Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

CLA revisited

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Julie Bove - 07 Apr 2006 06:40 GMT
I took CLA (conjugated linoliec acid) for many years.  I'd read that it
helped with weight loss.  While I can't say that it actually did this, it
did seem to help with the conversion of fat to muscle.  Because I am
disabled and have lowered immunity and get sick a lot, I can't always work
out.  I was impressed that the muscle remained even when I was unable to
workout for weeks.  The CLA did this.

But then I read that diabetics shouldn't take it because it could increase
insulin resistance.  So I stopped taking it.  At this point my BG kept
creeping up and I couldn't get it back down no matter what I did.  I thought
maybe the CLA was to blame.  So I quit taking it for a week and didn't see
any difference.  Numbers stayed high.  Continued to take the stuff.

Then some time back, I decided to stop taking it again after reading more
and more reports that it might not be good for diabetics to take.
Eventually my numbers came down.  I was pleased!  But I didn't connect this
to my stopping the CLA.

After noticing that I seemed to have lost a bit of muscle definition, I
decided to start up the CLA again.  I still had about a bottle and a half
left.  Well, soon after my numbers shot through the roof.  Silly me.  Still
didn't notice the connection.  This time I had taken it only for two weeks.
Well, I stopped taking it about two or three weeks ago just to see if it
might be to blame.  My numbers came down yesterday and down further today.
I even ate black beans for lunch today.  It had gotten to where I could
simply skip lunch or eat a few nuts or seeds to get my numbers down anywhere
close to normal or just eat and let the numbers go through the roof.

It appears to me now that CLA is indeed not a good thing for me to take and
that it must build up in my system and take a while to get out of my system.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Just - 07 Apr 2006 08:31 GMT
> It appears to me now that CLA is indeed not a good thing for me to
> take and that it must build up in my system and take a while to get
> out of my system.

Since CLA is naturally found in milk fat, dairy foods and meats, does
this mean the eating these things may be worse for diabetics?
Susan - 07 Apr 2006 13:43 GMT
>>It appears to me now that CLA is indeed not a good thing for me to
>>take and that it must build up in my system and take a while to get
>>out of my system.
>
> Since CLA is naturally found in milk fat, dairy foods and meats, does
> this mean the eating these things may be worse for diabetics?

Not at all if the milk is from grassfed animals.

Susan
Priscilla H. Ballou - 07 Apr 2006 18:13 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Not at all if the milk is from grassfed animals.

Now I'm confused.  You said that CLA was found in grassfed animals.  
Others are saying CLA isn't a good idea for diabetics because it can
raise BG.  I haven't seen anyone challenging that.  So, if that's true,
why would one want to eat products that have more in them?

Priscilla
Susan - 07 Apr 2006 18:33 GMT
> Now I'm confused.  You said that CLA was found in grassfed animals.  
> Others are saying CLA isn't a good idea for diabetics because it can
> raise BG.  I haven't seen anyone challenging that.  So, if that's true,
> why would one want to eat products that have more in them?

If that's what they said, I misunderstood. CLA is believed, from what
I've read, to normalize bg levels, and that may be part of how it's such
a heart healthy fat component.

Susan
Temujin - 07 Apr 2006 18:58 GMT
The theory I've heard about CLA is that it helps build muscle mass,
which reduces insulin resistance and increases metabolism.  It does
seem to help build muscle, but I never noticed any difference in my
bg's.  Oh, and Roger, the thing about starting my bench press from 30
pounds and losing 20 was just a poor joke.  I actually was at 40 to
start with.
Roger Zoul - 07 Apr 2006 19:49 GMT
:: The theory I've heard about CLA is that it helps build muscle mass,
:: which reduces insulin resistance and increases metabolism.  It does
:: seem to help build muscle, but I never noticed any difference in my
:: bg's.  Oh, and Roger, the thing about starting my bench press from 30
:: pounds and losing 20 was just a poor joke.  I actually was at 40 to
:: start with.

