The journey begins ... or continues ... articulating the rollercoaster that is my life

[ILoveLife]

Glad you had fun! You do deserve it so much. :D :hug:

 

[littleoc]

I'll just say this once so I don't take over :) It's going to be a bit of a rant but I promise I'm not trying to lecture you. This was new to me like three years ago before I studied bad science in an animal behavior setting, so I just feel like it would be really good to share with you

I'm just sharing it because I care, so if you ignore it it's okay! :)

very low cal is dangerous.

I second this. Trust me, I'm a biologist :p

No, but seriously, there's no need to hurt yourself. No need to make your body go into an emergency mode, to make it think you're in danger. Because it will assume all kinds of things if you aren't careful, and it can do some real damage to your health now and later.

Diet books are often considered scams in the scientific community. Reason being, they aren't peer reviewed, they often quote scientific papers incorrectly or misleadingly, they often feed into negative self images that don't have to do with being overweight, or they don't quote any papers at all -- just make claims. Some books are okay though :) But you want to look for ones written by people who know their shit. Diet and weightloss are the most fake-news of all the sciences right now, with so many people just making claims that aren't studied, and therefore making it even harder for people to lose weight later in their lives.

There was an experiment done by a group of scientists in Germany, instigated by a Dr. Bohannon (who has a PhD in molecular biology and bacteria, but is focused on being a journalist who cares a lot about social sciences) that set out to prove that eating chocolate would help you lose weight and slim fast. In the scientific community that's called an a priori hypothesis, which is typically considered okay science, unless you're saying, "I believe outter space has a ether, therefore I will find evidence for it" (that really happened, until a NASA satellite proved completely on accident, to the confusion of many scientists, that nothing was slowing down light waves above Earth's atmosphere), instead of "I think there is an ether, so I'm going to collect evidence to see if I can support that." (Science is stupid. If you're a human you're basically already a scientist.)

Anyway, the main problem with this study was that it was completely faked, on purpose. The scientists purposefully used bad science and bad methods to keep chocolate as the only constant, which helped them prove they were helping people lose weight with chocolate even though it wasn't true. Then, they published their results in a journal/website called the Institute of Diet and Health, which -- like most institutes dealing with health, food, and diet -- was completely a scam.

Other journalists quickly picked up the headline, though, not really caring if it was real or not. They either didn't have the education/know-how to figure out if it was bad science, or they didn't care (click-bait on Facebook can earn a person literally thousands of dollars per click when done well (as in, freezing up your computer with ads, especially if they make you click through page numbers)). Now literally millions of people worldwide had "evidence" that chocolate is great for losing weight, when it really isn't.

Dr. Bohannon and the German scientists then finally revealed the real experiment, which was to set out and prove that diet news is ridiculously wrong, all the time, and even dangerous. Meanwhile, actually books had already been published adding chocolate to every meal, the old-fashioned British way (curry and baker's chocolate was really popular apparently?). This is a problem because most books and articles in any science never rely on one paper, especially if that paper hasn't been peer reviewed. Most book writers will wait until there are several papers, or even papers talking about all those papers once there are hundreds of them (some scientists specialize in just reading scientific papers and doing a lot of math to figure out if there is a consensus yet).

Another fun example is red wine. It's almost household knowledge that red wine is good for your heart in small doses, but there's another study which proved that red wine could kill cancer cells. People were extremely excited about this and ran with it, and some people with cancer were drinking it (despite being warned not to). Turns out the paper was barely even worth a penny in science terms. It was a thesis statement of a medical student who was probably procrastinating, to be fair, that showed that a very specific protein in grapes could kill unprotected cancer cells in a dish. The reason it was killing those cancer cells was because the protein is toxic when concentrated enough (a reason why giving grapes to a dog causes kidney failure). Also, that protein? Might not even make it into the wine, apparently. And if it does, it will never be at that concentration to be deadly to cells -- or if it is, it'd kill the entire organism, thereby "curing" the cancer but not in a very useful way. :p

Anyway, I have no idea what book that is, or what backing it has, but I just wanted to show you really quickly that you do have to be careful with any information you get, but especially diet-wise. We sort of know next to nothing about diet, besides that we freaking love sugar and fat and salt.

