Jump to content

Pug

 
  • Content Count

    125
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About Pug

  • Rank
     

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nova Scotia
  • Interests
    Besides golf, exercise, nutrition, weight management and learning how to play banjo.
  • Handicap:
    43

Contact Methods

  • Referred By:
    Google

Recent Profile Visitors

525 profile views
  1. For a lot of people that is all it takes, but the challenge is doing both parts: eating the right food and portion control. It is amazing how hard resisting temptation can be. Walking the dog makes a virtue of necessity, with the added benefit of fresh air and exercise. Mrs. Pug and I were able to spend 4 hours in the garden today, another example of making a virtue out of necessity.
  2. Good for you, an 18 pound drop is a significant achievement. Like you, I had some surprisingly good A1c results while I was still losing weight but unfortunately in my case they always popped back up into the diabetic range when my weight loss plateaued. Hopefully you will have a better result. It was only after I got my weight down to a BMI level of 21 (130 pounds) that it has stayed down. It is nice to be off the meds. I can relate to your diet, it’s much the same as my own which is heavily influenced by the Mediterranean diet. I actually don’t remember the last time I had bread and I sure do miss baking it. (Almost as much as eating it!) My processed carbs are pretty much restricted to crackers these days, and then only on weekends. That is also when I enjoy some 85 or 90% dark chocolate and a glass or two of wine. Did that last night and my blood sugar popped up to 6.0 this morning. I am going to be doing something with salmon tonight - probably have a salad; that has yet to be decided. Maybe some berries and yogurt afterwards or perhaps the other half of the dark chocolate bar left from last night. I have been drinking club soda with a squeeze of lime juice (to prevent scurvy) and occasionally a sugar free lemon iced tea for a thirst quencher. About once a week for the iced tea is about what I have been having as well. My problem with artificial sweeteners is they make me feel hungry in the same way as sugar and processed carbs do. I have an evolving meal replacement bar that I have been working on. I use it to quell cravings and as a substitute for a high carb snack. There are no added sugars, only those naturally occurring in the fruit I use in the recipe. It leans heavily into whole grains with a healthy shot of whey protein powder added to snuff out appetite. I’ve also been walking my ‘hood since the track at the Sportsplex closed. This week I got up to 3.2 kilometres with out using walking aids. That is the longest distance I have managed since my hip replacement 16 months ago. I was looking forward to walking the course once again - I haven’t been able to do that since the surgery. Unfortunately yesterday my home course put out the word that they will not open before May 15, if then, so it will be a while longer before I will have the chance. On the plus side the Black Hole Gang is keeping it spirits up by exchanging jokes and links to funny videos. The temperature is up to a blistering 6° Celsius so I am heading out to do some winter clean up in the yard as soon as I post this.
  3. The challenge I am facing is not over eating out of boredom. The trick is staying busy, and I can only read trashy novels for so long. Now that the libraries are closed I even have to pace that. There is a minimal amount I can do from home due to the extensive firewalls we have at work, so I am pacing myself with some DIY projects, practicing with the PuttOut and playing guitar. I have also added a light workout on Tuesday and Thursdays to try to stay fit and not let my weight creep back up. So far, so good.
  4. Just an update since so many of us are looking for something to keep us busy while Covid-19 runs its course. I ran into Tim just before the Sportsplex closed, extended the invitation to play with the BHG, and he is in
  5. No worries, I think our points of view are actually closer than may appear at first blush, particularly the point concerning not doing the homework by reading in depth and to not accept everything at face value. I also am onboard regarding the issue of over and under estimating calories in and out. Frankly, overall we are on the same page here, except for your view of Fung. What, you don't want the guy to have a side business? Just kidding. On that I am happy to agree to disagree. I appreciate my responses were long and you skipped around a bit so you may have missed this. My position on CICO is not that it will never work. I didn't express that well in the post that kicked off this conversation since I was only focused on the long term. I used calorie restriction and exercise to loose the first 80 pounds of my weight loss journey. I would say that is a significant support for the idea that it worked to that point. It took 7 years and there was a lot of back sliding and up and down weight shifts along the way. The problem I had was no matter how much I adjusted and restricted my intake I was simply unable to loose the final 30 pounds I needed to get my blood sugars into the normal range. In my case the calorie restriction evolved first from eating less than to eating clean. That was more than calorie restriction, it was a life style change. I still have to be careful to not over eat. As a last resort I tried IF and it worked for me. I lost the weight, my blood sugar is where it needs to be, I am off the diabetes meds. Unfortunately I will not be able to get my A1c test done this quarter to confirm I have the disease in remission, but in the greater scheme of things that is minor. As a final note, you have no idea how much I miss sitting in a lounge chair and eating pizza and drinking beer. Good to hear from you.
