Re: Morning workout best?

[Guest guest]

> On 10/10/05, Christie <christiekeith@...> wrote:

>

> > Women, whether " matronly " or " hot, " are no more decorative objects to >be

> admired than men are. We are human beings.

>

> Isn't that in the eye of the beholder? No one suggested that men were

> not decorative or worthy of visual admiration. Whether they match up

> to women in this respect is dependent on the perception of those

> viewing them.

This sounds like a non sequitur to me. Perhaps I've missed something. Surely,

historically, women have had more of a problem with being ogled and treated as

'objects' than men have, which is not to say that it doesn't happen for them

also. So, also, more women have an understandable problem with it.

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Get over yourself, get into the gym

>and get yourself fit.

If someone's not comfortable in a gym, why go to a gym when home is a

perfectly good option? I don't like the smell of gyms, I don't like many

of the people in gyms, I don't like the attitudes in gyms, and while it may

just be that I've had bad luck in gyms, what I don't like most of all is

spending the time going to and coming from a gym, so I work out at home --

and it's worked just fine for me. Gym membership simply isn't

necessary. And most of the point of a gym is to spread around the expense

of pricey machines, at least 90% of which (and probably a lot more) I'm

sure you'd agree are unnecessary at best and counterproductive at

worst. Free weights and kettlebells, by contrast, aren't _that_ expensive,

and for those who can't afford or use them, there are body weight exercises

and running and walking.

>Give up the bitterness that frequently informs your posts. My facial

>expressions do not drive you away. Your response to the facial expressions

>of others, and your interpretation of them, drive you away.

I don't see the bitterness that you do, but more to the point, the issue

isn't _your_ facial expressions, because AFAIK you and Christie have never

met. And why is it only her response to other people's expressions, and

not at all those expressions themselves, which drive her away from

unnecessary-anyway gyms?

-

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>I chose, back in the beginning, to lay 100 of the responsibility for my

>condition on me. I did the work, I got the result, I don't resent the looks

>that I get (or, more importantly, got) from others. I didn't even resent

>them back then although I sure didn't like them.

>

>Is your choice of responsibility distribution making your life better? Is

>it getting you where you want to go? Why fight what you can't change? The

>only thing you have any control over is yourself. Blaming others for your

>circumstances or for their contributions to your circumstances is a waste of

>energy. All it does is give you permission to hold your unwanted condition

>in place because, in your own mind, it's not all your fault.

You're conflating two meanings of the word 'responsibility'. I can

shoulder and accept all the responsibility for improving my health and

fitness without pretending that I'm 100% to blame for my lack of perfect

health and fitness.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The Bio-Light is pretty interesting. I definitely need bright lights

>when I get up in the morning. I should look into that. Interesting

>experiment. Let us know how it continues!

So far it's an outstanding success. I'm sleeping better (particularly on

workout days) and at least some of the time, my workouts have gone even

faster. Today, for example, came in at 1:14, which is a new record -- even

though I slightly increased the size of the non-squat sets. No blood sugar

problems whatsoever, increased energy, more time in the day, more

productivity... I'm unbelievably glad I thought to try this.

-

[Guest guest]

Ron-

>Yoga, yoga, yoga. Forget about the woo-woo factor. It's just the best

>stretch you will ever get. I started back about three weeks ago and my hips

>and hams were so locked down I could barely move them. After 4 classes I'm

>already halfway to normal.

>

>Plus it's fun. An hour or hour and a half of tranquility amidst the buzz of

>daily life.

Yoga's just not my thing, I'm afraid. I found it very stressful, not

relaxing. And besides, I don't have the time to head out for some hour and

a half session of torture somewhere every week -- or worse yet, multiple

times per week. I'll just have to get religious about doing _Relax Into

Stretch_ exercises, I guess.

-

[Guest guest]

Christie-

>I lost her on Sept. 26. Thank you very much for asking after her. I miss

>her horribly. If anyone would like to read about her, her story is here:

I'm so sorry. I hope her final days weren't too horrible.

