Food, nutrition, health - helphelphelphelp, pleeeeease!

[Jah]

Very interesting site.

Thank you ^^

 

[PapyrusAirplanes]

I was vegan for 4 years, and I've been vegetarian my entire life. I hardly ever get sick and am in pretty good shape (could be better, but that's due to laziness, not due to what I eat).

What I've found is that it's best to keep things simple. (Who wants to spend all day counting miniscule amounts of nutrients? The stress of that is probably worse for you than most junk foods.) So I have a list of things I try to eat very little of, and a list of things I can eat however-much-I-want of. It works pretty well.


Try To Avoid:
Refined sugar
Refined/bleached flour
Manufactured additives
Deep fried foods
Butter
Cheese
Things that barely have an expiration date

Go For:
Green, leafy things
Fruits
Vegetables
Extra virgin olive oil
Beans
Eggs (especially egg whites)
Whole grains (especially sprouted whole grains)
Soy
High-protein dairy products (Greek yogurt, cottage cheese)


Of course, I eat things on the first list every once in a while. And that's not a problem. It's just what you eat as a habit that really affects your health.

And if you're worried about craving burgers for the rest of your life, don't worry--your taste buds change very quickly. I used to be a junk food addict, too, but figured it was stupid to endanger my health for something that temporary and started eating better. In about a week, my junk food cravings were gone. So there's a hump, but it's not very big.

Hope this helps a bit. Good luck!

 

[Cavallier]

And if you're worried about craving burgers for the rest of your life, don't worry--your taste buds change very quickly. I used to be a junk food addict, too, but figured it was stupid to endanger my health for something that temporary and started eating better. In about a week, my junk food cravings were gone. So there's a hump, but it's not very big.

I have a theory that it isn't so much the taste buds that create the cravings. I this it's mostly habit. Humans are very habit oriented creatures. Some smokers I know even talk about how it's not that they really crave the nicotine anymore but that they crave the habit and ritual of smoking. I think it's the same with a lot of junk food. You have to come up with something else that fills the habit you have for junk food.

Hmmm....

 

[PapyrusAirplanes]

I have a theory that it isn't so much the taste buds that create the cravings. I this it's mostly habit. Humans are very habit oriented creatures. Some smokers I know even talk about how it's not that they really crave the nicotine anymore but that they crave the habit and ritual of smoking. I think it's the same with a lot of junk food. You have to come up with something else that fills the habit you have for junk food.

Hmmm....

That's definitely plausible. Eating troubles are definitely psychological, or at least start out that way. There's something to be said for caffeine/sugar addictions, but it's mostly in the mind.

 

[SkyWalker]

And where does fructose hit ?
What is fructose metabolized into ?
It hits your liver, and is metabolized there into; FAT.
Which means that unless you're a very healthy person, and unless you limit the daily intake of fructose to somewhere below 50-60 grams you'll have an increased risk of heart-attack due to the high levels of triglycerides in your blood stream, which are directly caused by fructose-intake.

You are right. I shouldnt have said anything about fructose. But you over-complicate things now even more here for the average joe.
Your fructose story is true, but it doesnt apply when on low carbs (i suggested fructose is OK IF ON LOW CARBS).

Then all of a sudden you turn it around and talk as if we are adding thousands of grams of fructose to an already high carb diet, YES THEN YOU WILL PROBABLY GET FAT IN THE LIVER. But that is an extreme case all the way on the other side of what i suggested.

As long as you dont touch that "high-fructose corn syrup (which is half glucose after digestion btw)" stuff, and only eat 2 fruits a day, then how can fructose be bad? it will just replensh liver glycogen. (and you can always fill it up a bit when on low carbs.

 

[SkyWalker]

and about how much protein you can actually digest:
no one knows, but it seems rather logical to not eat giant quantities at the same time.
yes, the study that says you can digest 30 grams was done on whey protein only, in fasted state, but if you cant even handle more than 30 grams of easily digestible whey, then how the hell can you digest more of a more difficult protein??
anyway i dont hold on to that 30 grams myth.
but which person needs more than 6x30=180 grams of protein per day anyway? thats more than enough, so why eat more protein than 30?
and whatever the time window of the protein digestion, eating some protein every 3 hours keeps my stomach smaller than eating twice the amount every 6 hours. i prefer a smaller stomach, it is less inhibiting in my daily activities

anyway i dont think it is possible to overdose on protein if you flush the kidneys with enough water, but its just a waste of resource to eat too much protein, better give it to a poor person so thats why 30 grams is quite good from all perspectives actually... just the right not too much, not too little amount


anyway, about vegetarian protein: you need like 3x more of it because of its bad amino acid profile (talking about wasteful)

 

[Linsejko]

I find it very interesting that other INTPs are as knowledgeable as I am about eating. How interesting.

I eventually became overwhelmed by all that I was reading, and realized I was reading myself in circles. I have synthesized my knowledge into a kind of K.I.S.S. eating style:

I make 95% of my food myself.

I use whole ingredients I purchase myself at the open air market nearby (I live in Jerusalem at the moment, don't know what I'll do back in Texas), making as few exceptions as possible.

THE LESS FOOD IS TAMPERED WITH, THE BETTER. This means buying and consuming food in as close to its raw form as is tasty.

This means organic is good. This means non pasteurized is preferable, though with necessary precautions.

HEAT DESTROYS STUFF. So I cook gently and quickly. FRESH IS IMPORTANT. Freezing my spinach, therefore, is a clear choice. Seasonings don't last forever. Packaged food should be avoided. PRESERVATIVES ARE BAD.

LOTS OF WATER IS GOOD. So I drink lots of water. I use a Britta filter. I avoid tap, but I don't mind drinking it on occasion. Almost all of my fluid input is either tea (whole, open leaf, with a little honey or unsweetened) or water. I don't drink anything else habitually.

MICROWAVES ARE BAD. I can explain the science of how microwaves work at every stage--only at the point, when I understood why it was bad at the molecular level, did I finally say 'no mas'.

Which is fine, honestly--it doesn't take much time to gently heat something in a pan or convection oven, and it tastes a lot better anyways.

SPICY IS GOOD.