  6. I appreciate the supportive gesture, but please don't bother God on my account. You may have misunderstood my intent. The posts were meant to be supportive to those who are interested in accurate information being presented on this forum. If the information falls short of that standard it is appropriate in my view that the short fall is noted. In this case there were many points made that required longer response than one might expect. I may have been a bit frustrated by the scope of what I saw but there was no personal animosity on my part.
  7. To clarify "what that was", underlying the posts was a question of integrity regarding the accuracy of what was posted. Too much? A bit over the top? Guilty as charged. I will admit to suffering from enthusiasm and exuberance when faced with statements made to me that I view as misleading. You might be prepared to accept those circumstances, but I am just not built that way. I do try to exercise moderation with my physical excesses, generally what might fall under the general heading of sex, drugs, rock and roll. Contrary to your advise, as well intentioned as I am sure it is, I can't do everything in moderation. I have a difficult time exercise moderation with respect to my personal ethics. For me that would mean doing less than my best, and when I succumb to that laziness I always feel guilty about it. No doubt it's a personal short coming. I apologize if that or the posts offend you.
  8. Finally, you cited this and once again I read the article: Here's Fung refusing evidence-based medicine: https://www.dietdoctor.com/corruption-evidence-based-medicine Regarding EBM, among others, the article quotes Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet who said in 2015: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” Also quoted is Dr. Marcia Angelli, the former editor in chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) who in 2009 wrote: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor”. Fung’s point is evidence based medicine is completely worthless if the evidence base is false or corrupted. Why or how could this happen? As cited in this article, another former editor of the NEJM, Dr. RELMAN said in 2002: “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful” What can I say, greed conquers all? The reasoning is obvious: if I pay for the research I expect the results I am looking for to be produced by the person I pay. The difference between industry funded research trials and government funded trials is that when the pharmaceutical industry runs the trial they “…are 70% more likely than government funded trials to show a positive result.” And as you might expect trials that provide a negative result are less likely to be published: Negative trials (those that show no benefit for the drugs) are likely to be suppressed. For example, in the case of antidepressants, 36/37 studies that were favourable to drugs were published. But of the studies not favorable to drugs, a paltry 3/36 were published. Selective publication of positive (for the drug company) results means that a review of the literature would suggest that 94% of studies favor drugs where in truth, only 51% were actually positive. Here is the conclusion from the article concerning the issues with EBM: Selective publication Pre-determined outcomes Advertorials Reprint revenues Potential bribery of journal editors Publication bias Financial conflicts of interests When the evidence base of medicine is bought and paid for, people suffer. Unfortunately, doctors and universities have been willing participants in this game. We need to end it now. End the corruption of the universities. Stop the bribery of doctors. Stay tuned, the non-profit Public Health Collaboration, currently based in the UK, but soon encompassing Canada, Ireland, USA, and Australia is gearing up to tackle this issue of corruption in medical science. I think I have the flavor of what you are doing now. Unfortunately it seems if it has Fung’s name attached you are going to disrespect the commentary without carefully considering what is actually being written. The one thing that I have found most attractive about the MGS forums is the generally respectful conversations. I am sorry to say I found the analytical quality of this post not up to your usual standard. I invite anyone of the datacratic MGS readers to go through these articles and reach their own conclusions. With that, I have finished responding to this post. Man, I gotta get a life. This working at home is not working. Back to the PuttOut.