I do know of a diet where people purposefully eat way too few calories with the express purpose of permanently slowing down their metabolisms. This supposedly makes you live longer by slowing down the entire body's processes, but the people doing it so far haven't made it to old age. They are frequently depressed and low-energy, unable to finish some tasks. Their brain suffers a bit unless they add more fat to their diets, and there is evidence that the brain even breaks down a bit on this diet, as well as muscle, causing permanent damage and also a higher risk of dementia. The problem is that we are mammals. Mammals are by definition really fast-paced organisms. When you visit a cave ecosystem that has been closed off for maybe a hundred years or just fifty, you won't find mammals. You will find eyeless fish and eyeless spiders, and eyeless insects that was pastel white. You'll even find a couple of reptiles that might be completely new species. There have even been cave-dwelling giant tortoises (which is usual). But you won't find mammals. Not even mice. Reason being, to live in a cave, you need a slow metabolism, and a long lifespan. Lots of organisms play by the rule "last as long as you can, make a few babies" while mammals in particular are extreme examples of "live hard, die young." Mammal bodies literally start deteriorating after they can't have babies. They aren't usually built to last.

In fact, being a mother will age you. And stress will make you gain weight.

The main reason I think you shouldn't be cutting your calories too low, is that your body went through extreme stress. Absolutely extreme. And bodies remember stuff like that. Seriously. Ever heard stories of people with organ transplants suddenly being really interested in stuff their donor used to do? Maybe usually exaggerated, but bodies remember trauma just as much as our brains do. That has been proven. And a body during high stress has survival tactics, such as gaining extra weight to survive. Fat cells may help with healing infections, recent studies have shown, so they are more likely to start making fat from sugars (even if you don't have a lot in your diet) in order to try to save you.

If you suddenly go low-calorie, it'll happen again. Your body will go into survival mode, and it will be unpleasant. It will also increase your chances of getting things like diabetes later. And, if you ever have a few extra calories, your body will store it as fat way faster than if you were eating enough calories. Because it thinks it's in danger.

Best rule of thumb is to add a zero to the end of your weight in pounds, and then aim for that many calories a day. So, I need about 1400 a day for normal functions -- which includes thinking, walking, digesting, breathing, having a heartbeat, letting my nerves flex my muscles subconsciously so they don't atrophy, powering trillions of pumps that keep calcium moving so I can move, allowing my cells to divide, allowing my cells to build the protein structures they need to function, and etc. You get the idea.

The best thing you can do to safely lose weight is to tell your body that you're working for something. First of all, try to get enough sleep. (Lack of sleep will cause your body to think there is a problem and gain weight.) Try to manage stress. Work out (a walk for twenty minutes a day counts, just try to get your heartrate up). And eat foods that are nutrient-dense instead of calorie-dense, like a bowl of carrots instead of a bag of chips.

I have no idea what that book says, though, but even if it really is a good book, I hope this helps you anyway :)

Google the Virta blog, it's full of low carb resources relating to diabetes.

This is cool.

Anyway, I'm glad you're doing okay! :)

 

[mumstheword]

Great rant :) @littleoc . Don't worry about me. I'm a very big girl with a big IQ and plenty of life experience and study behind me.
That book was by Michael Mosley. He's a doctor who also has a nutrition science show.
I listen to my body, first and foremost. And I do lots of research, over lots and lots of years and weight it all up, against my life experience.
Yes, it's not good and highly counter-productive to skimp on good fats, protein and complex carbs and water-rich high fiber foods.
There actual is some evidence to support the theory that cocoa and by extension 85% dark chocolate in small amounts, is good for speeding your fat-burning metabolism, though. It has to do with health-promoting flavanols, found in cocoa, in particular, one called epicatechin. This component falls under the category of "sirtuins" which are fat burning metabolic regulators. Among other sirtuin-rich foods, are, olive oil, parsley, rocket, green tea, coffee, turmeric, kale, lovage (a herb, fallen out of fashion), celery, buckwheat, chillis.

