|
[ Exercise Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Hi Dr. Stoll and others,
I just called for my hubby's blood test results for his cholesterol and triglycerides, and they're pretty high. His cholesterol is at 323 and his trig.are at 1300. Is there anything he could do (he's been watching his diet and walking every night) to bring these numbers down? The doc wants to put him on Lipitor and Tricor as well as Atelonol (sp) for his blood pressure.
Any help would be appreciated! :) Happy holidays!
Joanie
In Reply to: Triglycerides and Cholesterol posted by Joanie on December 06, 2002 at 15:31:45:
If someone is incredibly out of shape - and I mean 80 year-old grandma out of shape - walking is, at best, only a good start. For the rest of us, walking won't feed the bulldog. Your husband will have to progress to exercise that is significantly more rigorous than walking in order to see any difference.
Rigorous exercise will have a positive effect on his blood chemistry AND his blood pressure. In fact, it is very likely that rigorous, consistent, intelligent exercise will bring his numbers into a normal, healthy range. Walking won't.
In Reply to: Triglycerides and Cholesterol posted by Joanie on December 06, 2002 at 15:31:45:
In addition to what Lincoln mentioned, I would also cut carbohydrates in favor of essential fats like omega-3's and saturated fats. Even the American Heart Association is starting to realize the negative effects of carbohydrates. Unless your husband has a genetic problem, triglycerides usually only get that high if one is on a high-carbohydrate diet. Lack of exercise will do it too and worse yet, a lack of exercise coupled with a high-carbohydrate diet will cause triglycerides to go through the roof. What is he eating?
-HY
In Reply to: Re: Triglycerides and Cholesterol posted by Helping You on December 06, 2002 at 19:55:00:
Hello HY, thanks for your reply. I can't say he eats a lot of carbs. I'm the one that is on a high-carb diet, and my numbers are great. He talked to a doc at the hospital where he works and she said she could tell just by the sky high number on the trig. that it's genetics. (predispositioned) is the word I believe she used as he fasted for 12 hours prior to the blood test. I thought maybe it was because he moved to the states from England, and we eat a lot more red meat here. He basically eats things like beans on toast or whatever I make for dinner, which is usually some kind of chicken or roast or fish. We don't eat a lot of fast food. He doesn't smoke or drink so I'm assuming it has to be genetics. I know for sure his dad is on blood pressure pills, and I'm almost positive he takes something for cholesterol.
He's real bummed out about the results. I just wish there was a more natural way. We have a lot of children, and it's hard to find the time to get into a three-hour a day exercise program.
???
Thanks again,
Joanie
In Reply to: Walking is lame posted by Lincoln on December 06, 2002 at 15:40:33:
Hi, thanks a lot for your reply. What kind of vigorous exercise would you suggest without spending a lot of money?
Thanks again,
Joanie
In Reply to: Re: Walking is lame posted by Joanie on December 06, 2002 at 23:06:12:
Why should exercising should cost any money at all? Running is much more vigorous than walking and can easily be free. For a few dollars, one can get some resistance providing equipment (free weight, exercise rubber bands, etc.) that would allow doing very rigorouse exercises for virtually nothing. For god sakes, moving your arms up and down or left to right with high speed seems much more rigorous than walking. I've read about a very simple but intensive exercise: lie on the floor, get up, lie again, get up again, and so on. Do it rapidly, and you will get a great overall work out!
In Reply to: Re: Triglycerides and Cholesterol posted by Joanie on December 06, 2002 at 23:03:40:
Beans and toast are carbohydrate rich.
Blood pressure drugs don't seem really useful in the long run -- http://www.westonaprice.org/askdoctor/ask_blood.html.
"it's hard to find the time to get into a three-hour a day exercise program"
It's hard to do anything if you needlessly complicate things. One could say "It's hard to have 20,000 children in the house, so I won't have any". Why do you think an exercise has to be a three hours thing? Just 20 min or so a day should be great and probably better! But it has to be more intensive than moving fingers. Hmm... I just tried moving fingers very quickly, and it does require some efforts too.
In Reply to: Walking is lame posted by Lincoln on December 06, 2002 at 15:40:33:
I disagree with your statement "walking is lame." I think walking is one of the best exercises one can do. Of course, it depends on how you do it to have the best result. If you do it right, walking easily offers more benefits that other types of exercises. And it's less prone to injury than running (based on my own experiences). But if you walk fast enough (think race walk) the aeribic, rigorous effect is not much less than running.