40 ---> 20 lbs ?  That seems like a very small amount for almost anyone.
Also, I thought you were a guy....
Temujin - 07 Apr 2006 20:17 GMT
Okay, okay, I'm a compulsive liar.  I was doing 135 and now it's 115.
And what makes you think I'm a guy?  Just because I named myself after
Genghis Khan? (look it up).

>Roger wrote:

>40 ---> 20 lbs ?  That seems like a very small amount for almost anyone.
.Also, I thought you were a guy....
Roger Zoul - 07 Apr 2006 22:52 GMT
:: Okay, okay, I'm a compulsive liar.  I was doing 135 and now it's 115.

:)

If I ask again, it will go up to 235, right?

:: And what makes you think I'm a guy?  Just because I named myself
:: after Genghis Khan? (look it up).

:)

I thought I read a post of yours where you referred to yourself as a guy.
That's all.  No biggie.

::: Roger wrote:
::
::: 40 ---> 20 lbs ?  That seems like a very small amount for almost
::: anyone.
:: .Also, I thought you were a guy....
Julie Bove - 08 Apr 2006 10:40 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I've read, to normalize bg levels, and that may be part of how it's such
> a heart healthy fat component.

Here are some links supporting my theory:

http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html

http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/8525697700573E1885256C2B0053B68B

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/9/1516

But in looking for these links, I also found some stating that it can lower
insulin resistance.  All I know is that for me, it seems to raise my BG for
whatever reason and that's not good!

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Roger Zoul - 08 Apr 2006 17:55 GMT
::: x-no-archive: yes
:::
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
::
:: http://www.eatwild.com/cla.html

http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/8525697700573E1885256C2B0053B68B

:: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/full/25/9/1516
::
:: But in looking for these links, I also found some stating that it
:: can lower insulin resistance.  All I know is that for me, it seems
:: to raise my BG for whatever reason and that's not good!

In a normal person, higher BG would mean more insulin, which then would push
nutritions in to cells.  That could support/enhance muscle growth for one
who is exercising appropriately.

:: --
:: See my webpage:
:: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm 
Julie Bove - 08 Apr 2006 10:33 GMT
> Now I'm confused.  You said that CLA was found in grassfed animals.
> Others are saying CLA isn't a good idea for diabetics because it can
> raise BG.  I haven't seen anyone challenging that.  So, if that's true,
> why would one want to eat products that have more in them?

Perhaps the difference is that when you consume a food you are getting CLA
in its natural state along with whatever else is in that food.  When you are
taking supplements you are getting unnaturally high amounts of the stuff.
And the muscle to fat ratio benefit is seen only when taking a certain
amount.  More than you'd get in your food.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Julie Bove - 07 Apr 2006 17:59 GMT
> > It appears to me now that CLA is indeed not a good thing for me to
> > take and that it must build up in my system and take a while to get
> > out of my system.
>
> Since CLA is naturally found in milk fat, dairy foods and meats, does
> this mean the eating these things may be worse for diabetics?

No.  In fact from what I've read there is very little CLA in meat and dairy
products these days.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Roger Zoul - 07 Apr 2006 10:56 GMT
:: I took CLA (conjugated linoliec acid) for many years.  I'd read that
:: it helped with weight loss.  While I can't say that it actually did
:: this, it did seem to help with the conversion of fat to muscle.

I very much doubt that CLA had anything to do with conversion of fat to
muscle.  Maybe it helps you lose weight, or not lose muscle while losing
weight, but you aren't going to get some new muscle because you took CLA.

:: Because I am disabled and have lowered immunity and get sick a lot,
:: I can't always work out.  I was impressed that the muscle remained
:: even when I was unable to workout for weeks.  The CLA did this.

This is a very subjective statement. Muscle doesn't disapear that fast,
especially if you're eating adequately.

