|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: More on Diet and Carbohydrates | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If you're implying you never denied there was a pervasive "fat is bad" message out there I don't remember denying that that message existed and seems to continue to exist. Which is why I am a little perplexed that Faith thinks I've been denying these things. Hell, I've several times clarified your characterization of the USDA guidelines as being 'low fat' by pointing out how restrictive they really are regarding fat intake: use sparingly, etc. I can't imagine what it is that Faith is reading into my statements to make her think I'm denying the "fat is bad" message.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
That's a good list, but where does it get us?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I have no specific low-carb diet to enter into the discussion. My own personal recommendations:
That's a good start. I'm hoping we can get to some particulars eventually; something similar to the USDA guidelines that specify servings and proportions. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Anything regarding serving sizes/proportions?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I can agree with that, sure.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm wondering if those who haven't been particularly affected by the pervasive advice about avoiding fats and cholesterol are people who aren't really attracted to fatty foods anyway, so the guidelines didn't require any dietary adjustment? I hate most fatty food. I eat pizza and fried chicken; other than that, I usually cut the fat off my meat, blot my bacon, and drink skim milk. I am slowly opening up to butter, which I used to hate, but I've found that it tastes good when properly prepared.
Here's a quiz from Dr. Oz to determine which type you are. That quiz was a bust. My result:You got: Type A I specifically answered that I was not outgoing and that I don't have a strong appetite. The only thing it 'got right' was fatigue/anxiety and salty foods. You are a metabolic Type A. Common characteristics of this metabolism type are talkative and outgoing personality. You have a strong appetite but experience fatigue often. Type A's love salty foods and are prone to anxiety. Pretty pathetic considering that the results amount to little more than a copy-paste list of my answers from the quiz. Of course, that's about what I'd expect to see coming from a 'doctor' who's nothing more than a pill peddler and supplement seller.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Very strange that you got Type A. I would have expected you to score as a clear Carb Type, especially from what you are saying here, that does confirm my guess that you were immune to the anti-fat blitz because it isn't your thing anyway. Well, I'm really an eat-whatever-I-want type. It just so happens that fats aren't something I particularly care to eat.
... could eat all the crispy tasty skin off a roast chicken or turkey and even leave the meat behind. I always leave the skin behind.
Interesting that you would choose salty foods as a snack though, since that is supposed to be tied to the Protein Type, Well, it was salty or sweet. Too many sweets make me sick, but all I get from salty is thirst. Probably one of my favorite salty foods is jerky. So their might be something to the link between salt and protein.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I suppose they would classify jerky on the Protein side, but the usual test is potato chips, which is my downfall. I like chips, but not usually the fried kind. I avoid snacking in general though, because I prefer to save my appetite for a real meal.
I've had a rule of thumb for some time to tell who's a carb type versus a protein type that may not be worth anything, especially since you aren't much of a sweet eater either, but I used to meet friends at a local bakery for coffee and something sweet and discovered that there are people who love muffins, heavy muffins with raisins and nuts or cranberries or some such, and I really not only wouldn't choose them but almost dislike them -- too dry and crumbly for me. I have to consider the Muffin people to be Carb Types. My choice was always a flaky buttery pastry with creamy custard and lemon or raspberry jam. Just to see if my rule of thumb means anything, would either of these choices particularly appeal to you and not the other? Or would you maybe skip the sweet altogether? I can eat any amount of sweets when coffee is involved. I think I would prefer a muffin as part of a breakfast, though; whereas I could eat something like a jelly-filled pastry anytime of the day. Not to jump around the topic, too much, but I'd like to get into talking about the Atkins (and other low-carb) diet again. One of the big areas where Americans fail in following the USDA guidelines is in the overall amount of food they consume and the type of carbs (as caffeine's chart in Message 45 shows). I have a feeling that the Atkins diet has similar restrictions on servings and type of fats; I know Atkins is restrictive of carbohydrates in the same way the USDA has been: focus on whole-grains, etc. I think getting information on specific serving sizes, proportions, and types of preferred fats and proteins would be very helpful. I'll try to find some, but if you find any, would you mind posting it? Edited by Jon, : tenseLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
I watched the documentary film Fed Up on Netflix last night and it reminded me of this thread. It's focus is childhood obesity and the contribution of sugar consumption to this problem. There wasn't really anything in it that I hadn't read or heard before, but I think it might be worth a watch for anyone who can get access to it.
The key points from the film related to the effects on health of sugars and processed foods and the food industry's role (including USDA) in promoting these foods and blocking legislation to regulate their marketing to children. Responding to the low-fat movement, the film claims, food producers began removing fats from their products and replacing them with sugars (to maintain attractive tastes). The claim made in the video is that sugars are more responsible for the metabolic imbalances that result in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. than the fats they replaced. The film is also as much about politics as it is about food science, particularly in their investigation of school lunch programs, but that might be off topic here, I don't knowI'll let someone else test those waters. Anyway, if anyone wants to watch it, there it is. If anyone wants to discuss it, here I am. Edited by Jon, : LinkLove your enemies! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Vegetable based fats (polyunsaturated fats like corn oil, and excluding the few monounsaturated fats like olive oil) are the ones that were touted as better for you for so long, and this includes the partially hydrogenated fats that were eventually discovered to contain dangerous trans-fats that can substitute for normal fats in cell walls and disrupt the cell's ability to regulate what passes in and out, and that's not the only risk, just the one we understand best. To be fair, hydrogenated oils don't occur naturally in vegetables. They are the product of hydrogenationthe artificial saturation of oils by boiling them in nickel and hydrogen.
