Word Of Wisdom Poll

[cursor]

You think I am not working on it?  Wrong again.  I love the sanctimony of those who are blessed with good health.   I used to car pool with a guy that didn't have an extra ounce on him.  He carried his lunch to work in a brief case I went to work with but a single sandwich.  At the time I was twenty pounds over weight and had trouble losing it and he didn't gain a pound.  At the time I was much younger and did yard work and played on two softball teams and in the winter played on a basketball team.

 

Seriously, thumbs up to you, ERayR. 

 

My son is much the same way. Doesn't matter WHAT he eats ... it just passes through him. All the more reason to 1) know your body, and 2) thoughtfully offer it exactly what it needs (in terms of both nutrition and exercise ... umph).

 

By the way, I'm hardly "blessed with good health."  I grew up in a very poor household. Childhood nutrition, while of serious concern for my parents, they could only afford so much (nine children). As the result, we all survived and did OK. For me, however, moving beyond 16 years old ... when I left home ... I enjoyed some focus on general physical health. I bought some plastic sand-filled weights and started doing my thing. I found myself doing olympic lifts (they were the best), squats, deadlifts, curls, triceps extensions ... and way more. I reached a point where I could do 30 pull-ups in a single run. I could do 50 (non-cheat) push-ups at a time. And that, when I was 50. You can do the same, ERayR.

 

I coached a friend of mine, some ten years ago, who was totally convinced that his thick body build could be blamed on family heredity. It was all about "thick-bone-ness." Over the course of 18 months, with proper nutritional and weight lifting coaching, he lost about 180 lbs and looks totally awesome. (I can provide before and after pics, should they be of any reasonable worth to folks here.)

 

It's hard ... but it's NOT that hard, really (especially in retrospect).

 

My family ... genetically speaking is not at all that healthy. To overcome that, responsible effort is required.

 

Truth is, personal physical health is all about food choices, food amounts ... and responsible exercise. Really ... it's that simple. 

 

Hey ... call it the Word of Wisdom.

Edited January 9, 2015 by cursor

[cursor]

Of course what, and how much, we eat has a huge bearing on how healthy we are. However I think the bigger problem is that we have adopted a much more sedimentary lifestyle particularly when compared with the 1830's. 

 

Yes. So kick it in gear.

[cursor]

From Dr. Scott Connelly, MD:

 

"If you were to go into your kitchen and start reading food labels with an eye toward finding the single most common ingredient in all processed or prepared foods, I have an idea what you'd find: high-fructose corn syrup (fructose for short). Fructose, a particular kind of sugare, is present in a wide assortment of processed foods, including baked goods, soups, snack foods, soda, condiments, frozen entrées, breakfast cereals, and candy bars. Fructose was originally developed as a low-cos alternative to sucrose, or what we call table sugar. However, today fructose is not only used as a sweetener. It has become a multipurpose food additive, and in many products it is more than just an additive: It is a major ingredient. You will find, for example, that fructose is the second listed—and the second largest—ingredient in may brands of tomato soup, ketchup, marinades, energy bars, and soda. You will find it in bread, frozen pizza, cereal cookies and canned fruit. Dot take my word for it. Look in your cupboard and refrigerator, and you will see for yourself that fructose is ubiquitous.

 

According to conservative estimates, in the thirty-odd years since fructose was introduced, fructose consumption in the U.S. has increased ten- to twenty-fold. It has replaced added sugar in about half of all processed food products. This increase has come as our craving for low fat or no-fat foods has skyrocketed. One of the reasons food manufacturers add fructose to foods that are low-fat or fat-free is that, in addition to acting as a sweetening agent, it improves the "mouth fee" of processed foods. Fructose also extends the shelf life of frozen food. As fructose is less expensive than other sweeteners and preservatives, manufacturers are using it in a growing number of products, including many that are marketed as health foods. Consumption of fructose is rising, not because we're eating more food, but because we're eating more food to which fructose has been added."

 

More later from Dr. Connelly.

[cursor]

More from Dr. Connelly:

 

"Should we care that the food supply is being saturated with high-fructose corn syrup? Is it really worse than any of the other seeeteners and additives injected into the modern food supply?

