A Unique Weight Loss Living Style Pattern
- Thread starter caiqipp
- Start date
- Status
I respect science. I do agree that before taking diet plans or patterns, we should judge them using life science knowledge we have. I think the purpose of the judgment is to avoid any hurt to our health while taking a bad plan or pattern. I do think this is why Jericho, Jeanette401, Shygemini, etc. are here to try to judge this pattern with some scientific knowledge and useful information. I do appreciate their efforts and the information they supported, even if I don’t agree with the way they judge.
We should remember that modern life science is still in its baby stage. The judgment result based on the science might not be reliable. A usual case could be: an all-scientific plan doesn’t work for a specific individual. Another case could be: an iffy plan sounds reasonable and attractive, and sounds scientific too with some scientific proofs, you also saw the weight loss effect from your family members, friends, etc., and you decided to give it a try. But finally, it hurts your health. This is the worse case than first case, if not worst. So having scientific proof and successful stories can’t make sure the plan won’t hurt you. Example: herb “Mu Tong” can let one loss weight. But it harms kidney. The symptoms will show up if you take it longer. I remember that the diet medicine made by the herb was sold in Europe. The manufacture of the medicine should show some scientific proof, such as clinical trails result while selling it. I guess the clinical trails were not last long enough if such trails are taken. Finally the company went bankruptcy due to flooding law suits. So is having scientific proof enough? I doubt it.
See, we got problem while choosing a diet plan/pattern. Judgment based on life science could not be always reliable, and having scientific proof might not make sure the plan/medicine is safe either. What should we do then? I will show my ideas in next post.
We should remember that modern life science is still in its baby stage. The judgment result based on the science might not be reliable. A usual case could be: an all-scientific plan doesn’t work for a specific individual. Another case could be: an iffy plan sounds reasonable and attractive, and sounds scientific too with some scientific proofs, you also saw the weight loss effect from your family members, friends, etc., and you decided to give it a try. But finally, it hurts your health. This is the worse case than first case, if not worst. So having scientific proof and successful stories can’t make sure the plan won’t hurt you. Example: herb “Mu Tong” can let one loss weight. But it harms kidney. The symptoms will show up if you take it longer. I remember that the diet medicine made by the herb was sold in Europe. The manufacture of the medicine should show some scientific proof, such as clinical trails result while selling it. I guess the clinical trails were not last long enough if such trails are taken. Finally the company went bankruptcy due to flooding law suits. So is having scientific proof enough? I doubt it.
See, we got problem while choosing a diet plan/pattern. Judgment based on life science could not be always reliable, and having scientific proof might not make sure the plan/medicine is safe either. What should we do then? I will show my ideas in next post.
People may say: OK, I can wait for scientists to find one true “all-scientific” diet plan then go for it. Is it possible to have such plan? Science is in development always. Today’s scientific plan may be proven that it might not work for a set of people, under some conditions; it may be proven that it might turn your health down under some conditions, etc. And if you are young and health, you have time to wait. For me and people who are aged or with some disease(s), we have no time to wait. We have to choose one diet plan (choosing no plan or doing whatever s/he is doing is still a choice). But with baby life science, how to choose? My ideas are:
1. Use your best scientific knowledge to estimate if the diet pattern or plan will not hurt your health absolutely. I think this is bottom line. If no harm, then the worst case is no weight loss effect or your body weight increases instead, which you could live with. If it could hurt, then put it into doubt list. Note that recent life science knowledge we have might be incorrect or conditionally correct, so throwing away now might let you miss a good diet plan candidate.
2. See if the presenter of the plan or pattern has any attempt to earn profit from you if you try it. If yes, put it into highly doubt list, and ignore all the “scientific proofs” the presenter and/or its partner(s) supported. Only third, independent party’s proof(s) could be adopted for such plan/pattern.
3. See if the presenter practices the plan or pattern. If s/he doesn’t, or if you could not prove it, put it into the doubt list.