The problem with weights is one has to do it indoors--which seems to lose most of the attraction of exercise (for me at least). Getting in touch with nature is half the battle, I believe.
In Reply to: Re: Walking is lame posted by R. on December 07, 2002 at 07:51:09:
Thanks, R.
Underwater aerobics is probably the best--especially if the person is overweight.
Walt
In Reply to: Triglycerides and Cholesterol posted by Joanie on December 06, 2002 at 15:31:45:
Hi, Joanie.
Listen to HY, R., Lincoln and Bing.
Do not forget SR since that tends to tie all the rest together. Do not forget the omega 3s.
In MY opinon, it is the refined carbohydrates that do all the damage and whole, complex carbohydrates are fine. Get Beth Loiselle, RD's book.
Let us know how he does. Won't it be nice to have your svelt hubby back?
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Walking is lame posted by bing on December 07, 2002 at 09:03:42:
You don't have to be indoors to work with weights. Especially if you replace "weights" with "resistance", in general. You can get exercise bands and take them anywhere. But you could work with real weights outside too -- in your backyard, balcony, etc. You don't need to necessarily tie exercising to gyms.
In Reply to: Re: Walking is lame posted by R. on December 09, 2002 at 02:07:11:
You could be right. I guess I've just never had an interest in weights, for these reasons:
1. Due to my cultural background, I don't find I NEED extra mussles than what I already got. Of course, I do think Angela Basset looks gorgeous with her well-toned body--but that's HER look, not mine.
2. I find staying in one place to do repetitive workout boring--therefore I won't LOOK FORWARD to the exercise time, since it's more like a chore than fun.
3. It doesn't seem to create the kind of FLOW of the bodymind as walking/jogging do.
4. Walking/jogging also help one become more "grounded" to earth, for some reason--an important quality that other forms of exercise don't seem to offer.
In Reply to: Re: Walking is lame posted by bing on December 07, 2002 at 09:03:42:
Walking does not have more benefits than other forms of exercise, other than perhaps lower injury rates. Even that is debatable due to the large number of fatalities due to pedestrian/automobile collisions. Walking takes a great deal more time than most other forms of exercise to get results. The results from walking are limited to cardio benefits - walking does not build muscle nor does it offer any defense against osteoporosis. Walking does not increase flexibility, walking does not increase coordination. Even the cardio benefits are limited because walking can't raise the heart rate as high as other forms of exercise.
I'll stick by my belief that walking remains only one short step up from doing nothing at all. The only people for whom walking is a good choice are the severely de-conditioned.
As for your argument about weight training being an indoor activity, I agree with R. There is no reason why it has to be an indoor activity. In fact, I do a fair amount of my weight training outdoors.
In Reply to: Re: Triglycerides and Cholesterol posted by Joanie on December 06, 2002 at 23:03:40:
If you are spending more than 3 hours a week exercising, you aren't training, you are socializing.
It's a well known fact of physiology that exercise effectiveness takes a sharp nose-dive after the first 45 minutes of the workout.
The key to effective exercise is not quantity - forget anything the N.I.H. says about more being better. The key is QUALITY. That means harder work, not more work. Your husband doesn't need more TIME, he needs to figure out how to exert more EFFORT during the time he already has.
It is possible to get into fantastic shape in 15-30 minutes a day if the workout is rigorous enough. Most people are not willing to workout that hard. Is your husband willing?
In Reply to: Walking is still lame posted by Lincoln on December 09, 2002 at 12:45:36:
paragraph #1: I don't know what kind of walking you are talking about, but as far as my own experiences are concerned, walking can do all of the things you mentioned: cardio-vascular-strengthening, muscle-firming, fat-reducing, bone-building, flexibility-increasing, coordination-enhancing. Plus, you'll also get the best kind of foot-message! Here I'd like to emphasize that walking speed matters a great deal. If you are walking at 12 minutes per mile, you bet you heart rate will reach the optimum zone, and half an hour of workout is plenty enough every day.
As to accidents from being hit by cars, I never opt for highway/thoroughfare walking. You can always choose parks, nature trails, side roads, etc. If nothing else, the fume from cars is a big turn-off (not to mention the BAD energy from speeding automobils).
