Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the thing - I don't want to eat a heavy animal diet, nor do I want to eat all rabbit food.
You can eat whatever food you want and I really don't care what you eat. Nobody has told you want to eat. It seems like you just want people to stop saying bad things about the foods you want to eat......
You can eat whatever food you want and I really don't care what you eat. Nobody has told you want to eat. It seems like you just want people to stop saying bad things about the foods you want to eat......
No, I want people like YOU to quit admonishing me and others for what we want to eat - get it?
Flexitarian doesn't refer to "eating anything" as the above poster seems to do, instead its a vegetarian that will here and there eat meat (i.e., flexible vegetarian).
Most "lean" meats aren't actually lean, its a marketing gimmick. For example, even boneless skinless chicken breast is ~30% fat and some of the other cuts are more than 50% fat. Salmon is 55% fat. Tuna (whole) is around 30% fat.
There are some lean meats, but people usually don't eat them. According to the Nurse's health study consuming lean meats and low-fat dairy instead of fatty meat and full fat dairy had no impact on heart disease, that is, people eating lower fat animal products got heart disease just as much as those eating full fat animal products.
As for your example, it sounds like you started to eat more whole grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes and your health improved. Isn't that what I've been saying? Now, what would happen if you almost nearly eliminated the animal foods?
Also, your lipid panel only gives you some clues about your health, people with normal lipid panels die of heart attacks all the time. What's worse, is that people are greatly misinterpreting them. For example, you cited an increase in your "Healthy cholesterol" as a good thing....yet it could be putting you an increased risk for heart disease. Higher HDL cholesterol doesn't tell too much (the ratios are more predictive) and it seems that there is a pretty large group of people where higher HDL actually increases their risk for heart disease:
I don't pay much attention to my lipid panel, but the last time I took my total cholesterol was around 135 and my hdl was around 40. HDL is low by normal standards, but the ratio is near ideal which is a typical result of diets low in fat and very low in saturated fat.
Cool post! I would mention that not all fats are created equal--there are good, protective fats and fats not so good for our health.
For example: the fats in salmon and tuna are the Omega 3 fatty acids that are very good for us. The partially-hydrogenated fats in baked goods and snack foods (and de-natured grains/simple carbs) are very bad for us.
Much current research, studies and books (Taubes..Why We are Fat, etc.) are telling us it's not so much the fats we eat, even saturated fats (but not the partially-hydrogenated fats) but simple carbs and sucrose/fructose (think soft drinks) that are driving our obesity epidemic.
Why? From a fast spike in our insulin levels which drive fat storage. Reducing these will lower our waistlines and raise our wellness. I agree.
The best indicator of future coronary events is to divide your triglycerides by your HDL. It's not as simple as total cholesterol. You want high HDL and low triglycerides. My ratio is about 1:1 which is amazing.
I would consider the 1970's fairly recent, but I was referring to the fad which started well after Atkins' book was originally published.
I find it odd that anybody would listen to Atkins' though, he often debated with some of the popular advocates for plant-based diets (these too were written about decades ago). All these plant-based advocates are still alive, healthy and lean today. On the other hand Atkins was overweight, suffered from a cardiac arrest in 2002 (in his early 70's) and died one year later. Atkins claimed his cardiac event was independent of diet, but the family refused an autopsy to confirm matters.
You lecture about how ancedotal evidence tells you nothing than recite ancedotal evidence about Atkin's health at the end of his life (which I understand is incorrect or, at best, misleading) to support your argument.
Let's at least be consistent, but then again I realize you are not really arguing science so much as personal beliefs based in part on your political beliefs and trying to cloak them in science (and ancedotes, when convenient).
The idea that carbohydrates, often referred to in short hand as "starches," is fattening has been around forever. The first reference I've heard of was a french physician/writer, following by the Banting diet in England in the 1800's, followed by pre-world war II researchers in Europe, especially Germany. Then there was Mackarness (sp?) and others. Then you must also consider the evidence that certain native populations across the globe survived and thrived on what was essentially high fat/low carb diets-out of necessity. Thus, to call low carb a fad is ludicrous. It long predated Atkins, although Atkins no doubt popularized the concept shortly after the low fat dogma gained acceptance. What's a fad is the current low fat dogma. I think we at least agree that refined carbs and sugars, particulary HFCS, should be avoided, as should most processed foods if possible.
Enjoy your plants. If you can maintain over the course of your lifetime, you are a rare individual indeed. For your sake, I hope you are eating enough cholesterol - your brain needs it.
No, I want people like YOU to quit admonishing me and others for what we want to eat - get it?
I haven't been discussing people, I've been discussion the health aspects of various foods. As I said, you just don't want people to say bad things about the foods you wish to eat.
I would mention that not all fats are created equal--there are good, protective fats and fats not so good for our health.
Sure, different fats have different effects on the body but the idea that there are "good fats" is misleading. We need to consume small amounts of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (these are the only fats are bodies can't create), but beyond these relatively small amounts these fats aren't "good for you health". The research here doesn't show that if you add these so called "healthy fats" to your diet that your health will improve, instead that the replacement of saturated fat/trans fat with omega 3's, mono, etc has improved health outcomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin
Much current research, studies and books (Taubes..Why We are Fat, etc.) are telling us it's not so much the fats we eat, even saturated fats (but not the partially-hydrogenated fats) but simple carbs and sucrose/fructose (think soft drinks) that are driving our obesity epidemic.