 

The answer to both questions is yes. There is compelling scientific evidence demonstrating that fructose, more than any other single ingredient, is responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the U.S. I blame over consumption of fructose for the unprecedented rise in obesity among children and teenagers, many of whom consume an endless stream of soda, snacks, and other fructose-laden foods. Moreover, I believe that unless we take steps to reduce our intake of fructose, the obesity epidemic will continue to rage out of control.

 

Ironically, fructose has been promoted as being healthier than table sugar, when research shows it to be much worse. I am not suggesting that table sugar is a health food. It's not. [i previously explained] how starchy, sugary foods are precisely the wrong foods for our metabolism because they are negative nutrient-partitioning agents that promote the storage of fat. But as problematic as sugar is, fructose is worse.

 

I want to assure you that if you occasionally eat a food product containing fructose, you will not be endangering your health. In fact, I've used fructose in small—actually minuscule—amounts in some of my own products. When used as an additive and not a primary ingredient (the way I believe that fructose was meant to be used), fructose is harmless. The problem is that fructosew has invaded the food supply and is being consumed in quantities that I believe may be health-threatening. Let me explain why."

 

More later from Dr. Connelly.

[cursor]

More from Dr. Connelly:

 

"Fructose, also known as levulose, or fruit sugar, is found in small amounts in fruits and to a lessor extent in vegetagles and in higher concntrations in juice. It is the sweetest of the various concentrations in juice. It is the sweetest of the various kinds of sugars. High-fructose corn syrup, which is identical to the fructose found in nature, is a chemically altered version of corn syrup.

 

I'm not suggesting that you stop eating fruits because they contain fructose. Despite their sweet tast, when you eat fruits, you actually get a tiny amount of pure fructose along with other good stuff, like water, fiber, and beneficial phytochemicals (disease-fighting substances), vitamins, and minerals. When you eat a processed food product fructose, you are getting a highly concentrated form of fructose minus all the beneficial ingredients found in fruits and vegetables.
 

More later from Dr. Connelly.

[cursor]

More from Dr. Connelly:

 

"When it was first introduced, high-fructose corn syrup was thought to be a healthier sweetener, because when fructose is metabolized it doesn't trigger as sharp a [blood sugar] spike in insulin levels as table sugar does. Elevated insulin levels are linked to several serious health problems, including insulin resistance, Syndrome X, and Type II or adult-onset diabetes. you may already be familiar with the glycemic index (GI), which is a system for rating foods according to how they affect blood sugar and insulin levels. Foods with low GI ratings are considered to be healthier than those with high GI ratings, because they stimulate the release of less insulin. On the glycemic scale, table sugar rates at a high 59. High fructose corn syrup rates at a low 20. Due to its low GI rating, fructose has been touted as a safe sugar for diabetics. However, there is substantial evidence that fructose poses a far more serious health threat than table sugar does. Indeed, scientists believe that the health risks associated with table sugar result from the fact that table sugar is 50 percent fructose!"

 

More later from Dr. Connelly.

[cursor]

More from Dr. Connelly:

 

"[Previously] I referred to fructose as the "Stealth bomber of sweeteners," because although it does not cause in immediate spike in glucose, and insulin levels, ther is a compelling body of scientific evidence dating back to the 1960's, that shows the less immediate but lone-term damaging effects of fructose. Dr. John Yudkin, M.D., chariman of the Department of Nutrition at London's Queen Elizabeth College, was one of the first researchers to call attention to the link between heavy disease and sugar consumption. Dr. Yudkin discovered that a diet high in sucrose (table sugar) resulted in elevated blood levels of cholesterol, triglycerides, insulin, cortisol, and uric acid. So much for sucrose. What a bout fructose? When Dr. Yudkin performed the same experiment using pure fructose instead of sucrose, he found that fructose caused blood levels of cholesterol and triglycerides to soar nearly twice as high."

 

More later from Dr. Connelly.

