OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....

Muse-Inc wrote: The prob with red meat appears to be the additives to the diet, hormones, antibiotics, etcetera.

jnk wrote:Is the following assessment still valid, then?:

http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/conte ... /45/9/1379

ozij wrote: Speaking of Nobel Laureates -- may I recommend "Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse "?

The book can be dowloaded in pdf's in this site: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/peopl ... as_box.htm (the HTML links dont' work).

This book proposes a fresh approach to sociological analysis and, in particular, to the analysis of scientific culture. It moves away from previous studies, which have tended to focus on scientists' actions and beliefs to show that analysis of scientific discourse can be productive and revealing. The book demonstrates that scientists produce varying accounts of their actions and beliefs in different social situations. Rather than attempting to extract one coherent interpretation from these diverse accounts, the study identifies two basic scientific repertoires and shows how scientists use them to create their discourse. This provides a point of departure for more complex analytical topics. Discourse analysis is applied to show how different degrees of 'consensus' can be ascribed to the same group of scientists at a given moment in time through the application of standard interpretive techniques. Finally, discourse analysis is used to explore scientists' humour, a neglected topic that is shown to provide important insights into the normally hidden interpretive regularities which underlie the cultural diversity of science.

jnk wrote: ...Thank you, -SWS.

-SWS wrote:

jnk wrote: ...Thank you, -SWS.

What?! For sharing my confusion and uncertainty about nutrition and diet? Why, you're very welcome, sir!

Kiralynx wrote:

-SWS wrote:BTW, has anyone here who advocates a low carb diet stumbled across ANY studies they think are valid support of the lipid theory or the traditional food pyramid? Are they ALL bad science? Conversely, has anyone here who has rejected a low carb diet done so because they believe they have encountered empirical evidence refuting the validity of low carb diets?

You might find this article of interest on fats.

http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-f ... of-america

PSYCHOLOGY TODAY
Is Sugar Poison?
Published on May 12, 2011 by Matthew J. Edlund, M.D. in The Power of Rest

. . . These debates over villains and non-villains miss several crucial points:

*Food is very complex. There are hundreds of substances in food, which are metabolized differently depending on hundreds of environmental factors.
*Diet is much more complex than food, as it involves culture, the different ways foods are prepared and cooked, and different sequences of food ingestion and digestion.
*Eating behavior is inflected by many other factors, like when and how we move, where and with whom we eat. These related issues are so important they make a mockery of looking at food policy and behavior in terms of individual food ingredients like sugar, protein or fat - what Michael Pollan likes to call "nutritionism."

Connect the dots

Consider this:

*People will eat 1/3 more in a red room than a blue room
*Add bulk to the diet in the form of vegetables and people may eat 400 calories less a day
*Eat in front of a TV set or computer monitor and people eat more
*Change the sequence of a meal - broccoli before brussel sprouts, as compared with broccoli after brussel sprouts, and the liver churns out different pro-carcinogens
*All activity - including fidgeting - changes how food is digested
*Eat at night and people gain more weight and increase their lipid and glucose levels much more than when eating the same material in the morning.
*People who sleep less than 6 hours gain weight.
*In other words, eating is a complex system of different foods, chemicals, ingredients, additives, socializing, physical actions, rest, and cultural environment.

. . . thinking about food policy one ingredient at a time can poison the debate - and make us draw unsound conclusions.

Lizistired wrote:The main reason Taubes sold me in one evening is this incredibly simple point.

We are told that insulin is produced in our bodies to regulate blood sugar.
No, Insulin is produced in our bodies to allow for the storage of excess carbohydrate energy, when it is plentiful as fat so we can survive periods of famine.

chunkyfrog wrote:The pamphlets from the 'diabetes educator' had massive amounts of carbs 'required'.
The fine print on the back indicated they were provided by A DRUG COMPANY.
The fact these lies are regularly distributed to patients in a doctor's office is WRONG!

"Averages can be good summaries, but behind them there can be a lot of variation. Dr. Samaha says someone in the low-fat group in his study lost 79 pounds — and that person was among the 34% who dropped out of the study. At the other extreme, another person gained 31 pounds sticking with the low-fat diet program. There was a huge range among the low-carb dieters, too: from 65 pounds lost to 18 pounds gained. . . . For reasons of taste, upbringing, genetics, and other factors, the individual response to diets varies tremendously. Experiment. See what works for you. And by all means, get some exercise, too."-- http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updat ... 904c.shtml

hades161 wrote:Makes me wonder if we all shouldn't get a glucose tester and check it after we eat something to chart how each item we eat effect's our individual blood sugar levels.