Well there are certainly books that say that, but there isn't much research that shows it. People become obese because they eat more calories than they burn, what are the most calorie rich foods? Fatty foods. The developed country with the lowest rate of obesity happens to be the country (Japan) that eats the most carbohydrates...often from white rice and sugars. Also, per capita sugar consumption in the US peaked in 2000 and has been declining since...yet the obesity rate is still increasing (even at a faster pace!).
Increases in insulin levels only increase "fat storage" when a lot of fats have been consumed. The body can almost effortlessly convert the fats you consume into body fat, on the other hand its very inefficient at converting carbohydrates into fats (there is a ~30% energy loss). So the body will always use carbohydrates for energy or store it as glycogen before it would bother converting it into fats, where as dietary fats (beyond the relatively small amounts the body needs) are almost immediately sucked up by your adipose tissue.
The above explains why the Japanese are so lean despite eating a lot of carbohydrates (often refined), where as Americans are so fat eating a high fat and high sugar/refined carbohydrate diet.
Eating a low-carbohydrate diet seems to partially solve the problem, since the body has low amounts of carbohydrates to work with its forced to use fats for most of its energy needs and this seems to reduce uptake in fatty tissue. I guess the body, some how, sees that its using fat for energy so storing it right away doesn't make much sense. But the high fat content has other issues, our bodies just aren't well designed to run on fats (your sluggish, athletes carb load for a reason) and the fats clog the heck out of our vascular system. None of these problems exist on high carbohydrate and low-fat diets.
With that said, I don't think people should be eating refined sugars or other refined carbohydrates. These are junk foods.
You lecture about how ancedotal evidence tells you nothing than recite ancedotal evidence about Atkin's health at the end of his life
It doesn't tell you much and I wasn't citing it to disprove low-carbohydrate diets...instead I said its a bit odd that people would listen to overweight people about weight-loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
The idea that carbohydrates, often referred to in short hand as "starches," is fattening has been around forever. The first reference I've heard of was a french physician/writer, following by the Banting diet in England in the 1800's, followed by pre-world war II researchers in Europe, especially Germany.
The 1800's isn't "forever" and I really have no idea when low-carbohydrate diets were first discussed. As I said, I was talking about the dietary fad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
Then you must also consider the evidence that certain native populations across the globe survived and thrived on what was essentially high fat/low carb diets-out of necessity.
Yep, there are a small percent of primitive societies that have survived on high carbohydrate diets. It is certainly interesting seeing how these people were able to solve nutritionally issues and subsist on a diet that there body wasn't well designed to consume. But using these societies to justify a high fat western diet makes little sense, they had to do a lot of things to compensate for their non-standard diet and had a number of health consequences due to their diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
What's a fad is the current low fat dogma.
What dogma is that? You seem to conflate any diet that is low-fat with the low-fat diet fad of the 1990's. Humans, and our ancestors, have been consuming low-fat diets for millions and millions of years. Even when our ancestors started to include more meats in their diet (between 1~2 million years ago), it was almost all low-fat. The greasy animal foods people consume today are a product of modern agriculture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
Enjoy your plants. If you can maintain over the course of your lifetime, you are a rare individual indeed. For your sake, I hope you are eating enough cholesterol - your brain needs it.
Rare? No, not really. Vegetarianism is pretty common throughout the world, heck, 300 million in India alone.
The body has no need for dietary cholesterol, it can produce all the cholesterol you need. Indeed, the body can create all the fats/cholesterol contained in animal foods from plant-based fats and carbohydrates.
But you don't need to avoid all meat to be healthy, just most of it. I think less than 10% of calories from animal food is a good guideline.
One of those doctors (Sinatra) sells a book, and supplements. He tells everyone his crackpot theory to sell more supplements and "grounding" devices. He's just a snake-oil salesman.
The other doctor (Bowden) isn't a medical doctor - he's a PhD with a certification in nutrition. He uses the label "doctor" as a gimmick to sell supplements and books - one of which he co-authored with Sinatra.
So, this person who claims 1+1 = 2 is wrong because he sells something and would benefit from increased sales if you accept it to be true?
And, this person who claims 1+1 = 2 is wrong because he doesn't have a phd in math?
Is that how it works?
The truth or falsehood of statement is independent of the people who state it. Any assertion stands or falls on the evidence in reality that one can point to to back it up. What evidence do they have or don't have to back their claims? What is their ACTUAL arguments?
What we eat IS very emotional--kind of like politics. "Food politics"? Maybe.
What puzzles me is when people confuse weight with health. Being skinny does not equate with good health. Being a bit overweight does not equate to ill-health.
As I mentioned, what does the blood panel, lipid picture look like? That tells us whether we're in good or ill health. If your way of eating results in a good lipid/blood panel then it's working for you and your particular genetic make-up.
If it's not, it's your decision to change your diet and to alter your life-style factors such as smoking or over indulging in alcohol.
Agree with you totally--let's not try to force our way of eating down anyone else's throat (pun fully intended). Rarely works anyhow. Just ask any doctor trying to get a patient to change their eating habits.
I have to agree with LittleDolphin here. I think that the food we eat does not necessarily suits others so what is making me fat or skinny, for other might do the other way around. I have a friend who eats really lot and often and he is still bones and skin.... while other friend has to ride is bicycle 10 miles a day to lose what he just ate.
Hiring nutritionist might be really helpful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