:: But then I read that diabetics shouldn't take it because it could
:: increase insulin resistance.  So I stopped taking it.  At this point
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
:: See my webpage:
:: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm 
Temujin - 07 Apr 2006 12:34 GMT
I also recently stopped taking CLA after taking it for a couple of
years, for the same reason as you, Julie.  I also stopped taking DHEA
at the same time, because I read that it could be contributing to my
prostate problems (but that's another NG).  Since I quit, I have lost 5
pounds (good) and 20 pounds off my bench press (bad).  I probably
should have quit them one at a time, because now I don't know which one
to credit/blame.  BG's have been a little high, but I also had a
surgical procedure at the same time, and I think the bg's are related
to the stress from that.  They are coming back down.
Roger Zoul - 07 Apr 2006 16:00 GMT
:: I also recently stopped taking CLA after taking it for a couple of
:: years, for the same reason as you, Julie.  I also stopped taking DHEA
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
:: also had a surgical procedure at the same time, and I think the bg's
:: are related to the stress from that.  They are coming back down.

If either of these had anything to do with your bench press, then I think
you're better off without them.
Temujin - 07 Apr 2006 16:21 GMT
So 20 pounds off my bench press is good.  Hmmm.  I guess I know what
you mean, but man, my bench press is important to me.  and when you're
starting from 30 pounds . . .

>Roger Zoul Wrote:

>If either of these had anything to do with your bench press, then I think
>you're better off without them.
Roger Zoul - 07 Apr 2006 17:57 GMT
:: So 20 pounds off my bench press is good.  Hmmm.  I guess I know what
:: you mean, but man, my bench press is important to me.  and when
:: you're starting from 30 pounds . . .

:)

Are you saying you were doing a BP with 30 lbs, and now you're only doing 10
lbs?  I must not be understanding you.  Perhaps there is something else to
consider here?

No, 20 lbs off your bench press ain't good, but taking stuff to get that 20
lbs (other than normal food) is worse, IMO, of course.

::: Roger Zoul Wrote:
::
::: If either of these had anything to do with your bench press, then I
::: think you're better off without them.
Julie Bove - 07 Apr 2006 18:01 GMT
> :: I took CLA (conjugated linoliec acid) for many years.  I'd read that
> :: it helped with weight loss.  While I can't say that it actually did
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> muscle.  Maybe it helps you lose weight, or not lose muscle while losing
> weight, but you aren't going to get some new muscle because you took CLA.

You are if you are working out.  And you are going to retain that muscle
when you can't workout.

> :: Because I am disabled and have lowered immunity and get sick a lot,
> :: I can't always work out.  I was impressed that the muscle remained
> :: even when I was unable to workout for weeks.  The CLA did this.
>
> This is a very subjective statement. Muscle doesn't disapear that fast,
> especially if you're eating adequately.

I didn't say it would disappear fast.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Roger Zoul - 07 Apr 2006 19:48 GMT
::: Julie Bove wrote:
::::: I took CLA (conjugated linoliec acid) for many years.  I'd read
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
:: You are if you are working out.  And you are going to retain that
:: muscle when you can't workout.

You'll never convert fat to muscle, period.  If you build up a lot of muscle
and then quit working out for good, you'll eventually lose that muscle, over
time.  CLA or anything else won't prevent that.  CLA is not some magic
muscle pill or substance.

::::: Because I am disabled and have lowered immunity and get sick a
::::: lot, I can't always work out.  I was impressed that the muscle
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
::
:: I didn't say it would disappear fast.

well, you said you were impressed that the muscle remained even you when you
didn't work out for weeks.  That's fast for body changes if you're not
starving or something other other stupid thing.

:: --
:: See my webpage:
:: http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm 
Julie Bove - 08 Apr 2006 10:30 GMT
> ::: Julie Bove wrote:
> ::::: I took CLA (conjugated linoliec acid) for many years.  I'd read
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> time.  CLA or anything else won't prevent that.  CLA is not some magic
> muscle pill or substance.

