Hi there. Well, I think you have a reasonable plan. You can increase your odds of losing by walking a bit further or picking up the pace of your walk. Find some hills to add into the walk, etc.
Food. Well, many talk about lean protein. A baked chicken breast or baked fish or broiled fish/salmon are all good ideas. Then lots of vegis and fruit as sweet snacks. Take a good mutli vitamin. You can get chicken and cook it and eat it for dinner, save a breast and slice it and put it in a salad for the next day.. Use spices to change the flavor rather than any fats or oils. Lean pork is also good.
It's really that simple. Do you need actual recipes?
Not sure what you mean by avoiding saturated fat. Saturated fat from natural sources (butter, lard, eggs, coconut, etc) is extremely healthy. I made a significant change in my life with eating LCHF (low carb, moderate protein and high fat) which not only did I lose ALOT of weight, but also improved my health and look more than a decade younger (gorgeous glowing skin).
Butter and lard are generally not considered healthy for us. :>) Most dieticians recommend limiting this either completely or significantly.
Do you have peer reviewed medical journals citing this? Show me the evidence.
wrong!!! I disagree with your statement that saturated fat is unhealthy. This load of misguided opinion that was started by Dr Keys years ago in collusion with USDA supporting sugar industry and other agricultural industry lobbyists. Unfortunately, the deliberately skewed science has been propagated, but the good news is that in the past few years, the truth is being uncovered. Some countries are faster at making changes to guidelines (like Sweden) while other countries are taking longer time (like USA).
Here are peer reviewed medical articles uncovering the truth about saturated fat in diet and their effect on health. Saturated fat is healthy!!!! The current research is dismantling the original BS started by Keys and USA big agriculture lobbyists:
If you are not in the mood of reading hard scientific evidence or not used to reading hard science, but rather chew on layman literature, here's a recent article in the Wall Street journal. Similar articles appeared in Time Magazine, The Economist and other media outlets:
Saturated fats ARE VERY HEALTHY.
Again, I am not arguing with you. Enjoy your butter and lard. The rest of you, please please please check with your own doctors regarding this. Have a nice day.
I think you've misunderstood the studies you're quoting. This has been big news lately and has been covered extensively in the newspapers, PBS, CSPAN, etc., so I've heard the authors of the studies interviewed. In no way are they recommending anyone eat butter or lard. They are saying that butter and lard are healthier than eating a diet too low in fat or containing hydrogenated fats. This isn't the same as saying they are healthy to eat. They are still advocating more for fish oils and other omega 3 and omega 9 fats, and are saying, don't worry about eating butter in moderation (I can't imagine anyone recommending lard, seeing as how it's not only just bad fat but also comes from animals raised in unhealthy conditions, injected with antibiotics, etc,. whereas unless you're making your own lard from naturally raised animals at least you can buy organic butter) but please please please don't take this as saying it's okay to overdo it. So yes, it's always been true that the non-fat craze was bad for you, not least because the products usually covered up the lack of taste with artificial additives and lots of sugars. I go with specialmom here, for what it's worth.
I should also have added, climate can also affect this. In very cold climates where not much grows people have adapted to eating a lot of animal fat, but it's natural animal fat, not store bought. But for the bulk of people who live in temperate climates, less animal is better, and in tropical climates different still. Eating is way more complex than many indicate, and is very dependent on the individual as well and what they best digest.
Please back up your statements with actual facts. Show me evidence. How is it I provide links and evidence and you just provide opinions?
Wrong. Here is an example evidence....check out this link of a June 2014 Time magazine, where BUTTER was the front page photo of the magazine, and the caption said "scientists labeled fat as the enemy, why they were wrong"
And Time magazine features an article stating they were WRONG about saturated fats....
The truth is coming boys and girls....time to get your heads out of the sand and seeing what the hard science is saying!
I reviewed many of the links you provided, and nowhere did I read that butter and lard are "very healthy", and nowhere does it say that those foods should be eaten in large quantities, consistently.