4. See if anyone you know well (your family member, relative, colleague, good friend, etc.) practices this plan or pattern. If yes, see if it works. If not, put it into the doubt list.
For the 3 and 4 above, short term practice should not be counted. The longer the better, the shortest practice period should be one year, or you set the number of years.
You may find that after the 4 steps, almost all plans/patterns are in the two lists (including this pattern I’m introducing, because any of above 1,3, or 4 rules could push it into the doubt list), if your standard is strict. If any is not in the list, you probably want to try it first. And congratulation if it happens to work for you! What does the “works” mean here? You can set your own standard. If I were switching to another pattern/plan now, my standard would be: it should let me have better to perfect health while losing weight. If it doesn’t, I say it failed. And if my health is at the same or lower level after taking one plan in long term, I say it failed too.
If it doesn’t work, you might want to get next candidate from the doubt list. Highly doubt list should be looked into the latest. How to select one plan from the iffy candidates with the least risk? Next post will show my ideas.
Warning: do not follow my ideas blindly. You have to make your own judgment and make your own changes to the above ideas.
1. Use your best scientific knowledge to estimate if the diet pattern or plan will not hurt your health absolutely. I think this is bottom line. If no harm, then the worst case is no weight loss effect or your body weight increases instead, which you could live with. If it could hurt, then put it into doubt list. Note that recent life science knowledge we have might be incorrect or conditionally correct, so throwing away now might let you miss a good diet plan candidate.
2. See if the presenter of the plan or pattern has any attempt to earn profit from you if you try it. If yes, put it into highly doubt list, and ignore all the “scientific proofs” the presenter and/or its partner(s) supported. Only third, independent party’s proof(s) could be adopted for such plan/pattern.
3. See if the presenter practices the plan or pattern. If s/he doesn’t, or if you could not prove it, put it into the doubt list.
4. See if anyone you know well (your family member, relative, colleague, good friend, etc.) practices this plan or pattern. If yes, see if it works. If not, put it into the doubt list.
For the 3 and 4 above, short term practice should not be counted. The longer the better, the shortest practice period should be one year, or you set the number of years.
You may find that after the 4 steps, almost all plans/patterns are in the two lists (including this pattern I’m introducing, because any of above 1,3, or 4 rules could push it into the doubt list), if your standard is strict. If any is not in the list, you probably want to try it first. And congratulation if it happens to work for you! What does the “works” mean here? You can set your own standard. If I were switching to another pattern/plan now, my standard would be: it should let me have better to perfect health while losing weight. If it doesn’t, I say it failed. And if my health is at the same or lower level after taking one plan in long term, I say it failed too.
If it doesn’t work, you might want to get next candidate from the doubt list. Highly doubt list should be looked into the latest. How to select one plan from the iffy candidates with the least risk? Next post will show my ideas.
Warning: do not follow my ideas blindly. You have to make your own judgment and make your own changes to the above ideas.
Last edited:
Please note that no matter how you judge, the effect of a specific pattern or plan for a specific individual won’t change, it is objective. If it works for you, then it will still work for you, even if you judged it as “bad” or “not scientific”. If it doesn’t hurt your health but actually improves, it remains the same, even if you think “it will hurt my health”. You didn’t take a plan that works well or perfect for you? That is not the plan’s or pattern’s fault. So when making the decision, we want to be as objective as possible.
As you can see, even if the life science may have some gaps, we have to use it, because it is the best knowledge we could depends on. Now we want to avoid its components that have larger possibility to contain issue(s). It is the reason too why I added other three rules to judge in previous step, because profits may drive one to do bad things; presenter shouldn’t hurt own; and who you know well should not cheat you. My ideas are:
Judge with facts discovered in life science only, not the knowledge that is generated by our induction or deduction.
* What are the facts? Example is anatomy. The knowledge in this field is what can be seen, so the fault possibility should be less.
* Induction: “Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.” From Wikipedia.
For example, the effective rate of a new medicine from clinical trails is typical inductive knowledge. The method usually chooses a small number of individuals, lets them take the medicine and placebo, records the result for each individual, then induct to generate result. Even if the result of such trails is 100%, it can’t guarantee the medicine will work for everyone.
