 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2006questioning Weston Price Foundation
As you probably know WAPF is a nonprofit organization that tries to promote the work of the dentist Weston Price and his finding about dental health and native nutrition. The foundation is mostly supported and funded by farmers and food artigians WAPF makes some bold statements that are not even supported by Weston Price work itself. For example the diet WAPF suggest to consume or the diet samples of the members of the foundation are very different from the diet suggested by Price in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration Maybe their most important claims are that vegetable oils caused heart disease and heart disease doesn't develop when the fat consumed is saturated, that the highest the amount of the animal food in the diet the better (they often call animal food "super healthy" or other generic terms but fail to recognize the importance of plant foods) and that our first priority should be to consume fat soluble vitamin in megadoses; eating huge amount of (on diet that can be as high as 80% fat) fatty meat and saturated fat would allow us to get megadoses of vitamin A, D and E I try not to be dogmatic or ethical as far as my nutrition is concerned and just want to do what's right and healthy for my body. It is my objective impression, after reading all the articles published in the WAPF website, that their arguments tend to be based on selective literature quoting and tend to embrace a small number of studies proving their points and ignoring many other studies and evidences As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing individual studies carefully enough, you can prove just about anything you would like." An important fact about health research is that conclusions are not based on few one-sided evidences but on both evidence pro and against a certain theory. The globality of the evidence is therefore analyzed in order to get a larger and more complex picture. I think that such larger picture would never allow such absolutes as those of WAPF or Pritikin to name another one. The importance of acknowledging an emerging larger and more complex picture from all the studies not just the ones one likes also allows researchers not to remain jammed in black and white thinking but aknowledging more shades That being said I'd like to know if anti-WAPF in here have educated and scientifically sounds proofs that WAPF argument about heart disease, saturated fat, fat soluble vitamins and an almost carnivorous diet are flawed and based on selective literature picking I think if this can be done it will be very interesting for many that read this ng or in the future its archives. Many people just keep for themselves their opinions, many just read with disbelief the articles published in the WAPF website, people that know their physiology and biochemistry and can point out what is wrong with those conclusion but they never get a chance to share their knowledge with others. I think it's important to avoid subjective and zealous comments like "it's nonsense" and "they're nuts" "it's just common sense that ..." and base the debunking on science and correct physiological principles instead. Many people on this board are very educated and can explain with scientific details what's wrong with certain theories. (I remember people like J-Tanzman, Steve Harris and Runswimm that could provide the finest and most complex scientific and physiological details about an health topic) Also I hope WAPF supporters won't reply as this is supposed to be a thread for debunking (if possible, I'm not saying it is ...) the premises of WAPF diatery suggestions. There's no need to provide the arguments to support them, since they're all in the WAPF website for us to read. Thanks Davide > As you probably know WAPF is a nonprofit organization that tries to > promote the work of the dentist Weston Price and his finding about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > members of the foundation are very different from the diet suggested by > Price in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration Funny that you should ask. You cover a lot of ground, but I basically agree with your position. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/tutorials/weston-price.html Who says so? I do. Apparently, just about the only person on this ng who knows what he is talking about. -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is a biological factor of the mind-body connection. Now, weighing in at 20 web pages, the Nutrition of a Healthy Diet is with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. http://naturalhealthperspective.com/food/ Your observations are accurate, they cherry pick research to fit their agenda. Soy is an example, there is multiple faceted research concerning it, much of it contrasting and even contradicting and very much depends on the question the researcher was asking. Instead of making a valid survey of the whole of the research they pick that which fits the conclusions they want to force. They are an example of a lifestyle food cult. In addition I might add that the original price "research" is in the main grossly flawed which when steered by the current pricies only distorts it all the more. The only valid observation of his that remains is that when shifting to a diet with higher refined sugar content tooth decay increases, hardly original an observation even in his time. > Your observations are accurate, they cherry pick research to fit their > agenda. Soy is an example, there is multiple faceted research concerning [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > is that when shifting to a diet with higher refined sugar content tooth > decay increases, hardly original an observation even in his time. Selecting the best, un-baised, non-industry-marketting, studies is not cherry picking. It is due diligence. Soy is a great example of the kind of crap science there is out there that needs to be ignored for its sheer marketting bent. Prices observations goes way beyond sugar and teeth. Read it and find out. TC "Selecting the best, un-baised, non-industry-marketting, studies is not cherry picking. It is due diligence. Soy is a great example of the kind of crap science there is out there that needs to be ignored for its sheer marketting bent." So you assert but fail to show specific support for each and every study which doesn't agree with the pricees. The quality of the science not who may have contributed support is the final determination untle and except when specific fraud can be shown. I must confess however seeing black helicopters circling around almost every school of agriculture at major universites. "Prices observations goes way beyond sugar and teeth. Read it and find out." I read his book, that reading was the basis for my observation of the gross flaws in his "research". That he spoke of other things is irrelevant, based on evaluation of the techniques and results and analysis. His other notions can safely be tossed based on the science alone, as I suggest above is the only measure of its validity. > "Selecting the best, un-baised, non-industry-marketting, studies is not > cherry picking. It is due diligence. Soy is a great example of the kind [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > black helicopters circling around almost every school of agriculture at > major universites. You guys will not let go of the conspiracy theorist accusation response angle will you? Look, there is no mystery in that industry pays certain researchers to investigate certain specific questions. And if the results do not agree woth their goals, the studies are stopped and/or not published. And any studies funded by industry in this manner is suspect. Like it or not. The soy industry studies are perfect examples of this science/marketting. You can resolve this conspiracy issue right here and now. Show me one study, only one, that found something positive about soy that isn't industry funded or where an author is not paid by the soy industry in some way. Show me one completely independent study that shows something positive about soy. > "Prices observations goes way beyond sugar and teeth. Read it and find > out." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > analysis. His other notions can safely be tossed based on the science > alone, as I suggest above is the only measure of its validity. Explain the biggest "gross flaw" in his research, or the top three. You keep saying that you reject it, but you do not specify exactly what point(s) you reject. Or what you base your rejection on. You are just generally throwing generallizations at it. No specifics. Look, this is a science group. How about making specific quantifiable statements to back your assertions, or at least give us a url that makes valid detailed points against Price that you agree with. You make a lot of noise, but nothing coherently specific is being communicated. TC The discussion is evolving to what I didn't want it to evolve in It's not wonder that people are confused I don't think we should indulge in zealous and unscientific discussion Things like epidemiological, anecdotal and ad hominem arguments should be ignored and avoided I think nutrition should focus on the physiological and organical well documented mechanisms behind a certain theory So are there any well documented physiological, biochemical and organic mechanism that, explained in a complex way as they're supposed to be, can debunk the premises of WAPF about amount of animal fat in one's diet, importance of retinol from animal fat, saturated fat over poly and mono? A big failure of nutrition is trying to explain things in simple terms in order to attrack more readers and sympathizers. There's nothing simple in body functions and metabolism and all mechanisms involved in metabolizing foods are complex. So it's time to make them complex as this "making it lay terms" is also a convenient way to hidden one's lack of knowledge and understanding. It's easy to promote hazy theories when one doesn't want or can't be specific. If it weren't for this nonense "let's make it simple and lay term" so many quacks wouldn't have had a chance to have their works published and be taken seriously QUOTE: As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing individual studies carefully enough, you can prove just about anything you would like." An important fact about health research is that conclusions are not based on few one-sided evidences but on both evidence pro and against a certain theory. The globality of the evidence is therefore analyzed in order to get a larger and more complex picture. UNQUOTE. Exactly, this is what I was taught in graduate school about evidence analysis (among other things). However, there is enough molecular-evidence now, so that the "epidemiological" stuff is really not particularly useful, even if it is well designed, which is often not the case. For example, AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, said last year that only oxidized cholesterol is dangerous, which is ironic, because recently the AHA made a statement about the "dangers" of coconut oil, which is a direct contradiction to Stein's point. Of course, they also completely ignore the raw demographic data on hundreds of millions of people.] What we really need is better journalism. Gary Taubes trired to investigate these kinds of claims, but it's clear that he does no understand the molecular-level mechanisms. Some popularizer/experts, like Dr. Nicholas Perricone, has tried to explain the molecular-level mechanisms in a way that most people can understand, but he is apparently unaware of the evidence against the "essential fatty acid" notion, and suggests powerful, and possibly dangerous antioxidant supplements, rather than simply avoiding oxidized cholesterol, highly unsaturated oils, and eating more than small amounts of meat (unless eaten raw after over two weeks of freezing - eggs should be boiled only). Another point is perhaps best illustrated by the soy example. Small amounts of organic, fermented soy is fine, but large amounts of tofu is not optimal, and may be dangerous (depending upon how long this diet is followed). However, it may be healthier than the "typical American diet," and so "studies" can be conducted in which the researchers make the claim that people should eat more soy, even though they should have tested all kinds of other foods/diets - that would be consistent with the scientific method. Moreover, it may be that large amounts of tofu causes different "diseases," but the study only determines the kinds of disease that are common for the typical American diet. Again, the key is that the scientific method should be followed. This is why I had challenged people to direct experiments, in which the "loser" pays for all expenses. Nobody has ever shown any interest in taking me up on these offers because they know that the studies are being misinterpreted, and that many have a seriously desging flaw (s), and that the scientific method is not being followed. They know that I won't allow this, and so they have no interest in my offers. But just think about it for a moment. If the "essential fatty acid" claim is accurate, then how could one lose if one took me up on my offer? It would be a proverbial "slam dunk." And yet none of these people, some of whom are likely industry shills, show any interest in the offers. Negotiate with me. I'm sure we can both agree on a design, and then we will let the scientific method decide who is correct. Clearly, that is not something a fish oil salesman wants to hear. He/she just wants to cite a few studies and make his sales to a gullible public. I have nothing to sell. My only interest is in the scientific reality. monty1945@lycos.com ha scritto: > QUOTE: As a researcher once said: "By picking and choosing individual > studies [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > contradiction to Stein's point. Of course, they also completely ignore > the raw demographic data on hundreds of millions of people.] I have read Richard Stein claims He wrote an articles in which compared what we knew about heart disease 20 years ago and what we know today. About cholesterol he writes that nowadays we know that cholesterol must be oxidized to be dangerous. But it seems to me he wasn't talking about dietary cholesterol but about internal oxidization In fact he said that happens because of free radicals and lifestyle and diets that are good and allowing the body to buffer as much free radicals as possible > What we really need is better journalism. Gary Taubes trired to > investigate these kinds of claims, but it's clear that he does no [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > that the scientific method is not being followed. They know that I > won't allow this, and so they have no interest in my offers. I'm getting really tired of epidemiology I once though it would be the answer to many question, I've come to realize it is hardly a science at all. That's why I'd love to see for once a discussion of saturated fat vs. unsatured fats, high animal food diet vs. high plant food diets, high fat vs. high carbs based on physiological proven and observable mechanisms ... and not physiology. I'd like to know what happens that make this healthy and that unhealthy at a cellullar and organical levels not on high-variable cultural and social levels. > But just think about it for a moment. If the "essential fatty acid" > claim is accurate, then how could one lose if one took me up on my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > gullible public. I have nothing to sell. My only interest is in the > scientific reality. I'm not sure I completely understand your recommendation Certain satured fats seems to be atherogenic while other don't This seems to explain the difference in high heart disease in big roasted and grilled pork consumers and polynesian low levels of cardiovascular diseases on coconut based diets PUFA are more instable but this has more to do with the way they're processed and stored than the foods they're contained in. Also because it's impossible not to consume EFA, they're everywhere. Even eating nothing but chicory and lettuce would provide you with EFA I can see the problems of oxidization because of storing, oil extracting and bad cooking Also increasing one's intake of veggies, greens and fruits would help to improve one's resistance to rancidification. Most studies where PUFA seems to be harmful are based on deficient, processed diet poor in plant anti-oxidants That would explain for example because high consumption of salmon or nuts, when part of a balanced veggies rich diet, is always associated with better hematic profiles, higher longevity and low heart disease incidence Take the Okinawans for example. Their diet is both rich in plants and in PUFA and EFA A recent studies showed their diet has a very high ORAC level and they all show very low oxidizative stress levels compared to people from western countries. They have arteries like 20 years old. So clearly their consumption of EFA is not harming them and is not increasing oxidization or them I have seen 20 studies that prove that nut consumption is never harmful and is always cause of cardiovascular health I think this shows that it's not PUFA that is dangerous but the way they're consumed and processed. I can see why canola oil, flax seed oil, peanut oil, sunflower oil, safflower oils are all better avoided. But I can't see any reason for removing fresh salmon, almonds, walnuts, cashews, pistachios, macadamia, brazil nuts, sesame seeds, avocados, olives