Foody 101.....good news

[Obvious Li]

just one more example where "big science" turns out to be "junk science"....are you listening climate change people.........





[size=150]Never mind those nutrition nannies Add to ...[/size]



Margaret Wente...The Globe and Mail



Published Saturday, May. 17 2014, 8:00 AM EDT





For years, I've been trying to eat properly. You know what that means: lean meat; not too much fat; lots of fruit, vegetables and healthy whole grains. Sullenly, I embraced fibre. Reluctantly, I gave up butter and cheese. Conscientiously, I ate as much broccoli and Brussels sprouts as I could stomach. (Cruciferous vegetables are especially good for preventing cancer.)



I even tried switching to fake salt, which was awful. My dad did the same after his second heart attack. He gave up booze and fat and salt, chowed down on tasteless, skinless chicken and lived to a relatively ripe old age, griping all the way.



Here is what the latest scientific findings have to say about all that: Feh.



The science isn't settled after all. Almost everything the medical establishment, the health commissars and the nutrition nannies have been telling us for the past 60 years is just flat-out wrong.



To start with, saturated fat won't raise your cholesterol and give you heart attacks. Neither will butter or cheese. Do you hanker after a juicy marbled piece of steak? Help yourself! New research published this March in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that saturated fat doesn't cause heart disease. This, despite decades of advice that we should restrict saturated fat to as little as 5 per cent of our daily caloric intake – equivalent to about two tablespoons of butter a day.



Next, the salt wars. Salt vigilantes have been warning us for years that our habit is killing us. We consume an average of 3,400 milligrams a day, mostly through processed foods. Health Canada says we should cut back to 2,000. The American Heart Association says 1,500 – less than three-quarters of a teaspoon. Not only is this virtually impossible, it also turns out to be unnecessary, and perhaps even harmful.



A study published last October in JAMA Internal Medicine concluded: "The lack of evidence of benefit and concerns for harm suggest that low sodium intake (less than 2,300 mg/day) should not be recommended." According to Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health, anthropological studies suggest that humans are hard-wired to consume between 3,500 and 4,000 milligrams of sodium a day – about what we do now. "To try to cut it in half, or less, is both fruitless and more likely to harm than benefit," he says.



As for fruits and vegetables and all the rest: If you hate Brussels sprouts, you're in luck, because they don't do any good. As recently as 1997, leading cancer authorities told us that eating lots of fruits and veg might cut our cancer risk by more than 20 per cent. They told us to stay away from saturated fat, too. But today, decades of research into the links between nutrition and cancer have reached a dead end. As Harvard's Walter Willett, perhaps the world's leading cancer epidemiologist, told The New York Times, "Diet and cancer has turned out to be more complex and challenging than any of us expected."



What happened? How could so many people have been so wrong for so long? How did all this flawed science become the foundation for everything we thought we knew about nutrition and our health?



The answer, in a nutshell, is food politics, big egos, flawed research and heavy institutional investment in the status quo.



Science journalist Nina Teicholz is author of The Big Fat Surprise, a new book that explores the origin of the spurious link between saturated fat and heart disease. It's quite a tale. It all began in the 1950s with a brilliant self-promoter named Ancel Keys, a scientist who rose to the top of the nutrition world by arguing that saturated fats were behind the postwar explosion in heart disease. Although his research was full of holes, it quickly became dogma. Leading health authorities endorsed his diet advice. Millions of people cut back on red meat, eggs, butter and cheese, and replaced them with vegetable oils, pasta, grains, fruits and potatoes.



The results were catastrophic. Carbohydrates break down into glucose, and too many carbohydrates have unleashed an epidemic of obesity, Type 2 diabetes, and possibly heart disease. Even unrefined carbs are bad. As Ms. Teicholz wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "The reality is that fat doesn't make you fat or diabetic. Scientific investigations going back to the 1950s suggest that actually, carbs do." On top of that, she writes, there's "growing evidence that women on diets low in saturated fat actually increase their risk of having a heart attack."



As you can imagine, these findings are not welcome news to the experts and institutions that have invested so heavily in the status quo. How are they supposed to break the news to the rest of us? They also expose the awkward truth about diet and nutrition studies: that they're very, very difficult to do well. They often have so many confounding factors that the supposed link between cause and effect can be extremely shaky. And many diet studies yield results that later studies can't replicate.



None of this means the vigilantes are about to go away. Salt warrior Thomas Farley, former commissioner of health for the city of New York, still insists that sodium is killing us, and wants to impose sweeping laws and standards to reduce the threat. He's the perfect picture of a modern Puritan – a lean, ascetic type who is convinced that we are on the fast track to hellfire and damnation.