[cursor]

More from Dr. Connelly:

 

Back in the 1960's, Dr. Yudkin and other scientists who suggested that a high-sugar, high-carbohydrate diet was dangerous were dismissed as extremists and "health food types" or simply ignored. Organizations such as the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association continued to promote the virtues of a high-carbohydrate, low fat diet, without cautioning against sugar consumption. Inexplicably, in 1986, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Sugars Task Force investigated the extraordinary increase in sugar consumption in the UK.S., a panel of experts concluded that steadily rising sugar consumption did not pose a problem. These experts found no conclusive evidence that sugar consumption caused any adverse health effects other than cavities. I don't know what studies these experts were looking at, because even by the mid-1980's, study after study had documented that overconsumption of sugar in general, and fructose in particular, posed a significant health hazard. Today some of the world's most serious researchers are taking a second look at fructose and are not liking what they see:

• Dr. Judith Hallfrisch, a researcher at the National Institute on Aging, analyzed the major studies on fructose and its effect on health. Her findings were worrisome. "With regard to blood lipids, there is overwhelming evidence that fructose increases plasma triglycerides. Under some conditions, dietary fructose may cause increases in plasma Cholesterol." In other words, fructose can increase the amount of fatty deposits in the blood, which in turn can increase the risk of developing insulin resistance, Syndrome X, adult-onset diabetes, and heart disease.
• Fructose can switch metabolism from fat burning to fat storage mode by promoting the formation of long-chain fatty acids, which are resistant to oxidation. Remember the rules of nutrient partitioning—what doesn't get oxidized (i.e., burned for fuel) gets stored in the body [as fat]. Therefore, the more long-chain fatty acids you produce, the more fat you will have on your body.
• A particularly alarming study, conducted at the Children's Cardiovascular Health Center at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center, examined the diets of sixty-seven children between the ages of two and ten being treated for high cholesterol. All of the children were placed on a fat-restricted diet. On the basis of food diaries maintained by parents, the researcher found a ling between the intake of simple carbohydrates (sugar) and low HDL (high-density lipoprotein), the good cholesterol, which helps prevent heart disease. The more fructose they ate, the lower their level of good cholesterol.
• Fructose can increase the amount of uric acid produced by the body, which may increase the risk of developing gout, a common form of arthritis.
• A high-sugar diet, particularly one laden with fructose, may actually make you look and feel old before your time. Both glucose and fructose can damage proteins in the body, resulting in the formation of what scientists call "advanced glycation end products" (or AGE products, for short). AGE products not only cause noticeable damage, such as wrinkles and age spots, but in high amounts, AGE products can do internal harm to joints and vital organs, including the heart and eyes. Studies suggest that fructose is ten times more likely than sucrose or glucose to trigger the formation of AGE products.
• A study conducted by USDA scientists found that fructose may also increase the risk of osteoporosis, the degenerative bone disease that makes the elderly more vulnerable to breaks and fractures. Scientists believe that fructose may disrupt the normal balance among magnesium, calcium, and phosphorus, minerals that are essential for the construction and maintenance of bone, particularly in the context of low-magnesium diet. They caution, "Further studies are warranted to see if a high-fructose diet with low dietary magnesium and marginal calcium leads to bone loss."

 

More later from Dr. Connelly.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes. So kick it in gear.

 

I do what I can, and try to behave myself.

[cursor]

More from Dr. Connelly:

 

If one picture is worth a thousand words, then [the accompanying] chart speaks volumes about the relationship of fructose to the current obesity epidemic. The chart tracks the increase in BMI, or body mass index (a measurement that compares a person's actual weight and height to ideal weight and height), against the introduction of new food products such as baked goods, sweetened beverages, cereals, and snack foods. A BMI over 25 is considered overweight, and increases your risk of having a chronic illness that can shorten your life. If you look at the chart you will clearly note the dietary changes starting about 1850.

 

 

At about 1980 there was a sharp rise in the rate of obesity that continues unabated today [and it's NOT related to genetics, and it's NOT related to thyroid malfunction]. The answer lies in the food supply. Thinks about the new food products brought to market over the last two decades. What do many of them have in common? Fructose. Fructose is skewing the national metabolism in the fat-storage direction. I liken fructose in the food supply to poison in the well: It affects the entire community. Consider this chart in light of the fact that the rate of obesity is rising among all age, economic, and societal groups. However kids are ging hit the hardest. Why? In a word, fructose.