from one's diet Don't overcook food. Don't mix eggs with other ingredients in backing Don't buy olive oil who is not stored in dark bottle and whose date of bottling is not stated Don't consume unsatared oils processed from tiny seeds Do consume lot of veggies, greens and fruits These seem all good advices to keep an health cardiovascular system and are consistet with what Stein stated in "Outliving Heart Disease" but what about: ? * remove all sources of PUFA from one's diet Shouldn't it be instead: * remove all rancid and processed sources of PUFA from your diet but don't be scared of natural foods high in PUFA when fresh (fish, fatty fruits, nuts) as there are no proof they are dangerous and in fact there's evidence they protect from heart disease? Davide > For example, AHA > spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, said last year that only oxidized > cholesterol is dangerous, which is ironic, because recently the AHA > made a statement about the "dangers" of coconut oil, which is a direct > contradiction to Stein's point. Direct contradiction? So they said oxidized cholesterol isn't dangerous did they? 1) '"epidemiological" stuff is really not particularly useful' 2) ' Of course, they also completely ignore the raw demographic data on hundreds of millions of people.' Can't you see you're contradicting yourself there? > like Dr. Nicholas Perricone, has tried to explain the molecular-level > mechanisms in a way that most people can understand, but he is > apparently unaware of the evidence against the "essential fatty acid" > notion, What is this evidence? > and suggests powerful, and possibly dangerous antioxidant > supplements, What's the danger you're suggesting? And where's your evidence? > Another point is perhaps best illustrated by the soy example. Small > amounts of organic, fermented soy is fine, but large amounts of tofu is > not optimal, and may be dangerous (depending upon how long this diet is > followed). Again, what danger? > However, it may be healthier than the "typical American > diet," and so "studies" can be conducted in which the researchers make > the claim that people should eat more soy, even though they should have > tested all kinds of other foods/diets - that would be consistent with > the scientific method. Trying to test everything at once isn't the scientific approach. You test one specific thing at a time. > Nobody has ever shown any interest in taking me up on > these offers because You don't understand the basics of scientific experiments and want to investigate things that have already been done. > My only interest is in the scientific reality. End on a joke. MattLB > The discussion is evolving to what I didn't want it to evolve in > It's not wonder that people are confused [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > nonense "let's make it simple and lay term" so many quacks wouldn't > have had a chance to have their works published and be taken seriously There are too many people who are prepared to attack Price because of silly one-issue disagreements with certain single-issue aspects of his writings. Whether it is with the meat eating, or the fat eating, or the paternalistic tone (which was common to all research of this era), or the fact that wheat does not figure as the dominant nutrient source, or that he was "only a dentist", or that it sheds the harsh light of truth onto the modern nutrient-deficient SAD diet of highly refined manufactured foods. Many refuse to see the whole forest because of their objection and obsession with the one tree. If anyone is to attack Price, it must be based on real science that challenges the real findings of Prices research. Not just some single issue nonsense being attacked with industry funded crap science. Or some attack on an aspect of his research that is twisted and changed to appear to say something it never did. There is no single published challenge to Prices finding that even comes close to succeeding in invalidating his findings. The core of his research remains as one of the modern centuries most solid and enduring contributions to the nutritional sciences. TC "There are too many people who are prepared to attack Price because of silly one-issue disagreements with certain single-issue aspects of his writings. Whether it is with the meat eating, or the fat eating, or the paternalistic tone (which was common to all research of this era), or the fact that wheat does not figure as the dominant nutrient source, or that he was "only a dentist", or that it sheds the harsh light of truth onto the modern nutrient-deficient SAD diet of highly refined manufactured foods. Many refuse to see the whole forest because of their objection and obsession with the one tree. If anyone is to attack Price, it must be based on real science that challenges the real findings of Prices research. Not just some single issue nonsense being attacked with industry funded crap science. Or some attack on an aspect of his research that is twisted and changed to appear to say something it never did. There is no single published challenge to Prices finding that even comes close to succeeding in invalidating his findings. The core of his research remains as one of the modern centuries most solid and enduring contributions to the nutritional sciences." One does not have to discuss the merits of his conclusions or propose alternative interpretation or counter research if the research techniques he used are so flawed as to make any conclusions meaningless. As said before, the only conclusion reached that was based on even minimally sound research techniques was the tooth decay observations. His was an example of garbage in garbage out research. In a research methodology 101 class he would get a failing grade. I like the "forest and tree" and "single issue" bits above, poster heal thyself. > "There are too many people who are prepared to attack Price because of > silly one-issue disagreements with certain single-issue aspects of his [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I like the "forest and tree" and "single issue" bits above, poster heal > thyself. Again, general criticisms without specifics. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit. TC "Again, general criticisms without specifics. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit." On the other hand there is brilliant bull sh.t. He had no method to his research on how subjects were chosen as representing the populations he said he was studying, he had no formal measure of the features he said he was observing, he had no way to confirm his observations about diet were common place or the result of his visit, he did parachute research;ie. drop in from nowhere for a short time and make unstructured observations, he used no statistical controls or analysis to evaluate even his crude data collection, he had no understanding of the cultures he visited and how diet was a part of each and how his very presence could drastically change behavior, and we could list more. In each of the cases above there were research techniques in use at the time to avoid all those mistakes but he did not make use of them. The only minimal valid observation he made was that there were was more tooth decay among consumers of increased sugar, even there statistical analysis was not used except in the crude nose count variety without using the more useful analysis of the significance of the count. As said, garbage in garbage out. This is not the first time these gross flaws in research have been brought to your attention. > "Again, general criticisms without specifics. If you can't dazzle them > with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit." [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > This is not the first time these gross flaws in research have been > brought to your attention. Finally someone who will even attempt a direct criticism of Prices research. And actually, yes, this is the first time I've seen someone present these objections. Now here is the 64 million dollar questions. 1) do these "flaws" invalidate his findings. and 2) Is there other science that represent better methodology, that studied the same issues and 3) Does this "better" contradict or invalidate Prices findings? I would venture that the answers are "no", "no" and "no". Prices research still stands up to anything else done before or since. No one has done any science that would render Prices work invalid in its entirety or even partially. TC "Finally someone who will even attempt a direct criticism of Prices research. And actually, yes, this is the first time I've seen someone present these objections." Not so, I have done so more then once in the past. "Now here is the 64 million dollar questions. 