People are already highly skeptical of nutrition advice delivered from on high. They figure that whatever we're told not to eat today will probably be okay again next week. But these revelations are yet more blows to the public's faith in experts. If they can't even get this stuff right, what else are they wrong about?



So ... sorry about that, Dad. You gave up steak for nothing. As for the rest of us, here's my best advice: Eat real food that you like, but not too much. Avoid sugar and carbs. Stay hydrated. And if you go to Paris, make sure to have lots of cheese.

[keeper]

I dont agree OR disagree with this one bit. If you want to eat "healthy" you can do what i did. I complained to my doctor 4 years ago that i was feeling sluggish, weak and having stomach problems after some of the foods i was eating, he sent me to a dietician ( for that and for my diabetes ) Who sent me in for blood work and did some tests on food allergies, So after all the tests were done they come up with a short list (in my case) that my body was rejecting certain foods, Fish, Strawberries, Wheat , ALL Dairy etc.... The dietician come up with a "recommended" daily food intake based on my age and weight also including i had Diabetes. Best thing i ever did, no more diarrhea , i sleep better, lost a good 10 pounds.

[Anonymous]

just one more example where "big science" turns out to be "junk science"....are you listening climate change people.........






Eating healthy meals is always good for you Obvious Li.

[Romero]

Nina Teicholz is a journalist and author, not a dietitian or nutritionist. Eat more meat, butter and cheese, and cut down on carbs? She's trying to sell another Atkins diet!

The article starts off very dubiously when the author, Nina Teicholz, tells us that a now somewhat infamous study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in March concluded, quote, that "saturated fat does not cause heart disease." I have read the paper in its entirety, and could not recall any such assertion. So I actually ran a search function on the text of the article, and that statement simply does not appear. So file this one, folks, in the "don't believe everything you read" drawer.



The plot then quickly thickens, and goes on to curdle, for we learn at the end of the Wall Street Journal piece that Ms. Teicholz has a book due out next week, entitled The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. So whatever else the recent Annals paper is or isn't, it was clearly a nice marketing opportunity for Ms. Teicholz and her publisher.



The recent Annals paper did not show that saturated fat is harmless, and it certainly didn't show that it is beneficial. It did not even suggest the latter. Is lack of harm really the new standard in healthful eating? I didn't get that memo.



No, folks -- more meat, butter and cheese will not promote your health. Neither will nonsense -- no matter where it's published.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/diet-and-nutrition_b_5266165.html">//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/diet-and-nutrition_b_5266165.html

I don't think the expert consensus has ever said the average healthy person should completely stop eating red meat, butter and cheese. Just eat them in moderation. In fact, we've always been told by nutritional guidelines that meat, eggs and dairy are important in our diet.



We've also been told that too much will put as at risk for heart disease, which Margaret Wente hilariously agrees with before she argues against it.



"My dad did the same after his second heart attack. He gave up booze and fat and salt, chowed down on tasteless, skinless chicken and lived to a relatively ripe old age, griping all the way."

[Anonymous]

Nina Teicholz is a journalist and author, not a dietitian or nutritionist. Eat more meat, butter and cheese, and cut down on carbs? She's trying to sell another Atkins diet!

Say what you want about the Atkins diet, but it's fucking effective.

[Anonymous]

I dont agree OR disagree with this one bit. If you want to eat "healthy" you can do what i did. I complained to my doctor 4 years ago that i was feeling sluggish, weak and having stomach problems after some of the foods i was eating, he sent me to a dietician ( for that and for my diabetes ) Who sent me in for blood work and did some tests on food allergies, So after all the tests were done they come up with a short list (in my case) that my body was rejecting certain foods, Fish, Strawberries, Wheat , ALL Dairy etc.... The dietician come up with a "recommended" daily food intake based on my age and weight also including i had Diabetes. Best thing i ever did, no more diarrhea , i sleep better, lost a good 10 pounds.

Nice avatar Keeper.

[Gary Oak]

I dont agree OR disagree with this one bit. If you want to eat "healthy" you can do what i did. I complained to my doctor 4 years ago that i was feeling sluggish, weak and having stomach problems after some of the foods i was eating, he sent me to a dietician ( for that and for my diabetes ) Who sent me in for blood work and did some tests on food allergies, So after all the tests were done they come up with a short list (in my case) that my body was rejecting certain foods, Fish, Strawberries, Wheat , ALL Dairy etc.... The dietician come up with a "recommended" daily food intake based on my age and weight also including i had Diabetes. Best thing i ever did, no more diarrhea , i sleep better, lost a good 10 pounds.

