Page 5 of 28
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:14 am
by Sleep2Die4
Muse-Inc wrote: The prob with red meat appears to be the additives to the diet, hormones, antibiotics, etcetera.
That is a good post and I am glad you are managing your health so well!
Here is some good info from Montana State University -
http://animalrangeextension.montana.edu ... -19.01.htm
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:53 am
by -SWS
Well, I'm still going through the exercise of questioning whether that state-of-the-art "consensus" statement was EVER valid. Speaking of consensus statements in science, maybe we should turn this thread into a Dr. ozij recommended reading list:
That book's description:
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.
http://www.amazon.com/Opening-Pandoras- ... 339&sr=8-3
jnk wrote: ...Thank you, -SWS.
What?! For sharing my confusion and uncertainty about nutrition and diet? Why, you're very welcome, sir!
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:41 am
by jnk
-SWS wrote: jnk wrote: ...Thank you, -SWS.
What?! For sharing my confusion and uncertainty about nutrition and diet? Why, you're very welcome, sir!
For starting the thread and for keeping it interesting and fair. And frankly, I would take your confusion and uncertainty over most people's seeming certainty in such matters. In my opinion, confusion and uncertainty about an overall approach to diet and nutrition is the proper, most valid, scientific state of mind at this point, based on the lack of reliable long-term evidence for something as important as that.
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:44 am
by Slartybartfast
Pithy quote:
"The trouble with the world is that the foolish are cocksure, while the wise are full of doubt."
-- Bertrand Russell
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:15 am
by chunkyfrog
---and BS is so doggone believable!
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:34 am
by -SWS
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
Thanks for that link, Kira. Have you noticed whether particular diets affect your fibro symptoms for better or worse?
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:46 am
by Lizistired
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.
Well duh. It really is that simple.
So I watch obese friends inject insulin so they can eat a pastry.
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:13 am
by chunkyfrog
Insulin balances (METABOLIZES) carbs; but it doesn't cancel them.
I couldn't lose an ounce until I figured that out.
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!
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:38 pm
by jnk
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.
Source URL:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/63743
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:36 pm
by -SWS
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.
That's a pretty attractive hypothesis in my view as well. And that might very well explain why so many people on this message board have had their best results to date using a primal diet.
But I also resonate with the point jnk and Dr. Edlund make. If it were that simple, I think observational and clinical studies would have revealed low-carb/high-fat diets as a clear winner decades ago. Placing self-serving corporations or scientists aside for a minute, there are undoubtedly brilliant, well-intended scientists on both sides of this debate scratching their heads in earnest----wanting the best outcome for human kind.
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!
Well, as I said, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of bright, well-intended doctors and scientists on BOTH sides of this debate. It's also plausible that pharmaceutical companies might act with the same degree of self-serving behavior as tobacco companies are known to behave amidst established tobacco risks. In my way of analyzing, there is nothing inherent to the pharmaceutical industry preventing similar self-serving business behaviors.
I think we can expect the red meat, white meat, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries to each vehemently challenge science when their offerings are found in a less-than-favorable view.
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:25 pm
by Lizistired
Don't forget the agriculture lobbyist.
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:30 pm
by jnk
"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
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:34 pm
by Slartybartfast
It is a fact of human nature that we look for patterns in the information that we are exposed to. We all tend to want to reduce the complexity of the information we are presented with to a simple cogent set of facts, when many times the real world is much more complicated than we expected it would be. I think that tendency can be seen in the recommendations that come from the American Heart Association, the ADA, the AMA. That tendency has even been enshrined in the USDA's Food Pyramid, around which so many health professionals and journalists gather to worship, so it would seem. However, all of the talk of what constitutes a proper diet appears to ignore the basic fact that we are not all the same. The variation among individuals is striking.
Tom naughton, in his very entertaining and informative blog writes:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/ ... ina-study/
I also suspect intolerance to carbohydrates is largely genetic. When I first started testing my blood sugar a couple of years ago, Chareva’s sister Susan happened to be visiting. When I grumbled about a small serving of pasta pushing my glucose up to 174 mg/dl an hour after eating it, Susan wanted to see what her glucose level was. She’d eaten a bigger serving of pasta than I had plus a potato, but her one-hour glucose reading was only 112 mg/dl. No wonder she (like Chareva) is naturally lean. Those foods don’t spike her blood sugar. But they definitely spike mine … and that’s why I rarely eat them anymore.
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:25 pm
by hades161
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.
Re: OT:Good Calories, Bad Calories....
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:04 pm
by Lizistired
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.
You can pick up a "Side Kick" meter at Walmart for $20. It comes with 50 test strips.