1) do these "flaws" invalidate his findings. and 2) Is there other science that represent better methodology, that studied the same issues and 3) Does this "better" contradict or invalidate Prices findings? I would venture that the answers are "no", "no" and "no". Prices research still stands up to anything else done before or since. No one has done any science that would render Prices work invalid in its entirety or even partially." His "research" has no special meaning in that anthropolgists have been for a long time now studying the topic of diet and culture change. Most of what he wanted to question could have been answered in a good library based on the long term onsite research and publication of people who had reported factors of diet and culture. In more recent times the material he considered has been addressed in great detail for many many more cultures then the few he visited and data collected using accepted research techniques and measurement. To repeat, garbage in garbage out is in itself reason enough to consider his book nothing more then an intresting travelog. Again, this very information was also related to you in past. > "Finally someone who will even attempt a direct criticism of Prices > research. And actually, yes, this is the first time I've seen someone [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > intresting travelog. Again, this very information was also related to > you in past. The essential core of his findings have not been invalidated. In fact, it has been supported by more recent research. Although no recent research has been as wide in scope and as all encompassing as Prices original research. The methods may not have been laboratory perfect as one would like in this day and age, but the findings are still, in general, rock solid. TC "The essential core of his findings have not been invalidated. In fact, it has been supported by more recent research. Although no recent research has been as wide in scope and as all encompassing as Prices original research." He had some ideas, "essential" research he did not do. There is no confirmation for something that did not occur in the first place. In his travelog he collected some interesting observations using entirely subjective impressions, just as any tourist does. There is nothing to confirm. You speak as though having grasp of wole fields of scienvific research at hand. I have not seen it represented in your posts and see your statements above more on the line of wishful thinking then that of knowledge. I can almost guarentee you have no knowledge of the anthropology literature on diet and how culture change might affect it nor on what traditional diets were and how they are evaluated systematically. "The methods may not have been laboratory perfect as one would like in this day and age, but the findings are still, in general, rock solid." No, they were inferior in the extreme even by the standards of the time, as indicated before. Techniques were being used which he did not know about or chose to ignore that would have made science of his intersting travelog observations. Rock solid garbage in rock solid garbage out is the best one can say about his book Whatever you think he was demonstrating can not by his very reports be supported. To address a couple of points: "But it seems to me he wasn't talking about dietary cholesterol but about internal oxidization..." I don't care what he talks about, but whether there is evidence to support a person's claims. And I don't doubt this point, but the evidence is clear that the "internal [in vivo] oxidation" is due to lipid peroxidation (fat rancidity) in the context of the "typical American diet." If you go to my web site you will see some of the molecular-level evidence that makes this point. As to "some saturated fats" being "atherogenic," such a statement is useless from a scientific perspective. There are saturated fatty acids. Those are actual molecules. A "saturated fat" is determined by whoever is in charge of the agency given the power to do such things. I would never even consider calling lard, which is about 39% saturated fatty acids, a "saturated fat," but almost everyone does (it used to be higher in SFAs 100 years ago, and still may be in some parts of the world, where the pigs are fed a lot of coconut). If you want to do science, you follow the scientific method. If you want to claim that American lard is unhealthy, especially the way it is produced and the way people usually cook with it, you will get no argument from me, but the saturated fatty acids in it are what is healthy, not what is unhealthy. And to demonstrate this, one can separate the SFAs from the other, unsaturated fatty acids, and give one group of lab animals a diet of 20% of the SFAs, while the other group gets the UFAs from the lard, at 20% daily calories. Until that experiment is done, any claims made about lard as a "saturated fat" are science fiction, at best. monty1945@lycos.com ha scritto: > To address a couple of points: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > world, where the pigs are fed a lot of coconut). If you want to do > science, you follow the scientific method. "some saturated fats" I meant the proven difference between lauric, stearic and palmitic acid Coconut contain the fatty acids that are known either not to be harmful or are quite beneficial Pork meat doesn't for example > If you want to claim that > American lard is unhealthy, especially the way it is produced and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lard, at 20% daily calories. Until that experiment is done, any claims > made about lard as a "saturated fat" are science fiction, at best. Then why no evidences whatsoever exist that nuts, avocados, olives and fish is dangerous for one's health, for one's cardiocirculatory and for one's oxidative stress levels? That seems to me to suggest that is not mono and poly that are dangerous per se, but they way they're cooked, stored, processed. (oils mainly) W hen they're obtained from fresh foods like nuts, fatty fruits, fish and greens though ... they don't seem to be dangerous at all Davide Anyway, it seems that nor the pro-WAPF nor the anti-WAPF have real arguments pro or against the consumption of cholesterol, sat fat and a diet which is mostly animal food It's three simple questions: * Are saturated fat harmful? * Is dietary cholesterol harmful? * Are there any reason to have a diet where 90% of calories come from animal food or fats? Questions that should be answered clearly with details of the physiological and biochemical processes that make them harmful or harmless for the body Yet, especially the pro-WAPF, seems to go on with old trite arguments "my other ate butter everyday and lived to 90" "the Inuits eat just animal foods and are healthy" "you body need that so it can't harmful" ... is that science? WAPF accuse their detractors to be short of science, and they're right, but they're the last group that should accuse one of lacking science? I think the substances that WAPF wants us to gorge in and that anti-WAPF want us to avoid like plague have "clear" and "specific" physiologicall and metabolical effects and influences on the body that, with the technology and knwoledge we have nowaday, can be easily observed and proved ... Anyone? > Anyway, it seems that nor the pro-WAPF nor the anti-WAPF have real > arguments pro or against the consumption of cholesterol, sat fat and a > diet which is mostly animal food Obviously you've never read anything from the WAPF. TC > It's three simple questions: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Anyone? TC ha scritto: > > Anyway, it seems that nor the pro-WAPF nor the anti-WAPF have real > > arguments pro or against the consumption of cholesterol, sat fat and a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > TC I have read all the articles in their website >From the ones about paleo diets (nasty, brutish .. etc) to the anti-soy ones, the ones about retinol and carotenoid conversion to vitamin A and those about the "real" Asian diets. The ones about brother and the books reviews. They have the same amount of science that their detractors have, no more nor less Some reference to well-picked studies ... but they don't tell the whole story They never write articles in which they say "okay, these are the studies that support our position, these are the studies that contradict our position .. let's compromise, conclude and then you can choose" ... no; they just post the studies that agree with them and ignore all the others ... Davide > TC ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Davide They must've found fault with the contrary studies. I trust them. Moreso than I trust vegan sites or food industry funded sites, etc. TC About the w. price pages and the cherry picked articles: "They must've found fault with the contrary studies. I trust them. Moreso than I trust vegan sites or food