Anyway, yeah, science ain't science unless it's true, sorta thing. Rupert Sheldrake has some great things to say about that; science needing to be factual and not confirmation biased kinda "evidence".
Nutrition science is one of my fields of interest. :)
And I agree about the metabolism. Thank you for reminding me. I'll get back into my metabolic research. I've done terrible things to my metabolism, over the years.
I do look young though :), despite my extremely productive womb and middle age. Not sure if that was anything to do with extreme calorie deprivation or just genes, though. I think the cal dep was more harmful than good as it's been causal in really bad health problems like brain impairment and my last close encounter with an early grave. So I better watch it. Also it backfires; extreme hunger, slower metabolism and food obsession arises from starvation rations of cal cutting, so that would be the opposite of what I want to achieve. It often results in subsequent weight gain, and/or nervous system/neural breakdowns and mood disorders. Been there, done that.

I'll be good, I promise. Geez, you are a smart cookie @littleoc , I bet you have a super IQ too.:)

 

[mumstheword]

I wanna talk about the "toxic" thing, but not relate it to gender. I see it more as a combination of predatory, sociopathic behaviour that can be found across the "gender spectrum"

It often involves a predilection for seeing oneself as a victim and thus justifying terrible treatment of others, I've observed.

I've been subject to a huge amount of expolitative, dehumanizing and predatory treatment. Admittedly, in the sexual arena, that's been, by and large, something males have done to me. I'm talking quite a few men, mostly, when I was a child and teenager.

But women are not exempt. My family has been dominated by subjegating females, maybe that's rare? I don't know. I only know of my own experiences. I do know they can exploit and be cruel, too, though.

Maybe I'm just unlucky, maybe female abusers are the minority, but, I suspect they monopolize the "emotional abuse" category, just as men monopolize the "physical abuse" category.

That's "toxic". All that crap is toxic. It's not a gender thing, it's a human thing.

It seems we, humans, always want to see things in black and white, if we can. We want simple answers, "good" "bad" "trustworthy" "not trustworthy".

For me, honesty is important, but humans are so layered, it seems it takes a long time for truths to be revealed, but eventually, things come out in the wash.

I wish there were more certainties, when It comes to people, but, my own naivety and willingness to see good where it is not, out of my own wishful thinking or emotional bias, has me doubting what I think I know, a lot of the time.
It's so easy for people to be taken in by lies. Especially honest people, because we tend to see through the lens of our own moral bias until that naivety is shattered.
So, how do we know what is real? We know our own experience, and even that can be distorted by our "emotional logic" which is not really logic at all.
I have hopes, but I'm all too aware that, too often, hopes are dashed as reality plays out.

I only know what I value, and that, by aligning my actions with my values, I grow, and, hopefully, contribute to helpful, healthful positivity, in the world.

 

[Freida]

That's "toxic". All that crap is toxic. It's not a gender thing, it's a human thing.

perfectly said! And it seems to be getting worse - which is so sad.

I only know what I value, and that, by aligning my actions with my values, I grow, and, hopefully, contribute to helpful, healthful positivity, in the world.

I need to remember this for me too...

 

[mumstheword]

Triggery, not very active or functional day.
The "toxic" type behaviour thing, is weighing heavily on me.
Lots of unprocessed, unexpressed, experiences that lurk, in the deep and dark recesses of my psyche.
Lots.
Lots of it are murky, by and large very and/or partially dissociated, hard to put into words, so I just can't, yet.
It weighs heavily.
I freeze and hide, that's what I do a lot of.
I'm not proud of it, but that's what my body/mind dictate I do, to feel safe enough to survive.
I've always read, since I learned to read, I used to read a phenomenal amount.
I dissociate by watching stuff too.
I've been really not well for some time now.
I keep it together enough, so that I don't cause others distress, on the whole, except by avoiding them, I probably upset people via avoidance, a fair bit.
I'm waiting for hospitalization, again. My second inpatients admission for the year. It will be starting in early July.
Also, as lots of those here know, I am waiting to be relocated, too.

