MoapaPk wrote:

phlipdascrip wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:The mixture of glucose and fructose in soda (sweetened by high-fructose corn syrup) is essentially the same as that in honey, and very similar to many fruits, such as pears. What is it about "inverted" sugars that causes cancer, different from what one might get in "natural" foods? "Said to" is weasel wording. Who "said," and where are the studies, and the critiques of the studies?

"Though shall use google!" says the weasel. http://www.google.com/search?q=fructose+cancer+cells
not only inverted stuff apparently.

Here's a thought: read what you post. From the scholarly article near the top of your google search:
"High fructose intake was related to a lower risk of advanced prostate cancer ." ("Calcium and Fructose Intake in Relation to Risk of Prostate Cancer")

Yes, studies of isolated pancreatic cancer cells show they metabolize fructose in preference to glucose. But cancer cells prefer to metabolize a lot of substances that are otherwise deemed healthy.
So what does that mean in terms of aggregate risk for an individual, when studies of actual people show the reverse trend for prostate cancer? So how is fructose in soft drinks different from the same levels of natural fructose in fruit juices and honey?

Here are some more quotes from the google search:
"I have treatments that can cure pancreatic cancer in the Petri dish. We've had that for more than 50 years. But they don't work on pancreatic cancer in humans. That tells me there's a difference, biologically, between cancer cells in a Petri dish and cancer cells in a person and we have to respect that."

Otis Webb Brawley, M.D., Chief Medical Officer, American Cancer Society
August 8, 2010, BoingBoing.net

“Both the authors and the press need to retract these alarmist and unsupported claims — especially the authors, since such gross over-interpretation of a lab study is inexcusable among academic scientists. They seem to be grasping for headlines and promoting some anti-fructose political agenda.”

Gilbert Ross, M.D., Executive Director and Medical Director of the American Council on Science and Health
August 4, 2010, HealthFactsAndFears.com

Not everyone is on the same page.

Geez dude, calm down, I was just having a conversation, not preparing a dissertation. Guess I hit a nerve - is this your specialty?

hmmmmm

phlipdascrip wrote:Geez dude, calm down, I was just having a conversation, not preparing a dissertation. Guess I hit a nerve - is this your specialty?

Wow, didn't think I came across as angry-- just rational. But I emphasize: it's always good to go to the true roots on web articles, and then look for critiques of those interpretations. 90% of what is written on the web is BS, often plagiarized from other like-minded commentators.

Thanks for the responses. I'll admit, the whole "inverted sugar" thing is over my head and more complicated than I can get right now. But there's been a lot of good advice and I'm digesting it.

My biggest challenge is that I tend to overcomplicate things, which is why I'd really like to find a simple training system that gives me some daily direction. I don't have the money right now for a trainer or even a gym membership, so it's gonna have to be home based and outdoor running/training for now. Although, Bird's link to Crossfit Tulare had me laughing a bit because they're place is right next to my mom's business in DT Tulare and while they seem like nice enough guys, I'm not sure I'd fit in very well there right now.

As for the P90X, I may have a line on a buddy's copy of the workout but I've heard that it can be real tough on the knees, and considering the extra weight I carry, I do need to be careful about that. In the meantime, I'll have to just start getting more consistent with at least jogging a mile a day for now.

Finally, Splattski, you said there's 50% more gain on Rainier, which I'm having a hard time understanding being that Whitney and Rainier are roughly same height (within 85'). Is there a lot more up-and-down or is the main trailhead just that much lower. I've been to Rainier NP twice before but don't remember the elevation that we were at (main visitor center at Paradise, I think). Of course, I realize there's the whole snow/glacier/crampons thing, which I'm sure requires way more endurance than the trails I hike in the Sierras. And then there's making sure you aren't holding up the rest of the group. I definitely need more training to make sure I'm not the weakest link in the group. I'm actually ok with being the slowest, as long as it doesn't jeopardize others, but I'm not sure I'm there yet for something like Rainier.

As for how I accumulated the weight to begin with... let's just say I gained nearly 20 pounds sympathy weight with each kid (4 altogether) and while my wife lost most of hers after each kid...well...I didn't.

But that brings me to another good point about choosing workouts; they've got to be close to home and can't really exceed more than an hour and a half each day. I have too much responsibility around the house to spend too much time working out without putting undue/unfair burdens on my wife. I'm already pretty darn lucky that she allows me a couple Saturdays a month to go hiking while she stays home with the kids. I guess since she's a native Montanan that she understands the call of the wild and my need for regular alone time in the mountains.

dhclark76 wrote:Thanks for the responses. Finally, Splattski, you said there's 50% more gain on Rainier, which I'm having a hard time understanding being that Whitney and Rainier are roughly same height (within 85'). Is there a lot more up-and-down or is the main trailhead just that much lower.