 

 

More later from Dr. Connelly.

[cursor]

I do what I can, and try to behave myself.

 

I too do what I can ... and I try to behave myself. I hope that you're not suggesting that I'm misbehaving by publishing personal opinion and helpful dietary information. I'm trying to responsibly contribute to what I hope is a serious discussion about personal health (and how cultural dietary changes have shifted and worsened our health over these last several decades. And ... about what the Word of Wisdom was intended to offer: "health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and ye shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And ye shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not be faint."

 

One's personal health is not simply about abstaining from coffee, tea, and tobacco. The physical body is so much more complex than that. And personal attention to that complexity is necessary, if we choose to have "health in [my] navel and marrow to [my] bones.

 

[ unnecessary wink ]

Edited January 10, 2015 by cursor

[ERayR]

I too do what I can ... and I try to behave myself. I hope that you're not suggesting that I'm misbehaving by publishing personal opinion and helpful dietary information. I'm trying to responsibly contribute to what I hope is a serious discussion about personal health (and how cultural dietary changes have shifted and worsened our health over these last several decades. And ... about what the Word of Wisdom was intended to offer: "health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and ye shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And ye shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not be faint."

 

One's personal health is not simply about abstaining from coffee, tea, and tobacco. The physical body is so much more complex than that. And personal attention to that complexity is necessary, if we choose to have "health in [my] navel and marrow to [my] bones.

 

[ unnecessary wink ]

 

I do agree that diet contribute a great deal to our overall health.  I also agree that most of us are very careless with our diet and health.  That said I also know that are also genetic and traumatic contributors that often strongly influence weight problems. Especially as we get to our senior years.  The best we can do is to take what we have and do the best with the resources allotted to us.

[cursor]

Diet, and its effect creeps up on us ... individually and culturally. When we are not responsibly informed on what we should feed into our bodies (or don't pay attention), and do not understand the consequences of that nutritional intake then we suffer the consequences. Very fortunately, a broad number of ill health issues can be totally erased from our beings, given a responsible change in dietary intake, and in physical activity level.

 

You state, "The best we can do is to take what we have and do the best with the resources allotted to us." Yes. That hardly means that any of us need to resign ourselves to absolute death within the next 10-20 years. Constructively adjusting dietary intake, and smartly integrating resistance training (weight-lifting) can add significant, and life satisfying years to one's life.

 

Yeah ... 90+ is a bit of a wish (although my Dad will be 92 in April) ... but that beats kicking the bucket at 60 or 70.

[cursor]

I will very shortly offer with a picture of me at 62 years old (just two months ago). Yeah, scary. I'll have to admit. On the other hand, it's indicative of what one might achieve when seriously following the Word of Wisdom.

 

Whether we live to 50 or 90+... we own the responsibility to make the best of out lifetimes.

 

Edit. I doubt that it's worth the effort ....

Edited January 11, 2015 by cursor

[Aria]

I usually stick to it pretty firmly - no tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco. Slipped recently though, but Al getting there again.

I would like to drink less soda.. But, don't see it as part of the WoW like I see the others.

I used to be vegetarian for several years, so neat isn't such a big thing for me and I don't eat it everyday.

[thesometimesaint]

I too do what I can ... and I try to behave myself. I hope that you're not suggesting that I'm misbehaving by publishing personal opinion and helpful dietary information. I'm trying to responsibly contribute to what I hope is a serious discussion about personal health (and how cultural dietary changes have shifted and worsened our health over these last several decades. And ... about what the Word of Wisdom was intended to offer: "health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and ye shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And ye shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not be faint."

 

One's personal health is not simply about abstaining from coffee, tea, and tobacco. The physical body is so much more complex than that. And personal attention to that complexity is necessary, if we choose to have "health in [my] navel and marrow to [my] bones.