Also, in the links you yourself provided, many of the studies maintain that while the link between saturated foods and cardiovascular problems may not always be as significant as once thought, it's definitely still listed as a contributing factor to athlerosclerosis.
I'm a supporter of science in a huge way, but I also acknowledge that not every (actually not even most) studies are unbiased and accurate. The vast majority of studies are done for purposes of receiving funding, or to present information to certain entities, to further the cause of a certain group. It's VERY VERY VERY difficult to find a study that doesn't have an ulterior motive....that is just for research's sake.
I buy that butter in moderation is okay...actually, I think most anything in moderation is okay. I don't believe in following diets that believe in either severely reducing or limiting one kind of food, and gorging on another, with the exception of obviously very unhealthy foods (ie processed foods, etc). I believe in a balanced diet.
I embarked on my own journey about a year ago to lose weight and get healthier. I've lost over 43# thus far by changing WHAT and how much I was eating....and limiting my caloric intake. I cut back significantly on fats, while adding more veggies, fruits, leaner proteins. I eat foods that are higher in more optimal fats, such as avocados. I've been successful thus far (thank God)...and I acknowledge that there are many different approaches to losing weight. I wouldn't put anyone down for trying, no matter if I agreed with their methods or not.
I too think that you've perhaps read a bit too much into the research you're touting, because even the links you have provided yourself doesn't support what you've posted here.
I do find the American Heart Association as a good source with many professionals contributing to their provided information.
I'm providing a link for our readers that is from the American Heart Association's web site concerning saturated fat. There is a lot of conflicting evidence but the AHA is always a good source for information.
I really like this piece, dated September of 2014 because it puts it into simple to understand terms for any reader. Here is the link:
And this is an excerpt that is from the Frequently Asked Questions section:
"There’s a lot of conflicting information about saturated fats. Should I eat them or not? The American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fats – which are found in butter, cheese, red meat and other animal-based foods. Decades of sound science has proven it can raise your “bad” cholesterol and put you at higher risk for heart disease.
The more important thing to remember is the overall dietary picture. Saturated fats are just one piece of the puzzle. In general, you can’t go wrong eating more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fewer calories.
When you hear about the latest “diet of the day” or a new or odd-sounding theory about food, consider the source. The American Heart Association makes dietary recommendations only after carefully considering the latest scientific evidence. "
Good luck to everyone
The AHA is a scam, and here's an excerpt explaining how:
"Did you know that the American Heart Association pulls in huge sums of money each year from food manufacturers like Kellogg's and General Mills?
In return, the AHA provides an endorsement for the food industry products made by these corporations.
For each of the approximately 630 "heart healthy" logos on cereal boxes or other food products, the AHA gets a cool $7500 a year.
Well actually, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) reports that the AHA charges companies on a per product basis: $7,500 for 1-9 products, $6,750 for 10-24 products and $5,940 for 25-99 products in their first year.
To renew in subsequent years, the prices are $4,500, $4,050, and $3,570 respectively.
CSPI estimates that in 2002, with over 630 products certified, the AHA received over $2 million dollars from its food certification program.
The foods the AHA "recommends" include chocolate milk, high sugar breakfast cereals, processed meat products full of chemicals, and other unhealthy products."
The American Heart Association (AHA) is a scam. Here is an example lawsuit, where the AHA indiscriminately sells it's health check symbol to large companies (General Mills, Campbell Soup, Kelloggs, etc). It's an organization that gets it's money from Big Ag and Big Pharma. Here's an example:
That organization is unethical, placing their health check on products with trans fats and sugars, like crackers and cookies. Very, very evil.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the American Heart Association.
I would recommend everyone talk to their own doctors rather than taking anyone's word for it.
Here's the CDC information also recommending a diet similar to that of the American Heat Association.
Luck to all and keep eating healthy.