REFINED SUGAR IS BAD. I only use honey, and I use it in moderation--and I make sure to buy high quality honey. I eat a fair amount of fruits, however, and that's okay. I don't drink sodas. I don't make a habit of coffee, and have little sugar when I do have it. (I will use honey if available). I do not regularly drink any fruit juices, though if I find super pulpy 100% not from concentrate orange juice, I do get a little weak in the knees.

ARTIFICIAL IS EXTREMELY SUSPECT. I don't trust multivitamins, the science is sketchy on them. Wouldn't rely on them for anything, and won't waste my money on them as an insurance policy--just enjoy good food!

However, ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS ARE POISON, and should be illegal.

Alternative sweetners like agave nectar, etc., seem like fine ideas. I just don't have the money for them.

Coffee? It's not fresh, so it's probably not good. It also has had lots of heat exposure. Don't expect much from it. Caffeine isn't good for you anyways, and I don't need it.

FRUITS & VEGGIES ARE GOOD, even if I don't like veggies. I've been slowly adding more and more of both into my diet over time, since I was deprived as a child and never acquired a taste. I'm much better now 3 years in.

DIVERSITY IS GOOD.

EGGS ARE GOOD. WHOLE EGGS. NOT JUST WHITES. THAT'S STUPID.

MEAT IN MODERATION IS FREAKING DELICIOUS.

DAIRY IN MODERATION. Very important for it to be organic, however. Most of my dairy ends up being non-organic because I'm a poor college student, but this would be one of my priorities for organic food if I could afford it. I have gone more than a year without dairy before, though, and the only time I use it now outside of the rare cup of hot chocolate is some milkshakes I've gotten hooked on that are just bananas, pears, apples, other fruits, and a little milk, along with a dab of honey and peanut butter and some cinnamon. Fantastically healthy and tasty, and super fast.

PESTICIDES ARE BAD. So wash thoroughly. I've been meaning to begin washing with a hydrogen-peroxide diluted mix I heard about a while ago that was a lot more effective than straight water... Too poor to buy HP though, here.

FAT IS NOT BAD. Actually, it's pretty good for you, if it's naturally occurring fat. The fat you have to worry about is from unnatural oils, etc. Moderation in all things, however...

WHOLE GRAINS ARE EXCELLENT IN REASONABLE QUANTITIES. I want to EMPHASIZE THIS. http://eap.mcgill.ca/publications/EAP35.htm

In Denmark, during World War II, due to a food crisis, many domestic animals were slaughtered and their grain rations fed to humans. Consumption of white bread was stopped, and replaced by a bread made from a wholemeal of 67% rye, 21% oats, and 12% bran, called Kleiebrot. Consequently, the death rate fell to the lowest level ever registered in Europe. There were significant declines in the incidence of high blood pressure, heart disease, kidney problems, diabetes, and cancer, and there were no cases of digestive troubles (Marine & Van Allen, 1972; Day, 1966).

White bread is pretty shitty, though. Avoid that hardcore.

Avocados are especially delicious. Little lemon or salt, and spoon a-freaking-way.

Salt isn't that bad, just drink a lot of water and don't overdo it. You need salts in your body. If properly hydrated and using moderation, you'll be fine.

Butter is almost entirely avoided; it's just not necessary. The only reason I don't replace it with coconut oil in baking recipes is because it's cheaper, and I'm spoiling myself when baking anyways--but I would if it was affordable to do so.

THE VARIOUS VEGGIE OILS ARE POISON. TEFLON SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR COOKING. I fry with coconut oil, and I use apply olive oil cold to lots of my food. That's pretty much my oil intake.

I regularly eat a breakfast of 100% natural peanut butter (nothing but peanuts) and boiled whole oats (purchased by the kilo in open air market) with some honey, salt, and a granola mix (organic, includes various kinds of nuts) and raisins applied, with cinnamon. It's super tasty, good for the digestive system (fiber), packed with lots of different vitamins from different food groups... Did I mention tasty?

CINNAMON IS WAY MORE USEFUL THAN YOU REALIZED. It goes great on lots of things that aren't sweet, and my body often says it wants more. Probably because as a kid I was hyperglycemic, and my body recognizes its blood-sugar stabilizing properties.

LASTLY, but probably MOST importantly: EXERCISE IS A HELL OF A DRUG. It's an entirely different conversation, but I bike constantly and I rock climb/do martial arts often, and do calisthenics otherwise.

I've been healthy my whole life, even when I was on crappy junk food as a kid. I've been seriously, competitively rock climbing since I was 12 years old.

I imagine fasts are pretty good for your body in short term, and I've long considered calorie restriction--the diet above mentioning 8 hour eating windows having the same long term benefits is extremely interesting, and I might consider implementing that.

Oh, and SLEEP. is HUGE. Do that.

 

[Jah]

You are right. I shouldnt have said anything about fructose. But you over-complicate things now even more here for the average joe.
Your fructose story is true, but it doesnt apply when on low carbs (i suggested fructose is OK IF ON LOW CARBS).

Then all of a sudden you turn it around and talk as if we are adding thousands of grams of fructose to an already high carb diet, YES THEN YOU WILL PROBABLY GET FAT IN THE LIVER. But that is an extreme case all the way on the other side of what i suggested.

As long as you dont touch that "high-fructose corn syrup (which is half glucose after digestion btw)" stuff, and only eat 2 fruits a day, then how can fructose be bad? it will just replensh liver glycogen. (and you can always fill it up a bit when on low carbs.

Sure

But the amount you'd get naturally won't hurt, I was considering it as an additive, in which case you're pretty likely to do a slight over-dose.

Most people today have little or no inroad into their glycogen storage (The one in the liver) due to the chronic input of food, thus the glycogen is never touched and you are unable to make good use of any sugar/carb that you stuff into your mouth.

(Now I'm hinting at the official every-3-hour policy, which is totally bullshit, and will do nothing but hurt the general function of the liver in your average joe.)


So, having a natural, balanced diet, a little fructose won't hurt.
I'm not saying it's the devil, but I'm saying that if you do not either exercise OR go for extended periods of time without refueling (extended compared to the average 10 minutes. Try 6-9 hours.) you have little use of restocking glycogen, and you'll most likely store the left-over after immediate energy usage as fat.

And still, the point holds for low-carb if they never inroad into their glycogen.

