The salad is the main dish? (bbq, mushrooms, healthy, pancakes)
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.
I know a whole lot of lazy skinny people, and a whole lot of obese people slaving away on the treadmills at the gym 5 days a week whose weight never changes (at least not in the right direction).
I don't know any obese people that slave away on a treadmill 5 days a week. The only way you're going to be obese while using a treadmill 5 days a week is if you are exerting little to no effort (I'd hardly call that slaving away) and eating tons of food. I don't know obese people that go to the gym 5 days a week and still consume a massive surplus of empty calories causing them to gain even more weight.
Location: Los Angeles>Little Rock>Houston>Little Rock
6,489 posts, read 8,807,548 times
Reputation: 17514
Quote:
Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin
American Heart Association put the "Heart Healthy" checkmark on Fruit Loops and Frosted Flakes
Last week I spent ~36 hours in the hospital with a heart problem. Part of the cardiac patient breakfast they served me was a bowl of Frosted Flakes with a small carton of skim milk. I didn't eat it...actually did not eat any of the meal as it was all horrible.
This Aggregate Nutrient Density Index is based on some simplistic nonsense by a Dr. Joel Fuhrman, which states that:
Health = Nutrients / Calories
Sure, nutrient dense foods are good, but this system gives high marks to some foods just because they hardly have any calories at all (like iceberg lettuce). The fact is that all nutrients, and all calories, are not equal, as this cute equation wants to pretend. There are many important nutrients found in oils, nuts, grains, meat, and so on, as the Mediterranean diet clearly shows, just for one example. Also, you need calories to live. They are not the enemy. Your body also needs certain nutrients to live and thrive, but beyond a certain level many vitamins and minerals are either excreted unused or can become harmful. If the goal was the highest amount of nutrients and the lowest number of calories, we could all live long, healthy lives just chugging supplements all day. In reality, that doesn't work.
This Aggregate Nutrient Density Index is based on some simplistic nonsense by a Dr. Joel Fuhrman, which states that:
Health = Nutrients / Calories
Sure, nutrient dense foods are good, but this system gives high marks to some foods just because they hardly have any calories at all (like iceberg lettuce). The fact is that all nutrients, and all calories, are not equal, as this cute equation wants to pretend.
going by the nutrition data for iceberg lettuce I wouldn't consider it to be a poor source of nutrition.
This food is low in Sodium, and very low in Saturated Fat and Cholesterol. It is also a good source of Thiamin, Vitamin B6, Iron and Potassium, and a very good source of Dietary Fiber, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Folate and Manganese.
Furhman's chart is accurate. it lists iceberg lettuce in the 'high nutrient' left-side of the chart but it is toward the bottom. kale scores 1000, spinach 739, romaine lettuce 389, but iceberg lettuce only 110. so compared to ground beef and cheese for example, iceberg lettuce scores highly. but compared to other kinds of leafy greens such as kale and spinach, it scores much lower, and Fuhrman's chart reflects that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigre79
There are many important nutrients found in oils, nuts, grains, meat, and so on, as the Mediterranean diet clearly shows, just for one example. Also, you need calories to live. They are not the enemy. Your body also needs certain nutrients to live and thrive, but beyond a certain level many vitamins and minerals are either excreted unused or can become harmful. If the goal was the highest amount of nutrients and the lowest number of calories, we could all live long, healthy lives just chugging supplements all day. In reality, that doesn't work.
obviously you need calories to live but if you are getting too many calories then they can be your enemy. the problem in north america though is not lack of calories - the problem is most people are consuming too many calories, and often not from very healthy sources. btw, artificial vitamin supplements are never a substitute for real food. don't throw away your money on supplements because they are pretty much worthless. save your money and spend it on real food.
I don't know any obese people that slave away on a treadmill 5 days a week. The only way you're going to be obese while using a treadmill 5 days a week is if you are exerting little to no effort (I'd hardly call that slaving away) and eating tons of food. I don't know obese people that go to the gym 5 days a week and still consume a massive surplus of empty calories causing them to gain even more weight.
I see them on a regular basis, they're in the gym almost every time I'm there. They leave with a giant v-shaped sweat stain on the front and back of their shirt after being on the stair climbers and treadmills for an hour. I've seen the same thing in every gym I've gone to, and I have friends like this.
They don't lose weight not because they're eating "tons of food," but because they are consuming tons of calories. I would bet that I eat 3x as much food by weight. The reason they're consuming tons of calories is that they're consuming tons of sugar and highly refined carbohydrates that provide very little satiety, thereby enabling them to consume tons of calories. They're not eating a lot of food in terms of weight or volume, only calories.
