OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

deltadave · Post by **deltadave** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:23 am

deltadave wrote:
deltadave wrote:
idamtnboy wrote:This kind of goes along with another aspect I've read/heard about - energy efficiency. It has been argued that from an entire cycle standpoint grains deliver the most energy to a human body per Btu of energy used to produce it. Meat is much less energy efficient. I heard a comparison made one time of energy efficiency of bike riding vs. gas guzzler driving. The author of the comment calculated all the energy required to produce a pound of beef steak, and how far the bicyclist could go on the energy derived from that pound of steak. He then compared the amount of energy required to drive an old gas guzzling Buick that same distance. From the standpoint of the entire energy consuming/producing cycle to move that particular distance, the Buick was more efficient!
OK, I think I got it!

If say the Power Company operates at about 40% Thermal Efficiency, and a fuel-efficient automobile operates at about 30% Thermal Efficiency, and a "gas-guzzler" operates at about 20% Thermal Efficiency, and a human being operates at about (depending what he's doing) 10% Thermal Efficiency, and wheat grows at about 2% Thermal Efficiency, then what you're saying is that everybody should take the cow to work?
No wait!

You need to take the Power Company to work!

No wait!

You need to take the wheat to work!

deltadave · Post by **deltadave** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:25 am

deltadave wrote:
deltadave wrote:
idamtnboy wrote:This kind of goes along with another aspect I've read/heard about - energy efficiency. It has been argued that from an entire cycle standpoint grains deliver the most energy to a human body per Btu of energy used to produce it. Meat is much less energy efficient. I heard a comparison made one time of energy efficiency of bike riding vs. gas guzzler driving. The author of the comment calculated all the energy required to produce a pound of beef steak, and how far the bicyclist could go on the energy derived from that pound of steak. He then compared the amount of energy required to drive an old gas guzzling Buick that same distance. From the standpoint of the entire energy consuming/producing cycle to move that particular distance, the Buick was more efficient!
OK, I think I got it!

If say the Power Company operates at about 40% Thermal Efficiency, and a fuel-efficient automobile operates at about 30% Thermal Efficiency, and a "gas-guzzler" operates at about 20% Thermal Efficiency, and a human being operates at about (depending what he's doing) 10% Thermal Efficiency, and wheat grows at about 2% Thermal Efficiency, then what you're saying is that everybody should take the cow to work?
No wait!

You need to take the Power Company to work!

OK, I have a question.

What do you do if your Power Company is nuclear?

Isn't there some agency that frowns on that kind of thing?

deltadave · Post by **deltadave** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:31 am

deltadave wrote:
deltadave wrote:
deltadave wrote:
idamtnboy wrote:This kind of goes along with another aspect I've read/heard about - energy efficiency. It has been argued that from an entire cycle standpoint grains deliver the most energy to a human body per Btu of energy used to produce it. Meat is much less energy efficient. I heard a comparison made one time of energy efficiency of bike riding vs. gas guzzler driving. The author of the comment calculated all the energy required to produce a pound of beef steak, and how far the bicyclist could go on the energy derived from that pound of steak. He then compared the amount of energy required to drive an old gas guzzling Buick that same distance. From the standpoint of the entire energy consuming/producing cycle to move that particular distance, the Buick was more efficient!
OK, I think I got it!

If say the Power Company operates at about 40% Thermal Efficiency, and a fuel-efficient automobile operates at about 30% Thermal Efficiency, and a "gas-guzzler" operates at about 20% Thermal Efficiency, and a human being operates at about (depending what he's doing) 10% Thermal Efficiency, and wheat grows at about 2% Thermal Efficiency, then what you're saying is that everybody should take the cow to work?
No wait!

You need to take the Power Company to work!
No wait!

You need to take the wheat to work!

OK, now I really got it!

You power your Buick with a flank steak, a la Christopher Lloyd with the DeLorean in "Back to the Future".

deltadave · Post by **deltadave** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:32 am

deltadave wrote:
deltadave wrote:
deltadave wrote:
deltadave wrote:
idamtnboy wrote:This kind of goes along with another aspect I've read/heard about - energy efficiency. It has been argued that from an entire cycle standpoint grains deliver the most energy to a human body per Btu of energy used to produce it. Meat is much less energy efficient. I heard a comparison made one time of energy efficiency of bike riding vs. gas guzzler driving. The author of the comment calculated all the energy required to produce a pound of beef steak, and how far the bicyclist could go on the energy derived from that pound of steak. He then compared the amount of energy required to drive an old gas guzzling Buick that same distance. From the standpoint of the entire energy consuming/producing cycle to move that particular distance, the Buick was more efficient!
OK, I think I got it!

If say the Power Company operates at about 40% Thermal Efficiency, and a fuel-efficient automobile operates at about 30% Thermal Efficiency, and a "gas-guzzler" operates at about 20% Thermal Efficiency, and a human being operates at about (depending what he's doing) 10% Thermal Efficiency, and wheat grows at about 2% Thermal Efficiency, then what you're saying is that everybody should take the cow to work?
No wait!