* Deduction: “Deductive reasoning, also called Deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises.” From Wikipedia.
Deductive reasoning example:
1. Any individual will die.
2. Caiqipp is an individual.
3. Therefore, Caiqipp will die.
The conclusion knowledge obtained from the deductive reasoning method is more reliable than inductive reasoning. But if the methodology is misused, the result could still be incorrect. Please do you home work to learn some for details, if you prefer.
Unfortunately, because of the extremely high complexity of biological phenomena, a large portion of knowledge in life science field, including its branch medicine field and diet knowledge set, is obtained from induction reasoning; some also come from deduction reasoning. This is important reason why the judgment made by life science knowledge alone might not be reliable, and we should not negative or confirm a diet plan only based on life science. We have to use the best thing we have - our talent and intelligence.
Back to our topic: what are the basic facts about our life? I think they include:
* Our body contains about 80% of water. Water is very important for our metabolism. So if a diet plan doesn’t let you drink enough water, you might want to rank it lower.
* Except water, the most of the remaining 20% is proteins, which is very important to our life too. So the plan with enough protein intakes should be ranked higher.
* Vitamins play very important roles in our metabolism. So you may rank a plan higher if it has enough vitamin intakes.
You may create your own standard with reliable facts you choose.
If you viewed the thread carefully, and agree that less chemical intake should be good for health, you might want to block the plans that request any food or supplemental that may contain iffy chemicals, at least you can improve them.
Another method to choose is to exclude. If a plan is similar to one you took, which didn’t work for you, you may rank it lower.
As you can see, even if the life science may have some gaps, we have to use it, because it is the best knowledge we could depends on. Now we want to avoid its components that have larger possibility to contain issue(s). It is the reason too why I added other three rules to judge in previous step, because profits may drive one to do bad things; presenter shouldn’t hurt own; and who you know well should not cheat you. My ideas are:
Judge with facts discovered in life science only, not the knowledge that is generated by our induction or deduction.
* What are the facts? Example is anatomy. The knowledge in this field is what can be seen, so the fault possibility should be less.
* Induction: “Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true.” From Wikipedia.
For example, the effective rate of a new medicine from clinical trails is typical inductive knowledge. The method usually chooses a small number of individuals, lets them take the medicine and placebo, records the result for each individual, then induct to generate result. Even if the result of such trails is 100%, it can’t guarantee the medicine will work for everyone.
* Deduction: “Deductive reasoning, also called Deductive logic, is reasoning which constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises.” From Wikipedia.
Deductive reasoning example:
1. Any individual will die.
2. Caiqipp is an individual.
3. Therefore, Caiqipp will die.
The conclusion knowledge obtained from the deductive reasoning method is more reliable than inductive reasoning. But if the methodology is misused, the result could still be incorrect. Please do you home work to learn some for details, if you prefer.
Unfortunately, because of the extremely high complexity of biological phenomena, a large portion of knowledge in life science field, including its branch medicine field and diet knowledge set, is obtained from induction reasoning; some also come from deduction reasoning. This is important reason why the judgment made by life science knowledge alone might not be reliable, and we should not negative or confirm a diet plan only based on life science. We have to use the best thing we have - our talent and intelligence.
Back to our topic: what are the basic facts about our life? I think they include:
* Our body contains about 80% of water. Water is very important for our metabolism. So if a diet plan doesn’t let you drink enough water, you might want to rank it lower.
* Except water, the most of the remaining 20% is proteins, which is very important to our life too. So the plan with enough protein intakes should be ranked higher.
* Vitamins play very important roles in our metabolism. So you may rank a plan higher if it has enough vitamin intakes.
You may create your own standard with reliable facts you choose.
If you viewed the thread carefully, and agree that less chemical intake should be good for health, you might want to block the plans that request any food or supplemental that may contain iffy chemicals, at least you can improve them.
