Posts by Steven Green2

Michael Taylor7 said:Steven Green2, why don't you tell us what cholesterol actually does for the body?
What about the Eskimos? They certainly don't seem to be dropping dead from heart disease.

It is absolutely essential for various metabolic processes within our internal chemistry. It serves as the building block for numerous hormones, including my personal favorite, testosterone. 😎 That’s precisely why I make sure to indulge in three egg yolks every single day. Blah, blah... Do you honestly believe I am so simple-minded that I would recoil in horror from foods containing cholesterol or anything of that nature?! If you are truly curious about the mechanics of cholesterol, I suggest you consult Google. As for the Eskimos—well, frankly, I couldn't care less, just as I feel no particular urge to study Africans, Asians, or Europeans, nor those who are overweight or malnourished... 🙂

slycrane94 said:But what is the actual functional value of unsaturated fats? Well, they provide energy either way, don't they?

"Primarily, saturated fatty acids act as an energy source. On the other hand, unsaturated fatty acids are essential for the 'construction' of various tissues and cellular structures. Beyond just being a component of all cell membranes, they play a vital role in transporting fat-soluble vitamins like A, D, E, and K. Furthermore, body fat serves its own unique purpose by cushioning and protecting organs such as the liver, heart, and kidneys; it also plays a part in how we retain calcium in our teeth and bones because it facilitates the transport of Vitamin D..."

I honestly haven't the slightest clue who this supposed "average European" is that you're referring to. Are we talking about someone in Ukraine, Moldova, or perhaps London? And really, do you truly believe one needs to trek all the way to Africa to find starving people? Just look around you, my friend. Globally speaking, less than 5% of the population deals with obesity, whereas over 40% suffer from malnutrition. Obesity is essentially a modern Western affliction that has only really taken hold in the last twenty or thirty years. For millennia, people have been consuming vast quantities of full-fat milk—let’s say from buffalo or mares, which are incredibly high in milk fat—and now we have these sedentary geniuses popping up out of nowhere, complaining that it's an unhealthy food source. Give me a break. Instead of declaring milk "unhealthy," perhaps we should focus on changing our lifestyle habits. Besides, how can you be certain about the health status of the individual who started this thread by calling things unhealthy? What if he happens to be a marathon runner or a highly active athlete? Such a person could consume half a pound of fat daily without gaining an ounce or seeing their cholesterol spike. Ultimately, it is merely the ratio of caloric intake to expenditure that matters; everything else is just unnecessary hysterics. Listen, arguing this point is quite futile; for the third and final time, there is no such thing as "unhealthy food," there is only unhealthy eating patterns. If you weigh 300 pounds, even an apple becomes a source of excess calories.
I find I have no desire to dwell on this matter any longer.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say the person in question is into bodybuilding. An identical thread with the exact same wording was launched over on a fitness forum, which strongly implies... 😬 Looking back at it now, I find myself agreeing with your sentiment; you simply made the assumption that the man was a marathon runner. 😁 And that is perfectly fine to assume. However, if his primary objective is what you first mentioned, then that healthy, full-fat milk might not be the best recommendation for him.
By the way, I never actually claimed that full-fat milk is unhealthy; I merely suggested that low-fat milk is a better choice for my specific sport and lifestyle—to put it more precisely, it causes me less "harm." Yet, you seem to fly straight toward the extremes, jumping from 400-pound giants to people who are nothing but skin and bones.😉

driftinggull13 said:There you go again, acting like you just don't get it. It isn't that an organism doesn't need water if you're drinking 50 liters a day—in fact, that would be downright toxic. Does that mean water itself isn't healthy? I feel like I provided plenty of examples in my previous post to illustrate my point. You really ought to try a little harder to follow my reasoning.😉 😁

If my memory serves me correctly, the discussion in this thread centered on consuming 3 liters of milk every single day for one's entire life. Now, let’s assume we are talking about 3.2% milk, which works out to roughly 96 grams of milk fat. One might suggest that such an amount is perfectly fine for daily consumption, but when I suggested that low-fat milk could be a healthier choice than whole milk, I was specifically referring to those massive quantities. Of course, having a single glass of whole milk a day is hardly an issue, but 3 liters?! Following a certain line of logic, if you are already committed to drinking 3 liters, it seems more sensible to take in only 27 grams of fat rather than 96. I was focusing strictly on the context of this specific conversation, whereas you seem to have drifted off into grand lectures about what constitutes healthy versus unhealthy food, or even stories about hungry Africans... To be quite honest, I am entirely uninterested in your definitions of "healthy" or "unhealthy" eating, especially given your particular brand of nutritional expertise; I am still stuck on your assertion that something is inherently healthier simply because it contains fewer calories, using, for instance, average-weight Europeans as our baseline.😬

rustymoose54 said:Essentially, when you're looking at high cholesterol or elevated triglycerides, the real culprits are usually those underlying metabolic imbalances already lurking within the body; a "poor diet" is merely an indirect factor that exacerbates things.

But then I find myself wondering—if that’s the case, how is it that some people manage to completely reset their numbers back to a perfect baseline after dealing with cholesterol issues, all thanks to addressing that supposed "indirect influence" alone?! Does that mean those deep-seated physiological imbalances just magically resolve themselves on their own? 🙂

driftinggull13 said:Oh, please, don't be ridiculous—wouldn't it actually be healthier to include saturated fats in your diet? Perhaps if you were, say, weighing 400 pounds and rarely leaving your couch—I'm exaggerating, of course—you might feel differently. Saturated fats are a fundamental part of nutrition and are found in countless animal products, so what exactly does that imply about those foods being unhealthy? I am quite certain that someone facing hunger in Africa or Asia would find far more satisfaction in whole milk than in low-fat versions, simply because of the caloric density. Ultimately, there are no inherently "unhealthy" foods; there is only an unhealthy way of eating. Cheers.😉

Well, by all means, go ahead and champion saturated fats and indulge to your heart's content. Just try not to act surprised one day when you start seeing issues with your total cholesterol levels in your blood plasma. My point was simply that the body doesn't strictly require saturated fats and that they can be detrimental to your health. Please, feel free to proceed as you wish; nobody is stopping you. 😉

driftinggull13 said:That's not how it works, because if we follow that line of reasoning, you might as well say water is healthier than low-fat milk, or even that sand is better than a salad just because sand... well, it doesn't have any calories.😉 😬

I struggle to see how caloric density alone dictates whether something is nutritious or not. In my view, low-fat milk is actually a healthier choice than whole milk specifically because it reduces the dairy fat content. You see, milk fat is a saturated fat, and from where I stand regarding overall wellness, those are really the least desirable fats to include in one's diet. Honestly, the body doesn't truly require them, even in tiny amounts.😉

1 liter of milk at 3.2% fat content multiplied by three gives you 96 grams of fat🙂

As for my own habits, I typically have about half a liter of that low-fat 0.5% variety for breakfast every single morning. 😉 To be perfectly honest, I haven't the slightest clue what the ideal daily intake should be, or at what point it starts becoming excessive. I've always believed that one shouldn't overdo anything, really.

Well, hello there! 😁 👍

Nathan Ramos77 said:Could you drop a solid link or maybe even a few of them?

I would suggest taking some time to really dive into http://bodybuilding.com ; I am quite certain you will find an abundance of useful information there if you look closely enough. 👍

Nathan Ramos77 said:I don't want to just bulk up by putting on fat,
I actually want to build some muscle mass.
Would protein supplements and hitting the gym help me out with that?

The gym is an absolute necessity, though you might also consider other anaerobic activities if those suit you better. As for protein, yes, they can certainly play a role—both through your actual diet and via supplements—but one mustn't overstate their importance; they are merely dietary additions and should never be viewed as a substitute for real, nutritious meals. Perhaps they might serve a purpose on those rare occasions when you truly cannot sit down to eat properly. To put it simply, you need to eat plenty, perhaps aim for about four forty-five-minute gym sessions a week, and ensure you are getting ample rest and sleep. If you spend a little time browsing the web, I am sure you will find a wealth of information regarding this. 😉

rustymoose54 said:Could you please define what you mean by "poor insulin sensitivity"? Specifically, when you wrote your initial post, were you referring to "high" or "low" sensitivity?

There is certainly no need for you to lecture me on the role of insulin in metabolism, though I suppose it isn't necessary. 😬

By the way, you might want to pick up a physiology textbook and brush up on your understanding of basal metabolic rate.

I would assume that something described as "poor" is simply something that isn't functioning at an optimal level, rather than being perfectly fine. Now, perhaps you happen to be a medical doctor or hold some sort of professional credential, but I must confess that such details aren't particularly pressing to me right now. I have been dedicated to bodybuilding for about five years—just to clarify, I am strictly natural—and I actually dealt with the exact issue mentioned in this thread because, by nature, I am a quintessential ectomorph. Fortunately, I managed to sort it out; I am currently 6 feet tall, weighing 194 pounds with 8% body fat. That seems like a significant improvement over my previous state of 6 feet and 145 pounds, wouldn't you agree?!
To be honest, I have never felt much of a need to dive into the granular mechanics of how insulin works; my interest has always been more pragmatic, focusing on what works and what doesn't in a practical sense. It seems I have learned those lessons quite effectively, judging by the progress I see in the mirror. Furthermore, almost everyone I have ever consulted for advice used the specific phrase "poor insulin sensitivity," and one can find that exact terminology used frequently across numerous American bodybuilding forums and websites. So, I find myself wondering if everyone in the fitness community is somehow mistaken, or if perhaps you possess a more nuanced explanation that I am missing. If it isn't too much trouble, I would certainly welcome your insight.

rustymoose54 said:"Poor insulin sensitivity," or what we commonly call insulin resistance, isn't actually the root cause of being underweight 😁 😬

Now, when I used the phrase "poor insulin sensitivity," I meant that sensitivity can be either high—call it intense or strong if you prefer—or low and weak, depending on how one chooses to frame it. It’s a bit like how some people refer to insulin as the body's "storage hormone." Essentially, it just tucks away whatever happens to cross its path. If there isn't enough of it circulating, or if we haven't triggered its release, then the storage process remains quite sluggish. This is precisely why I believe it is most beneficial to spike those insulin levels specifically after a workout or some form of strenuous physical activity. In that particular window, the hormone directs everything—both carbohydrates and proteins—straight into the muscle tissue. However, if we trigger an insulin spike at any other random time, it tends to pack all that energy away as fat instead. Of course, fats aren't particularly helpful in that specific post-workout moment, but that's a tangent for another day. The core point I'm trying to make, which is really the heart of the matter, is simply that insulin plays an incredibly massive role in managing both obesity and being underweight. 😉

I suspect the core of the issue lies in having an incredibly fast metabolism paired with poor insulin sensitivity, which essentially means we need to find a way to slow that metabolic engine down just enough to force your cells to become more responsive to insulin. It’s certainly not the easiest path to navigate, mind you. Assuming you're male, for instance, you’ll likely need to eat quite a bit—perhaps five substantial meals a day rather than grazing—to keep up with that high metabolic rate, and I don't mean junk food. You should also engage in some physical activity, but specifically anaerobic training; honestly, forget about jogging, swimming, or cycling, because you'll never manage to replenish your energy stores if you stick to those. Instead, head to the gym and focus on heavy lifting. Because, if I understand you correctly, when you say you want to "gain weight," you aren't actually looking to pack on fat—after all, who would want that? Your best bet is to increase your muscle mass. Building mass is definitely achievable; it really just comes down to whether you want to look fit or just be a skinny guy with a little extra padding. That is my very brief summary of the situation, though there is an endless amount of information available online. If you check out some American bodybuilding forums or specialized fitness sites, I'm certain you'll find plenty of practical advice. 👍

Steven Collins38 said:So...
I find myself snacking on sweets quite frequently—you know, things like candy boxes, pastries, chocolate, and the like.
What I am really wondering about is what kind of actual impact this takes on the body over time.
I have this suspicion that the liver might be particularly vulnerable to all that sugar, wouldn't you agree?