  9. Continuing from the previous post: 1. Sisyphus, king of Ephyra, had angered the gods. We are never told the precise nature of the crime that had the gods annoyed but the punishment was to be condemned to push a huge rock up a hill until he finally got it perched at the peak. Only when he accomplished this task would he be free. Sisyphus strove mightily to push that obnoxious pebble to the top of the hill, only to have it roll back down once he got it to the top. Down he rushed to start pushing it back up again, through all eternity. This is the classical definition of hell: the endless repetition of a meaningless task. Which of course brings us to the subject of yo-yo dieting and the great calories in vs. calories out debate. Now on this point: “And here's Fung's take on the Women's Health Initiative...not once stating the subjects in this test were post-menopausal: https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/diet-wars-992db10afa2e “ The WHI web page is here: https://www.whi.org/SitePages/WHI Home.aspx . The dietary modification trial was a randomized controlled clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that a low-fat dietary pattern compared to a usual dietary pattern would reduce the risk of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. That specific study is here: https://www.whi.org/about/SitePages/Dietary Trial.aspx. In part you wrote: I don't know why that's brought up in your response, but whoever is using this as a source to rebut CICO is leaving out critical components of the study (that it involved post-menstrual women.) I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make, admittedly badly, which was simply CICO does not work for everyone, contrary to what you seem to be asserting. It didn’t work for this otherwise reasonably healthy cohort over the long term. However, if you agree CICO did not work for post-menopausal women, than you have agreed it doesn’t work for everyone. That’s my point. YMMV. And while I appreciate the comment regarding the change in hormones for post-menopausal women, the primary hormones we are concerned with in regard to diet are insulin and cortisol, not estrogen and those related to menopause. With respect to your comment on getting tested for hormones, let’s keep in mind that it is remarkably difficult to measure insulin, which is why the A1c blood sugar test is used for a proxy. I suspect the testing your wife had was specific to her issue. I don’t want to conflate one with the other. To be fair, I should have added to my original post which started this discussion that if you are not badly overweight CICO will work in the short term. But as we all know, if you return to your original diet the weight will return, and in some cases you may gain even more. At that time you may then try a different style of diet with essentially the same intent, namely calorie restriction, only to have the same result occur again. Welcome to Yo-Yo Dieting 101. [For anyone unclear on the meaning of yo-yo dieting, see Sisyphus, para 1.] So to be clear, my assertion is that if you are badly overweight a CICO approach to dieting will not be successful in the long run, but a change in life style that involves healthy eating will last over the long term provided the life style change is maintained and modified as required. Having done both, I was only able to get to a healthy weight and put tuype 2 diabetes into remission when I permanently changed my lifestyle, which in my case meant using intermittent fasting. IF is not for everyone. YMMV. But don't take my word for it. Try reading "Why Diets Fail (Because You're Addicted to Sugar) by Nicole M. Avena, PHD, a neuroscientist and addiction researcher and John R. Talbot ( a financial analyst). All kinds of science for the curious. They even have an 8 step plan to take people through the process of sugar withdrawal. Here's a tip. Step 5 is not apologizing to all of the vegetables you insulted in your life. Hey tvgolfjunkie, you expressed an interest in the psychological causes of being overweight. I think this book is for you.