 

[Jah]

I have to step up and defend Coffee

The main support is in the taste. Much in the same way as wine and tea, really, but with 200 times as many nuances of taste compared to what you'll find in wine.

That and some other benefits such as a lowered risk for prostate-cancer and a possible lowered risk of breast-cancer in women (only proven in vitro, not in vivo.)

Then there is the thermogenic effect, and the familiar ability of caffeine to help focus the mind and help you become more single-minded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/health/research/24prevention.html?_r=1&ref=research

http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/coffee-new-health-food?page=3

And wiki:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Health_effects_of_coffee

(which is a list of both benefits and risks associated with coffee.)


(And the whole scare about microwaves is something I simply do not buy; for simple reasons.
If microwaves are damaging the food, then logically higher-energy waves/particles will do more harm, as we have consistently seen across the board. Microwaves are on the lower energy side from visible light, slightly lower in fact than infrared, thus you should also avoid seeing your food, and heating it.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
The fact of the matter is that microwaves are not high enough energy to do anything but heat something up, and even then, it is a weaker source of energy than normal infrared, which is what we sense as heat. The only thing microwave ovens do is pound the object to be heated with much more radiation than your ordinary oven would do. And please be sensible about the word radiation. It's not going Chernobyl on your food.)

 

[Linsejko]

I've seen research on coffee flip flop back and forth my whole life, but it doesn't make a big difference to me. I'm not addicted. Caffeine comes with its ups and downs, and I don't care for the downs.

And honestly, the huge majority of coffee tastes like shit. It's just a nice complement to the sugar and cream--like an inferior chocolate. The fact of the matter is that coffee goes stale within a couple of days after it is finished being processed--and I hear that within those couple of days, it is naturally sweet. You have acclimatized your taste to stale coffee, congratulations. I don't care how many dimensions it has, complexity does not equal quality.

Concerning microwaves, there are many more factors at play than intensity, fool. Your argument is silly. Higher energy waves do eventually damage food, by the way, in every form. Microwaves shoot energy at a specific band--that's the problem. That band is the resonant frequency for a water molecule. When the molecules resonate, the molecular friction causes heat internally. This destruction of the internal water molecules also destroys the nutritive value of the food, as the complex chains of molecules forming the nutrients are decimated into more basic parts and indigestible sub-particles. (Ever notice how meat cooked in a microwave doesn't brown? That's because the proteins aren't folding as they normally do in response to the heat in a convection oven--they are just having their molecular structure melted to a proverbial goo.)

There's a reason they don't microwave cold blood before a transfusion... It would kill. The blood becomes 'dead'.

Your mocking comment about Chernobyl is cute. Next time inform yourself before an argument.

 

[Jah]

I love these arguments; but let's keep it open so that others can butt in.


Now, as for coffee, yes, I agree.
Most coffee you buy isn't worth drinking.
Then again, you live in the land of Starbucks.
I live in a country where the average joe consumes upwards of 5,5 kg of coffee every year, where there is a huge market for high-quality coffee, and we have both the money and the time to invest in coffee. (This may be a substitution for wine, as we have heavy taxation on alcohol, but that's just speculation at this point.)

(Btw, it's not just caffeine; There's more caffeine per gram of tea than there is per gram of coffee, so were it just that, tea would be an obvious choice. The problem being, of course, that caffeine is bitter to the taste and not particularly good in large amounts.)


Now, microwaves: (btw, the "fool". I get it. lovely avatar.)
Please enlighten me then.
How does the water resonate and why is it more likely that microwaves destroys the water, than the burning of flesh you do when you fry the meat normally. (A straight forward combustion, with by-products CO2 and H2O (which we see come off as steam) in a combination with denaturing of the proteins that we are cooking and some charred meat on the ends(carcinogens?).)

Brown ?
The meat usually browns due to the fact that you're burning it with higher-energy. (That's why it gets charred.)
As an experiment I cooked steak in the microwave tonight... it went brown/grey as meat does when heated.
(As with cooking on low heat.)

To be honest, you'll have to point me towards the science here, because I've never heard of microwaves destroying food, though I rarely ever use them so I haven't had a reason to look for it.
Citation Needed.


They don't boil the blood either.
(It would coagulate as it is denatured, like eggs.)



Oh, I'm sorry that I jest, but it seems to me that most people are less than sensible about the word Radiation. As though it would kill them.

 

[Jah]

I looked for some related articles, but found mostly mumbo-jumbo from the deep end of the alternative side. Though in reputable sources it seems to bend both ways:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/health/17real.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10554220
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8889628
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Microwave-cooking-and-nutrition.shtml

plus a neat experiment with microwaved water and plants:
http://www.eclecticscience.net/experiments/001-microwave-plants/detailed.html

mind you, I am probably biased so it'll be a great help if you'll find some scientific articles to support your side of the argument. (Though as I said I think I've found a little of both, especially in the case of B-12.)

 

[Linsejko]

I am so shocked that you caught what was going on with my avatar that I am sitting here dumbfounded, haha.

+2

Next, there are no starbucks in this country. ("Location: Center of the world"; see medieval cartography and thought for hints.) I am glad you enjoy your coffee, and perhaps there is something to high quality coffee... I'm not convinced it's worth pursuing. (I love me some quality alcohols, however, wines included, but I won't get into it.

When I was at my grandmother's house a couple years ago and watched her cook a chicken breast in the microwave, it looked disgusting even though it was done. grayish. It did not have the beautiful colour we associate with cooked meat. I don't know about your results, mine seemed pretty clear to me.

Energy comes in many forms. Thermal energy is specifically increasing the energy available to the atoms of the protein molecules, which respond by folding upon themselves, physically represented at the macro level as the browning you see. Microwaves don't elicit this same reaction. Radiation energy has a profoundly different effect on what it encounters. Sounds (radiation) waves, light waves/rays, and thermal rays in equal amplitudes will all affect food (or anything) differently. This isn't up for debate, as far as I know.

Again, we have gotten two different results from the same experiment, so there's not much to do about it... Conduct more experiments! I won't go buy meat to microwave, unfortunately, because I don't actually care enough about this debate, haha. (And I'm poor, meat is a luxury for me.) But I think the science is somewhat clear here. As for your statement about a typical heat reaction with meat: You are right! Cooking does denature a lot of the meat! This is why I prefer my steaks medium rare, I love sushi, etc. But we're just talking about meat here. This is also why I mentioned in my guidelines that heat destroys food, so food should be cooked quickly and gently, as little as possible to still be tasty.