And my apologizes to the poster for your question turning into the big saturated fat controversy. :>) You asked for ideas on things to buy and prepare that are low in calories and fat and hopefully higher in the thread, you got some ideas. Please feel free to post again and don't let the lengthy off topic discussion scare you off. :)
Good luck to the poster
Here's the AHA's financial info in detailed tax returns. The money they get from endorsing products is miniscule to them. That money isn't making or breaking them, not in a million years.
There's ALWAYS politics in stuff like this (non-profit/charitable entities). While they may be able to improve on some things, I would hardly say that they're evil or a scam. That sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory personally.
This is a great link that shows the breakdown of where the $ comes from and goes to..
Contributions, Gifts & Grants $234,687,215
Federated Campaigns $5,819,120
Membership Dues $0
Fundraising Events $279,789,452
Related Organizations $0
Government Grants $249,177
Total Contributions $520,544,964
Program Service Revenue $24,756,463
Total Primary Revenue $545,301,427
Other Revenue $87,335,190
TOTAL REVENUE $632,636,617
Federated campaigns would be what you're talking about with the product endorsement. Drop in the bucket for them.
Also, their % of their budget that is spent on programs and services is 78.2%, which is excellent for this kind of organization.
Really, the contributions, gifts and grants is a small category too? Look at it again.
Wow, another nail in the coffin for AHA. Huge portion of their revenue from contributions, gifts and grants. Great entry for Big Ag and Big Pharma. Interesting indeed!!
That's how they operate and survive! I would expect that to be by far the biggest number! You posted about how they're evil and a scam because of their product endorsements, I posted black and white numbers for you, to show you what portion of their revenue is coming from that. Barely significant when looking at the big picture.
Look, I'm not interested in debating this with you, certainly not on someone else's thread. I too apologize, OP...for the hijack.
I love a great discussion as much as the next person, but in order for a discussion to be successful, there has to be two sides who are willing to look at the information as objectively as possible.
I respect that you have a certain opinion about this, and it differs from mine (in some areas). Have a good day.
I'm not interested in winning an argument. My sincere interest is to provide people with truthful hard science data, devoid of propaganda pushed by corporations and entities who would rather make money than see you healthy and healed.
In a perfect world, there would BE no conflict of interest in that regard, but the cold hard truth is.....in almost every story or situation, there is someone or some company somewhere behind the scenes trying to make a profit. That's how the world spins.
That was my point about the research studies earlier. You're posting all of these scientific "studies", and I can guarantee that a large portion of those studies were devised to either further an idea along for profit, get a grant, etc...and that's okay, but be cautious about what you're taking as scientific proof of something, and what you're writing off.
That's not to say that the info in the studies is not relevant, but just that like everything else, it should be taken with a grain of salt, and not as gospel. Just like you feel everyone was duped with the saturated fat theory....who's to say in 5, 10, 20 years, the powers that be won't release yet another study about how bad butter is for you? They will. These things cycle back and forth. Look at the sugar vs. artificial sweetener debates and recommendations. I got to the point where I didn't who what in the heck to put in my coffee! Which one was going to kill me, make me fat, etc.
I just think you're trying to apply a bunch of hard and fast rules to only one side of the equation, the one you support. That's fine, but it doesn't make the opposing information wrong.
You're clearly passionate about this topic, which is great. I've learned a long time ago though that there is a difference between being passionate and being stubborn and hard nosed. I'm not saying that you are those things...it's just some food for thought.
I would be very very careful about "doctoring" to your loved ones as well. Unless you have ALL of the information their treating doctors have, I just cannot see that it's safe (or wise) to recommend people going against the advice of their doctor.
Arming people with information? Sure. Suggesting people find a new doctor? Okay. But to claim you've healed people of diabetes and heart conditions? And to say that you've told people to dismiss their doctor's advice is dangerous IMO.
Hey, I've dealt with a lot of crappy doctors, and I'm the first to tell someone to get a second (or third, or fourth) opinion if warranted. But I don't believe in getting in between a doctor-patient relationship like you've described.
For all of the people you've "healed", you just may cause someone some serious issues, and unless you have "MD" after your name, I don't think it's very wise, IMO.
Good luck in your quest.