Nice avatar Keeper.

It's better than that sickening avatar you used to have.

[Romero]

Say what you want about the Atkins diet, but it's fucking effective.

People on Atkins can lose weight quickly, but I don't think it's healthy in the long run. It always ends up being a fad diet.

[Anonymous]

Say what you want about the Atkins diet, but it's fucking effective.

People on Atkins can lose weight quickly, but I don't think it's healthy in the long run. It always ends up being a fad diet.

True, nothing is a substitute for healthy meals in the right proportions combined with exercise. However, like you said, if want to shed the pounds quickly Atkins can do the trick.

[keeper]

I dont agree OR disagree with this one bit. If you want to eat "healthy" you can do what i did. I complained to my doctor 4 years ago that i was feeling sluggish, weak and having stomach problems after some of the foods i was eating, he sent me to a dietician ( for that and for my diabetes ) Who sent me in for blood work and did some tests on food allergies, So after all the tests were done they come up with a short list (in my case) that my body was rejecting certain foods, Fish, Strawberries, Wheat , ALL Dairy etc.... The dietician come up with a "recommended" daily food intake based on my age and weight also including i had Diabetes. Best thing i ever did, no more diarrhea , i sleep better, lost a good 10 pounds.

Nice avatar Keeper.

Thank you Seolbro

[keeper]

I dont agree OR disagree with this one bit. If you want to eat "healthy" you can do what i did. I complained to my doctor 4 years ago that i was feeling sluggish, weak and having stomach problems after some of the foods i was eating, he sent me to a dietician ( for that and for my diabetes ) Who sent me in for blood work and did some tests on food allergies, So after all the tests were done they come up with a short list (in my case) that my body was rejecting certain foods, Fish, Strawberries, Wheat , ALL Dairy etc.... The dietician come up with a "recommended" daily food intake based on my age and weight also including i had Diabetes. Best thing i ever did, no more diarrhea , i sleep better, lost a good 10 pounds.

Nice avatar Keeper.

It's better than that sickening avatar you used to have.

do you mean the finger/nail one?

[Renee]

I found that for me limiting your "bad" carbs (high carb foods with refined sugars) and a liberal amount of daily exercise was the key to losing weight.  For me both MUST be used in conjunction with one and another or I don't get results. This has worked for me up to a certain point. Diets can only do what your genetics allow them to do. Recent scientific studies show that genetics plays a much larger role in determining what you will weigh than was previous thought. It's pretty much a reality that not everyone can be a size 6 no matter how hard you try. Some of us are just doomed to be bigger or heavier than the average. Unfortunately thru the use of the BMI weight has become a priority over health. It is basically a blanket policy that states that if you are a normal weight you must be healthy and if you fall outside the normal range you must be unhealthy. Unfortunately the medical community has been slow to realize that this is not always the case.

 

Achieving a reasonable and proper level of health should be the priority for any diet you undertake and if you do your part correctly, weight loss should follow.

[Gary Oak]

Nice avatar Keeper.

It's better than that sickening avatar you used to have.

do you mean the finger/nail one?

No, not your avatars. That Cantonese seoulfag used to have a sickening avatar.

[Anonymous]

It's better than that sickening avatar you used to have.

do you mean the finger/nail one?

No, not your avatars. That Cantonese seoulfag used to have a sickening avatar.

Are you still on about that? Get the fuck over it ffs!!

[Obvious Li]

I found that for me limiting your "bad" carbs (high carb foods with refined sugars) and a liberal amount of daily exercise was the key to losing weight.  For me both MUST be used in conjunction with one and another or I don't get results. This has worked for me up to a certain point. Diets can only do what your genetics allow them to do. Recent scientific studies show that genetics plays a much larger role in determining what you will weigh than was previous thought. It's pretty much a reality that not everyone can be a size 6 no matter how hard you try. Some of us are just doomed to be bigger or heavier than the average. Unfortunately thru the use of the BMI weight has become a priority over health. It is basically a blanket policy that states that if you are a normal weight you must be healthy and if you fall outside the normal range you must be unhealthy. Unfortunately the medical community has been slow to realize that this is not always the case.

 

Achieving a reasonable and proper level of health should be the priority for any diet you undertake and if you do your part correctly, weight loss should follow.

what i found over the years when i have had too much lobster and butter and can't get into my suit was to cut out the carbs and go strictly protein...meat, eggs, beans fish, peanut butter etc....no fucking bread or wheat products, rice etc......too many useless carbs......the problem is with beer.....simply cannot deny myself one of the finer pleasures of life........ :ugeek: