You're not losing weight because strength training doesn't burn calories. Do more cardio & use a nutrition tracking program to monitor your calorie intake & expenditure. I've lost 31 pounds using a nutrition tracker (DietPower). Article from NY Times last summer: Copyright New York Times Company Jul 21, 2005 BARBARA WOODWORTH, 35, a social worker in Seattle, wanted to drop 40 pounds. Alisa Rivera, 39, a college adviser at the University of California, Los Angeles, also wanted to lose weight. She also wanted to build long, lean muscle. So the two women routinely began to lift weights. But like many of the other 36 million women nationwide who each year pick up dumbbells hoping to lose pounds or develop a sculptured body, both Ms. Woodworth and Ms. Rivera ended up disappointed because the strategy is not as simple -- or as effective -- as it sounds. Personal trainers, fitness instructors, magazines and books have sold a double-barreled promise that any strength training builds muscle and that having more muscle dramatically speeds metabolism, increasing the calories a person burns while at rest. With all that extra calorie burning, the story goes, excess weight comes off effortlessly. The story is wrong in two ways, researchers say. First, muscle is not such an amazing calorie burner. ''Even if weight training increases muscle and metabolism, there is little evidence showing that it is enough to cause weight loss,'' said Joseph Donnelly, the director of the Energy Balance Laboratory at the University of Kansas, who has extensively reviewed studies on the link between resistance training and weight loss. And second, many who try weight training -- especially women -- fail to do what it actually takes to build more muscle. They lift too light a weight, or they neglect to progress to heavier weights as they grow stronger. And often, women who take up weight lifting also diet. In fact, it is nearly impossible to increase muscle while cutting calories. Regular resistance training, done correctly, has many benefits. It can prevent some of the muscle loss that occurs with weight loss. It can also lower body fat levels and even help preserve bone mass. But the idea that it can magically increase calorie-burning is ''a very big stretch,'' said Edward Melanson, an assistant professor in the division of endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Claims that resistance training can send metabolism skyrocketing are easy to find. A Google search using the terms ''metabolism'' and ''weights'' produces thousands of Web sites, many of which say that anyone can lose weight and build muscle through strength training, even doing routines that aren't particularly strenuous. Books like Kathy Smith's ''Lift Weights to Lose Weight'' also perpetuate the myth that building muscle supercharges metabolism and quickly leads to weight loss. In ''Smart Girls Do Dumbbells,'' Judith Sherman-Wolin claims that resistance-training can ''melt away those stubborn pounds you've been trying to lose all your life.'' And Jorge Cruise's best seller, ''8 Minutes in the Morning,'' advises readers to forget aerobics or grueling workouts because doing his two strength-building exercises a day ''will help you firm up five pounds of lean muscle within the first few weeks, allowing your body to burn an extra 250 calories per day.'' Ms. Woodworth of Seattle said, ''Practically every fitness book and magazine I ever read said strength training boosts metabolism so you lose weight easier and faster.'' Before taking up weight lifting, she had already lost 15 pounds in about three months by cutting calories and walking and running for an hour three times a week. With 40 pounds still to shed, she turned to what she had heard was the magic bullet. Her trainer advised her to lift four times a week, cut her cardiovascular exercise to less than 30 minutes but still keep dieting. After six weeks, she was frustrated to find she had gained two pounds. That added weight probably wasn't muscle. Decreasing her high-calorie-burning walks and runs was the more likely culprit. Lifting weights burns few calories -- ''at least the way the average nonathlete does it and certainly the way most women tend to do it, using relatively low weights and few sets,'' Dr. Donnelly said. The same time spent an aerobic workout could double the calorie burn. Once Ms. Woodworth increased her time on cardio, she lost the added weight. Proponents of the theory that weight lifting leads to weight loss argue that it is the long-term effect of gaining more muscle, which burns more calories at rest, that causes weight loss. Still, that has never been proven in studies. Studies show that even women who do what it takes to get stronger develop only two to four pounds of muscle after six months of progressive lifting. Given that one pound of muscle burns between 7 to 13 calories a day (as determined by studies that measured oxygen and blood flow to tissues), that means the average boost in metabolism is only 14 to 52 calories a day, said Dympna Gallagher, the director of the body composition unit at the New York Obesity Research Center in Manhattan. The effect of weight lifting ''on metabolism is minor and certainly not the savior of dieters,'' said William Kraemer, a professor of physiology and neurobiology at the University of Connecticut. A recent yearlong study of 59 sedentary women at the University of Pittsburgh demonstrated what little difference weight training can make in weight loss. About a third of the women lifted weights three times a week, another third did yoga three times a week, and the last third did neither. All the women followed a daily diet of 1,200 to 1,500 calories for the entire year and walked five days a week. In the end, those who had lifted weights or practiced yoga lost as much weight and fat -- but no more -- than those who only dieted and walked. Surprisingly, many of the women became no stronger. ''We were looking at whether women would stick to the routine, and if so, would they resistance train intensely enough,'' explained Kara Gallagher, the lead researcher. ''It appears that many did not.'' When people lift light weights and fail to progressively increase the load, they only increase endurance, Dr. Kraemer said. After turning ''doughy,'' Ms. Rivera of Los Angeles followed a few workouts using five-pound weights that she'd seen in Glamour and Shape magazines. ''After three months the scale hadn't budged,'' she said. ''I didn't see much of a difference in muscle tone.'' Eventually she realized that light weights were not enough. ''When I progressed from a five-pound dumbbell and began to lift heavier, my arms and butt got firmer within three weeks, although I still did not lose weight,'' she said. For those looking to build a more sculptured body, dieting may be counterproductive. ''To create new muscle tissue you need to eat enough, not cut calories, to fuel the process,'' said Karen Reznik Dolins, the director of nutrition at Altheus, a sports center in Rye, N.Y., and a nutrition adviser to the New York Knicks. Genetics can also help determine the impact that weight lifting can have on muscle development and metabolism. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst looked at almost 600 men and women who did a strenuous, progressive resistance routine for three months, according to a study in this month's Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. Three percent were ''high responders,'' some of whom doubled their strength. One percent were ''low responders,'' who became only 1 percent stronger than they were when they started. The majority of men and women increased muscle size 15 to 25 percent; and most men improved their muscle strength 40 percent while women increased theirs 65 percent. Shannan Catlett, a fashion sales executive in Manhattan, said lifting heavy weights helped tone her slimmer body. After she lost 50 pounds by using the elliptical machine and treadmill and by following a healthier diet, she improved her muscle definition with weights. ''I never lost weight from strength training, but my butt got smaller and I got stronger and firmer all over,'' Ms. Catlett, 41, said. ''I still have to make sure that I'm always fit in regular cardio to maintain my weight.'' Building a Workout To Meet Your GoalsTailor strength and cardiovascular workouts to your goals. TO BUILD MUSCLE 1. Work to fatigue. Weight should be heavy enough so muscle is fatigued after 6 to 15 repetitions.2. Add weight progressively. Start with one set, one to three times a week, with a weight that tires the muscle after 8 to 15 reps. Once that gets easier -- usually in two to four weeks -- work up to three sets. Then increase weight slightly and go back to one set, working up to three. 3. Include heavier weights. Once a week, hoist a weight heavy enough to fatigue you after three to five reps. Do two sets. 4. Fuel workouts. Before a strenuous session, Karen Reznik Dolins, an adjunct professor of sports nutrition at Columbia, suggested eating carbohydrates, and within an hour after, carbohydrates and protein. TO LOSE WEIGHT 1. Focus on cardiovascular exercise. Do workouts like running or aerobics five or more days a week, for at least 45 minutes, but also include weight lifting one to three times a week, said Joseph Donnelly, the director of the Energy Balance Laboratory at the University of Kansas.2. Be active throughout day. If you sit at a desk, get up and walk around for five minutes every hour. 3. Eat regularly. Pace meals and snacks every three to four hours for the right amount of calories when the body needs them, Ms. Dolins said. MARTICA HEANER Here is a link that might be useful: Article on nutrition trackers

I re-post U. of Michigan link on how brewer's yeast help with diabetes: http://www.uofmhealth.org/health-library/hn-2816000 Also another link on how brewer's yeast work to lose weight for reference: http://www.naturecity.com/blog/weight-loss/brewers-yeast-extract-may-help-with-weight-loss/ "At the six week point, the researchers noted that the yeast hydrolysate group already had significant reductions in calorie intake. This reduction was maintained through the end of the study. At the conclusion of the study, the researchers noted an average 5.7 lbs reduction in body weight and a 17.3 cm2 reduction in abdominal circumference in the yeast group, compared to 1.8 lbs and 7 cm2 reductions in the control group. Researchers from Jeonju University in South Korea conducted the study. It was published in the January 2014 issue of Nutrition. Previous studies have found an association between yeast hydrolysates and increased energy, better immunity, and improved gastrointestinal health." **** From Straw: The biggest help with my sleep & losing weight is CUTTING OUT SOY MILK ... I was so sleep-deprived when I used soy milk. I didn't know that soy interferes with the absorption of magnesium (necessary for sleep & help with diabetes). I have 3 older sisters who are diabetic, and they consume soy-milk daily. I already informed them of the inflammatory carrageenan in soy products, plus depletion of magnesium. Carrageenan is in many products, including ice cream, milk-substitutes (almond & soy & coconut), coffee creamer, and cake-mixes. Here's a link of what contains carrageenan: http://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/ Here's a National Institute of Health abstract on the link between carrageenan and diabetes: "This is the first report of the impact of carrageenan on glucose tolerance and indicates that carrageenan impairs glucose tolerance, increases insulin resistance and inhibits insulin signalling in vivo in mouse liver and human HepG2 cells. These effects may result from carrageenan-induced inflammation. The results demonstrate extra-colonic manifestations of ingested carrageenan and suggest that carrageenan in the human diet may contribute to the development of diabetes." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22011715/

Straw, you are spot on in identifying the veges. We generally do add potatoes also to the mix as they bake very well. Yogurt goes well with beef. It ensures better marination of the spices and almost dries up during baking but in the process, keeps the beef tender and gives it a nice flavour. However, few people may not like it with the veges though. Olive oil also assists in saving the meat and veges from drying / burning and give a very nice flavour to veges. Shirmp marination in our recipes usually doesn't contain yogurt though there is no harm in using. However, mostly lemon juice or vinegar go well with shrimps. We usually prefer a perforated baking dish which allows excess water to drain down. But then one has to keep another tray at the lower level inside the oven as water will keep dripping down from the perforated tray and make the oven dirty.