>No, but my bedroom is three walls of floor to ceiling windows, no

>curtains, and my bed is in the eastern corner of the room, so I get tons

>and tons of natural light. I also live in California, so we tend to have

>more sunshine and more hours of sunlight than people who live in more

> " wintery " climes. So I probably don't need it. On the other hand, I AM

>whining about sleeping too late so maybe I'm wrong, LOL!

Who knows. I live in a very dark apartment, but even lots of windows

probably don't yield 10k lux. The bright light I have, which is a pretty

standard one, is ridiculously bright, and it's all of about a foot and a

half away from my eyes.

>I noticed that during the first week of the leptin plan I'd spontaneously

>dropped my caloric intake by 20 percent.

Yeah, that was a big mistake. I should've thought to tell you to make a

point of keeping calories level, at least initially.

>I am sure I could accelerate my weight loss if I increased my exercise

>dramatically and probably also if I cut my calories a lot, although my

>experiments with reducing calories have actually not been very productive

>(or maybe I should say reductive <G>). But I hate adding in an amount of

>exercise that I'm not likely to stick with, because I'm afraid my

>metabolism will adapt to the new, higher level of exercise, and if I can't

>sustain it longterm, I'll end up worse off than when I started. I'm trying

>to be realistic. It may be that after the weight loss I've already had, I

>just have to accept that the rest of it will come off very, very slowly.

I'd never recommend calorie restriction, as it's terrible counterproductive

in the medium and long terms even for people it helps (excuse me, appears

to help) in the short term, but increasing your exercise, at least

moderately, might be useful. Building muscle is a great way to lose

fat. Lots of so-called " aerobic " exercise, though, is little more than a

waste of time IMO, and it can have exactly the effect you fear.

>There are not that many people who have lost this kind of weight while

>eating " normally " (ie, not on fasts or special liquid or prepared diets,

>or after weight loss surgery), so I don't have a lot of people to talk to

>about it or get a sense of how it works from. The truth is, it usually

>DOESN'T work. I really am not sure why it has worked for me, and the

>things that worked for me don't always work for other people. It's very

>individualized, I think.

For whom does low-carbing not work? In my experience, it's only people who

do it wrong, but it's not like I've made a serious survey.

-

[Guest guest]

> Yoga's just not my thing, I'm afraid. I found it very stressful, not

> relaxing. And besides, I don't have the time to head out for some

hour and

> a half session of torture somewhere every week -- or worse yet,

multiple

> times per week. I'll just have to get religious about doing _Relax

Into

> Stretch_ exercises, I guess.

> > -

I never liked yoga either and I've tried multiple approaches and

classes. What I really love is the " joint mobility " approach. I use

Sonnon's " Warrier Wellness " and I know Pavel has one too.

It was really an eye-opener to learn about the difference between

mobility, full range-of-motion, and stretching. I thought flexibility

was only about stretching before but now I don't.

And just with doing ROM joint mobility, I've gotten more flexible and

even understand the point of yoga poses even though to me they are yawn-

-worthy. I think part of it is, I don't carry the kind of tension that

yoga is good at dissipating. My extreme is from too much relaxation! So

I never even build up tension.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Christie-

>Women, whether " matronly " or " hot, " are no more decorative objects to be

>admired than men are. We are human beings.

Repulsive and off-putting as many people's attitudes are, it's human nature

(and particularly male nature) to appreciate pleasing visuals, so while

people ought to be polite and not make gyms and the like unpleasant for

those who don't have supermodel or bodybuilder physiques, I don't think

it's reasonable to argue that people should magically suppress their visual

natures.

-

[Guest guest]

On 10/17/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Repulsive and off-putting as many people's attitudes are, it's human nature

> (and particularly male nature) to appreciate pleasing visuals, so while

> people ought to be polite and not make gyms and the like unpleasant for

> those who don't have supermodel or bodybuilder physiques, I don't think

> it's reasonable to argue that people should magically suppress their visual

> natures.

Well said.

On a tangential note, it seems like some people must have awful bad

luck with gyms, or I just go to an unusual one. I don't notice a

smell to the gym, there are plenty of people who are not in fit shape

but don't seem to get any discouragement from anyone, I've never

noticed a " bad attitude " of anyone, and everyone seems rather

friendly.

