in modern day diet introduction is to be the blame for the rise in diabetes, then why is it that Type 1 diabetes happens more frequently in North American and European countries, when these countries are now introducing their diets into the Asian and global markets?  Why aren't Americans of Asian, African and Latino descent more highly prone to having Type 1 diabetes when they are consuming a more modern Western diet and giving birth their babies in their respective Western countries?  The same could be said with North American and European people when they are exposed to Asian and global diets.  Why aren't we seeing more caucasians have the same incident rate in Type 2 diabetes as equally as so as with Asians?  We should be seeing an equal penetration of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in both caucasians and people of other nationalities.  Caucasians eat chinese food and Asians eat at McDonalds. 

The only conclusion is that, diet is not the key player in this equation.  It is being overweight (due to excess visceral fat) and lack of exercise, which is true with any other diseases as well.

This is why I brought up the diabetes research for you to see the flaws in your beliefs. 

[GershonSurge]

@bikerhiker

Read the "China Study" and "Whole" by Dr. T. Colin Campbell. He will answer all your questions.

Then read "The Starch Solution" by Dr. McDougall. His research is broad and proven through about 47 years of clinical practice. In the words of Dr. Campbell, curing type 2 diabetes is a layup. The causes are clear and the solution is to eliminate the causes.

You don't have any concept of the depth and breadth of my research. 

[bikerhiker]

---

@GershonSurge wrote:

@bikerhiker

Read the "China Study" and "Whole" by Dr. T. Colin Campbell. He will answer all your questions.

Then read "The Starch Solution" by Dr. McDougall. His research is broad and proven through about 47 years of clinical practice. In the words of Dr. Campbell, curing type 2 diabetes is a layup. The causes are clear and the solution is to eliminate the causes.

You don't have any concept of the depth and breadth of my research. 

---

If this is the same Dr. T Colin Campbell who was trained as a Veternarian and nutritionist at Unversity of Georgia and @ Cornell, then yes I'm aware of him.  I know what he is and what he promotes.  But he is NOT a medical doctor.  He is nutritional biochemist.  Let's make that distinction very clear first.  Just like, there is a difference between an electronic technician vs an electronic engineer.

Having said that, I don't subscribe to his views on the cause of heart and cancer with animal protein, because that he used the subject matter to easily validate his theory.

Instead, there are now doctors and researchers who are exploring the idea that our human behaviour are the cause of all the illnesses rather than blaming the cause of illnesses on fat, protein or carbs only.

This idea that our minds is responsible for most of the diseases is not new.  Do you know who thought about it and EVEN publish it out in public?  It was none other than Mr. JACK LALANNE.  Mr. Lalanne said that we created heart disease and cancer by our own mind and now doctors and researchers are actually agreeing somewhat with him with this idea he's been peddling since 1936!!

You are a survivor of nueroendocrine pancreatic cancer right?  Do you want to know what is the relating cause to this and how you perhaps may have recovered from it?

Well, Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer who is a researcher in alternative cancer treatment listed pancreatic cancer as having a behaviour of.

"Anxiety-Anger Conflict with Family Members. Inheritance"

So the key to Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer research was that if you can cure the cause of the behaviour that caused pancreatic cancer, then the cancer will be gone.  Or if the behaviour resurfaces, then the cancer will relapse.  I know this treatment work because the same person who practiced Dr. Ryke's work also helped resolve some of my own behavioral issues in regards to control.  "Controlling things in life to my expectation rather than flow with life and embrace the unexpected" was my issue.  It is just so happens that this behaviour ties in with "Diabetes". 

It was interesting to see that once I did resolve these control issues and letting it go and now embrace life as is now, it was easy to loose weight and all my pre-diabetic issues are gone; numbness in feet and being fatigued.  My doctor just called to see me and check my blood sugar level.  I'm looking forward to seeing my results and how they improved.

So yes, I'm well aware of Colin Campbell's work, but his work is dated I'm sorry to say.  There are newer ideas which I'm sorry to say that you are not willing to be open to with.  

[GershonSurge]

@bikerhiker,

You are right. Dr. T. Colin Campbell is a research doctor. You dismiss him because of this and then go on to recommend "doctors and researchers." 

His son is a medical doctor and guess how he treats patients?

You say you are aware of what Dr. Campbell promotes. Then certainly, you could describe the way of eating without Googling, can't you? Did you ever study any of his books?

The thing is, his work isn't in a vacuum. Study the works of Dr. Esselstyn and Dr. Ornish on treating heart disease. Study Nathan Pritikin who started quietly treating cancer with diet in 1955. Study his work on treating heart disease. They all use essentially the same diet. There are many others. 

I ask you, show me your science. Show me the studies published in the best medical journals by your doctors. Show where they were used successfully in clinical trials. Ultimately, those are the only ones that count. Every study that precedes this is foreplay to the final event.

I had neuroendocrine cancer in my liver. I got the results of some tests yesterday that showed it is still cured. Neuroendocrine cancer in the pancreas is not a form of pancreatic cancer. You can't credibly say I was possibly cured by a method I didn't use. It's more complicated than that. 

Jack Lalanne's diet was very similar to a whole food plant-based diet. You can find this in his book, "Live Young Forever." 

I'll be quite clear about why I get frustrated. From your response, it is clear you never read Dr. Campbell's books because of the insinuation he had a bias. His work started trying to promote more consumption of protein. The facts led him elsewhere. His books would lead you through his studies along with references to his sources. You seem to dismiss him as a sideshow not worthy of consideration. He published over 350 studies. He testified before Congress many times. He served on the boards of various organizations.. I don't want to list them as I may get them wrong, but they are on the level of the American Cancer Association. 

Meanwhile, you want me to go off and read a book even though you ignore my recommendations. If I read that book, you will give me another book and so on. 

[bikerhiker]

@GershonSurge

I think the difference is that you believe in your sources and are not open to mine.  You kept repeating and saying that I didn't read Dr. Campbell's work and should cite his work in full detail as though I have to fulfill your request and never showed one curiosity in asking about what I had brought forward.  So it has to be a one way street for you, and that is going to you always that needs to win.

Sounds to me like you haven't clearly resolved your behavioural issues regarding endocrine pancreatic cancer.

The universe, I found, has a way of testing us and re-testing us.  Testing us whether we truly resolved our behaviours that brought about our diseases.  Which means, the disease will only truly never re-appear if the underlying behaviour that created it no longer exists.  And that is, we will continually meet with people who will challenge one's unresolved behaviours to see if there is any ounce of it left.  If there is and if the person is continually provoked and the unresolved behaviour resurfaced and magnified, then the disease that the person thought to have been cured will relapse and re-appear with even greater magnitude.  This is the new research in the field known as psychosocial health.   Now, if you're a gentleman that I envisioned you are, then you would be curious about this..

Anyhow, I think it's best that we terminate this discussion as it clearly it way off topic..

All the best my friend!! 🙂