*sigh*  I am disabled and prone to illness.  Often I can't workout for a
period of a few weeks to a few months.  During these times when I am unable
to workout, I do not lose any muscle (when taking the CLA) and can resume my
workouts with the same amount of weight and reps I was doing when I had to
stop.  I have never quit working out for good nor did I mention anything of
the sort.  I am also on a reduced calorie diet.  Therefore, I am losing fat
and gaining muscle.  Regardless of what you say.

> ::::: Because I am disabled and have lowered immunity and get sick a
> ::::: lot, I can't always work out.  I was impressed that the muscle
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> didn't work out for weeks.  That's fast for body changes if you're not
> starving or something other other stupid thing.

Well, no.  I've been workout out for a great many years.  Prior to taking
the CLA, if I stopped working out, such as when on vacation for a couple of
weeks, I'd have to start up again using lower weights and less reps.  As I
said above, I do not have to do that with the CLA.  However it seems a moot
point since I have stopped taking and it and do not intend to resume.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Roger Zoul - 08 Apr 2006 16:39 GMT
::: Julie Bove wrote:
:::::: Julie Bove wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
:: reduced calorie diet.  Therefore, I am losing fat and gaining
:: muscle.  Regardless of what you say.

First, I wasn't speaking about you specifically.  Second, don't assume that
muscle mass is directly related to
what you can lift. If you can't lift as much when you resume working out
after a while of not working out, it doesn't mean you've lost muscle, Julie.
Your central nervous system has been on break and isn't use to the load.
After a while of resumed working out, your strength returns. Also, if you're
on a reduced calorie diet, you're not gaining muscle unless you're a newbie
to lifting.  It's almost impossible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same
time, regardless of what you say. However, you can get stronger and you can
reduce muscle loss.  Plus, you'll look better after the fat loss if you
lift.

Finally, if you're don't have a good way to measure body fat, you really
can't know if you're losing or gaining muscle/fat, those you can know if
you've lost weight.

:::::::: Because I am disabled and have lowered immunity and get sick a
:::::::: lot, I can't always work out.  I was impressed that the muscle
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
:: for a couple of weeks, I'd have to start up again using lower
:: weights and less reps.

That was likely due to CNS changes.

 As I said above, I do not have to do that
:: with the CLA.  However it seems a moot point since I have stopped
:: taking and it and do not intend to resume.

You really didn't need it, IMO.

Anyway, I wasn't try to be disagreeable.
Chris Malcolm - 11 Apr 2006 23:25 GMT
> It's almost impossible to gain muscle and lose fat at the same
> time, regardless of what you say.

When I was younger I used to start training in the spring after
spending the winter getting weaker and fatter, while staying the same
weight. I supposed that staying the same weight meant that I'd been
losing muscle at the same rate as I'd been gaining fat. When I started
training I would always considerably improve my strength at the same
time as losing a few inches off my waist, while staying at exactly the
same weight. How could I do that while stayig the same weight if I
wasn't adding muscle at the same rate as I was losing fat?

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Roger Zoul - 12 Apr 2006 00:37 GMT
:: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
::
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
:: weight if I wasn't adding muscle at the same rate as I was losing
:: fat?

Your imagination?  What makes you think you gained muscle?  What does
improved strength have to do with muscle?  And why would you lose fat and
gain muscle at the same rate?  What magic makes that happen? Supposing
something doesn't make it so.

:: --
:: Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
:: IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
:: [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Chris Malcolm - 12 Apr 2006 13:38 GMT
> :: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> :: weight if I wasn't adding muscle at the same rate as I was losing
> :: fat?

> Your imagination?  What makes you think you gained muscle?  What does
> improved strength have to do with muscle?  And why would you lose fat and
> gain muscle at the same rate?  What magic makes that happen? Supposing
> something doesn't make it so.

It wasn't imagination that I got stronger, lost inches round the
waist, and stayed the same weight. This happened so regularly every
year, and *didn't* happen to those I was training with, that it became
a well known idiosyncrasy of my physiology. My jealous training chums
insisted on verifying my weight and waist measurements to be sure I
wasn't making it up.  Those are the facts.