industry funded sites, etc." Good old circular thinking, if they don't support the pricies then it must be wrong, without independant evaluation on your part. The person to whom you were answering was asking for normal science. He knows that reviews on the research on a topic is almost never black and white but gives mixed results for various reasons that have nothing to do with people doing a fraud job for hidden reasons. For the price pages to have a narrow black and white set of articles is reason enough to ignore them as a valid source. I suggest one use medline and other search enjines to get the original literature as much as possible and evaluate the range of outcomes for yourself. That way you can bypass thespecial intrest groups and the lifestyle food cults and get to know the real science not the propaganda. If you let others pick and choose material then you surrender yourself to their will and become worst then uninformed and a victum of their spin. > About the w. price pages and the cherry picked articles: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Good old circular thinking, if they don't support the pricies then it > must be wrong, without independant evaluation on your part. The person It is not circular thinking. It is my opinion. Based on a lot of research which leads me to believe that Price was right and that there is a lot of bogus marketing research that would want to indicate otherwise on numerous points related to nutrition. I believe Price and I disbelieve much that is presented as fact by the mainstream. > to whom you were answering was asking for normal science. He knows that > reviews on the research on a topic is almost never black and white but > gives mixed results for various reasons that have nothing to do with > people doing a fraud job for hidden reasons. For the price pages to I believe that WATF has no reason to to do a fraud job, that they are good people who have better insight into nutrition than the mainstream. Whereas, over 70% of research is industry funded. Ignoring that crap is a must. > have a narrow black and white set of articles is reason enough to ignore > them as a valid source. In your opinion. Free world and all, knock yourself out. > I suggest one use medline and other search enjines to get the original > literature as much as possible and evaluate the range of outcomes for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > surrender yourself to their will and become worst then uninformed and a > victum of their spin. I've read much "real" science. Much of it is crap. Much of it is contradictory due to various contradictory efforts by various industries to sell their product against the competing product. Science, in the end should agree, at least on the major points of the area of science. But, here we are arguing about whether butter is bad or not, whether soybean juice is healthy, or whether fat causes fat or carbs causes fat. Hardly what I would call a reasonable state of the science. My "lifestyle food cult", as you seem to want to call it, has led to my family losing about a combined 50 lbs. And our prescriptions have gone down to zero from multiple hundreds of dollars per year. We are noticibly healthier eating contrary to the SAD diet and eating real fresh whole nutrient dense food. Call me all the names you want, but the best revenge is living well and healthy, and I am doing that. You eat your crap, have at her. TC "I've read much "real" science. Much of it is crap. Much of it is contradictory due to various contradictory efforts by various industries to sell their product against the competing product. Science, in the end should agree, at least on the major points of the area of science. But, here we are arguing about whether butter is bad or not, whether soybean juice is healthy, or whether fat causes fat or carbs causes fat. Hardly what I would call a reasonable state of the science. Bovine extrusions, you reveal and confess your ignorance of science and introduce the conspirancy foolishness to explain your short comings in it. "My "lifestyle food cult", as you seem to want to call it, has led to my family losing about a combined 50 lbs. And our prescriptions have gone down to zero from multiple hundreds of dollars per year. We are noticibly healthier eating contrary to the SAD diet and eating real fresh whole nutrient dense food. Call me all the names you want, but the best revenge is living well and healthy, and I am doing that. You eat your crap, have at her." Congratulations, but your lifestyle food cult propaganda is not the only healthy way to eat and live. The traditional eastern asian diet with 70 percent of the diet in refined carbs also produces healthy results. What ever success you have is in spite of the religious fervor of the lifestyle cult mentality and narrow propaganda science, put that in your revenge pipe and smoke it. You wrongly assume that those poking sticks at the lifestyle food cults, of all stripes, are not healthy by the same measures as you andd that by definition they are the "enemy" shilling for some conspiracy group or another. That ignorance is the flip side of the lifestyle food cult mentality at work. The price web pages is propaganda because of the cherry picking of research, hand waving and foot stomping doesn't change that stubborn reality nor does your demonstrated ignorance of science and how it works and your willingness to accept propaganda in its place either. > "I've read much "real" science. Much of it is crap. Much of it is > contradictory due to various contradictory efforts by various industries [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > introduce the conspirancy foolishness to explain your short comings in > it. I havw researched it and have read the science. And I've learned how to distiguish marketing from science. It is not a conspiracy. conspiracy: a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose It is not secret. It is not un;awful. Nor is it evil. Unless you think greed is evil. I think greed is a motivator and when uncontrolled becomes not so great. But I don't think grred is evil. It is open, lawful, greed driven marketing. No more, no less. Now it is unethical and immoral but it isn't necessarily evil, although the results appear as evil as anything else I can think of. > "My "lifestyle food cult", as you seem to want to call it, has led to my > family losing about a combined 50 lbs. And our prescriptions have gone [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > lifestyle cult mentality and narrow propaganda science, put that in your > revenge pipe and smoke it. What exactly is a "lifestyle food cult"? White rice is not all that refined a carb. It is only polished rice. White wheat flour, high fructose corn syrup, sugars, soya lecithin, etc., are as refined a food as there exists, and they are all slow poisons, making us all fat and sick. So when I say that we should eat fresh whole nutrient dense foods and avoid fake manufactured nutrient-deficient, you believe that this is not healthy? Right? Yes or no? And you are saying that eating nothing but refined and processed fake foods is healthy? Right? Yes or no? I think even you have to agree with me on those two points. I guess that makes you a "lifestyle food cultist", whatever that means. > You wrongly assume that those poking sticks at the lifestyle food cults, > of all stripes, are not healthy by the same measures as you andd that by > definition they are the "enemy" shilling for some conspiracy group or > another. That ignorance is the flip side of the lifestyle food cult > mentality at work. What the f.ck is a "lifestyle food cult"? I want you to tell me what that is? Is that anyone who points out that the food industry is feeding us crap food with no nutrition? If that is a "lifestyle food cultist", then I guess that is what I am, although I prefer the term "real food promoter". > The price web pages is propaganda because of the cherry picking of > research, hand waving and foot stomping doesn't change that stubborn > reality nor does your demonstrated ignorance of science and how it works > and your willingness to accept propaganda in its place either. Propaganda. Yeah, sure. And these studies funded by industry that find in favour of the industries product nearly 100% of the time? What is that? Science? Bwaaahaaahaaahaaaaa! You are the such an ignorant fool to think that anyone is actually buying into your nonsense. You are one pathetic loser. No offense. TC It is right that is hard to point to a single eating pattern calling it perfect and deeming all the others unhealthy. The sentence "if xxx would xxx they should all be dropping dead like flies" contradict such absolutism We see many examples of diets totally different one from the other but all known to maintain the health of those consuming them It