  10. Continuing from the previous post: 1. Sisyphus, king of Ephyra, had angered the gods. We are never told the precise nature of the crime that had the gods annoyed but the punishment was to be condemned to push a huge rock up a hill until he finally got it perched at the peak. Only when he accomplished this task would he be free. Sisyphus strove mightily to push that obnoxious pebble to the top of the hill, only to have it roll back down once he got it to the top. Down he rushed to start pushing it back up again, through all eternity. This is the classical definition of hell: the endless repetition of a meaningless task. Which of course brings us to the subject of yo-yo dieting and the great calories in vs. calories out debate. Now on this point: “And here's Fung's take on the Women's Health Initiative...not once stating the subjects in this test were post-menopausal: https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/diet-wars-992db10afa2e “ The WHI web page is here: https://www.whi.org/SitePages/WHI Home.aspx . The dietary modification trial was a randomized controlled clinical trial designed to test the hypothesis that a low-fat dietary pattern compared to a usual dietary pattern would reduce the risk of breast and colorectal cancers and coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. That specific study is here: https://www.whi.org/about/SitePages/Dietary Trial.aspx. In part you wrote: I don't know why that's brought up in your response, but whoever is using this as a source to rebut CICO is leaving out critical components of the study (that it involved post-menstrual women.) I think you may be missing the point I was trying to make, admittedly badly, which was simply CICO does not work for everyone, contrary to what you seem to be asserting. It didn’t work for this otherwise reasonably healthy cohort over the long term. However, if you agree CICO did not work for post-menopausal women, than you have agreed it doesn’t work for everyone. That’s my point. YMMV. And while I appreciate the comment regarding the change in hormones for post-menopausal women, the primary hormones we are concerned with in regard to diet are insulin and cortisol, not estrogen and those related to menopause. With respect to your comment on getting tested for hormones, let’s keep in mind that it is remarkably difficult to measure insulin, which is why the A1c blood sugar test is used for a proxy. I suspect the testing your wife had was specific to her issue. I don’t want to conflate one with the other. To be fair, I should have added to my original post which started this discussion that if you are not badly overweight CICO will work in the short term. But as we all know, if you return to your original diet the weight will return, and in some cases you may gain even more. At that time you may then try a different style of diet with essentially the same intent, namely calorie restriction, only to have the same result occur again. Welcome to Yo-Yo Dieting 101. [For anyone unclear on the meaning of yo-yo dieting, see Sisyphus, para 1.] So to be clear, my assertion is that if you are badly overweight a CICO approach to dieting will not be successful in the long run, but a change in life style that involves healthy eating will last over the long term provided the life style change is maintained and modified as required. Having done both, I was only able to get to a healthy weight and put tuype 2 diabetes into remission when I permanently changed my lifestyle, which in my case meant using intermittent fasting. IF is not for everyone. YMMV. But don't take my word for it. Try reading "Why Diets Fail (Because You're Addicted to Sugar) by Nicole M. Avena, PHD, a neuroscientist and addiction researcher and John R. Talbot ( a financial analyst). All kinds of science for the curious. They even have an 8 step plan to take people through the process of sugar withdrawal. Here's a tip. Step 5 is not apologizing to all of the vegetables you insulted in your life. Hey tvgolfjunkie, you expressed an interest in the psychological causes of being overweight. I think this book is for you.
  11. As indicated earlier, I said I would look at this further. “And the rebuttal with updated charts that Fung failed to include, but were available to him: https://nutritionalrevolution.org/2019/03/11/lies-from-fung/ “ A couple of observations on this. First, it doesn’t appear this author has not read the article closely either. One of the comments is this: The rate of death from cancer has declined dramatically from 1950-2015 in all age groups except those older than 85. This is due to a dramatic improvement in cancer treatments at younger ages and a drop in lung cancer at older ages. As noted earlier, cancer is quintessentially a disease of old age. The charts he posted are in some cases identified as from legitimate sources, however, I am not going to spend my time trying to determine the context in which they were developed. That’s a rabbit hole I don’t have time for. I suspect the author of this article has his own agenda. I went to the home page for this article and found this: I have no words #8. Save yourself from coronavirus. Buy my beef liver product today. There was also this on the home page: “Coronavirus starter pack: -Cold showers -Sun/vitamin D -Beef liver -Ketones -Elderberry -Steaks -Sleep 8+ hours -Exercise -Sauna -Most importantly: cut s*** out of your diet. Soap and masks won’t save you. Your immune system will. Support it with what it needs.” Right, save yourself from coronavirus by buying his beef liver extract, using cold showers and Sun/vitamin D. Remind me how sun/vitamin D worked out for all of the good folks in sunny Italy. BTW on the subject of having an agenda, in addition to buying his beef liver extract you can support Kevin by donating $5 a month to his blog: https://nutritionalrevolution.org/support-me/. Not to be rude, but how is this anything more than a scrapping off the internet?