You need to take the Power Company to work!
No wait!

You need to take the wheat to work!
OK, now I really got it!

You power your Buick with a flank steak, a la Christopher Lloyd with the DeLorean in "Back to the Future".

OK, I forgot.

What was the question?

jnk · Post by **jnk** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:03 am

Does the wording of this news article sound balanced to most of us?:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=116873&page=1

. . . "What we [meaning, 'the establishment'] believe to be true with such certainty [about the benefits of low-fat] could just be a sort of mass delusion, wishful thinking that the medical establishment inflicted on us, and it just snowballed," Taubes told 20/20 in an interview with ABCNEWS medical editor Dr. Timothy Johnson.

. . . Most nutritional experts are wary of Atkins' extreme recommendations because of the dramatic, and possibly hazardous, changes his diet can have on the body. Among the many concerns are possible vitamin deficiencies, dehydration, gastrointestinal problems, and kidney, heart and gallbladder disease.

"We need to know much more before people start making claims. … Shouldn't diet doctors prove safety first, rather than write books and then say 'OK, prove harm,'" comments Keith Ayoob, spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association and associate professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

. . . Several leading nutritional scientists have begun to think Atkins may be partly right about carbohydrates, and scientists are now finally studying whether low-fat diets really work.

"I think it's quite clear that he's onto something important. It does seem that this substantial reduction in carbohydrate for many people does make it easier to control their diet over the long run," says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health.

. . . But are low-carb diets right for everyone? Experts agree, there's only one way to prove for certain that low-carb is better than low-fat, and that's with a long-term, randomized clinical trial.

. . . "In the meantime, there's plenty of compelling evidence to do the following," advised Johnson. "Get rid of the refined starches and sugars … eat more vegetables and fruit, eat lean protein and healthy fats. You'll lose weight and feel better and may reduce your risk for heart disease."

Brackets mine.

Drowsy Dancer · Post by **Drowsy Dancer** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:06 am

Kiralynx wrote:
Drowsy Dancer wrote:I was disappointed when I looked at the SCD (CSD?) website and found that their definition of "flare" involved the consumption of a forbidden food after a time reviving bad gut bacteria that had gone dormant/spored, which THEN created cravings, rather than the mechanism you described of bad gut bacteria signalling to the brain to create cravings, which is something entirely different.
Another lady from the BTVC-SCD list says, "3 months is the time needed for new species to overgrow. It takes time to balance it all out and most people are not perfect at every moment and overeat legal carbs, which can also set off these new colonies. Also, some can go dormant for long periods of time."

It's SCD, Specific Carbohydrate Diet.

CSD would be "Carbohydrate-Specific Diet," hence my confusion.

Not seeing anything in your current quote about the hardier bad bacteria causing cravings in the host:

Kiralynx wrote:Then they hit what is called in the group, "the three month flare." This is the point at which the weak sisters among the bad bacteria have been starved out. The stronger ones remain, and they are demanding their accustomed foods.

Janknitz · Post by **Janknitz** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:49 am

"We need to know much more before people start making claims. … Shouldn't diet doctors prove safety first, rather than write books and then say 'OK, prove harm,'" comments Keith Ayoob, spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association and associate professor of pediatrics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

Interesting remark BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE LOW FAT DIET!!!!

Now, 40 years later, the harm of the low fat diet is finally being recognized.

As I said how many pages ago, the whole of human history ate whole food, high saturated fat, and the rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer were very low. My great grandmother lived to 104, none of her progeny has come close to that, thanks to the way we have eaten compared to her diet that included plenty of animal fat and no industrial products masquarading as food.

It's the low fat diet that is the fad, the craze, and the failed experiment.

Emilia · Post by **Emilia** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:09 am

@Janknitz.... loved that comment. I really wish we had a LIKE button

jnk · Post by **jnk** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:31 am

Janknitz wrote: . . . THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE LOW FAT DIET!!!!

And two wrongs don't make a right, so hopefully the lesson has been learned and that won't be done again, with conclusions being proclaimed before the proof is at hand. Right?

Janknitz wrote: . . . Now, 40 years later, the harm of the low fat diet is finally being recognized. . . .

By some. Jury is still out, according to most. Right? I mean, it wasn't the lack of fat, but the increase in carbs that the present proponents of low-carb are putting down, right?

Janknitz wrote:. . . the whole of human history ate whole food, high saturated fat, and the rates of diabetes, heart disease, and cancer were very low . . .

Pretty broad statements. Unproveable assumptions, in my opinion. The whole of human history is a long time. And people all over the world have eaten in very different ways, haven't they? I mean, people have been eating grains as staples for thousands of years, I believe.

As for the history of disease, in many parts of the earth and for centuries at a time, few lived long enough to die of any of those kinds of diseases, as I understand it, (even if those diseases had been diagnosable, which they weren't). But, hey, I'll concede the point. I wasn't there, myself; so I admit I don't know.

Janknitz wrote: . . . It's the low fat diet that is the fad, the craze, and the failed experiment.

Let us, then, not replace one unproven fad/craze/experiment with another. Right?

Because the low-fat zealots were almost as sure of themselves as the low-carb zealots are now. Yes?

BTW, I am glad your great-grandma lived a long time. Did she live the sendentary lifestyle so common today?

RocketGirl · Post by **RocketGirl** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:10 am

jnk wrote: Let us, then, not replace one unproven fad/craze/experiment with another. Right?

Because the low-fat zealots were almost as sure of themselves as the low-carb zealots are now. Yes?

Good points, jnk. I try (I don't always succeed) in staying out of diet wars because people do get so very agitated. I have learned after 30 years of being vegetarian that the moment I answer the question of what "my" diet is like, someone is sure to assume that I am dissing "their" diet. (And no, I'm not one of the strident loud moralistic vegetarians, I'm more the "Each to his own, I'll only tell you if I you ask point-blank" type.) Overall, diet conversations usually just aren't worth the angst.

I think it is important for anyone with very strong feelings on dietary rights and wrongs to be mindful that if someone espouses a particular approach, that does not equal them denigrating anyone else's approach. Human beings are very diverse, and what works for one does not necessarily work for the next.

What is really important in my humble opinion is that each person needs to pay attention to the signals from his or her own body, and react accordingly. If a particular class of foods make a person ill, then don't eat them, but it's not warranted to assume that all of humankind will react the same.

I do wish the medical and nutritional establishment were more cognizant and accepting that one size emphatically does not fit all, in diet or anything else. If we could get to that point where we are no longer expected to be cookie-cutter people with all the same needs, then real healing of individuals would be a lot easier.

Kiralynx · Post by **Kiralynx** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:40 am

Drowsy Dancer wrote:Not seeing anything in your current quote about the hardier bad bacteria causing cravings in the host:

Kiralynx wrote:Then they hit what is called in the group, "the three month flare." This is the point at which the weak sisters among the bad bacteria have been starved out. The stronger ones remain, and they are demanding their accustomed foods.

Okay, what part is unclear? The stronger bad bacteria remain, and they demand (influence the host to eat) their accustomed foods.

portiemom · Post by **portiemom** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:50 am

After seeing the posts here, while I am still somewhat confused, I agree that the low fat, high carb diets have gotten it all wrong, I fail to see how we can compare our great, great grandmothers to our present day woman. For me, it's apples to oranges, I for sure don't hand wash laundry, hang it out, sweep each room daily, etc. with all the modern conveniences of today, could we even begin to eat a VERY primal way and expect to lose weight, or move the bad fats out? Eating all the natural fat, and beef organic and all, seems a bit worrisome to me. Please don't jump to a "beat-down" here, this is just gal who needs more and more clarification at this stage of life. Which seems to be a hard thing to get as I am not a scientist

Drowsy Dancer · Post by **Drowsy Dancer** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:01 am

OK, here's where I may need to start: http://felixjtapia.org/blog/wp-content/ ... -humor.pdf

Kiralynx wrote:
Drowsy Dancer wrote:Not seeing anything in your current quote about the hardier bad bacteria causing cravings in the host:

Kiralynx wrote:Then they hit what is called in the group, "the three month flare." This is the point at which the weak sisters among the bad bacteria have been starved out. The stronger ones remain, and they are demanding their accustomed foods.
Okay, what part is unclear? The stronger bad bacteria remain, and they demand (influence the host to eat) their accustomed foods.

There isn't any part in your statement that is unclear. I understand the words that you are saying. I am trying to decide whether I believe your statement. I am willing to accept (at least provisionally) a theory that gut flora might influence food choices generally (suggested by the enterotype theory), it's the three-month flare that I am seeking more information to evaluate. I am asking if there is any research documenting that this occurs (you're not cited any, although obviously that doesn't mean that no research documenting this exists, and it also doesn't mean that this phenomenon doesn't occur, regardless of whether its occurrence has been documented by research), and I am asking by what mechanism bacteria in my gut would influence me to eat "their accustomed foods." (As an example of what I mean by a "mechanism," one of the links you provided discussed an excess of serotonin in the gut that cannot be processed in the gut as a contributing factor to IBS.)

Also, if the stronger as well as the weaker bacteria were in my gut all along, why wouldn't the stronger bacteria be influencing me the whole three months to eat "their accustomed foods"? Why the flare after three-month delay?

Janknitz · Post by **Janknitz** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:13 am

I don't know about great grandma's early life in the "old country" but I do know that she spent the last 40 or so years in her NY apartment and rarely, if ever, left it. She wasn't getting exercise, that's for sure. My great aunt lived with her and they had "help" for cleaning and laundry.

My father--her grandson-/ was an athelete's, PE teacher for a while, and died at 67. He was very into "healthy" low fat eating. He had severe coronary artery disease.

jnk · Post by **jnk** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:18 am

Thanks, RocketGirl.

I agree with everything you said except for one phrase:

RocketGirl wrote: . . . cookie-cutter people . . .

I know I'm definitely NOT one of those, as my personal pyramid, from earlier in the thread, proves:

I ain't cuttin' 'em. I just ain't.

OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....