Well, honestly, your liver isn't necessarily the primary target when you're indulging in sweets. More likely, if you aren't one of those naturally thin types who can eat anything without gaining an ounce, you'll just end up with a bit of extra weight around your waistline. Beyond that, those simple sugars send your insulin levels skyrocketing, which significantly bumps up the risk of developing insulin-dependent diabetes eventually.

Ugh, chocolate—I truly don't see the appeal. I haven't even caught a whiff of it in over a year, nor do I have any intention of ever tasting it again. It's quite simple, really; I just don't have much of a sweet tooth. 👍

If you’re looking to jumpstart hair regrowth, the most effective options currently available on the market—if I recall correctly what Justin Fox mentioned earlier—would be minoxidil combined with a Nizoral shampoo. Regarding the minoxidil, you could go with something like Pilfud, which sits at a 2% concentration, though if I were in your shoes, I’d strongly suggest opting for Rogaine/Regaina at the 5% strength, or perhaps even something more potent if you can track it down. It is quite important to remember that this isn't an overnight fix; one really needs to exercise a great deal of patience here, as you typically won't start seeing any tangible results until about four months in, and sometimes it can even take a full year of diligent, twice-daily application to truly see the difference. As for the Nizoral shampoo, I’m not entirely certain about its availability in local US drugstores, but it does work wonders. 😉

I would advise you to be cautious about over-relying on Taylor Swift, because once your digestive system gets used to a specific aid, it can become quite difficult to process anything without it. I actually dealt with a very similar situation myself, though I managed to resolve it through some lifestyle adjustments. Nowadays, I mostly stick to solid foods, but I’ve transitioned to eating smaller meals about six or seven times throughout the day instead of large feasts. Additionally, I make it a point not to drink anything during my meals, nor within thirty to forty-five minutes afterward; I found that liquids tend to dilute the stomach acid, which makes digestion much more of a struggle. That approach really helped jumpstart my metabolism—I’m typically regular twice a day now, and everything is perfectly healthy and normal. 😉

Jamie Clark74 said:Since prostate cancer relies on hormones—specifically testosterone—we can actually slow down the progression of the disease and potentially see some immediate clinical improvements by blocking those hormonal effects.

In reality, prostate cancer is driven by DHT (dihydrotestosterone). To combat this, some doctors prescribe Proscar, which is 5 mg of finasteride; it works by inhibiting the 5-alpha reductase enzyme, effectively preventing testosterone from converting into DHT. Now, I find myself wondering about a bit of a personal conundrum... since I am currently taking Propecia for hair loss—which is just 1 mg of finasteride—it operates on essentially the same biological principle as Proscar, even if my dose is five times lower. Does this mean I might actually be lowering my own risk of developing prostate cancer? From what I understand, Propecia reduces DHT levels by about 70%.

Zachary Rodriguez32 said:I just don't have any interest in consuming 15 grams every single day. 😬 (mostly because my wallet can't handle it)

Well, if you break it down, that works out to roughly $0.67 per day. Honestly, I've found that the most economical way to go about it is simply picking up some Vitamin C powder at a place like Walgreens or even Walmart; you can grab a 100g container for about $4.75. As for myself, I tend to toss in somewhere between 5 and 10 grams whenever it suits me. 😉

dreamtheater said:I just want everything to go back to how it used to be—to finally get my old hair density back!!!!!

Well, I hate to be the one to say it, but even that might not do the trick for you. If you've truly lost about half of your hair density like you mentioned, I can tell you with absolute certainty that you aren't going to reclaim that original thickness ever again. It’s a tough pill to swallow, I know. Also, are you entirely certain that the itching was actually the primary culprit behind the hair loss?😕