  12. Further to my last post referring to this comment: Fung's Cancer 'Fear Mongering' Article using 25 year old data: https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/cancer-inc-4cece0eb4e07 The article than goes on to make its main point regarding the costs associated with cancer: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) budget for 2019 is $5.74 billion, paid from tax revenue. In 2013 there were 339 cancer charities in Canada pulling in $644 million. In the US, the American Cancer Society (ACS) generates over $800 million per year in donations. All that money is not going for research. According to this article, ACS paid 368 employees more than $100,000 each ($36,800,000). The lowest paid member of the leadership team was paid almost half a million. The CEO was paid a total package of $820,777 and the former chief operating officer was paid $2,343,992. The article notes that there have been many cancer “breakthroughs” in recent years, and notes they have made a difference, but not a big one. Cancer drugs are approved by the FDA if they show “efficacy with minimal side effects (toxicity)”. The problem is “efficacy” is defined in different ways. The question remains how helpful have the breakthroughs really been if the gold standard is to prove they allow cancer patients to live longer. From 1990 to 2002 68 % of FDA approval of oncology drugs was for other reasons. They didn’t improve survival rates. Most commonly they were approved because they shrank the size of the primary tumor by over 50%. See: J Clin Oncol 2003 Apr 1;21(7):1404–11. End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs. Johnson JR et al. Cancer kill because it spreads, not because it is big. Local cancer treatments such as surgery or radiation are useless once a cancer has metastasized, which is why surgeons go to great lengths to get it all. The majority of cancer drugs were based solely upon “efficacy” and not whether they extended patients lives for a significant time. The article notes From 1990–2002, 71 new drug approvals were granted, although due to approvals for multiple cancers, this only translated into 45 new drugs. Defining efficacy more rigorously as actually saving lives, only 12 medications cleared this bar in the 12 years from 1990–2002. These drugs mostly only extended life by only a few weeks or months. In that same time, the phrase ‘cancer breakthrough’ appeared in 691 published articles.” 691 “breakthroughs” resulting in 12 medications that extend life for the short term appears to be an exaggeration in these circumstances. The point of the article is all of the breakthroughs look great, but where “cancer is the quintessential disease of aging” these breakthroughs have had little real value for us old guys. On a side note regarding "efficacy" my own doctor related a meeting with a drug manufacturer salesman. I don't recall now which disease the drug was intended to treat, but as my doctor related it the salesman urged mhy doctor to prescribe the drug for her patients who were not responding well to other modalities because the drug had been FDA approved and had proved in testing to be efficacious in 2% of cases. As my doctor noted, if she prescibed this drug to 50 patients, it would only help one of them. Efficacious.
  13. Continuing with my response to tvgolfjunkie's post from February 27 found on page 92: Fung's Cancer 'Fear Mongering' Article using 25 year old data: https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/cancer-inc-4cece0eb4e07 You refer to this as fear mongering. After reading the article I can only conclude that you’re easily frightened. It also appears that you did not read the article closely. Stating that the article uses 25 year old data will mislead readers into thinking that only one study was referred to. That is false. My take away on the article is that using the fear of cancer is big business. With respect to whether cancer treatments have reduced the rate of cancer, there was this comment in the first paragraph of the article: “The American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC) was created in 1913 and stressed the importance of early detection and aggressive treatment. In the 1940s, they championed the routine use of the Pap smear for cervical cancer. It was hugely and stunningly successful as death rates from cervical cancer dropped quickly.” Once again it appears you are attributing comments of researchers referred to in the article as those of Fung himself. For example, the article refers to the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Dr. John Bailor III, who was a consultant for the New England Journal of Medicine and a lecturer at Harvard’s School of Public Health. It was Bailor who started to question the effectiveness of cancer research in the 1970’s, and eventually left the NCI. In the same vein, you added this: And the rebuttal with updated charts that Fung failed to include, but were available to him: https://nutritionalrevolution.org/2019/03/11/lies-from-fung/ In the article you site with the interesting tag in the url address of “lies-from-fung” states the information is misleading among other reasons, because it not adjusted for age. In fact Bailor’s study was age adjusted at the time, and this misses the point of the article because its main thrust is that “cancer is the quintessential disease of aging”. The impact and frequency of cancer in other age groups is far smaller. I am going to comment further on this article shortly. Referring to Bailor’s research: In the two decades from 