But microwaves denature food in a profound way that typical, convection heating does not. In a grilled piece of meat, you get a charred outside (yes, carcinogens, I am fully aware and avoid charring or eating charred output because I am keenly aware, whether that's bread or meat or whatever), but most of the meat inside is still molecularly intact, if modified. The outside surely will contain much more severely denatured food, and will be less nutritionally valuable, but most of the inside is much less affected. Such is the nature of a form of energy that does not effortlessly penetrate physical matter in the same way that radioactive waves do.

You don't see much steam coming off of meat, btw. Most of the water is still there. Check the inside temperature of your meat--at medium rare for steak, it's not at boiling point in the center. Regardless, water will doubtless respond differently when it's part of a larger molecular chain, probably much more stable and less prone to violent splitting as in boiling--though that's conjecture, I'm no chemistry expert, so don't quote me on that verbatim.

The blood doesn't boil, correct. I never suggested it did. It would boil if you put enough energy, but that would destroy it either by traditional convection heating or by microwave heating, which doesn't tell us anything. I'm telling you this: blood for transfusions is stored cold to preserve it. Before the transfusion, it is warmed to internal body temperature. If you do that warming in a microwave, you'll kill the person. There is a case where this happened, but the case is unclear, so I'll leave that one as anecdotal. At the same time, hospitals do forbid using microwaves for any warming other than food, and I doubt you would want your blood heated in a microwave and then put back into you--likewise, animals cannot be put in microwaves. It would take a significant amount of time to kill a cat in an oven; something different is going on when you stick a cat in a microwave.

Microwaves from high energy power cables are also recognized to produce negative effects. There are studies demonstrating huge increases in lukemia rates in communities close to those power lines, and laws in the US require that beyond certain voltage/wattage levels, the lines have to be much higher in the air, and further away from communities.

Keep in mind that all of this is inconvenient for big industry, so studies are undoubtedly going to be sparse and ignored.

I think a fair, truncated, quick presentation occurs on microwaving here: http://naturalbias.com/is-your-microwave-nuking-your-health/

The comments are a nice back and forth of the author and those who doubt him, as well. I would ignore the lady who talks about water fizzing with instant coffee, however.

I actually got my information primarily from Dr. Mercola's site years ago, and have liked what I read of his stuff--though I take it all with a grain of salt, and stopped reading health stuff online years ago, because, as I said before, it all felt like a big circle. You have to enter an email to read the site now, it seems--wasn't like that before. I assume you have a spamcatcher email for such purposes, or just enter whatever you want--there is no confirmation email. The science I referenced is explained there in detail.

I acknowledge that the research is not there fully enough for me to back this up 100% and say it without question--at some level, I do accept intuition, and my body/taste buds/mind tell me that microwaves shouldn't be trusted. I don't like them anyways, so it's not a big sacrifice. But what I've read is enough for me, and my intuition supplies the rest--and that's all I've got. Science can only take you so far in this realm of limited knowledge.

I'd like to point out other things that go by this same level of intuition: heating destroys food. I know that if I set food in a fire, it becomes completely inedible. I also know that if not cooked at all, it is maximally healthy. So I naturally establish a spectrum in my mind and stay close to one side.

However, microwaving will kill an animal for some reason unrelated to heat. That's highly disconcerting, and causes a deep suspicion to microwaves. Coupled with what I've read, it's enough to stop me from continuing with them.

It really is a lovely avatar, isn't it? It's very much my soul. I love that painting.

 

[Cogwulf]

Energy comes in many forms. Thermal energy is specifically increasing the energy available to the atoms of the protein molecules, which respond by folding upon themselves, physically represented at the macro level as the browning you see. Microwaves don't elicit this same reaction.

Browning is caused by the food oxidising.
Food in the microwave doesn't brown simply because it isn't at a high temperature for long enough to react with oxygen.

And as for you mention of microwaves destroying water molecules, that is wrong.
It takes a huge amount of energy to destroy water molecules, somewhere in the region of 2000 degrees.

This is also why I mentioned in my guidelines that heat destroys food, so food should be cooked quickly and gently, as little as possible to still be tasty.

In theory microwaves denature food less. They only heat it up to cooking temperatures for a very short time.
Cooking in the oven takes a very long time because the heat takes so long to reach the centre, so whilst you're waiting for the centre to just get hot, the outside is at a high temperature for a long long time.

You don't see much steam coming off of meat, btw. Most of the water is still there. Check the inside temperature of your meat--at medium rare for steak, it's not at boiling point in the center. Regardless, water will doubtless respond differently when it's part of a larger molecular chain, probably much more stable and less prone to violent splitting as in boiling--though that's conjecture, I'm no chemistry expert, so don't quote me on that verbatim.

Water isn't part of long molecular chains. It isn't trapped except in the way a sponge holds water.

Microwaves from high energy power cables are also recognized to produce negative effects. There are studies demonstrating huge increases in lukemia rates in communities close to those power lines, and laws in the US require that beyond certain voltage/wattage levels, the lines have to be much higher in the air, and further away from communities.

Last time I checked, power lines don't emit microwaves.
Regulations about the height of power lines are not because of radiation, they are because of the danger of shorts occurring. As the voltage of lines increases, electric sparks can jump across bigger gaps.

I would ignore the lady who talks about water fizzing with instant coffee, however.

It's probably true. If the water was distilled or filtered, it doesn't boil when you heat it and becomes superheated, when you add something like coffee or sugar it will boil instantly.

I'm telling you this: blood for transfusions is stored cold to preserve it. Before the transfusion, it is warmed to internal body temperature. If you do that warming in a microwave, you'll kill the person. There is a case where this happened, but the case is unclear, so I'll leave that one as anecdotal. At the same time, hospitals do forbid using microwaves for any warming other than food, and I doubt you would want your blood heated in a microwave and then put back into you

The problem is that microwave heating is very hard to control. You can't just heat up a bottle of blood to 37C, you get instantaneous hot spots, and these can be very hot. This is also the reason it kills animals without getting very hot overall.

 

[Polaris]

Okay, this has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion, but this is nevertheless a useful site, always referenced by credible sources (somewhere). Please do ignore the annoying EXCLAMATION!!MARKS!!

*cringe*

Uh....carry on.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/23/4-diet-mistakes-that-age-you.aspx

 

[Linsejko]

Link for your oxidizing statement? My source for the protein folding statement is a doctor I asked when I was in the ICU a couple years ago, when I was questioning him on some things that interested me (unrelated to microwaves). In other words, someone with a Ph. D told me so.

Water molecules start breaking apart when you boil them, and that is a much lower temperature than 2000 degress. I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps the destruction of the atomic elements? Which is not what I was claiming...

Microwaves "in theory" could possibly denature food less for those reasons, but that's a very incomplete theory--and you point out a problem with this theory later in your own post, when you observe that "microwave heating is very hard to control. You can't just heat up a bottle of blood to 37C, you get instantaneous hot spots, and these can be very hot. This is also the reason it kills animals without getting very hot overall." These get ridiculously hot, while other parts are not. Further, I've already pointed out that there's reason to believe there's something beyond straightforward heating (as found in convection ovens) going on, so I'm not claiming that temperatures are what is denaturing the food. If that's all there was too it, I would be much less worried about microwaves, though I would still find the tastes, smells, and textures they produce unsatisfactory.

When was the last time you checked in power lines? Back before Heinrich Hertz, perchance? They emit electromagnetic radiation. This point only makes clear that your entire post is a bunch of off-the-top-of-your-head conjecture, and it's not even educated conjecture. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#cite_ref-36, and check the point referenced, as well as the section surrounding. Even WHO has acknowledged the likely correlation, and they're not the only ones. In that specific section, you will see the exact proposals to move new power lines away from communities and not build residential buildings within 200ft of these lines.

I was saying I would ignore the lady because I doubt her observation carries any significance and she sounds paranoid and ridiculous, not because I doubt she's describing a real phenomena.

Microwaves work by causing violent microoscillations of billions of movements per second. Organic matter doesn't take that well. It's delicately composed, highly complex stuff that our body is consuming. It doesn't take well to huge doses of chaotic energy--honestly, intuition is bringing up the second law of thermodynamics here and noticing that we need food that is ordered in a very complex way, and that extra energy will introduce chaos into the system. And eating chaos is not good for us.

 

[Linsejko]

Actually, further problem with your oxidizing statement: if you set a piece of meat on an extremely hot grill for a couple of seconds, you can immediately brown it--this argues against the notion that time heating + oxygen = browning, as grilling will brown it in even less time.

The meat isn't rusting...

 

[Agent Intellect]

Browning meat: it occurs when the myoglobin in the meat (has iron in it, like hemoglobin) is oxidized. It goes from purple (deoxymyoglobin) to red/pink (oxymyoglobin) when exposed to air and the iron is oxidized into Fe+2, then cooking it oxidizes it further into metmyoglobin (Fe+3) when cooked.

Microwaves use wavelengths that do not ionize molecules, and doesn't have enough power to decompose water. It takes 1.23 volts to hydrolyze water and microwave radiation produces only about 1.24 micro electronvolts: given by hν(ν = c/λ):
((4.135*10^-15 eV*s)((3000000 1/s)) = 1.2405*10^-8 eV

 

[Linsejko]

Thanks for the insightful comment about meat oxidation. Glad to learn. I wonder what the doctor was referring to, then? Any chance you know? (And I guess that means it *is* rusting.)

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) ionization isn't the correct term here--or, at least, you are right, and I wouldn't suggest that a microwave can actually ionize something, merely scatter things around. (Fragmentation here, no?) Obviously it is not a complete process, either, as some nutrients do remain--I'm worried about what's going on with the ones that don't. I guess something like having your brains addled--most of it can still be intact and it be completely (effectively) destroyed.

Hydrolysis doesn't apply here, as that requires the specific application of electricity, no? And again, I'm not talking about perfect or complete disassociation of the molecule, just overall changes.

I can't comment on your math, as its far over my head and you didn't explain the variables anyways... If you are claiming they use frequencies that aren't affecting water molecules, how are you proposing microwaves cause heating? /do you have a source?

 

[Bryson]

Basically, what i judge:

Overrated: Carbohydrates, vegetarianism,
Underrated: fat, milk, organic meat

I don't know why fat is so cursed. People have been poorly rationalizing that fat is the source of body fat. Do people even know that our primary energy source is fat?
And that carbohydrates ends up becoming body fat by the end of the day?
And that these carbohydrates have a huge disavantage, as they raise glucose levels?

Oh, and hormones like testosterone and GH are all built from fat. Guess which group of people have the lowest testosterone levels? Vegans, of course.

 

[Agent Intellect]

If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) ionization isn't the correct term here--or, at least, you are right, and I wouldn't suggest that a microwave can actually ionize something, merely scatter things around. (Fragmentation here, no?)

You are using confusing terms like "breaking apart" and "scatter" and "fragmentation". Unless you are talking about evaporation, I thought you meant decomposition of water molecules (that's certainly what "breaking apart" makes me think, from one of your previous posts).

Obviously it is not a complete process, either, as some nutrients do remain--I'm worried about what's going on with the ones that don't. I guess something like having your brains addled--most of it can still be intact and it be completely (effectively) destroyed.

Microwaves function by dielectric heating, which rotates polar molecules. I don't have any source on this, but I imagine that some nutrients (eg vitamin B12) are affected because they contain a metal ion - vitamin B12 contains Cobalt, which is close to Iron, and therefore may oxidize in the same way that Iron does when heated.

Hydrolysis doesn't apply here, as that requires the specific application of electricity, no? And again, I'm not talking about perfect or complete disassociation of the molecule, just overall changes.

Sufficient energy could hydrolyze water. The suns rays are constantly breaking bonds in the atmosphere (that's where ozone, O3 comes from). Microwaves do not have enough energy.

I can't comment on your math, as its far over my head and you didn't explain the variables anyways... If you are claiming they use frequencies that aren't affecting water molecules, how are you proposing microwaves cause heating? /do you have a source?

They do affect water molecules, by dielectric heating. They do not, however, "break apart" water molecules (decomposition) although they may "break apart" water molecules if you mean evaporation.

The math is simply calculating energy via Planck's constant.