 

[ unnecessary wink ]

 

No reference to anyone but me. I have plenty of problems but one of them is not following the WoW, and I don't look down on anyone who doesn't.

[cursor]

"One of them is not the WoW."

 

Clearly you understand that your view is different from mine— and I'm sure that you can respect that. I do feel that the official LDS view regarding acceptable health is extremely shortsighted in that modern studies and real life suggests that long-term, positive health, sincerely requires more than simple abstinence from "hot drinks," tobacco, alcohol, and otherwise. Resistance training is mandatory for long life (speaking of marrow to the bones). Aerobic experience is key. 

 

"I don't look down on anyone who doesn't." Thanks for that particular. Sincerely, Saint.

 

Truth is, there a TON more that can be done, individually, in terms of awareness, in terms of readiness, in terms op personal investment. Kick it up ... both mentally and spiritually.

[cursor]

My father, although 90 years old, and given the wealth of scholastic benefit that he has enjoyed (and freely offered the LDS Church), could live another five, or ten ... while still contributing to the scholastic proof-bank of responsible material. I love the man.

[cursor]

Hand held video devices has replaced cards.

 

And there are a great many replacements for cards ... not to mention video porn.

 

Truth is, we need to be cognizant of what real solutions there are, and we we need to be willing to invest in perceived solutions.

[cursor]

I'm just curious, why are you so concerned with what other Saints are doing?  If you want to go above and beyond the WoW, then that's great.  That said, when the day of judgement comes, we are each responsible for our own actions.

 

I'm not. I'm simply asking that those in authoritative positions to judge and decide about "worthiness" consider what in fact the law is about. Issues that I've unnecessarily experienced seem to always be unrelated to the laws of the Word of Wisdom ... or any "worthiness."  I do think, though, that the Word of Wisdom strongly suggests that one's human health is connected to the laws of nutrition and exercise [as the law states] ... to common health. There is no judgement on my part except to suggest that there is much more that those who profess to follow the Word of Wisdom can do to more strongly adhere to the iron rod. Just live it. If your body is not living up to the law, then adjust your lifestyle to conform.

[thesometimesaint]

"One of them is not the WoW."

 

Clearly you understand that your view is different from mine— and I'm sure that you can respect that. I do feel that the official LDS view regarding acceptable health is extremely shortsighted in that modern studies and real life suggests that long-term, positive health, sincerely requires more than simple abstinence from "hot drinks," tobacco, alcohol, and otherwise. Resistance training is mandatory for long life (speaking of marrow to the bones). Aerobic experience is key. 

 

"I don't look down on anyone who doesn't." Thanks for that particular. Sincerely, Saint.

 

Truth is, there a TON more that can be done, individually, in terms of awareness, in terms of readiness, in terms op personal investment. Kick it up ... both mentally and spiritually.

 

Not smoking tobacco, and not drinking alcohol really are least of all commandments to the least of all Saints. However; I trying to follow the WoW not because of some proposed health benefits, though there are many. I follow it because I have agreed to follow it.   

[cursor]

Even given the fact that you don't know me at all, "theSometimesSaint," (I too am sometimes/frequently a Saint), I'm happy to be included in your defined club of "the least of all Saints." Is this the way that you deal with all inactive LDS members? Really, true fellowship is about 1) making an effort to understand another's life issues (very probably different from yours, in any number of ways), then 2) exerting the effort (mental & spiritual) to figure out how to best connect with, or recruit, or be friends with, or at the very least have reasonable communication with one that you think has chosen a divergent path.

 

The final promise in the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) is. by the way, very precisely connected to proper dietary smartness. Again, what have we medically, nutritionally, and personally learned in these last 182 years since the WofW was published. Should that body of knowledge account for nothing? What were the general health/nutritional-intake rules in 1833? Should we not reasonably put in place (adopt) personal habitual changes that improve upon the physical benefits of observing the Word of Wisdom? With all things, there is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit of the law. What is the spirit of the law of the Word of Wisdom? It's about physical/temporal health, after all.

 

"And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint."