Now we come to trying to explain them. I supposed firstly that I lost
inches round the waist because I was losing fat. But I stayed the same
weight, so I reasoned that I must be adding something. It seemed
unlikely that I was losing fat in one place and adding it back
somewhere else. The only other candidate I could think of for the
addition was muscle. I do know that it's possible to gain strength
without adding muscle mass, and have often done so. I also know that
when I've bothered to measure muscle size with a tape measure that my
training regimes, which usually involve rapidly completely exhausting
muscles, do usually add a little bit of muscle. So I concluded that I
was adding muscle at the same rate as I was losing fat.

It's quite possible of course that I wasn't doing them at exactly the
same time. For example, it's possible that I first lost the fat and
then gained the muscle, or vice versa. I wasn't weighing myself or
measuring myself every week, just at the start and end of several
weeks training.

I'd be quite happy to accept another explanation if you can think of
one.

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Roger Zoul - 13 Apr 2006 00:20 GMT
:: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
::: Chris Malcolm wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
:: I'd be quite happy to accept another explanation if you can think of
:: one.

Chris -
I don't claim to have an explanation and I'll accept your claims of what
happened to you.

It is possible for newbie lifters to gain mass rather quickly
(comparatively), if they train right and eat right.

Losing any kind of mass generally means creating catabolic conditions within
the body. Gaining mass of any kind generally means creating anabolic
conditions within the body.  Either one skews appropriate hormones to
support those functions.  From what I read (and experienced), you're not
going to have both going on at once.
Chris Malcolm - 13 Apr 2006 13:17 GMT
> :: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::: Chris Malcolm wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> :: I'd be quite happy to accept another explanation if you can think of
> :: one.

> Chris -
> I don't claim to have an explanation and I'll accept your claims of what
> happened to you.

> It is possible for newbie lifters to gain mass rather quickly
> (comparatively), if they train right and eat right.

> Losing any kind of mass generally means creating catabolic conditions within
> the body. Gaining mass of any kind generally means creating anabolic
> conditions within the body.  Either one skews appropriate hormones to
> support those functions.  From what I read (and experienced), you're not
> going to have both going on at once.

Yes, I've read that stuff too. I wonder how quickly one can switch
modes? For example, is it possible to be catabolic on a day or two of
hard exercise and lose more fat than muscle, while when resting and
eating for the next few days preferentially putting on more muscle
than fat?

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Roger Zoul - 13 Apr 2006 23:10 GMT
:: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
::: Chris Malcolm wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
:: eating for the next few days preferentially putting on more muscle
:: than fat?

Absolutely.  Lyle McDonald bases several of his fat loss / muscle building
plans on such notions.  For example, on his UD2 diet, you'd have what he
calls depletion workouts (low calorie, low carb, hard training but not heavy
weights) to deplete glycogen. Then later that week,  you would shift over to
power and mass building workouts where the training would change as well as
diet (low fat, higher calories, etc.)

Also, if you add in high-intensity interval training type workouts, you can
boost the fat-burning phase of the workouts.

Of course, Lyle's diets are very intense and only a few can follow them for
long.  And you have to do them just right, getting proper amounts of
protein/carb/fats and the right types of fat.  Not for the average Joe/Jane.
If you want to get the true nature of them (I just skimmed one very, very
briefly), google on "Ultimate Diet 2.0" for one, or try the "Rapid Fat Loss
Diet" for another.  His Keto book is required reading, IMO.

Shifting modes can be done quite quickly if you *really* wish to do so.
I've used Lyle's notions on my own.  For example, after a weekend of hard
cycling, which requires that I up the carbs a lot, I'd follow up with a
monday of either fasting or  no solid food (coffee&creamer, no juice), then
a very low cal / low carb tues/wed (with weight training too, mind you), and
moderate calorie / low carb on Thursday, then carb/calorie ramp up toward on
Friday / Saturday.  I found I could go from being fully glycogen filled to
drained in two days (dropping 10-12 lbs of water weight in two days).
However, that ain't easy.  Not eating while exercising (lifting and cardio)
is a quick way to drain muscle / liver glycogen.  But you have to be willing
to suffer.  Most aren't.  I think this activity improves insulin resistance,
too (I can't remember where I read that).
Chris Malcolm - 11 Apr 2006 23:15 GMT
> :: I took CLA (conjugated linoliec acid) for many years.  I'd read that
> :: it helped with weight loss.  While I can't say that it actually did
> :: this, it did seem to help with the conversion of fat to muscle.