mostly depends on different circumstances: For example the Masai diet is not atherogenic because of one of the highest and hardest activity level of work ever. Since even young Masai have extensive atheriosclerosis of the aorta and thickening of the arteries similar to that of 90 years old americans So a very unusual level of physical activity from morning to night protects them from what could become easily pathological without all that physical activity On the other hand the Kalahari consume a diet which is 80% plant food and very little animal food. They have an high physical activity levels but don't work as much. On average it takes 14 hours weekly for Kalahary to gather and hunt all the food they need. They are in good health too The same with the Chinese diet. The Chinese diet has such high amount of carbs that it suits someone who is so active, but it would cause complication and weight gain in the typical sedentary worker american Very low-carb diet work on the context of the american sedentary lifestyle It is logical that the more you spend your time in from of television the better is to substitute that pack of chips and that soda with some appetite lowering fatty food Such amount of fat and such low levels of carbs seem to work well for them but try with someone more active and such diet may make him or her sick soon (I have seen this happening lot of time with people hitting the gym while consuming very low carb diets and not allowing even carbs after the workout to allow the enzyme glycosinthase to refill muscular glycogen quickly) It seems to me that the global evidence is that we need to consume more nutrient foods and less refined foods, we need to eat when really hungry and not out of boredome and stress, we need to tweak our intake of food to our level of physical activity and we need to get as many nutrients as we can from foods rather than supplements Such evidence is so difference from saying that without a diet predominately comprised of animal fat and cholesterol, bone broth, little plant foods and little sweet fruits one would be sick and unhealthy That being said I still can't see why no one has physiological and biochemical argument pro or against a certain eating approach. What does happen when you ingest this, or that, or those? What happen at a cellullar and physiological level? How can simple epidemiological relations be considered more reliable than knowing and explaining in details what happens within the body? Is there any non-epidemiological non-comparative evidence that a very high intake of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol may be unhealthy? Is there any non-epidemiological non-comparative evidence that a very high intake of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol may be very healthy? I'd like to see such question approached from an "anatomical" point of view rather than a "statistical" one. And like me probably millions of people too There are many educated people on this newsgroup with strong "beliefs" ... are they all just based on epidemiology or they could explain what mechanisms make one food unhealthy and healthy and in what circumstances ... > It is right that is hard to point to a single eating pattern calling it > perfect and deeming all the others unhealthy. The sentence "if xxx > would xxx they should all be dropping dead like flies" contradict such > absolutism Only because of the massive confusion sown by various food companies battling it out in the scientific forum with their own paid-for studies, which incidentally almost always finds in favour of their product above all others. > We see many examples of diets totally different one from the other but > all known to maintain the health of those consuming them But they all have SOMETHING in common. And that is eating real foods and not eating manufactyred refined crap foods. That is what one would learn if one were to acyually read WAPFs material. They do not advocate one diet, just a diet with real foods. > It mostly depends on different circumstances: > > For example the Masai diet is not atherogenic because of one of the > highest and hardest activity level of work ever. Since even young Masai It has nothing to do with the fact that animal fats protect from heart disease? The French Paradox? The fact that Ancel Keys was dead wrong? > have extensive atheriosclerosis of the aorta and thickening of the > arteries similar to that of 90 years old americans > So a very unusual level of physical activity from morning to night > protects them from what could become easily pathological without all > that physical activity Are the French that much more active than the Americans? Not likely. > On the other hand the Kalahari consume a diet which is 80% plant food > and very little animal food. They have an high physical activity levels > but don't work as much. On average it takes 14 hours weekly for > Kalahary to gather and hunt all the food they need. They are in good > health too And their foods are real fresh whole foods. Again, that is the key. Read WAPFs material. > The same with the Chinese diet. The Chinese diet has such high amount > of carbs that it suits someone who is so active, but it would cause > complication and weight gain in the typical sedentary worker american Rice is not refined. The irish used to live off of potatoes. Steamed with the skin on and mashed with copious amounts of butter and cream. Real food and lots of healthy animal fats and it served them well for generations. Without the obesity and diabetes brought on by the SAD diet with large amounts of refined carbs and less animal fats and more vegetable fats. There is a pattern here - real food vs manufactured crap. > Very low-carb diet work on the context of the american sedentary > lifestyle And the context of the endocrine system and the insulin-glucagon balance. Any level 1 university bio-chem textbook will explain it to you. > It is logical that the more you spend your time in from of television > the better is to substitute that pack of chips and that soda with some > appetite lowering fatty food Isn't that counter-intuitive? Kinda like the Atkins diet? > Such amount of fat and such low levels of carbs seem to work well for > them but try with someone more active and such diet may make him or her > sick soon (I have seen this happening lot of time with people hitting > the gym while consuming very low carb diets and not allowing even carbs > after the workout to allow the enzyme glycosinthase to refill muscular > glycogen quickly) Bullshit. > It seems to me that the global evidence is that we need to consume more > nutrient foods and less refined foods, we need to eat when really > hungry and not out of boredome and stress, we need to tweak our intake > of food to our level of physical activity and we need to get as many > nutrients as we can from foods rather than supplements No sh.t sherlock. Eat real foods and avoid refined carbs and move around a little. Sounds like a low-carb real-food "lifestyle food cult" kinda thing to do. > Such evidence is so difference from saying that without a diet > predominately comprised of animal fat and cholesterol, bone broth, > little plant foods and little sweet fruits one would be sick and > unhealthy That is not what I said. I said eat lots of healthy bone broth soups, healthy animal proteins and fats and lots of fresh whole food produce. Don't go nuts on fruits because modern fruits are bred for sweetness and many have lost a lot of nutrition in the process. But the crux, is eating real food, not manufactured crap. If it has a food label, chance are there is a better choice. > That being said I still can't see why no one has physiological and > biochemical argument pro or against a certain eating approach. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > mechanisms make one food unhealthy and healthy and in what > circumstances ... Aot if good questions that have been thoroughly confused by the state of the science/marketting research industry. TC > Are the French that much more active than the Americans? Not likely. Website http://www.ibike.org/library/statistics-data.htm shows that 84% of the trips made in the US are by auto compared to 47% in France.  SignatureRon > > Are the French that much more active than the Americans? Not likely. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Ron So? There are other factors. Like the fact that France has a much larger population in a much smaller area. They don't have to walk or bike large distances to get to where they need to go. And even if they are a bit more active, it does not explain the *huge* disparity in obesity and related diseases between the two countries. Especially when you consider the much larger amounts of animal fats consumed in France. An if you want to bring up the "it's in the wine" nonsense, don't bother. That argument is just plain silly. In the end, the only thing that makes sense to explain the French Paradox is the fact that they appreciate real food, excellent quality foods, made from scratch using the freshest ingredients including copious amounts of healthy animal fats and fresh produce . As opposed to the SAD diet swimming in manufactured nutrient-empty crap carbs and fake highly processed crap vegetable fats like margarine and canola oil, refined to death. TC Davide ha scritto: > TC ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > It has nothing to do with the fact that animal fats protect from heart > > disease? The French Paradox? The fact that Ancel Keys was dead wrong? I have lived for years in France and I still live few miles from France The French diet has nothing to do with what you think it to be Plain and simple Three theories have been made to explain the "paradox" and they are all more consistent with the "real French" diet than the fairy tales of Americans who has never been in France and think of it as a sort of kingdom coming from a Perrault book 1) French eat smaller portions of everything. Even at restaurant and fast foods they portions are smaller than the typical american portion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=12930475 2) French are way more active than Americans. French is one of the country with the higest rate of bikes per capita. Even many primary school children go to school by bike rather than by schoolbus. Most people stop workingat 5 pm and the rest of the evening is spent in one of the many parks they have in cities and town alike. 3) There's a lag between the diet and the effect of the diet http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7196/1471 What I can say is that very few people eat as many carbohydrates as the French. They can eat as much as two or four baguettes a day, they are famous for pastries and cakes and almost every meal is made of pasta If you go to a French farm when they're consuming a supper prepared according to the knowledge and tradition of an 80 years old farmer you will see lot of refined carbs and lot of sweet. But unlike the americans even when they eat refined producuts and unhealthy sweets they eat them more traditionally prepared than industrially bought It's also not true that French people eat fresher food bought at the market The French buy at Wallmart-like supermarkets like everyone else The consumption of refined cheese like Kraft or Damafro' or Peirron is very high since traditional organic cheese are too expensive for the average person to buy in big amount Also many French food brands of refined pre-made foods millions of French buy daily are worse in trans-fats, hydrogenated oils, preservatives and colorants than many American food brands > > > have extensive atheriosclerosis of the aorta and thickening of the > > > arteries similar to that of 90 years old americans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Are the French that much more active than the Americans? Not likely. Yeah they are Also no one has reached such levels of sedentarity yet as the Americans. In small European towns including French many tall buildings have no elevators, there are not many cabs or plublic transportations and the streets are so small that many just walk to move within the town. Bigger towns and cities have huge no-cars zones (centres historique) where all the shops are. People need to walk for miles to stay in these areas and they do ... I see them everyday summer and winter alike. Usually the whole city except the suburb (which is totally different from the american suburb) are no-cars zones. There are more recretional places in town and cities alike, people work less and there are less sedentary jobs compared to america. The culture of staying at home in the evening at watching television while eating chips is not strong. Summer or winter usually people go out to walk in the evening and at 10 am streets are full of people walking and shops of course are still open. It's a completely different mindset and culture from american which indeed made them way way more physical active than americans Not to mention they are only second to China and Scandinavia for bikes per capita and kilometers or bike-reserved roads (blue streets that pass through the whole city, connect all zones and only bikes can use) > > > On the other hand the Kalahari consume a diet which is 80% plant food > > > and very little animal food. They have an high physical activity levels [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > vegetable fats. There is a pattern here - real food vs manufactured > > crap. That's what I'm trying to say When we focus more on real foods vs. refined crap it seem that there's no a specific diet which is better than others but many diets wich different foods, different macronutrient compositions and food preparation but with something in common: real foods vs. refined crap > > > Very low-carb diet work on the context of the american sedentary > > > lifestyle > > > > And the context of the endocrine system and the insulin-glucagon > > balance. Any level 1 university bio-chem textbook will explain it to > > you. No bio-chem textbook shows the kind of black and white issue you make it to be First of all very-low carb diets have never showed to decrease insulin much, higher carbs diets based on whole foods have never showed to increase insulin much and many protein rich foods raise insulin levels even more than carbs do. > > > It is logical that the more you spend your time in from of television > > > the better is to substitute that pack of chips and that soda with some > > > appetite lowering fatty food > > > > Isn't that counter-intuitive? Kinda like the Atkins diet? One must earn one's carb. People with severe glucose intolerance reactions to carbs have no reaction at all when they consume their carbs after 40 minutes of swimming or 50 minutes of weight lifting. That's because the carbs are fully utilized and metabolized. The glucose intolerance due to massive carb eating while on a very sedentary lifestyle is due to downregulation of insulin receptors on the cell membrana. Whatever form of physical activity reverse the downregulation by reversing cell saturation > > > Such amount of fat and such low levels of carbs seem to work well for > > > them but try with someone more active and such diet may make him or her [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Bullshit. You're probably thinking that someone who run on the treadmill for 15 minutes twice a week is not sedentary. Well that's a lazy bastard and from your reply I reckon you are too (no offence meant) I'm talking about real levels of physical activity, non-sedentary jobs and low levels of technological laziness. If you were an active person you would know it's harder to feel weel on a very low carb diets in such condition. That's why all low-carbers that were also very physical active had to resort to TKD diet and couldn't maintain their very low carb diet > > > Such evidence is so difference from saying that without a diet > > > predominately comprised of animal fat and cholesterol, bone broth, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > eating real food, not manufactured crap. If it has a food label, chance > > are there is a better choice. Please contact an expert in botany and let him or her explain to you why the "fruits were once small and sour" argument is unscientific nonsense I see plenty of wild fruits everyday. Fruits that have never been planted let alone bred and they're way sweeter than the fruits people buy at supermarket (that are usually bland) It has been extimated that thousands of years ago there was a variety of fruits 80% greater than nowadays. In other words 80% of the edible mild/cold climate fruits are extinct Davide > Davide ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 205 lines] > > Davide Wild fruits are small and sweet. As opposed to large and very sweet. I've eaten wild strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, etc, and they are always small and sweet. Farmed and genetically modified by selective breeding has changed fruits to be larger and sweeter. TC TC ha scritto: > Wild fruits are small and sweet. As opposed to large and very sweet. > I've eaten wild strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, etc, and they > are always small and sweet. Farmed and genetically modified by > selective breeding has changed fruits to be larger and sweeter. > > TC Yes berries are small but I have seen natural occuring figs and cotoine pears and other fruits I don't even know the name of and never found in a marker or supermarket and they were rather big I have to say and also very sweet too. It's a misconception that berries are the only mild climate fruits are there, there are