 

[Linsejko]

Unfortunately I am just not qualified enough to carry the conversation to this level. It's not related to how true or not any statements are, I just don't have the vocabulary and knowledge. That's why I have to admit part of it is intuition, the science is above my head... But that's how most of life is.

I can't be sure what level of decomposition it is doing; in my mind there was only one kind, and that was indeed related to evaporation. I don't understand what it would mean for it to decompose in a different form--which again is just showing this conversation is out of my league.

Alas, I thought microwaves were the least interesting point of my entire post on various health ideas.

 

[Cogwulf]

Water molecules start breaking apart when you boil them, and that is a much lower temperature than 2000 degress. I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps the destruction of the atomic elements? Which is not what I was claiming...

Water boils at 100C. It doesn't "break apart".
Whether you put a glass of water in an oven, a microwave, or just place it in the sun, the same thing will happen to it.

Further, I've already pointed out that there's reason to believe there's something beyond straightforward heating (as found in convection ovens) going on, so I'm not claiming that temperatures are what is denaturing the food. If that's all there was too it, I would be much less worried about microwaves, though I would still find the tastes, smells, and textures they produce unsatisfactory.

The hot spots can damage cells enough to kill you, but the changes are no different to what occurs during normal cooking.
And I didn't say "ridiculously hot" I said very hot.

The tastes, smells, and textures that microwaves produce isn't due to microwaves doing anything, it's because they don't do anything. The tastes and textures of properly cooked food come from all the changes to the food that take place due to the high temperatures/long cooking times.

When was the last time you checked in power lines? Back before Heinrich Hertz, perchance? They emit electromagnetic radiation. This point only makes clear that your entire post is a bunch of off-the-top-of-your-head conjecture, and it's not even educated conjecture. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health#cite_ref-36, and check the point referenced, as well as the section surrounding. Even WHO has acknowledged the likely correlation, and they're not the only ones. In that specific section, you will see the exact proposals to move new power lines away from communities and not build residential buildings within 200ft of these lines.

Power lines emit radiation, but they emit radiation at frequencies lower than microwaves.
A discussion about whether or not such radiation affects health is a whole subject in itself, and not something I really want to bother with. But the evidence comes from statistical studies. The correlations they identify are often marginal, but even with stronger correlations there are simply too many other different factors which might be involved for the results to be conclusive.
But whether or not any conclusive evidence that EMF radiation harms health exists, there is still a strong enough belief amongst the public that authorities will make regulations to move power lines away from buildings. They aren't necessarily making these regulations to keep people safe, just to keep them happy.

Organic matter doesn't take that well. It's delicately composed, highly complex stuff that our body is consuming. It doesn't take well to huge doses of chaotic energy--honestly, intuition is bringing up the second law of thermodynamics here and noticing that we need food that is ordered in a very complex way, and that extra energy will introduce chaos into the system. And eating chaos is not good for us.

Humans need a mix of chemicals, how they are ordered is meaningless. The only way microwaves could adversely affect our food would be if it causes specific chemical changes that would not normally occur due to heating alone.

Microwaves cause water molecules to oscillate. But heat is oscillation. If you heat something in an oven, once it gets hot all of the molecules are bouncing about just as chaotically as a microwave would cause.

Actually, further problem with your oxidizing statement: if you set a piece of meat on an extremely hot grill for a couple of seconds, you can immediately brown it--this argues against the notion that time heating + oxygen = browning, as grilling will brown it in even less time.

If you want more detail, browning isn't due to complete oxidisation. Hydrogen and other elements get burnt away from proteins and carbohydrates, but the temperature isn't high enough to burn away the carbon, hence you get black carbon, which is smaller amounts appears brown.
You can brown meat very quickly on a grill because the temperature gets very high which speeds up the reaction.
Although I think I'm talking talking about charring more than browning.

 

[Jah]

Not entirely true about the comment of how the molecules are ordered. (You need some order. Bricks, not dust, to make a metaphor. And in the same line; bricks not Houses/walls.)

I would imagine Animals die because of the same way blood gets "dead", the blood clots, heart clogs, brain dies. Very fast indeed. (Though this has to do with the penetration of the waves, simply because of the huge number of waves, (or particles it's the same thing here, same thing as light, same as infrared. electromagnetic radiation. ) )

In the case of high-voltage lines and microwaves, Wireless and mobile phones; the case is clear, these are low frequency, microwaves and radiowaves, which have never been demonstrated to cause any ill-effects, unless the person was aware of them being there (That is, it's all in their heads.)


Just to point something out, basic chemistry;
Oxidation does not require access to oxygen.

It has to do with oxidation numbers. like the Ions Fe2+ and Fe3+.
(Which has to do with the numbers of electrons in the outermost shells, valence electrons)
or an example of oxidation; an alcohol may oxidize into an aldehyde or a ketone;
(CH3OH -> CH2O )
which is methanol to formaldehyde(methanal). (as you see the difference is that it's lost 2 H molecules, but this brings the oxidation number of C up from -2 to 0 because of some rules you can wiki.)


eggsample of.
Denaturing proteins;

When you boil an egg it gets hard. (from a transparent liquid to a solid white)
This is due to a denaturing of the proteins inside it. This is irreversible. (you can't unboil an egg, and you can't uncook meat. (I even get spellcheck on the words, that's how you know you can't do it ) it's an example of entropy at work.)

This is probably what you're talking about when you say the proteins collapse.

This, however, doesn't destroy the food, and for some foods we cannot digest them without doing this first.


Now, this is kinda important to me, well, not really; but I like to get things straight. Sort out the facts sort of thing.

Because of what I know about radiation, the theory that microwaves destroy nutrients sounds bizarre, mostly due to the fact that your subjecting your food to much higher energies, (The Same Kind, I'll hasten to add, but more powerful) when you Barbeque your food, or fry it, or do any of these things. (Which is mostly infrared radiation, though most of it is done by direct contact, and by passing the inner motion of the air onto the food, and not through the magic rays that pass quickly enough through the air that you don't feel it heating up.)


It just doesn't sound scientifically plausible that microwaves would do this.
Just in the same way that it is implausible they can cause cancer. (Another bizarre claim which is again and again refuted by scientists, but again and again brought up by politics. Mostly I think because people don't understand it and therefore are afraid of it.)