Chris

--

Statin Drugs Kill Your Brain

And Cause Transient Global Amnesia:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html

[Guest guest]

On 10/17/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >Give up the bitterness that frequently informs your posts. My facial

> >expressions do not drive you away. Your response to the facial

> expressions

> >of others, and your interpretation of them, drive you away.

> I don't see the bitterness that you do, but more to the point, the issue

> isn't _your_ facial expressions, because AFAIK you and Christie have never

> met. And why is it only her response to other people's expressions, and

> not at all those expressions themselves, which drive her away from

> unnecessary-anyway gyms?

I don't know whether that latter point is true or not, but regardless,

it's extremely liminting to oneself to to pay much mind to that sort

of thing. And it creates a vicious cycle of self-consciousness and

inhibition.

Chris

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

> HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

> archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

> Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>And why is it only her response to other people's expressions, and

> > not at all those expressions themselves, which drive her away from

> > unnecessary-anyway gyms?

>

>I don't know whether that latter point is true or not, but regardless,

>it's extremely liminting to oneself to to pay much mind to that sort

>of thing. And it creates a vicious cycle of self-consciousness and

>inhibition.

It doesn't necessarily create a vicious cycle if the person in question

works out at home, gets trim and fit and no longer feels self-conscious

thereafter.

-

[Guest guest]

> I'd never recommend calorie restriction, as it's

> terrible counterproductive

> in the medium and long terms even for people it

> helps (excuse me, appears

> to help) in the short term, but increasing your

> exercise, at least

> moderately, might be useful. Building muscle is a

> great way to lose

> fat. Lots of so-called " aerobic " exercise, though,

> is little more than a

> waste of time IMO, and it can have exactly the

> effect you fear.

>

,

Where are you getting the information that aerobic

exercise isn't as good for us, as we have been told??

Even Mercola has suggested aerobic exercise for 90

min. (which I think is ridiculous), to lose weight. I

do know that it is very catabolic to the body.

jafa

__________________________________

Music Unlimited

Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

http://music./unlimited/

[Guest guest]

Christie for some reason I just found this post of yours.

I too have more than a hundred still to lose and my experience is

just like yours. On a food and exercise plan like that I too would

lose about a pound a month. I know because I did it for months.

> The first week I lost three pounds.

> The second week I gained them back... I have to say I was really

miserable.

If I ate low-carb the way you describe, I would feel like that too.

What I think happens is we get into low-leptin starvation. The

Mastering Leptin meal timing only feels good if you also do Mastering

Leptin meal composition, in my humble opinion.

> ...I tend to gain weight when I eat fruit every day, even if it's

got the same calories and carb count as the veggies it's replacing.

Did you read in Mastering Leptin where depending on the health of

your liver, high fat and fruit can make insulin resistance worse? A

really sluggish liver could explain this response when you eat fruit

every day. Happens to me too.

> I am sure I could accelerate my weight loss if I increased my

exercise ... But I hate adding in an amount of exercise that I'm not

likely to stick with, because I'm afraid my metabolism will adapt to

the new, higher level of exercise, and if I can't sustain it

longterm, I'll end up worse off than when I started. I'm trying to be

realistic.

Sounds like we think the same. I finally added in more exercise in

the form of 10-20 minute sessions before breakfast and dinner, and it

makes a big difference. More like 6 pounds a month. These are " sets "

of 1-2 minutes with 1-2 minute rests.

And not that intense, either. For one thing, it's easy to get the

heart rate up really fast at this size so I keep it easygoing and it

STILL works. Honestly, all I do is the joint mobility and either

standing bodyweight exercises or the clubs. I'd do kettlebells too if

I had em. Just a few sets with rest periods and it feels refreshing

and great, not awful and exhausting.

What I think is, I went as far as i could tweaking the " incoming

fuel " side, so I had to find a way to create more demand on

the " outgo " side. And just a few minutes in each of s' " fat

burning periods " seems to work.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Connie-

>If I ate low-carb the way you describe, I would feel like that too.

>What I think happens is we get into low-leptin starvation. The

>Mastering Leptin meal timing only feels good if you also do Mastering

>Leptin meal composition, in my humble opinion.