I shouted at my neighbor-from-hell's dogs today.
I used to sing in bands and a choir, now I shout at dogs to, "SHUT-THE-f*ck-UP!!!!"

 

[Swift]

I sing a lot, and tell things to shut the f*ck up or f*ck off a lot too.
Do you do any music atm? I've found it really helpful.

 

[mumstheword]

I sing a lot, and tell things to shut the f*ck up or f*ck off a lot too.
Do you do any music atm? I've f...

Nah, living conditions not conducive cause of neighbor from hell and close proximity to other neighbors, in terms of, for practice, which sucks, because I hardly ever practise anymore. Waiting to move so I can. I got too much attention from cray cray NFH, she was impressed and then started trying to copy me, which is annoying, I don't like to encourage her coz she drives us cray.

I was involved with a choir for many years too, but I got tired of dealing with friends killing themselves,and/or dying in really tragic ways, which has happened waaay too much and f*cks with my PTSD brain.

I'm waiting to move, I need to do a shitton of new skill development, theory and second and third instruments learning.

I'm a great songwriting, lead and harmony vocalist, on the fly, but, I need many more skills, because, I'm an oral musician and I need to be a literate musician.

Having said that, I've still got thousands of hours behind me, and am still really happy with my skill level, as it is. I just live next to a nutjob biarch, who I don't want to draw attention from.

 

[mumstheword]

Honestly? I used music to cope, for about 29 years, through all this crap.
I got burnt out from doing too much of it for too long.
It's not easy juggling parenting, ptsd, not driving and making music. My ex used to say "you'd understand, if you were a real musician", because I'm a singer/songwriter who plays percussion and dances. I havent had the chance to develop heaps of areas that I need though. I don't have any musicians that I'm working with now. I have a lot of mixed baggage about the people I've worked with and performing around here. Trauma and wounds mixed in with wonderful experiences and music "therapy" and a huge amount of creativity and a body of work that's gone, destroyed, very little to show for myself, other than the skills I've amassed and a lot of lyrics and melodies that could become tracks.

 

[mumstheword]

So, my little girl is the one in the fire ATM. I'm frustrated and I'm hurting for her. She's so stressed out her homeroom teacher has adviced her to go to a doctor and get some documentation showing that she suffers from anxiety.
I want to cry. My beautiful baby (17 year old) daughter is doing it so tough. She's making a mixture of good and bad life decisions that I tried to help her avoid (the crappy ones, that is) but you know how it is, if the young were wise enough to heed safe advice ..... She is a wise, kind, compassionate soul but school is huge pressure because of this "compressed curriculum" where they cram two year of a subject, for HSC, in to one year, or even less than. I'm not sure how they are meant to retain any of it, at that break neck speed..... Plus she's working her first after school and weekends job at a pizza pasta joint.
I did talk about the doctor cert option ages ago because I could see how wobbly she was, even booked her in, but she bailed..."too much school work" ....sigh.....

 

[littleoc]

I'm sorry she's going through that. It's really hard to see outside of school at that age. I remember at 17, thinking that I would fail at life if I didn't get good grades. They really drill that into you. I remember being unable to think outside of highschool -- probably because my frontal lobe wasn't fully developed yet. It's not for much of anyone at 17, not matter how mature you are and how much you plan. There isn't even enough life experience to figure it out.

Hopefully, with a teacher also agreeing that she needs a little something to help her, it will convince her that it would be a good thing. There is no reason to suffer unfairly.

Sending good vibes

 

[Swift]

Argh f*ck the HSC, I'm almost glad I had too much other shit going on to worry too hard about it.
You can get all kinds of special consideration, like extra time w assignments/exams. Sometimes schools have a policy where if they have your shit on file you automatically get an extension if they have a certificate from previous.
(And PS, oral musicians are real musicians. The oral came much, much later than the literacy for me.)