Last week I spent ~36 hours in the hospital with a heart problem. Part of the cardiac patient breakfast they served me was a bowl of Frosted Flakes with a small carton of skim milk. I didn't eat it...actually did not eat any of the meal as it was all horrible.
That's sad and asinine, but not surprising. As far as nutritional science goes most of the healthcare field is still stuck in the 1980s. They only focus on their single-minded obsession with fat and saturated fat. It doesn't matter what the science says, they just stick their fingers in their ears and continue trying to jam their square peg into the round hole. Refined carbohydrates are worse for heart health than saturated fats, not to mention diabetes and obesity.
Quote:
In this issue of the Journal, Jakobsen et al (6) compared the association between saturated fats and carbohydrates with IHD risk among 53,644 men and women in a Danish cohort of the Diet, Cancer, and Health Study. During 12 y of follow-up, 1943 incident cases of myocardial infarction (MI) were diagnosed. Multivariate analyses showed that saturated fat intake was not associated with risk of MI compared with carbohydrate consumption—a finding consistent with the results from a recent pooled analysis and a meta-analysis (2, 3). However, replacement of saturated fat with high-GI-value carbohydrates significantly increased the risk of MI (relative risk per 5% increment of energy from carbohydrates: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.64), whereas replacement with low-GI-value carbohydrates showed a nonsignificant inverse association with IHD risk (relative risk per 5% increment of energy from carbohydrates: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72–1.07).
This study is notable for its large size, long duration of follow-up, and detailed assessment of dietary and lifestyle factors. It is the first epidemiologic study to specifically examine the effects of replacing saturated fats with either high- or low-quality carbohydrates, and it provides direct evidence that substituting high-GI-value carbohydrates for saturated fat actually increases IHD risk.
going by the nutrition data for iceberg lettuce I wouldn't consider it to be a poor source of nutrition.
Furhman's chart is accurate. it lists iceberg lettuce in the 'high nutrient' left-side of the chart but it is toward the bottom. kale scores 1000, spinach 739, romaine lettuce 389, but iceberg lettuce only 110. so compared to ground beef and cheese for example, iceberg lettuce scores highly. but compared to other kinds of leafy greens such as kale and spinach, it scores much lower, and Fuhrman's chart reflects that.
His methodology is kind of silly though, arranging things by nutrients per calorie. That skews the high nutrient list almost entirely to greens. 100 calories of iceberg lettuce is an entire large head of lettuce. 100 calories of apple is one apple. Eating one apple is realistic, eating a whole large head of lettuce isn't. To get 2,500 calories out of the top 5 on his list would require eating enough of those to fill a bath tub. Nutrition per 100 grams would be a more sensible approach. And his method misses a lot of the things that make a particular food good for you, e.g. resvertol in grapes, sulphur compounds in onions, capsaicin in chile peppers, etc.
Kale has a rating of 1,000, onions only 50. Are we supposed to be led to believe that kale is 20 times better for you than onions? Bananas, cashews, grapes, walnuts, and milk are low in nutrients? White bread and pasta are better for you than olive oil and yogurt? Corn is better for you than avocado?
The ratings he lists translate very poorly to the real world in terms of how healthful something really is.
And nutrients that aren't needed by the body are eliminated in the urine. Eating 3,000% of your daily vitamin C intake isn't going to do you any good vs. eating 200%.
Fuhrman himself says:
Quote:
Keep in mind that nutrient density scoring is not the only factor that determines good health. For example, if we only ate foods with a high nutrient density score our diet would be too low in fat. So we have to pick some foods with lower nutrient density scores (but preferably the ones with the healthier fats) to include in our high nutrient diet.
To have a healthy diet, you need to pick foods with lower scores? So then what's the point of this ranking? It doesn't make anything easier, it makes it more difficult, and provides little usefulness in my opinion, except as a curiosity.
An ideal diet is going to include kale, blueberries, almonds, spinach, salmon, garlic, cabbage, carrots, etc., all for different reasons. These are all foods that are about as healthful as it gets. To suggest that one of these is orders of magnitude better than another is borderline lunacy.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 02-16-2013 at 02:07 AM..
Last week I spent ~36 hours in the hospital with a heart problem. Part of the cardiac patient breakfast they served me was a bowl of Frosted Flakes with a small carton of skim milk. I didn't eat it...actually did not eat any of the meal as it was all horrible.
I've said it for years; a hospital stay = the easy weight loss plan.
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.
I didn't eat it...actually did not eat any of the meal as it was all horrible.