 

[Dr. Freeman]

I am still at the point in my life where my metabolism keeps me at the constant weight of 124 pounds. I went on a cruise (unlimited room service) and actually lost a pound.

 

[Minuend]

I also replace sugar in my coffee with inulin fiber, which both adds a slight sweet taste and acts as a soluble fiber and prebiotic (1).

Jah (or anyone), do you know what this is in Norwegian, exactly. I mean, is it like suketter?

 

[cheese]

Free guide to (apparently) amazing abs. There's also some stuff on protecting your back. Friendly, no-nonsense and not full of hype. (You can ignore the 'long sell' on that page - just enter your email then download it.)

http://absblueprint.com/

(Turns out planks are more useful than I thought.) (And ironically, he's pushing hanging leg raises when not 5 minutes before I'd read another article on another site about how those should be avoided - mostly because most people are weak and can't manage their spines properly.)

I poke around a few fitness blogs by 'certified trainers' and his seems genuinely useful/friendly.

Contrast with this site by Lyle McDonald:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/

Not that this is terribly relevant - but I get a really, really strong T vibe from him. INTJ, probably. Going on about efficiency (as in, "I'm not going to answer your question as I've already written an entire article on it and answering it again would be an inefficient use of my time" to a commenter), showing next to no normal social niceties (and, as is typical, having an entire page devoted to a homeless dog shelter), etc.

There's a lot of *real* knowledge there, as far as I can tell. All backed by research, and not pushing any particular agenda. A lot of his information is in his books, but the articles are still useful.

 

[Jah]

Jah (or anyone), do you know what this is in Norwegian, exactly. I mean, is it like suketter?

no, not like those. Suketter are made from synthetic sweeteners (Sakkarin and Cyklamat)


Inulin, or in Norwegian; Inulin.

=)

It's a polysaccharide made from fructose rather than glucose, so it's very much an alternative to starch in some plants.

Slightly sweet, natural, and in my opinion probably overrated.


For a stronger, natural sweetener look at the plant named Stevia.
I think you can buy it powdered in health-food shops here in Norway, and it's very very strong so it'll last you forever.


OR
Learn to live without so much sweetening, and get back some of your ability to taste:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/09/sugary-drinks-dull-tastebuds-study

 

[cheese]

Jah, eating things that aren't heavily covered with artificial flavourings makes me feel sick - not because of blandness, but because I (think I) can taste all the raw flavours, and they make me nauseous. Meat especially. The closer meat is to its original form, the less I can stomach it. But vegetables as well. Fruit are the only things exempt. Why is this so? I don't think it's a matter of desensitised tastebuds because I'd simply find the food uninteresting in that case.

 

[Jah]

@cheese:
How to get a six-pack without sit-ups or any of those things.

http://baye.com/getting-ripped-abs-with-no-direct-abdominal-exercises/

 

[Jah]

Hmm... That's odd.

It does sound to me like a habituated problem more than anything.

But how long have you had this going ?

 

[cheese]

Thanks Jah. Actually he doesn't recommend situps or anything involving flexing the spine. The anti-crunch approach is pretty famous on the net these days. I think various leg raises, planks and renegade rows are pretty much it. (And the usual disclaimer on body fat percentage.) Also goes into back protection, and training styles and their effects so you can tailor your workout to what look you want, so it's a little more than just a training routine.

Interesting new site to look through though.

*edit
The problem with taste has been increasing over the last year or so. I never had any problems before (and often preferred more natural food). It's like my sense of smell and taste have become too sensitive. I think the problem with meat is slightly psychological as well (the idea of eating flesh - bleh).

On a related note, here's a useful video (I think; haven't actually finished it yet) on aspartame. Someone sent it to me knowing how much diet coke I drink and the complaints I've had recently. There are several correlations with the decline of my health over the last few years and aspartame is a heavy one.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6551291488524526735#

I encourage everyone to watch it, if only so that you can tell me how wrong it is. I have experienced significant decline in cognitive function as well as increasingly sucky health. (Nauseous most days; even water makes me sick.)

 

[Minuend]

no, not like those. Suketter are made from synthetic sweeteners (Sakkarin and Cyklamat)


Inulin, or in Norwegian; Inulin.

=)

It's a polysaccharide made from fructose rather than glucose, so it's very much an alternative to starch in some plants.

Slightly sweet, natural, and in my opinion probably overrated.


For a stronger, natural sweetener look at the plant named Stevia.
I think you can buy it powdered in health-food shops here in Norway, and it's very very strong so it'll last you forever.


OR
Learn to live without so much sweetening, and get back some of your ability to taste:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/09/sugary-drinks-dull-tastebuds-study

Bah, human physiology isn't my strong point. I have just started reading a book with that name tho.

Anyway, thanks for an informative reply ---->

I have actually recently cut back on dressings, sugar etc. I read that sugar toxic thingy o_o Also, I do feel better off with less of that junk. The craving [for sweet] is lessened, I only sometimes feel like eating something, but that might as well be a fruit or so. It is a habit I thought worse to apply.

I only miss some sweetener in my coffee, it's way too bitter.

 

[Linsejko]

@Jah
"
That book has looked like all hype to me, like his other book. The reviews do not impress when read critically. He has a fan base who are all just crazy about his stuff because he feeds their unrealistic dreams, but only a tiny fraction of those who read his book ever become financially independent.

He has a shitty product, too, btw. He's one of the scourge that offer shit via massive over-advertising on the web and makes a living off it.

Jerk.

 

[Linsejko]

Cheese, Aspartame is pure poison. It should be avoided at all costs. If you start looking at the studies that were illegally repressed during its FDA trials (which even without, the FDA repeatedly rejected the chemical--and continued to do so until a certain FDA head popped up out of nowhere for a short time, approved it ignoring the organizations official recommendations, quite, and then became a lobbyist for the organization behind Aspartame....), you will be horrified. It destroys your brain.

Seriously, stop ASAP and start a recovery process....

 

[cheese]

^Believe me, I'm pretty friggin terrified. I'm just hoping I haven't done any permanent damage. Fuckdammit, I don't want fucking tumours in my noggin!

Stevia's so damn expensive though. And I've heard it has a bitter aftertaste. Never actually tried it. Should. But I don't have the recipe for coke either. Or sprite. Or root beer, 'made with aged vanilla!'.