Another method to choose is to exclude. If a plan is similar to one you took, which didn’t work for you, you may rank it lower.
Last edited:
ChefChiTown
New member
Dude, you don't have a topic. You're just saying whatever comes to mind because you love to hear yourself talk.
If you meant: is the pattern I'm introducing in this thread safe for me or my wife, yes, it's safe for us. We have not found any negative impact yet for 3+ years' practice. If you meant: is it safe for you, then you have to judge yourself.
I'll try to solve the safety puzzle later.
Thanks you for asking.
Last edited:
Famous last words.
Protein intake amount: how much should be “enough”?
Science tells us that the protein intake amount should be at least 1 gram per kilogram body weight (for people who have lower than average physical actions, the minimal amount could be a bit less). This is an inductive reasoning knowledge, and can’t be used as an absolute standard. Now we need our own judgment about the amount. How to measure “enough” level? I would say that no one could tell you how much is just right or appropriate exactly. The amount could be impacted by many factors. But we may still have a way to judge – let our body tell us how much is what it needs. Our body won’t cheat us.
You may say: then why I have over-weighted too much but I still feel hungry always? Well, I don’t know the answer. Scientists said for some people, it may be caused by gene. It is possible, but I think there could be another reason: we misunderstood the signal our body sends to us. What our body needs and is lack of might be proteins, but we feed it with too many fats and carbohydrates, but too little proteins. This could be the reason why we are feeling hungry while over-weighted. Again, this is assumption. You judge.
My body weight is about 110 pounds or 50 kilograms. I drink broth made by 500 grams of meat, with about 100 grams of protein. For grounded beef, there is residue. For beef tendon or pork skin, 90% is hydrolyzed into broth, and I eat the remaining tendon or skin, so 100% is into my body. So my protein intake amount could be somewhere between 1.5 to 2 grams per kilogram of body weight. I’m not sure what is in the broth, but I do know that my health is dramatically improved. My practice shows that if protein intakes (or whatever in broth) are at this level, I can reach a health level where I don’t have any disease or sick or illness. But I had many health issues and problems before. Does it imply that my protein intakes were too little before? I think so. Is it enough now? I’m not sure. But my body told me that the amount I eat/drink now has better health effect.
You could learn from my case – eating more than 1 gram per kilogram body weight should be better. What should be the most appropriate amount? The amount should be able to let you improve health level, and reach no-any-disease level (including no flu without flu shot). When you health is not at a good shape, more could be better than less.
If you have any disease, consult your doctor to see if you can take many proteins.
Science tells us that the protein intake amount should be at least 1 gram per kilogram body weight (for people who have lower than average physical actions, the minimal amount could be a bit less). This is an inductive reasoning knowledge, and can’t be used as an absolute standard. Now we need our own judgment about the amount. How to measure “enough” level? I would say that no one could tell you how much is just right or appropriate exactly. The amount could be impacted by many factors. But we may still have a way to judge – let our body tell us how much is what it needs. Our body won’t cheat us.
You may say: then why I have over-weighted too much but I still feel hungry always? Well, I don’t know the answer. Scientists said for some people, it may be caused by gene. It is possible, but I think there could be another reason: we misunderstood the signal our body sends to us. What our body needs and is lack of might be proteins, but we feed it with too many fats and carbohydrates, but too little proteins. This could be the reason why we are feeling hungry while over-weighted. Again, this is assumption. You judge.
My body weight is about 110 pounds or 50 kilograms. I drink broth made by 500 grams of meat, with about 100 grams of protein. For grounded beef, there is residue. For beef tendon or pork skin, 90% is hydrolyzed into broth, and I eat the remaining tendon or skin, so 100% is into my body. So my protein intake amount could be somewhere between 1.5 to 2 grams per kilogram of body weight. I’m not sure what is in the broth, but I do know that my health is dramatically improved. My practice shows that if protein intakes (or whatever in broth) are at this level, I can reach a health level where I don’t have any disease or sick or illness. But I had many health issues and problems before. Does it imply that my protein intakes were too little before? I think so. Is it enough now? I’m not sure. But my body told me that the amount I eat/drink now has better health effect.