About weights: (I don't want to have any sexist tendency but) isn't weight training/weight-lifting a male thing? I mean, men are the ones who want mascular bodies with bulging muscles, I think. I wonder how many women are interested in having huge biceps etc. I personally don't have much interest in muscle-building. Then again, there could be something I don't know yet.
On second thought about exercises: I think the different forms of exercise is pretty much like the different diet(s) in the sense that each of us has our own fav one that works best for our unique bodymind. Whatever it is, it the BEST one if you find it truly works best for you, and you enjoy every minute while doing it.
In Reply to: Re: Walking is still lame--I still disagree posted by bing on December 09, 2002 at 18:04:53:
first of all it takes the right genetics to get bulging muscles from weight lifting, or steroids. Secondly, bicycling or swimming is much better than walking, mainly because it is of lower impact on the joints. If a person has a predisposition for osteoarthritis than swimming and bicycling is much better. trust me.
In Reply to: Re: Walking is still lame--read it posted by exercise physiology on December 10, 2002 at 01:01:35:
I never said bicycling and swimming are not good exercises--I myself like them as much as walking/jogging. However, you'll need a bicycle to do the former, as well as a pool/pond/lake to do the latter. So for people who don't have those facilities, walking is the easiest: just get you but off the couch and walk/run down the block!
And for people who DON'T have joint problems, the weight-bearing (meaning carrying your weight to fight the gravity) exercise of walking/jogging obviously surpass the others that are NOT weight-bearing (and require exercise equipments). For one, you increase the bone-density (but swimming and bicycling don't--at least not as much).
In Reply to: Re: Walking is lame posted by bing on December 09, 2002 at 09:12:04:
What exercise makes on "grounded" to earth better than lifting weights? LOL
In Reply to: Walking is still lame posted by Lincoln on December 09, 2002 at 12:45:36:
Thanks, Lincoln.
I was one of the original advocates of aerobics (early '60s) and so it has taken me longer than it should have to begin understanding the benefits of walking.
Walking has different benefits than aerobics and bing is correct that aerobics CAN be achieved with walking.
There is now overwhelming medical research showing significant benefits from simple walking.
Kathy and I are currently writing the new edition of my book that will have a section on exercises (at least 10--including aerobics) that lists many of the different kinds of exercise along with the different benefits of each.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Walking is still lame--I still disagree posted by bing on December 09, 2002 at 18:04:53:
Weight training is certainly NOT a "male thing" from a physiological standpoing! Women simply cannot get the 'bulging muscles' that you worry about, unless they take drugs. Women stand to gain as much health benefits from weight training as men, perhaps more since they tend to have more strength deficiencies than men. My girlfriend, for example, uses weight training instead of aerobics for general fitness to enhance her abilities as a dancer. To look at her - at 5'5" and 116 pounds - you'd hardly think she trains with heavy weights. She has gained a significant amount of strength but not much muscle mass. You have some serious, if not common, misconceptions about weight training for women.
"I don't know what kind of walking you are talking about, but as far as my own experiences are concerned, walking can do all of the things you mentioned: cardio-vascular-strengthening, muscle-firming, fat-reducing, bone-building, flexibility-increasing, coordination-enhancing...If you are walking at 12 minutes per mile, you bet you heart rate will reach the optimum zone."
Not me, not even close. I went on a 3.5 hour hike the other day at the pace you talk about and it didn't do much for my heart rate at all. My legs were hardly fatigued. Needless to say, my upperbody got no workout. I don't do much hiking, if any at all. All I do is lift weights. A 45 minute weight workout really gets my heart rate up and 'kills' my legs, though. I have a lot of experience with both hiking (walking) and lifting weights. Walking pales in comparison as an overall fitness activity. It sounds like you have little-to-no experience with a serious weight training program.
In Reply to: Re: Walking is still lame (Archive in exercise.) posted by Walt Stoll on December 10, 2002 at 08:48:00:
Almost all of the research compares walking to doing nothing. Walking does not compare favorably to other, more rigorous forms of exercise. When you examine the data, you'll find that walking only benefits those people who are badly out of shape.
In Reply to: Big misconceptions posted by Lincoln on December 10, 2002 at 09:07:02:
I was a college athlete, one who started weight training in high school. I can tell you that I was bulging! lol Not like a man bulges though. Personally if I could do it all over again I would have trained with less weight. I am 5'8" and svelt at 140 lbs. At my heaviest I was at 155 and my BMI was 21.
I've also seen other women with huge muscles, especially being in athletic circles and gyms for several years. Not that I think it's the norm for women who lift weights. My genes have everything to do with it, even if I don't lift a knee my quads look like hamhocks :) Now that I'm not training intensely though I do like to work with lesser weights. It allows me to concentrate on one particular muscle group at a time and I like to bond with my body like that.
Maybe you are already in good cardio shape and that's why you didn't feel a cardio workout from your hike. I hike in the Alps and I have no problem sucking wind and having wobbly legs lol.
If I walk too much though my hips and legs hurt. I try to mix up my exercise modalities as much as possible. I love the rebounder, without jumping up to the ceiling in barefeet like I did in the first session. I was hurting for days after that one.
Ok, boredom here at work has passed into a task. Just wanted to chew the fat a bit. Ha Ha
In Reply to: Look at the research posted by Lincoln on December 10, 2002 at 09:11:02:
I don't care what the research says. I only know what it does for me. When I take my 40-50 minute walks (not a leisurely stroll in the park mind you) my heart rate goes up, I sweat, my head clears, my mood lifts, and the muscles in my legs are very hard. It also burns calories, so I don't know how you can say that walking is compared to doing nothing.
That being said, I must add that walking must be done regularly (5-6X/week) in order to reap the benefits.
Perhaps your research only pertains to weightlifters.
Joanie
In Reply to: Look at the research posted by Lincoln on December 10, 2002 at 09:11:02:
I think you have to state what you are trying to accomplish when you say walking does nothing. Here is what walking (at a brisk pace - not strolling) does for you:
-revs your metabolism
-helps to get the lymph circulating
- protects the heart by increasing its size and strength so it can pump more blood with fewer beats.
- increases the size and number of blood vessels for better and more efficient circulation.
- increases the amount of oxygen delivered to all tissues and cells.
- increases the efficiency of exercising muscles and blood circulation so that muscles and blood can process oxygen more easily.
- increases HDL (good) cholesterol which protects heart and blood vessels from fatty deposits.
- increases the ability to cope with stress which means you will be less prone to heart disease.
- decreases triglycerides (sugar fats) so they are not deposited on lining of arteries.
- decreases blood pressure by improving elasticity of blood vessels - giving less resistance to the flow of blood and increasing oxygen flow to tissues and cells.
Now, if you are talking about becoming extremely lean and fit, you're right. Walking alone will not create a lean, mean, hard body machine. You've got to add more vigorous types of body conditioning such as weight lifting, pilates, karate, etc. Plus, like any exercise, you will hit a plateau with walking at which time you have to change to something like aerobics or jump rope - something that changes which muscles you use and how you use them. Then, you can go back to walking. Even in weight lifting, you can't stay with the same circuit all the time. You have to rotate and change.
If you haven't done so, I think that you should go on an hour long, brisk walk on uneven ground and then see how you feel over the following two days. You will be delightfully surprised.
In Reply to: Re: Look at the research posted by Walker on December 10, 2002 at 13:19:33:
In Reply to: Look at the research posted by Lincoln on December 10, 2002 at 09:11:02:
"walking only benefits those people who are badly out of shape."
I wonder where you get this info (sources?), but it seems that this is just groundless claims with NO evidence to support it. FYI, I weigh 120 lbs at 5'4", with great energy, and extremely fit--a configuration pretty close to being perfect by any standard. If you call that "out of shape" then I don't know what in-shape really means. And this is maintained by mostly walking (with some martial arts and simple qi gong added).
I have nothing against others doing weights (and/or any other forms of exercises); but for ME, brisk walking on rocky hills is more than enough to maintain the kind of fitness I want. And if I can achieve all this with NO gadgets, that's almost ideal!
btw, I did try weights in the school gym several times many years ago, and I found it extremely BORING! It's impossible for me to do that kind of "chore" for even 10 minutes--not to say 40 minutes, as you suggested. So, I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one.
In Reply to: Re: Look at the research posted by bing on December 10, 2002 at 18:39:05:
Where else are you "almost" perfect? ;-)
In Reply to: I'm looking... posted by inquiring minds on December 10, 2002 at 19:44:24:
nm
In Reply to: Re: I'm looking... posted by don't understand the question. on December 10, 2002 at 20:54:12:
Where else in your life and on your body to you consider yourself "close to perfect?"
In Reply to: Re: Look at the research posted by Walker on December 10, 2002 at 13:19:33:
but all you say that walking does is only valid when you compare walking to doing no exercise at all.
Let's face it: 60% of the U.S. population is overweight. Many of the other 40% are out of shape, too. That's why you'll see reports on the benefits of walking: even an activity as lame as walking is more than most people manage. Our standards have become incredibly low.
"If you haven't done so, I think that you should go on an hour long, brisk walk on uneven ground and then see how you feel over the following two days."
As I said in a previous post, a 3.5 hour hike didn't do much. On a benefit-per-hour basis, walking is an extremely inefficient way to get into good shape.
In Reply to: Not Lincoln. Weightlifting is his Religion nmi posted by roid rage on December 10, 2002 at 13:31:18:
actually, if I was on steroids, you'd think I'd weight a bit more than 170 pounds at 6'1" tall, wouldn't you?
In Reply to: Re: Big misconceptions posted by thessa on December 10, 2002 at 10:15:08:
"I can tell you that I was bulging! lol Not like a man bulges though. ... My genes have everything to do with it, even if I don't lift a knee my quads look like hamhocks :)"
Exactly. Weightlifting won't turn Kate Moss into Arnold Schwarzenneger.
In Reply to: resorting to personal attacks? posted by Lincoln on December 11, 2002 at 06:26:18:
your weight is not at issue. what is at issue is your insistence that no other way save weightlifting will
bring about the changes stated.
"Those of you who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."
In Reply to: Re: resorting to personal attacks? posted by roid rage on December 11, 2002 at 07:27:11:
I never said "no other way save weightlifting will
bring about the changes stated." Read again.
You are a pathetic, cowardly, anonymous nobody, btw. Not worth any more time from me.
In Reply to: resorting to misquotes? posted by Lincoln on December 11, 2002 at 07:36:18:
This is what was stated cumrag:
I think you have to state what you are trying to accomplish when you say walking does nothing. Here is what walking (at a brisk pace - not strolling) does for you:
-revs your metabolism
-helps to get the lymph circulating
- protects the heart by increasing its size and strength so it can pump more blood with fewer beats.
- increases the size and number of blood vessels for better and more efficient circulation.
- increases the amount of oxygen delivered to all tissues and cells.
- increases the efficiency of exercising muscles and blood circulation so that muscles and blood can process oxygen more easily.
- increases HDL (good) cholesterol which protects heart and blood vessels from fatty deposits.
- increases the ability to cope with stress which means you will be less prone to heart disease.
- decreases triglycerides (sugar fats) so they are not deposited on lining of arteries.
- decreases blood pressure by improving elasticity of blood vessels - giving less resistance to the flow of blood and increasing oxygen flow to tissues and cells.
And found this and these journals where none of the evidence supports weightlifting as safe or even particulary effective.
Not that it matters. No sense confusing you with the facts since your mind is already made up. A closed mind at that.
In Reply to: Re: resorting to misquotes? No resorting to facts. You should try it sometime. posted by roid rage on December 11, 2002 at 09:18:09:
Look up some data on pedestrian deaths. Compare it to the 34 weight training deaths your linked report talks about. Then talk to me about relative safety.
Cumrag? When you can't debate, you resort to name calling? That's better evidence of the weakness of your stance than anything I could say.
In Reply to: Re: I'm looking... posted by inquiring minds on December 10, 2002 at 23:33:02:
If you are doing the "looking," can't you see? Unless you look but DON'T SEE. lol
In Reply to: Look at the research posted by Lincoln on December 10, 2002 at 09:11:02:
Lincoln.
It took a LOT to convince me that walking was beneficial. You must be reading different medical research than I.
Are you aware that at least 90% of Americans are "badly out of shape"?
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Look at the research (YEAH!) posted by Walt Stoll on December 11, 2002 at 10:18:59:
.. walking is less beneficial than almost anything else, except doing nothing. That has been my point all along.
A study in the JAMA stated: "The risk reduction [of heart disease] was the same for women who walked three hours a week as for those who spent one-and-a-half hours every week running, jogging, biking, swimming or engaging in other forms of vigorous exercise."
Doesn't that read "half as effective" to you? And what is the difference between walking and running anyway, other than pace?
In another study, "Brisk or striding walking was associated with an even greater degree of protection than was walking at a casual pace. ... extensive data from the Nurses’ Health Study and have shown that women in the lowest quintile (one-fifth of the population studied) of physical activity have nearly double the risk of stroke as women in the highest quintile of physical activity."
To me that sounds as if intensity plays a great role in effectiveness. I agree. I think it is fairly safe to assume that we all agree that walking is one of the least intense forms of exercise.
Typical of the studies I'm referring to is this quote, "The authors concluded that light-to-moderate physical activity is associated with lower CHD in women (compared with no activity) and that at least 1 hour of walking per week predicted lower risk. While these findings provide promise for CHD risk reduction by performing activities at intensities below the moderate intensity recommendation, caution should be applied when promoting this message on a large scale, since moderate and vigorous intensity activities provide even greater reduction in CHD risk."
As I said, most studies compare walking to doing nothing. When compared to more rigorous forms of exercise, walking compares poorly. Note that the N.I.H recently increased their recommendation to 1 hour per day (!) for walking in order to see appreciable weight loss. Their old recommendation was 1/2 per day, and apparently the N.I.H. no longer believes that is enough. The 5-7 hours a week they are asking for is a major time commitment! Also note that according to the N.I.H. "Non-impact exercise, such as walking, does not build stronger bones"
According to an AMA study, "Independent of the number of hours spent on walking, walking pace was also significantly associated with risk of diabetes. Compared with women whose usual walking pace was "easy, casual," multivariate RRs were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.85) for "normal, average" pace and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.33-0.52) for "brisk" or "striding" pace".
In my thinking and obeservation it is all too easy, while walking, to put forth insufficient exertion levels required to obtain significant results. You really have to "hump it" and build up a sweat, practically a jogging pace. Keep in mind that the original post - did we forget that? - needed very significant results, not just scientifically measurable results. The original poster was talking about really BAD blood lipids and blood pressure. Let us keep them in mind. The 'patient' in question is already walking for exercise and admitted it wasn't enough. Case in point.
Also note that most claims of safety for walking completely conveniently ignore the huge numbers of pedestrian fatalities. Ask author Steven King if walking is safe - he nearly died after a car/pedestrian collision on one of his daily walks. Injury rates from walking are low only if death due to gross blunt force trauma is not counted as an injury. Is death not an injury?
Would you agree, given the obesity levels in the U.S., that better than "moderate" results are really what is needed? Given how out of shape the U.S. is, shouldn't people be looking for the exercise that gives them the biggest "bang for the buck" and not just the bare minimum? Let's face it: most people are so out of shape that even WALKING will get them in better shape. Walking is clearly a good start for those who are very out of shape, but walking is clearly (to me, anyway) one of the least efficient forms of exercise.
In Reply to: Walking does more than "nothing" posted by Lincoln on December 11, 2002 at 06:23:07:
Thanks, Lincoln. I think we are kind of agreeing. I agree with everything you said. I think it is not optimum for people to believe that walking (translated as a casual stroll, talking to neighbors and stopping to smell the flowers along the way) is enough to consider it as "exercise". But I do believe that walking briskly as a part of a comprehensive exercise routine is beneficial. I lift weights and do intensive cardio workouts. But, unlike you, I still feel a benefit from very brisk walking alternating with very light jogging when done for an hour. It works different muscles and works them in a different way. Of course, I am only 4 months into this new lifestyle, so maybe that is why I am getting a benefit from this type of exercise.
In Reply to: Triglycerides and Cholesterol posted by Joanie on December 06, 2002 at 15:31:45:
You might find some really useful information in Dr. Atkins' books. In "Age-defying diet" book is a chapter on Nutrition and Heart Disease. Atkins agrees, the refined carbohydrates are the culprit. In his diet book, there are examples of dramatic improvements in lipid profiles.
In Reply to: Back to name calling again? posted by Lincoln on December 11, 2002 at 09:53:46:
"You are a pathetic, cowardly, anonymous nobody"
"Evidence of the weakness of your stance than anything I could say."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
In Reply to: Walking IS beneficial, but ... posted by Lincoln on December 11, 2002 at 11:11:46:
Thanks, Lincoln.