Not in my experience!

-

[Guest guest]

>> For whom does low-carbing not work? In my experience, it's only people who

do it wrong, but it's not like I've made a serious survey.

<<

I agree, but I also feel that when someone finds a certain way of eating

unappealing and burdensome, that way of eating didn't " work " for them - even if

it would have resulted in a desirable weight loss.

This gets very clouded by the fact that many foods disrupt our healthy state of

appetite, satiety, cravings, and food desires. I'm not meaning to say that just

because someone doesn't WANT to stop eating high carb, that low carb won't work

for them or wouldn't potentially be appealing once they got off high carb.

But I also believe that no one is going to stick with or do well on a way of

eating that they just plain don't like and doesn't appeal to them.

All that said, I admit, I think that most people who want to lose weight, have

type 2 diabetes, or are insulin resistant, would be healthier, feel better, and

lose weight easily doing low carb, and I tend to be highly skeptical of those

who tell me it " didn't work " for them, and assume they just didn't do it right.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Holistically Raising Our Dogs Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://www.doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

Right I was thinking afterward about how some people have to work

up to the 5-6 hours and I should have said that. I wasn't able to feel

good the whole 6 hours at the beginning eating like that, and for

exactly the reasons s describes for people who might be better

starting out with 4 hours.

> Not in my experience!

>

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Connie-

>Right I was thinking afterward about how some people have to work

>up to the 5-6 hours and I should have said that. I wasn't able to feel

>good the whole 6 hours at the beginning eating like that, and for

>exactly the reasons s describes for people who might be better

>starting out with 4 hours.

Oh, for sure, most people are going to need to work up to it rather than

jumping in, but I don't think it's at all necessary to eat as many carbs as

he says to get there. In fact, I think eating that much carb would make it

harder.

-

[Guest guest]

Must be a YMMV thing. He doesn't say you HAVE to eat that much carb,

by the way. That's a starting guideline and a max. He's addressing

a huge variety of people with that book.

You know what else has changed a lot for me is how well I metabolize

things. So many times all we talk about is the input side and not

how the outgo side changes. Almost as if we're buying the idea that

everything on the " burning " side is uniform and the same for

everyone like those charts where a 150 yo college male athlete burns

x calories while jogging for y minutes. puh-leeze.

Honestly at first it felt like my muscles were so insulin resistant

and deconditioned, that I could only process a trickle of carb

input. As I got reconditioned and started to heal the leptin-

related systems, I can handle more and it feels much, much better.

I'm one of those muscular mastodon-type body types, not the bird-

like ones. I think that makes a difference too.

Wasn't it here where I saw the reference to the article, " Problems

in the Furnace " that goes into problems on the burning side.

Connie

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

>

> Connie-

>

> >Right I was thinking afterward about how some people have to

work

> >up to the 5-6 hours and I should have said that. I wasn't able to

feel

> >good the whole 6 hours at the beginning eating like that, and for

> >exactly the reasons s describes for people who might be

better

> >starting out with 4 hours.

>

> Oh, for sure, most people are going to need to work up to it

rather than

> jumping in, but I don't think it's at all necessary to eat as many

carbs as

> he says to get there. In fact, I think eating that much carb

would make it

> harder.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Connie-

>Must be a YMMV thing. He doesn't say you HAVE to eat that much carb,

>by the way. That's a starting guideline and a max. He's addressing

>a huge variety of people with that book.

True, but the book needed some editing, because he contradicted himself at

times, and even accounting for that, he reserved his greatest vitriol for

Atkins, and warned people against cutting carbs " too much " because that

leads, in his opinion, to being a " carb cripple " . There's a lot of value

in the book, but you have to sift through a lot of crap too. And at at

least one point, he directs people to eat a starch serving that is the same

volume as the meat serving -- e.g. a serving of potatoes that's the size of

the serving of beef. Terrible advice.

>You know what else has changed a lot for me is how well I metabolize

>things.

Yeah, me too, at least to a small degree, anyway.

