Sunday, July 20, 2008

Huh?

I looked at this from the American Heart Associations website:

Following a Healthy Eating Plan

The best way to help lower your blood cholesterol level is to eat less saturated fat and cholesterol, control your weight and walk or do another physical activity for at least 30 minutes each day. Our plan is based on these simple steps:
 Use up at least as many calories as you take in.
 Be physically active.
 Aim for at least 30 minutes of physical activity on most days of the week, if not all.
 Eat a variety of nutrient-rich foods.
 Eat a diet rich in vegetables and fruits.
 Choose whole-grain, high-fiber foods.
 Eat fish at least twice a week.
 Eat less of the nutrient-poor foods.
 Limit how much saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol you eat.
 Choose lean meats and poultry without skin and prepare them without added saturated and trans fat.
 Select fat-free, 1 percent fat and low-fat dairy products.
 Cut back on foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils to reduce trans fat in your diet.
 Cut back on foods high in dietary cholesterol.
 Cut back on beverages and foods with added sugars.
 Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt.
 If you drink alcohol, drink in moderation.
 Follow the American Heart Association recommendations when you eat out.
 Read the nutrition facts label and ingredients list.
 Avoid use of and exposure to tobacco products.

Looks good, but it is loony. Use as many calories as you eat? Sounds good, but working 3 x weighlifting and 3 x 1 hour swims per week net me a calorie burn of about 4200 calories. Now, that is six hours of working out as hard as I can (which granted, is somewhat soft if getting harder). So, I am supposed to eat less than 4200 calories a week? I know they are id-10-ts. Well, physically active, okay. On top of working out, I am walking anywhere from 3 to 5 miles a week (or hiking, which is much more hilly and thus rigorous, now that I know that is open), so fine. Nutrient rich, vegetables, grains (Whole? Part whole maybe, not that modernist Pilgrim crap though, besides, too many carbs, everyone knows that!), lower fat meats and skinless fowl… sad, but okay I am getting on that.

But, what is saturated fat, trans fat, and cholesterol heavy, food wise? I doubt if I eat that anyway, since I usually do not eat much in the way of chips, deep fried foods, etc. But, I am not giving up avocado, though it is not like I eat that by the gross either, and it has enough else to make it good, even very occasionally (I am with Hillbilly on this, if not perhaps to that degree?). I have become a bit of an olive oil junkie, though peanut oil and canola (sp?) oils are also coming into more common, if still a lot less, usage.

Oh, and I have cut my salt, a bunch. We really do get too much salt. Much of that extra salt comes from eating out and eating processed foods. This is one place where checking the labels could help you, if you cannot buy fresh. I avoid all the salt I can, then add salt only on the table, and then lightly. However, some foods really do need a little salt in the cooking. Meats and even some steamed vegetables (salt helps prevent the vegetable (the ones that get done very quickly for the most part) from becoming overdone and or water-filled) need some salt, but not much. As well, the right salt helps a great deal, try kosher salt, it really does lend a lot more flavor for a lot less mass and the flavor lasts through the cooking usually (at least far better than any other salt I have tried).

My fluids are now mostly simple water, if run through reverse osmosis machines first. The water here, where I live, is retched. It is heavy in every natural mineral, it seems. So hard, manufacturers of water-heaters do not stand behind their 5 and 6 year warranties here. If it was trace, it would be fantastic, this stuff comes up and, a week after heavily cleaning a bathroom, it needs barnacle removal, again. Seriously, it is nasty water and tastes it here. Since I do not believe in the rest of the “bottle water” options, I go with reverse osmosis, for good or ill. Though juice, beer, a toot of scotch, and other fluids sometimes pass my tongue and head for home, these last only lightly and occasionally flavor my days.

As far as 1% fat dairy products, this is a femanized dietary mechanism. I NEED whole milk and dairy products, including butter. I choose salt free butter, for cooking especially. I do get some salted butter as the QoD cannot stand unstalted butter for breads and muffins and such (I can and do when buttering my own toast and whatever). I recently reviewed an excerpt from a study of 5,000 British “men” for 10 years (anyone that politically corrupted could not be called a man, slave woman(who are happy to be controlled by socialism it seems) or loser but not man), what they found is that those drinking real milk (even better if it is raw milk, yummy if I could find and easily obtain it!) and butter had much lower heart attack rates, down to the 1% range, compared to the “blokes” who chose to go feminine with their diets. That might differ for women, I do not know since I am not one and did not look.

Avoid use and exposure to tobacco! Hahahahahahaha What a feminist leftist flop. “Do not touch that, it is doity!” hahahahahhaha I am going to smoke cigars and pipe from here on. And, I am going to get more men to become real men and do the same, driving up demand (thus price) until the high equilibrium is hit and the prices come down. And, I will be working to force tax cuts on everything, especially my smokes, guns, ammo, and such. I do not want nor need a government medical pogrom, and I mean to see my government get the hell out of my life as far as it should be. Meaning, they should do the military, diplomacy (talk only, no money), and a few other key things. The rest needs to be our own responsibility.

By the way, you know those stupid little ration cards put on cans, bottles, boxes, and everything the government can get their hands on, telling you how much you should eat and daily recommendations? Yeah, those are based on a 50 something year old post menopausal woman’s dietary scripts. Ignore them, as they are wrong in every single way. Find out for yourself, and do what you know you should. Or, be fat and happy! I will never knock that (unless you want half of your ass to bulge into my already cramped airplane seating, then there will be words!). Hell, some might say I am fat, if not happy about it.

God forgive me, should I have gone wrong with this post. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.

5 comments:

  1. "So, I am supposed to eat less than 4200 calories a week?"

    Well, there's an error in your calculation, because you left out the basic "maintenance" daily caloric requirements.

    According to this chart provided by the US Dept of Health and Human Services (via WebMD), even a sedentary lifestyle requires roughly 2,200 calories a day just to fuel your basic day-to-day activities; more, if you are more active.

    That means about 15,400 calories per week on top of the 4,200 to offset your specified workout routine. And don't forget those walks, either -- they add up quick the more you do them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, they were not very explicit.

    Yeah, yeah, take this article with a grain of salt anyway. I was having a good bad time while writing it... Or is that the other way around. Imagine a chocolate covered jalapeño, a hot one, or is it chocolate filled(?) (assuming you like both, or... not?).

    ReplyDelete
  3. The chocolate I'll take, and the jalapeño I'll leave.

    Or was it not an either/or proposition?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it depends on how well you can slice or dice things. The turn of a phrase, or blade, has made the imp possible. Or, something like that.

    Oh, something odd I noticed. Caloric burn for any work out is weight based. The list I saw starts at 150, then goes to 170, then to 190, with increasing caloric burn per body weight. I weigh 110 pounds more than that top one. Do you suppose I really have significant extra calorie burns at that weight?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, on a similar order to what was already listed; probably less as you go up (not a straight linear progression), but you are definitely moving more mass around than that top person would.

    Perhaps an expanded chart is available somewhere that would accommodate the magnitude increase?

    ReplyDelete

Backsass Here