> I very much doubt that CLA had anything to do with conversion of fat to
> muscle.  Maybe it helps you lose weight, or not lose muscle while losing
> weight, but you aren't going to get some new muscle because you took CLA.

> :: Because I am disabled and have lowered immunity and get sick a lot,
> :: I can't always work out.  I was impressed that the muscle remained
> :: even when I was unable to workout for weeks.  The CLA did this.

> This is a very subjective statement. Muscle doesn't disapear that fast,
> especially if you're eating adequately.

Every time I've had a limb immobilised in plaster for 6-8 weeks, it
has lost a *lot* of muscle, so much that it looked obviously much
thinner than the other one.

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Susan - 11 Apr 2006 23:16 GMT
> Every time I've had a limb immobilised in plaster for 6-8 weeks, it
> has lost a *lot* of muscle, so much that it looked obviously much
> thinner than the other one.

Me, too!  Especially the gastrocnemius (sp?).  My lower leg looked like
a toothpick within two weeks, and I'd been in the gym up til surgery.

Susan
Roger Zoul - 12 Apr 2006 00:39 GMT
:: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
::: Julie Bove wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
:: has lost a *lot* of muscle, so much that it looked obviously much
:: thinner than the other one.

My left arm looks thinner than my right.  Maybe you just missed seeing your
limb? :)
Chris Malcolm - 12 Apr 2006 13:44 GMT
> :: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::: Julie Bove wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> :: has lost a *lot* of muscle, so much that it looked obviously much
> :: thinner than the other one.

> My left arm looks thinner than my right.  Maybe you just missed seeing your
> limb? :)

A definite possibility, since most people (but not me) see far more
symmetry in their own and other bodies than exists. But in this case
I'm talking about a *very* dramatic difference which astonished
everyone who looked at it. Typically it takes me a few months of
dedicated exercise to recover most of the strength it used to have,
and it takes a lot longer to recover it all.

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Susan - 07 Apr 2006 13:42 GMT
> I took CLA (conjugated linoliec acid) for many years.  I'd read that it
> helped with weight loss.  While I can't say that it actually did this, it
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> It appears to me now that CLA is indeed not a good thing for me to take and
> that it must build up in my system and take a while to get out of my system.

CLA is one of the heart healthy components of grass fed beef and dairy
that's  found in much more abundant supply than in factory raised
animals, too.

Susan
Julie Bove - 07 Apr 2006 18:02 GMT
> CLA is one of the heart healthy components of grass fed beef and dairy
> that's  found in much more abundant supply than in factory raised
> animals, too.

Yes.  But I am allergic to dairy and I eat very little meat.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Roger Zoul - 07 Apr 2006 19:51 GMT
::: CLA is one of the heart healthy components of grass fed beef and
::: dairy that's  found in much more abundant supply than in factory
::: raised animals, too.
::
:: Yes.  But I am allergic to dairy and I eat very little meat.

Getting too little protein is a good way to lose muscle.
Julie Bove - 08 Apr 2006 10:30 GMT
> ::: CLA is one of the heart healthy components of grass fed beef and
> ::: dairy that's  found in much more abundant supply than in factory
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Getting too little protein is a good way to lose muscle.

Who says I'm getting too little protein?  I've seen a dietician.  She said I
need 3 oz. per day.  That's not a lot!

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Alan S - 08 Apr 2006 11:00 GMT
>> Getting too little protein is a good way to lose muscle.
>
>Who says I'm getting too little protein?  I've seen a dietician.  She said I
>need 3 oz. per day.  That's not a lot!