> So many times all we talk about is the input side and not

>how the outgo side changes. Almost as if we're buying the idea that

>everything on the " burning " side is uniform and the same for

>everyone like those charts where a 150 yo college male athlete burns

>x calories while jogging for y minutes. puh-leeze.

But that's the mainstream belief! A calorie is a calorie is a calorie,

etc. etc. etc. I can't even believe how many people parrot such obvious bunk!

>Wasn't it here where I saw the reference to the article, " Problems

>in the Furnace " that goes into problems on the burning side.

Yeah, I think Wanita posted that.

-

[Guest guest]

,

Does the 5-6 hrs. also include those with hypoglycemic

tendencies?

jafa

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Connie-

>

> >Right I was thinking afterward about how some

> people have to work

> >up to the 5-6 hours and I should have said that. I

> wasn't able to feel

> >good the whole 6 hours at the beginning eating like

> that, and for

> >exactly the reasons s describes for people

> who might be better

> >starting out with 4 hours.

>

> Oh, for sure, most people are going to need to work

> up to it rather than

> jumping in, but I don't think it's at all necessary

> to eat as many carbs as

> he says to get there. In fact, I think eating that

> much carb would make it

> harder.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

>

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Jafa-

>Where are you getting the information that aerobic

>exercise isn't as good for us, as we have been told??

>Even Mercola has suggested aerobic exercise for 90

>min. (which I think is ridiculous), to lose weight. I

>do know that it is very catabolic to the body.

I don't have time right now to dig up a bunch of references, but here's the

argument in a nutshell:

There are basically two kinds of training effects: physiological and

neurological (though obviously in a sense they're both physical

changes). Strength training causes concrete physiological changes --

muscle growth and improvements in muscle quality, essentially. And any

kind of athletic activity, including weight lifting, will lead to

neurological changes as your body learns how to perform the activity

effectively and efficiently. But in general, that effect is extremely

specific to the trained activity. Walking or running on a treadmill, for

example, doesn't yield anything like the benefits you'd expect when walking

or running in the real world because the motions and adaptations involved

are actually somewhat different.

All exercise also causes oxidative damage. So-called " aerobic " exercise

often does a lot of oxidative damage because it's supposed to be carried on

for long periods of time, but since it doesn't prompt meaningful muscle

development, it doesn't yield that much in the way of lasting and concrete

physiological benefits. It can be an effective means of burning off

undesirable stored fat, but your body can become accustomed to that extra

level of activity (90 minutes a day, for example, per Mercola) so that if

you slack off, you'll gain weight immediately, because the exercise regimen

hasn't given your body a built-in mechanism for burning more calories --

namely extra muscle mass. Also, a significant portion of the performance

improvement people experience over time in their aerobic exercises of

choice isn't actually due to increased general physical fitness at all, but

simply to neurological adaptations to those particular exercises. And

worse yet, if your metabolism has any problems with burning fat, aerobic

exercise can actually cause muscle catabolism, which is the very last thing

you'd want!

Strength training, by contrast, causes lasting physical improvements in

your body and lasting improvements to your metabolism, and because it isn't

typically done for the extended periods that some people do so-called

" aerobic " exercise, it can also do less oxidative damage.

I've actually been down both roads. Years ago I lost a bunch of weight by

going on the Atkins diet and putting in many hours a week on a treadmill

(before I learned even a fraction of what I know today about diet and

nutrition, not to mention exercise and fitness). And in spite of all that

exercising, I had to adopt a particularly extreme sort of no-carb all-fat

diet towards the end of my weight loss in order to continue making

progress. Then I suffered a financial reversal, couldn't afford much

animal fat anymore (and didn't fully understand its importance either) and

presto, my health fell apart and the weight came back.

Nowadays, I'm exclusively doing strength work (albeit arranged in a circuit

training fashion, and my heart rate certainly gets up there during each

circuit) and as I'm approaching my fat loss goal, I'm not only not having

to cut further and further down on carbs, I've actually been able to add a

few! Not only that, as far as I can tell I'm getting just as much of an

endurance benefit as I did from all my intense aerobic exercise years

ago. And this is despite a major digestive disaster that happened in the

intervening years courtesy of an asthma drug which caused me to lose a huge

amount of muscle mass (at one point a couple years ago Binky commented that

I looked like I had a wasting disease) and require digestive aids with

every meal apparently for the rest of my life.