Bingo. Going up to Camp Muir is a decent day. From there to the summit is a bigger one. If I recall correctly, Rainier has about 9K" of gain whereas Whitney has about 6800' (if I remember correctly).

Also, I don't understand the whole 'I don't know how to lose weight' thing. Sorry. Start hiking more, hop on a bike for 50-100 miles a week, etc. Basically find something that you like to do so it doesn't feel like drudgery and you'll want to do it vs. feeling like you have to. Stop eating some much junk. You'll lose weight. Aim for modest gains--2-3 lbs. a week. Change your lifestyle per above and the weight will stay off.

fatdad... I understand why the whole, "I don't know how to lose weight thing" sounds a bit dumb. I mean, of course it's pretty obvious that I need to eat less crap and focus better food. I guess what I really mean, is, I've struggled to sustain a prolonged effort at making lifestyle changes. I'll usually do decent for 2-3 weeks and then I run into challenges at work or what not and I lose my focus on getting fit and focus on whatever the things are that are stressing me out. I'm really not a great multi-tasker and I seriously have difficulty keeping the proper focus when I have stressful things going on around me.

In addition, In the past I've really struggle when I'm changing my diet and trying to exercise more at the same time because I just get hungrier and have trouble doing both. I'm certain it's because I don't have a good grasp on either subject. But right now I just don't have a lot of extra time to study these things and I have even less money to pay for expensive programs. I guess I'm looking as much for someone to tell me, that "such-and-such a book" provides a good basis for a daily fitness AND dietary regimen. Guess I shoulda been more clear about that.

I don't wanna be a whiner and I don't wanna come across as completely inept. It's just that this has always been a real weak area for me and I think that if I had clearer direction I might do better in future efforts to change my lifestyle.

No $?

Just go running outside 3-4 times a week. Start with couple of miles and increase by 1 a week till you run about 5-6. Some walking is ok too. Make sure you are working hard enough. Easy solution.

fatdad wrote:

dhclark76 wrote:Thanks for the responses. Finally, Splattski, you said there's 50% more gain on Rainier, which I'm having a hard time understanding being that Whitney and Rainier are roughly same height (within 85'). Is there a lot more up-and-down or is the main trailhead just that much lower.

Bingo. Going up to Camp Muir is a decent day. From there to the summit is a bigger one. If I recall correctly, Rainier has about 9K" of gain whereas Whitney has about 6800' (if I remember correctly).

Also, I don't understand the whole 'I don't know how to lose weight' thing. Sorry. Start hiking more, hop on a bike for 50-100 miles a week, etc. Basically find something that you like to do so it doesn't feel like drudgery and you'll want to do it vs. feeling like you have to. Stop eating some much junk. You'll lose weight. Aim for modest gains--2-3 lbs. a week. Change your lifestyle per above and the weight will stay off.

They make a bicycle for every skill level, and every type of surface terrain. Believe me, it's EASY to lose weight on a bicycle ..

Vitaliy M. wrote:hmmmmm

I'm guessing the unedited comment was a lot more interesting than this one?

I would listen to Vitaliy- he's gone through it, has lived it.

I would also listen to Moapa, I'm pretty darn sure he's educated in that field.

Whasup with Rainier, you live but a few miles from the Sierra? Much better IMHO

re: comparing Rainier vs. Whitney.

I have the gain on Whitney as 6100' and Rainier about 9k'. Maybe I did the math wrong, but the Rainier trailhead (Paradise) is at about 5k' but isn't the Whitney trailhead at 8400' or something?

Personally, I found that the movement on Rainier is easier than Whitney (but it has been a few years). The Whitney trail is quite rocky, so you have to watch your feet a lot. Rainier has some sections that are steeper, but mostly you will be walking on a good, smooth snow path. Walking with crampons takes some practice, but one would assume you've done that practice BEFORE trying Rainier.

Everything else being even, in good conditions I think they would take about the same time. I did each within a year, but with different groups:
http://www.splattski.com/2003/whitney/index.html
http://www.splattski.com/2002/peak_week/rainier.html

For Heaven's sake, JUST try to RESIST Peer Pressure the best you can, and aim for what YOU think you can accomplish.

It's a step-by-step process. WHY try to RUSH through everything ...?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkIryrQZmEA[/youtube]