You could learn from my case – eating more than 1 gram per kilogram body weight should be better. What should be the most appropriate amount? The amount should be able to let you improve health level, and reach no-any-disease level (including no flu without flu shot). When you health is not at a good shape, more could be better than less.
If you have any disease, consult your doctor to see if you can take many proteins.
Last edited:
Diet Plan Safety Judgment
In my opinion, safety has highest priority while choosing a diet plan, health is second, the weight loss should be at third place. But what does “safety” mean? Remember the people who got weight loss but their kidney got failure caused by “mu tong”? How to avoid such case? What should we learn from such events?
Having “Scientific proof(s) might not be able to avoid such cases thoroughly. Remember Thalidomide? It should have complete set of “scientific proofs”, including clinical trail result. Having scientific proofs to show a diet plan is safe is good, but not enough. We have to add other rules to judge. I think the following rules could be candidates:
1. Diet plan should not have any negative health issue when taking long time (this is mentioned above).
2. What a plan requests or suggests eating should be natural. “Natural” here means what our body needs, such as water, proteins, and vitamins. Most medicine (if not all) we take will be excreted eventually; it means our body doesn’t need them. Our body doesn’t need preservatives. So such medicine and preservatives are not natural.
3. If something is eaten for many years by human beings, such as staple foods, vegetables, and fruits, then eating them is safe. Exceptions are when the foods are polluted. Genetically modified foods might not.
If you are taking a plan that seems safe, under which condition should you stop immediately to avoid the hurt that appeared for people who took “mu tong”?
Mr. Liu said: “if anything reduces your appetite, then it is toxic. Stop immediately. Do not wait until you have obvious symptom(s).” Why? Because “any toxic stuff will attack your digestive system and appetite first, then attack one or more target organs or tissues.” I think this rule is strict, it should be able to help us find negative clue as soon as possible before an organ got failure.
I think another rule should be more feasible that this rule: if a plan could not improve your health in a relatively short period (say, 3 months), it might not be safe. You may argue that a plan that can keep the same health level should be good one”. Yes, if we know the health keeps at the SAME level, it’s OK. But issue is we could not exactly know if it’s the same as before, or it’s a bit lower than before. So to be safe, we may want to rather believe no improvement could mean slowly downgrading. The advantage of this rule is that it can let us stop when, for example, a plan doesn’t have enough protein intakes.
Again, you may make your own changes. You should be able to find clues to judge if you look into some failure cases.
In my opinion, safety has highest priority while choosing a diet plan, health is second, the weight loss should be at third place. But what does “safety” mean? Remember the people who got weight loss but their kidney got failure caused by “mu tong”? How to avoid such case? What should we learn from such events?
Having “Scientific proof(s) might not be able to avoid such cases thoroughly. Remember Thalidomide? It should have complete set of “scientific proofs”, including clinical trail result. Having scientific proofs to show a diet plan is safe is good, but not enough. We have to add other rules to judge. I think the following rules could be candidates:
1. Diet plan should not have any negative health issue when taking long time (this is mentioned above).
2. What a plan requests or suggests eating should be natural. “Natural” here means what our body needs, such as water, proteins, and vitamins. Most medicine (if not all) we take will be excreted eventually; it means our body doesn’t need them. Our body doesn’t need preservatives. So such medicine and preservatives are not natural.
3. If something is eaten for many years by human beings, such as staple foods, vegetables, and fruits, then eating them is safe. Exceptions are when the foods are polluted. Genetically modified foods might not.
If you are taking a plan that seems safe, under which condition should you stop immediately to avoid the hurt that appeared for people who took “mu tong”?
Mr. Liu said: “if anything reduces your appetite, then it is toxic. Stop immediately. Do not wait until you have obvious symptom(s).” Why? Because “any toxic stuff will attack your digestive system and appetite first, then attack one or more target organs or tissues.” I think this rule is strict, it should be able to help us find negative clue as soon as possible before an organ got failure.