So I'd say that strength training -- weight lifting -- should be the

foundation of ANY exercise and fitness program, and that any endurance or

" aerobic " exercises added should at worst be carefully designed and chosen

to mimic as closely as possible whatever sport or activity one wants to

become proficient in and at best should be lifted directly from said sport

or activity. IOW, if you want to play tennis, strengthen the muscles you

need to play tennis and do lots of serving and volleying and so on to

become good at serving and volleying and so on.

Obviously I'm talking about genuine functional strength training, though,

not drug-assisted bodybuilding or anything resembling or derived from it,

and the difference can cause a lot of confusion. I was riding the subway

with someone last night when some other passenger started showing off by

doing pullups on one of the overhead handrails. I commented that he wasn't

doing proper pullups because he was doing them curl style, and my friend

asked what on earth I meant. I said that curl-style isn't a functionally

useful way to do pullups, because in the real world you'd never find a

situation in which you could climb something with your hands and arms in

the curl position. He looked at me as if I was crazy and responded that

people don't work out so they can _do_ things, they work out so they can

build their biceps and look good!

-

[Guest guest]

Jafa-

>Does the 5-6 hrs. also include those with hypoglycemic

>tendencies?

Heck yeah! I've had extreme hypoglycemic tendencies at times in my life (I

dropped off the chart in a glucose tolerance test) and I know eat two meals

a day. The first comes around midday, the second starts 6 hours after the

first concludes and then I go about 16 hours before starting over

again. Two meals might not work so well for everyone, but at the very

least 5-6/5-6/11-12 is a minimum I think everyone should work towards.

-

[Guest guest]

On 10/20/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Jafa-

>

> >Does the 5-6 hrs. also include those with hypoglycemic

> >tendencies?

>

> Heck yeah! I've had extreme hypoglycemic tendencies at times in my life (I

> dropped off the chart in a glucose tolerance test) and I know eat two meals

> a day. The first comes around midday, the second starts 6 hours after the

> first concludes and then I go about 16 hours before starting over

> again. Two meals might not work so well for everyone, but at the very

> least 5-6/5-6/11-12 is a minimum I think everyone should work towards.

This has been my experience too. My hypoglycemia has almost

completely disappeared after extending the time between meals and

increasing the ratio of fat:carbs (though I'm definitely not

low-carbing). Even if I have to skip a meal and go all day without

eating. Pretty amazing, cause I used to be way sensitive to that.

[Guest guest]

-

>>and I know eat two meals

Blurk. Can't believe I typed that.

>This has been my experience too. My hypoglycemia has almost

>completely disappeared after extending the time between meals and

>increasing the ratio of fat:carbs (though I'm definitely not

>low-carbing). Even if I have to skip a meal and go all day without

>eating. Pretty amazing, cause I used to be way sensitive to that.

Pretty much the same here, except that I am eating low-carb. I can delay

meals a _lot_ now if necessary without any of the crashing I used to

experience.

-

[Guest guest]

,

Is this then similar to the warrior diet, but in the

lectin diet,you eat 2 large meals instead of 1 large

meal at dinner with some undereating if you get hungry

earlier? Also what about eating after a workout if he

says to wait for 6 or so hrs and you have a few more

hrs to go? Also, I don't seem to have enough strength

to exercise w/o some food in me first, but feel some

nausea exercising after a large meal. Any

suggestions?

jafa

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> -

>

> >>and I know eat two meals

>

> Blurk. Can't believe I typed that.

>

> >This has been my experience too. My hypoglycemia

> has almost

> >completely disappeared after extending the time

> between meals and

> >increasing the ratio of fat:carbs (though I'm

> definitely not

> >low-carbing). Even if I have to skip a meal and go

> all day without

> >eating. Pretty amazing, cause I used to be way

> sensitive to that.

>

> Pretty much the same here, except that I am eating

> low-carb. I can delay

> meals a _lot_ now if necessary without any of the

> crashing I used to

> experience.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

>

__________________________________

Music Unlimited

Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

http://music./unlimited/