1962 to 1982, the number of Americans who died of cancer increased by 56%. Adjusting for the increased population, this still represented a 25% increase in the rate of death from cancer, at a time when virtually every other disease showed decreasing mortality. Bailar III noted that the data “provide no evidence that some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to improve the treatment of cancer have had much overall effect on the most fundamental measure of clinical outcome — death. Indeed, with respect to cancer as a whole, we have slowly lost ground”. He wondered aloud “Why is cancer the only major cause of death for which age-adjusted mortality rates are still increasing?” The article notes because of his comments, “Dr. Bailar III became almost universally reviled within the cancer research community he had once lead.” Bailor published a follow up paper 11 years later titled “Cancer Undefeated” noting the cancer rate had increased by another 2.7% from 1982 to 1994. Yup, that is 25 year old data. However, the article also noted cancer rates among children had dropped about 50% since the 1970’s. Cancer deaths among children (1,699 out of a total of 529,904) amounted to only 3% of all deaths. Back to the main thrust of the article: “cancer is the quintessential disease of aging”. Here is part of the article that is not 25 year old data:” From 1969–2014, total deaths from heart disease dropped approximately 17% despite the increasing population base in the United States. …During that same time period, deaths from cancer rose a chilling 84%.” .” And from the New York Times in 2009 in an article titled “Advance Elusive in the Drive to Cure Cancer noted: “…the adjusted death rate for cancer had dropped only 5% from 1950 to 2005, compared to heart disease deaths, which had dropped 64% and for flu and pneumonia, which had dropped by 58%.” So that would be 15 year old data. Apparently James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix of DNA, noted in 2009 “…that cancer killed 560,000 Americans in 2006, more than 200,000 more than in 1970, the year before the ‘war’ began.” Even taking into consideration the increase in population during that period, this doesn't give the impression that science has cancer on the run. I have an update on this data for you. Here's a statistic not included in the aritcle for you to consider: In 2020 in the US there will be 1,806,950 new cancer cases and 606,520 deaths. That's new cases, not existing cases. Fact, not fear mongering. Don't take my word for it. You can find that information here: https://cancerstatisticscenter.cancer.org/#! More to follow.
  14. And continuing once again to address tvgolfjunkies post on 27 February found on page 92. His ability to leave out evidence based science on his site is appalling. This appears to be a common theme in your attack on this doctor. In reviewing the entirety of your post I have noticed an interesting paradox. In each of the articles (except the advertisement for herbal tea) Dr. Fung refers to the research of others, sometimes at length. You have in turn rejected each of these articles even though they reference the research of others. I view Dr. Fung as a public educator as well as a kidney specialist. He is bringing forward infomation for laymen such as myself to consider. While he supports the use of fasting in certain circumstances he does not suggest that it will work for everyone. As MGS writers have noted in other circumstances concerning performance, Your Mileage May Vary. More to the point, I think it is interesting that you have rejected all of the evidence based information that the doctor refers to yourself, and than have turned around and accused him of doing the same thing himself. If this was deliberate it would be hypocrisy. I don't think that was your intent. I simply think you did not consider the entirety of your post. Now here is the irony. Stay with me, this next post is long.
  15. Continuing from my previous post regarding tvgolfjunkies post on February 27 found on page 92. His ability to leave out evidence based science on his site is appalling. Here he is pushing IF to cure cancer, yet there's no study to back this up: https://www.rsng.com/categories/movement-fuel/articles/could-7-days-of-fasting-protect-against-cancer Speaking of being a pain in the butt, let's talk colorectal cancer. We have already discussed this comment earlier and you agreed it was a bit of an overstatement. Dr.Fung’s discussion concerns the work of biology professor Dr. Thomas Seyfried who suggests fasting can target the inflammation that contributes to the initiation and growth of tumors. Dr. Seyfried’s experiments “found that fasting massively reduced “tumour invasion” in models of brain cancer.’ If Dr. Seyfried’s work isn’t a study, what is it? Also note that Dr Fung states: “Fasting isn’t a cure-all – healthy eating still matters. Modern medicine’s greatest challenges are metabolic diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol and fatty liver, collectively known as metabolic syndrome. The presence of any of these diseases massively increases the risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer. That means premature death. And the roots of metabolic syndrome lie in the Western diet, with its abundance of sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial flavours, artificial sweeteners and over-dependence on refined grains.’ : MGS readers can read the rest of the article for themselves and draw their own conclusions on what is said.
×
×
  • Create New...