Even you are still trapped in the allopathic paradigm: If is does nothing for "heart disease" it does nothing for anything. Sigh! Just because aerobics is the best for THAT, it is not necessarily best for everything.
Hope this helps.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Walking IS beneficial, but ... posted by Walt Stoll on December 12, 2002 at 07:39:51:
Walt, your comments make so much sense: it's something I vaguely sense all the time but never verbalized. How true: even in exercise, there are those that are more "holistic" and those that's more "allopathic." Those kind of exercises that can easily and simutaneously bring one's body, mind, spirit, and soul together to gread harmony are the equivilant of holistic medicine; while those that aim to work on specific parts of the body (like certain muscle groups, etc) are more like the western model of medicine. Now I appreciate walking even more!
In Reply to: Re: Walking IS beneficial, but ... posted by bing on December 12, 2002 at 10:52:39:
Just want to add that holistic and allopathic approaches are a lot more than medicine--they apply to every aspects of our lives--therefore it's more like a philosophy. For instance, in relationship issues (which have been topic of the week ;)), one can take an "allopathic" approach, meaning frequent, constant "quick fixes" that only address one particular aspect of the body--the symptoms--just like taking painkillers for headaches. In both cases, there are unwelcome side effects. And frequent uses over the long run can bring havoc to one's system--like the vicious circle in allopathic healthcare: things will only get worse.
Just like in health, for long term solutions to a good relationship, to work on the "detox," to "fast," to build up the "immune systems," to find out what "diet" and "exercise" work best for you, to take care of the whole bodymind, etc. are necessary steps towards true healing and a rewarding relationship, which actually concerns the WHOLE bodymind instead of merely a few organs.
In this sense, what Walt has been dessiminating here is much, much more than curing of diseases, but rather the tao/ways of life. JMHO
In Reply to: Re: Walking is lame posted by R. on December 10, 2002 at 06:17:47:
Yeah, right, and now you R *grounded*! LOL
In Reply to: Re: Walking IS beneficial, but ... posted by bing on December 12, 2002 at 10:52:39:
Thanks, Bing!
You have helped lift my day. Sometimes I need to know that there are people out there who understand.
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Re: I'm looking... posted by Well... on December 11, 2002 at 10:08:31:
As I say when I am out on the town,
You can look but you cant touch! I do break my rule occasionally. so many cuties, so little time. lol
"There is now overwhelming medical research showing significant benefits from simple walking"
That quote from Walt.
"Walking does not compare favorably to other, more rigorous forms of exercise"
This quote from you.
"When you examine the data..."
What data? I didn't see any data. So I looked up the "data" you apparently pulled out of thin air.
Follow Ups:
Back to name calling again?
Posted by Lincoln on December 11, 2002 at 09:53:46:
Follow Ups:
Re: I'm looking...
Posted by Well... on December 11, 2002 at 10:08:31:
Follow Ups:
Re: Look at the research (YEAH!)
Posted by Walt Stoll on December 11, 2002 at 10:18:59:
Follow Ups:
Walking IS beneficial, but ...
Posted by Lincoln on December 11, 2002 at 11:11:46:
Follow Ups:
Re: Walking does more than "nothing"
Posted by Walker on December 11, 2002 at 12:04:24:
Follow Ups:
Re: Triglycerides and Cholesterol
Posted by Meg on December 11, 2002 at 14:16:55:
Follow Ups:
Re: Back to name calling again?
Posted by riod rage on December 11, 2002 at 16:59:22:
Follow Ups:
Re: Walking IS beneficial, but ...
Posted by Walt Stoll on December 12, 2002 at 07:39:51:
Follow Ups:
Re: Walking IS beneficial, but ...
Posted by bing on December 12, 2002 at 10:52:39:
Follow Ups:
Re: Walking IS beneficial and other thoughts on life
Posted by bing on December 12, 2002 at 14:51:28:
Follow Ups:
Re: Walking is lame
Posted by bing on December 12, 2002 at 15:34:29:
Follow Ups:
Re: Walking IS beneficial, but ... (Archive in exercise.)
Posted by Walt Stoll on December 14, 2002 at 08:36:48:
Follow Ups:
Re: I'm looking...(me too)
Posted by M. on December 14, 2002 at 18:12:33:
Follow Ups:
[ Exercise Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ]
[ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ]
[ Recommended Books ]
[ Bulletin Board ]
Search this site!