D&C 89:18-20

Edited January 13, 2015 by cursor

[thesometimesaint]

Even given the fact that you don't know me at all, "theSometimesSaint," (I too am sometimes/frequently a Saint), I'm happy to be included in your defined club of "the least of all Saints." Is this the way that you deal with all inactive LDS members? Really, true fellowship is about 1) making an effort to understand another's life issues (very probably different from yours, in any number of ways), then 2) exerting the effort (mental & spiritual) to figure out how to best connect with, or recruit, or be friends with, or at the very least have reasonable communication with one that you think has chosen a divergent path.

 

The final promise in the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) is. by the way, very precisely connected to proper dietary smartness. Again, what have we learned in these last 182 years since the WofW was published. Should that body of knowledge account for nothing? What were the general rules of in 1833? Should we not reasonably put in place (adopt) personal habitual changes that improve upon the physical benefits of observing the Word of Wisdom? With all things, there is the letter of the law, and then there is the spirit of the law. What is the spirit of the law of the Word of Wisdom? It's about physical/temporal health, after all.

 

"And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; and shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint."

D&C 89:18-20

 

I don't know what I posted to piss you off at me, but I sincerely apologize that I did.

 

MDD is just a Message Board. So none of us really knows the person we're responding to. Some times I'm a Saint, and sometimes I ain't.   If you find the WoW not fully explained, and justified by its apparent lack of modern medical knowledge. That's OK by me. I don't believe it was ever intended to be the end all be all of modern medicine. I'm a long term convert to the Church. I voluntarily joined at age 20, and I'm fast approaching 64 so you do the math. Is it a good thing to avoid smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol? Sure, at least to the extent that you can live a long and happy life without ever doing those things.

 

I think it has more to do with spiritual health. I find more spiritual health in the House of the Lord than I do in either the House of Seagram's or the House of Philip Morris.

[Sleeper Cell]

Yo ... dude ... I never ever suggested that 

"obesity is never caused by medical or physcological problems."

 

Seriously, if you think that the current issue of human obesity is related to (or can be excused by) anything but bad dietary choice ... then please be free to enlighten me. 

 

These two statements are contradictory.  

 

If you are not suggesting that obesity is never caused by medical or psychological problems, doesn’t it follow that you believe that it is possible that, at least,  some instances of obesity are caused by medical or psychological problems?   If so, then, by your own admission, there are some instances in which human obesity is related to factors other than dietary choice.  

 

I do not disagree that obesity is a major health problem, nor that dietary choice is usually the primary cause.  I am not even disputing the assertion that it is the cause of obesity in most Americans (along with lack of proper exercise).  I do take exception to your harsh judgmentalism of individuals  you have never even met, and of whom you know little concerning their medical or psychological health.  And this from someone who has not, to the best of my knowledge, even claimed to have the professional credentials (or equivalent knowledge and experience) to evaluate someone else’s medical records, even if he had access.    

 

I also take exception to your judging your bishop for simply following church policy  (or “’bishoping’ while obese,” if you prefer). If you feel that the obese should not be called as bishops or that you should not have been denied a temple recommend for drinking coffee, you may have a point.  But even if it turns out that your bishop’s obesity is solely his own fault,  he did not call himself to be your bishop, nor did  he establish the church’s  “Obesity” policy or its “No Coffee”  policy. Nor does he have the authority to change them.  President Monson does.

 

 

I will very shortly offer with a picture of me at 62 years old (just two months ago). Yeah, scary. I'll have to admit. On the other hand, it's indicative of what one might achieve when seriously following the Word of Wisdom.

 

Whether we live to 50 or 90+... we own the responsibility to make the best of out lifetimes.

Edit. I doubt that it's worth the effort

 

All thing considered,  I would rather have a picture of you hugging your obese bishop immediately after apologizing for badmouthing him on this internet board.  

Edited January 13, 2015 by Sleeper Cell

[cursor]

I don't know what I posted to piss you off at me, but I sincerely apologize that I did.

 

Sorry if I miss read, but I emotionally responded to your suggestion that I might be "among the least of all saints." My kindest apologies if that is not what you suggested.