I think another rule should be more feasible that this rule: if a plan could not improve your health in a relatively short period (say, 3 months), it might not be safe. You may argue that a plan that can keep the same health level should be good one”. Yes, if we know the health keeps at the SAME level, it’s OK. But issue is we could not exactly know if it’s the same as before, or it’s a bit lower than before. So to be safe, we may want to rather believe no improvement could mean slowly downgrading. The advantage of this rule is that it can let us stop when, for example, a plan doesn’t have enough protein intakes.
Again, you may make your own changes. You should be able to find clues to judge if you look into some failure cases.
gfara5
New member
Umm... alright.
SO! You are telling us, that you are super healthy and this diet is easy, etc... Yet, you say that you have only drank a meat broth for all your meals, for multiple years now, and are - healthy?
I am having a hard time digesting this, as I believe I would have a hard time digesting that diet. Oi vey!
Also - how would someone do this if they are a vegetarian? Get real. There are healthy ways to accompany any eating lifestyles, that do not include a meager (who the hell knows how many caloried, if even enough) small portion of some death broth, three times a day.
I will continue to read, but I had to post after only getting past the first page. I apologize if you have covered anything I have been disbelieving of.
SO! You are telling us, that you are super healthy and this diet is easy, etc... Yet, you say that you have only drank a meat broth for all your meals, for multiple years now, and are - healthy?
I am having a hard time digesting this, as I believe I would have a hard time digesting that diet. Oi vey!
Also - how would someone do this if they are a vegetarian? Get real. There are healthy ways to accompany any eating lifestyles, that do not include a meager (who the hell knows how many caloried, if even enough) small portion of some death broth, three times a day.
I will continue to read, but I had to post after only getting past the first page. I apologize if you have covered anything I have been disbelieving of.
I guess you are using BMI to judge my health level. I think BMI is designed for people to estimate if their body weight is relatively high or low. I think it's a kind of inductive reasoning result, therefore should not and can not be always right if used to judge one's health. It might not reliable in some cases. See my post # 164 on page 11. Please see post # 7 on page 1, it includes my health comparison. I know my health is in the best shape after I reach 30 or 35, my body told me that. I don't care BMI.
Think you for pointing out. Should mention from the beginning that this pattern is not for people who can't eat meat because of religion reason. For people who can eat meat but just don't want to eat, this pattern may work for them if they take it, but it can't help if they don't want to drink broth.
You should take a look at post # 12 (P1, how to make the broth, it's special way, not regular broth), #23 (P2, details of this pattern), # 41 (P3), #52 (P4, some DOs & DONETs of this pattern), #55 & 58 (P4, calories calculation of my daily intakes), etc. You may find answers for the most questions you asked.
shygemini
New member
Caiqpp: I agree when you say BMI is not always accurate. I will be the first one to say not to listen what it says some of the time. However BMI is accurate in the sense that if your BMI is excessively low (i.e. underweight) or high (i.e. obese) that this indicates there is a health problem.
I agree a part of what you said. Thank you for paying attention to my health.
I know some colleagues, they have BMI in around average of recommended BMI range (which they proud of), but they have knee pain, or can't do a bit more exercise. But I can climb 40 levels of stairs within 20 minutes. Actually I can climb 60 levels (I tried that, it's not an issue for me, but just no time to do so), while my BMI is at very low end or out of low limit suggested. Who's health is better if you judge?
From another point of view, I was unable to take exercise before I take this pattern. If I do, my heart pain will appear, and almost can't breath. My BMI was higher than mid of the range that time. I feel good after taking the pattern for almost two years, so I started the climbing exercise that time while my BMI is a bit lower than mid of the range. I could just climb 10 levels that time. What time is my health better, if you judge? Before taking the pattern (higher than mid BMI)? When I start the exercise (lower than mid BMI)? Or now (very low BMI)?
I do believe I know myself better than you.
Last edited:
- Status