Some numbers for you to play with Julie.

If she said 3 oz of meat, that's 85gm which includes, at
most, 20-25gms of protein. IIRC, that's about 80 calories.

If she said 3 oz of protein, that would mean that you need
to be getting at least 60-65 more grams from your other
foods - which is, of course, quite possible depending on
your choice of non-meat foods. Even then, that's only 340
calories in your day from protein.

Not criticising, just wondering what the dietician actually
said, and what foods you choose in your quite restricted
diet for that other 60-65 gms.

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Julie Bove - 08 Apr 2006 21:46 GMT
> >> Getting too little protein is a good way to lose muscle.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> If she said 3 oz of meat, that's 85gm which includes, at
> most, 20-25gms of protein. IIRC, that's about 80 calories.

I am on the Exchange Plan.  What she said specifically was 3 servings of
protein.  1 serving at each meal.  That equals 1 oz. of meat or hard cheese,
1/4 cup cottage cheese, 1 egg, 1/2 cup of dried beans.  I can't remember the
exact amount of peanut butter.  I think it was 2 T.  I'm sure I'm getting
too much peanut butter when I do eat it.  I usually have it on a stalk or
two of celery.  Really, I am less concerned about getting more protein or
fat than I need than I am with getting too many carbs.  I haven't got much
appetite and am taking in less calories than I should on most days.  Eating
has gotten to be a chore for me again.

> If she said 3 oz of protein, that would mean that you need
> to be getting at least 60-65 more grams from your other
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> said, and what foods you choose in your quite restricted
> diet for that other 60-65 gms.

I said above what she meant. My current diet consists mainly of vegetables,
nuts and seeds.  I eat a little fruit and a little meat but am trying to
phase out the meat.  I do eat grains on occasion, mainly pasta made of rice,
corn, quinoa or navy beans (yuck!), or popcorn, dried beans, potatoes,
quinoa, corn chips, high protein pretzels (pea protein) or the occasional
tortilla or small amount of rice.  Bread is pretty much not in my diet any
more since most of it contains something I'm allergic to.  The stuff that is
safe for me to eat doesn't taste good to me.

The dietician (the last one I saw and the other two) actually were meat and
bread pushers.  I tried to eat the meat.  I really did.  I just hate meat.
I hate the taste and the texture and I hate the way it makes me feel after I
eat it.  Sits in my stomach like a lead weight.  And then there's the fact
that I dislike eating animals as well.

The bread is another matter.  Prior to diabetes, I didn't even buy the stuff
unless I were making sandwiches for my husband.  I only ate sandwiches if I
happened to be out at a restaurant or stopped for some quick food at the
store and even then, a sandwich wasn't my first choice.  We didn't eat many
sandwiches when I was growing up.  They just weren't something I cared for
very much.  I did occasionally made loaves of bread from scratch to serve
with a pot of soup.  I do love freshly baked bread with butter or Italian
bread with olive oil.  But no more of that!

Currently my diet is based on what I can eat that won't make me sick and of
those foods, what will give me the closest to the ideal nutrients I need for
the day.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

Alan S - 09 Apr 2006 02:58 GMT
<snipped but read>
>Currently my diet is based on what I can eat that won't make me sick and of
>those foods, what will give me the closest to the ideal nutrients I need for
>the day.

I understand. I won't comment further on it, except to say
that in analysing the detail it's far less protein and far
more carbs than I eat, or could eat. I'm glad I have neither
your dietary and allergy limitations nor your personal food
aversions.

However, it may help when you offer advice on diet to
mention those personal aspects which affect your own
situation.

Best wishes.
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 2x500mg
Signature

Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.

Julie Bove - 09 Apr 2006 07:18 GMT
> <snipped but read>
> >Currently my diet is based on what I can eat that won't make me sick and of
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> mention those personal aspects which affect your own
> situation.

I mention this quite frequently.

Signature

See my webpage:
http://mysite.verizon.net/juliebove/index.htm

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.