Trans fats are the result. They are a health nightmare, particularly the ones produced from the hydrogenation process. They occur naturally in meats of ruminants, like beef, but I believe they are slightly different and so not as damaging to health as the ones produced as a byproduct of hydrogenation of vegetable oils. This isn't a problem with vegetable oils themselves.
The shift away from partially hydrogenated fats has led to greater use of hydrogenated fats that introduce a host of artificial fatty acids whose health effects have not yet been studied but which are deemed healthy simply because of the logic that because they're derived from vegetable sources that they must be healthy. But dangerous trans-fats also derived from vegetable sources, therefore this logic is wrong. We know no more today about the dangers of fully hydrogenated fats in our foods than we did about the partially hydrogenated fats in our foods 20 years ago. This is the unfortunate thing. The FDA has had a ban on partially hydrogenated oils under consideration for a while now. They were ready to implement the ban earlier last year, but the food industry pushed for a period of 'public input', which has effectively tabled the FDA's actions on the matter. The food industry is also likely responsible for the exception of fully hydrogenated oils from the ban and not some wild beliefs that coming from vegetables makes things better. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If dieting and exercise are such huge failures (see first quote, 1 in 210 for men, 1 in 124 for women, of achieving a normal weight), why do we persist? Because we know the ill effects obesity has on overall health. Because being obese is not normal for almost anyone.
... we also know that the body seems to pick its own weight range, and that eating more or eating less has a greatly diminished effect outside that range. That part of that range might include 'obese' seems unsupported by the evidence showing people just like us in other societies who are astonishingly less obese than we are. There iswith very rare exceptionno physiological barriers preventing any person from maintaining a normal and healthy weight if they so choose.
Until doctors can point to effective weight loss strategies, say at least 50% successful, they should abandon the annual shaming that the annual physical has become. Well, just 'cause the doctor doesn't have a treatment up her sleeve doesn't mean she shouldn't tell you there's something wrong. The 'shame' is cultural and internal. It's the doctor's job to give medical advice. And the medical evidence is that being overweight is neither normal nor healthy for anyone. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The weight range is a fact... Well then I trust you have some evidence for this.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What I was actually asking is why we persist in promoting obesity amelioration strategies that have such extreme and demonstrated records of failure. What are 'obesity amelioration strategies'? When you said If dieting and exercise are such huge failures ... , why do we persist?, what exactly did you mean?
Are you saying doctors should continue warning patients about the dangers of obesity? If so, sure, probably everyone agrees with that, too. What doctors shouldn't be doing is pretending they have effective solutions. If that's the position you want to take now, then I won't disagree, but I will still disagree with the position you took in Message 166 which argued that doctors without solutions at least 50% successful should just keep their mouths shut:Until doctors can point to effective weight loss strategies, say at least 50% successful, they should abandon the annual shaming that the annual physical has become. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Rephrasing without the confusing "obesity amelioration strategies" phrase, what I was actually asking is why we persist in promoting dieting and exercise when they have such extreme and demonstrated records of failure. What alternatives do you suggest?
I said they shouldn't engage in shaming, i.e., blaming the victim for the problem. Well, the doctor didn't eat too much and exercise too little to make the patient obese. The patient did. Some medical conditions are entirely the result of the patient's actions. Obesity is one such problem. Lung damage from smoking another. As is a broken skull from bashing one's head against the wall. What else would you have the doctor do? Lie?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm suggesting that the health and medical establishments not promote alternatives with a demonstrated record of abject failure. If they don't have any effective answers then they should say so. What alternatives? They're promoting diet and exercise. Maybe the diet and exercise approach fails most of the time, but if it's all there is then it's all there is.
You'd make a great GP, shaming your patients and sending them on their way with solutions that don't work so that next year they can return in the same overweight state and you can shame them again. Bravo. What else should they do, Percy? The best approach is for the patient to not gain the weight in the first place, but that's obviously no longer an option by the time they show up at the clinic already obese. So the doctors give them the best advice they can. Sure they don't throw in the disclaimer about probabilities, but how much harder do you think it would be to get people to take action if they doctor told them they were likely to fail no matter what? If the doctors did things the way you'd like, the success rate for diets would be 0 in 210 instead of 1 in 210.
I'm not suggesting alternatives. Then unless you're arguing that the current approach does more harm than good (and can prove it), then I really don't know what the big deal is. A solution unlikely to succeed is better than no solution at all.Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024