These are all non-concerns against brain malfunctions and cancer though. I'm wondering if aspartame has helped to trigger certain inherited tendencies and exacerbate existing but previously mild health conditions. Bugger!

 

[Cavallier]

If I have to do floor work I prefer planks. My lower back has always been weak (not the muscle but the actual spinal cord) and crunches tend to cause pain. The only thing that sucks about planks are that my ankles aren't terribly strong and they can start to give me problems. I think it's pretty common for women to have weaker ankles though.

That's a good site though. It helped me figure out what I was doing wrong with my arms. Now my shoulder joints don't hurt.

I started running the other day. My gluets hurt.

Edit: I discovered a site that explains good running form.

 

[Cogwulf]

My core strength sucks, to the extent where light cycling was giving me back pains for a while.
I've started doing planks and related exercises recently, and it was surprising at first just how exhausting a few 10 second planks could be.


As for aspartame, there is enough doubt over it's safety that I choose to avoid it, but don't believe everything you read.

 

[Linsejko]

I just listed documented stuff, I didn't get into the rest of the alarming (questionable) material. I find Stevia pleasant enough, though it has a different taste to it that takes getting used to (likewise, aspartame takes getting used to--it's disgusting to me, but I guess people adjust). There are plenty of options other than Stevia, though. I personally use honey, which is not the best, but is good enough for me. I like trying all the different kinds of honey based on flower varieties and locations, seasons.

Cav, your ankles give you problem with planks? Of all things? Are planks not what I think they are? The thing where you lie on your back and raise your legs off the ground, right?

 

[Cavallier]

^I believe you are thinking of a reverse sort of crunch. Like this yes?

Spoiler

There are two main sort of planks that I know of with small variations depending on how strong you are.

Forward facing planks are deceptively hard. Holding the pose in the correct position becomes difficult for many people after 10 to 15 seconds:

Spoiler

Side Planks are the ones that are difficult for my ankles. They are also deceptively difficult to maintain:

Spoiler

Both of these are great for the core muscles. I know more about strength exercises then I ever thought I would. Damn.

 

[Linsejko]

ohgodihatesideplanks.

They feel so.... wrong.... All the side crunch variations, this included, just... geh. Doesn't do it for me.

The first pic you showed is close, only I've always seen them done with legs outstretched and straight.

 

[Minuend]

Both of these are great for the core muscles. I know more about strength exercises then I ever thought I would. Damn.

Good, tell us.

I've heard you shouldn't do any exercises where you bend your back.

Which exercise is best when strengthening your back?

Another thing I wonder. I've started reading what's inside the stuff I eat, but I sometimes wonder what to look for really. I try to avoid stuff with sugar or sweeteners. Obvious things, like candy or soda. Should I look for proteins, fat? Energy? What to prioritize?

 

[Jah]

@Jah
"
That book has looked like all hype to me, like his other book. The reviews do not impress when read critically. He has a fan base who are all just crazy about his stuff because he feeds their unrealistic dreams, but only a tiny fraction of those who read his book ever become financially independent.

He has a shitty product, too, btw. He's one of the scourge that offer shit via massive over-advertising on the web and makes a living off it.

Jerk.

what book ?

 

[Jah]

@cavallier:

If you have problems with your back and ankles, running is probably not a good idea.


I may sound insistent, but get with a good resistance training programme. Something which makes use of good machines that ensure you keep as steady a load as possible. ( I'm still going to recommend reading Body By Science. )
as for strengthening your back (considering that's a problem area for some) :

YouTube - ‪TRAINING THE LOWER BACK (PART 1)‬‏
(Part 1 of 2)


@ minuend.

That sort of stuff takes forever.
(You probably should have some knowledge of chemistry as well)

Basically you have to consider types of fat (no trans-fat, but stuff like saturated fat is necessary for hormone production, and you also need some unsaturated fats, like omega-6 and -3's)


Protein is necessary for the amino-acids which it is composed of, where out of 20 that our bodies use, 8 are essential, which means they cannot be synthesized by the body using any of the other 20. (Basically, an essential amino-acid can be re-composed into a non-essential amino-acid.)

Carbs... not so necessary. Mainly these are source of on the spot energy. (That is, you either use it or it's stored as fat)


Then in addition there's all the other nutrients that your body needs, like vitamins (some can be made, like Vitamin K and D, while others need come from outside sources, like Vitamin C etc.)
And also random stuff like Copper, Manganese, magnesium and iron.
These you can mostly cover by eating other animals, (especially offal, since many vitamins are fat-soluble and will tend to build up inside e.g. the Liver) since they are mostly more apt at synthesizing the necessary vitamins from plants that we are unable to make use of.


Here's a rule of thumb; Try to avoid processed food, keep your food simple and eat a variety of other animals and vegetables.


When it comes to looking at what it contains, I'd say you should look for protein first, fat second and then carbs. (Mostly your carbs will take care of themselves if you eat a piece of fruit or vegetables, so you don't really need to think too much about it.)

For Satiety, protein is absolutely the number one instigator, then fat, while carbs will not tend to leave you as satiated as the other two, if you measure satiety vs energy-content.


Fat has more energy per gram, but since the " calories in / calories out " doesn't really make sense, I never take too much heed of the energy-amounts.


I'll eat big meals, once or twice a day, fried in butter, with loads of eggs/meats and three or four different types of vegetables. Usually with lots of Creme Fraiche or olive-oil, and often with a hunk of salad at the side.
I have no idea how many calories it is, but I'll eat until I'm full, and then stop.




Addendum:
Aspartame, Yes it is poisonous.
But as with any poison, there is a dosage required, and thus aspartame is quite safe within reasonable amounts. (Below 21 cans of diet soda per day)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Aspartame_controversy#Safety_and_health_effects

 

[Fresh Baked]

What an explosion of information! As some people have previously mentioned though, not all info is equal.

Some of the stranger things i've seen and dismissed with a 5 second wiki check;

Aspartame is poison, avoid at all costs! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

Flouride in tap water and toothpaste is bad for your health!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

I have no wisdom to impart myself, but generally speaking, if you're actively interested in being healthy and don't eat 5 doubledown sandwiches for lunch, you're probably going to be ok.

As to the exercising part of the health topic, I've always found that running gives you near immediate and dramatic results.