Hi aztcqn: Agree that corn-fed, zero-sun, and hormone & antibiotics injections mess up milk. Same with soy: we eat tons of soy in Vietnam: soy milk, tofu everyday, and the skinny Buddhist monks there eat soy daily since they are vegetarians. No one ever have a thyroid problem in Vietnam, and the soy back then WAS NOT GENETICALLY MODIFIED, nor doused with pesticides like the soy in America. I did a thread on the problem with soy in Organic Rose, where I dug up research on carrageenan additive in soy which irritate the body, that's the same stuff they add in ice-cream & coffee creamer. Carrageenan is inflammatory to the thyroid. Also the aluminum equipment they use to press soy in making tofu. raise the aluminum levels to brain-damaging level. I stopped eating tofu after I posted that in Organic Rose. My Mom's tofu in Vietnam tasted yummier, because she used Organic, non-genetically modified soy, plus she used stones to press tofu, rather than aluminum. I use soy products for my entire life, but stopped for a few years 2013, 2014, & most of 2015 when genetically-modified soy-milk with added carrageenan upset my stomach greatly. I came back to soy late 2015, after they take out carrageenan, and the SILK Organic soy is certified 100% non-genetically modified. I get my thyroid tested yearly for decades: zero problems. My kid's friend who drinks 3 glasses of cow-milk per day is tested hypo-thyroid, and is on thyroid medication. My kid had the WORST time ever on cow-milk. She was a happy kid, being fed with soy-milk after 3-year-old (I breast-fed her before then). When she reached puberty (11 year) .. that's when we took her off soy, and put her on cow-milk, plus plenty of ice-cream. Her hormones went out of whack with the many hormones added to cow-milk. She got depressed, she grew body hair & acne, her period was heavy, diarrhea & stinky gas, horrible mood-swings with crying, her blood test showed high-testosterone. We put her back on soy-milk late in 2015: big improvement, body hair & acne reduced, less mood-swings & crying. She's happy & energetic, her grades shot up. we use non-genetically modified, no carrageenan ORGANIC silk soy. Her thyroid is always normal. What I like about soy-milk is IT'S CLEAN, I can rinse the glass off, and it's not stinky like cow-milk. Soy milk doesn't have added hormones, antibiotics, or pain-killers nor contaminated with feces and pus (from mastitis, UP with Monsanto hormone). With cow milk, I have to wash with serious-soap twice to get rid of the stinky smell, very much like chicken or eggs. Cow-milk is allowed by the FDA to contain added hormones, plus a % of feces and pus. The safest milk is coconut milk ... my kid used it before with zero harm on her hormones, but coconut milk has no protein to fill her up for breakfast like soy milk. We need protein & fat in our cold zone 5a, when it gets down below zero in the morning. Sometimes I mix 1/2 coconut milk and 1/2 soy milk, to get both fat and protein. Some cow-milk also contain antibiotics, see excerpt from Time Magazine, March 2015: http://time.com/3738069/fda-dairy-farmers-antibiotics-milk/ "Milk intended for commercial sale is tested for six commonly used antibiotics, NPR reports, and any shipment that tests positive for drug residue is barred from ever making it to the supermarket. Because of that, farmers only use antibiotics on the dairy cows when the cows’ health requires it, and they put those cows’ milk production on hold. The FDA has learned, however, that some farmers use antibiotics that aren’t even intended for cows because the drugs go undetected by these tests. The agency studied milk from close to 2,000 dairy farms, roughly half of which were under suspicion, and half of which were random samples. More than 1% of the under-suspicion group, and .4% of the other samples, tested positive for six antibiotics not FDA-approved for use on dairy cows."