hundreds of cold climate fruits that are not berries but the real problem is that 80% have extincted and many are getting extincted. Casola Valsenio has a very interesting fair of the "forgotten wild fruits" ... it's very suggestive and one not only see lot of berries but also lot of big wild fruits whose names are unknown by many Davide TC ha scritto: > > It is right that is hard to point to a single eating pattern calling it > > perfect and deeming all the others unhealthy. The sentence "if xxx [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > It has nothing to do with the fact that animal fats protect from heart > disease? The French Paradox? The fact that Ancel Keys was dead wrong? I have lived for years in France and I still live few miles from France The French diet has nothing to do with what you think it to be Plain and simple Three theories have been made to explain the "paradox" and they are all more consistent with the "real French" diet than the fairy tales of Americans who has never been in France and think of it as a sort of kingdom coming from a Perrault book 1) French eat smaller portions of everything. Even at restaurant and fast foods they portions are smaller than the typical american portion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=12930475 2) French are way more active than Americans. French is one of the country with the higest rate of bikes per capita. Even many primary school children go to school by bike rather than by schoolbus. Most people stop workingat 5 pm and the rest of the evening is spent in one of the many parks they have in cities and town alike. 3) There's a lag between the diet and the effect of the diet http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7196/1471 What I can say is that very people eat as many carbohydrates as the French. They can eat as much as two or four baguettes a day, they are famous for pastried and cakes and almost every meal is made of pasta If you go to a French farm when they're consuming a suppoer prepared according to the knowledge and tradition of an 80 years old farmer you will see lot of refined carbs and lot of sweet. But unlike the americans even they eat refined producuts and unhealthy sweets they eat them more traditionally prepared than industrially bought It's also not true that French people eat fresher food bought at the market The French buy at Wallmart-like supermarkets like everyone else The consumption of refined cheese like Kraft or Damafro' or Peirron is very high since traditional organic cheese are too expensive for the average person to buy in big quantity Also many French food brands of refined pre-made foods millions of French buy daily are worse in trans-fats, hydrogenated oils, preservatives and colorants than many American food brands > > have extensive atheriosclerosis of the aorta and thickening of the > > arteries similar to that of 90 years old americans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Are the French that much more active than the Americans? Not likely. Yeah they are Also it's time you all accept that no one has reached such levels of sedentarity yet as the Americans. In small European towns including French many tall buildings have no elevators, there are not many cabs or plublic transportation and the streets are so small that many just walk to move within the town. Bigger towns and cities have huge no-cars zones (centres historique) where all the shops are. People need to walk for miles to stay in these areas and they do ... I see them everyday summer and winter alike. Usually the whole city except the suburb (which is totally different from the american suburb) are no-cars zones. There are more recretional places in town and cities alike, people work less and there are less sedentary jobs compared to america. The culture of staying at home in the evening at watching television while eating chips is not strong. Summer or winter usually people go out to walk in the evening and at 10 am streets are full of people walking and shops of course are still open. It's a complately different mindset and culture from american which indeed made them way way more physical active than americans > > On the other hand the Kalahari consume a diet which is 80% plant food > > and very little animal food. They have an high physical activity levels [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > vegetable fats. There is a pattern here - real food vs manufactured > crap. That's what I'm trying to say When we focus more on real foods vs. refined crap it seem that there's no a specific diet which is better than others but many diets wich different foods, different macronutrient compositions and food preparation but with something in common: real foods vs. refined crap > > Very low-carb diet work on the context of the american sedentary > > lifestyle > > And the context of the endocrine system and the insulin-glucagon > balance. Any level 1 university bio-chem textbook will explain it to > you. No bio-chem textbook shows the kind of black and white issue you make it to be First of all very-low carb diets have never showed to decrease insulin much, higher carbs diets based on whole foods have never showed to increase insulin much and many protein rich foods raise insulin levels even more than carbs do > > It is logical that the more you spend your time in from of television > > the better is to substitute that pack of chips and that soda with some > > appetite lowering fatty food > > Isn't that counter-intuitive? Kinda like the Atkins diet? One must earn one's carb. People with severe glucose intolerance reactions to carbs have no reaction at all when they consume their carbs after 40 minutes of swimming or 50 minutes of weight lifting. That's because the carbs are fully utilized and metabolized. The glucose intolerance due to massive carb eating while on a very sedentary lifestyle is due to downregulation of insulin receptors on the cell membrana. Whatever form of physical activity reverse the downregulation by reversing cell saturation > > Such amount of fat and such low levels of carbs seem to work well for > > them but try with someone more active and such diet may make him or her [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bullshit. You're probably thinking that someone who run on the treadmill for 15 minutes twice a week is not sedentary. Well that's a lazy bastard and from your reply I reckon you are too (no offence meant) I'm talking about real levels of physical activity, non-sedentary jobs and low levels of technological laziness. If you were an active person you would know it's harder to feel weel on a very low carb diets in such condition. That's why all low-carbers that were also very physical active had to resort to TKD diet and couldn't maintain their very low carb diet > > Such evidence is so difference from saying that without a diet > > predominately comprised of animal fat and cholesterol, bone broth, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > eating real food, not manufactured crap. If it has a food label, chance > are there is a better choice. Please contact an expert in botany and let him or her explain to you why the "fruits were once small and sour" argument is unscientific nonsense I see plenty of wild fruits everyday. Fruits that have never been planted let alone bred and they're way sweeter than the fruits people buy at supermarket (that are usually bland) It has been extimated that thousands of years ago there was a variety of fruits 80% greater than nowadays. In other words 80% of the edible mild/cold climate fruits are extinct Davide And in France they don't eat 15 times a week at McD's et al. with their super-mega-sized 3/4 gallon serving of high-fructose-corn-syrup and flavoured drinks along with half a pound of french fries fried in higly refined vegetable oil. Huh? Do they? Huh? TC > TC ha scritto: > [quoted text clipped - 196 lines] > > Davide >And in France they don't eat 15 times a week at McD's et al. with their >super-mega-sized 3/4 gallon serving of high-fructose-corn-syrup and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >TC You guys are wasting your time with idiot TC. He will never learn that exercise, lifestyle etc play a huge role in health in addition to diet. However TC believes one can be an expert or educated in something without actually doing any reading just eating WP cult foods. > And in France they don't eat 15 times a week at McD's et al. with their > super-mega-sized 3/4 gallon serving of high-fructose-corn-syrup and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > TC They eat a McDonald but in France hamburgers are smaller and so are serving sizes of most fast foods. They do eat flavoured drinks and in fact France is a big consumer of Fanta, Sprite and Coca-Cola. When they don't, they drink fruit juices like Yoga or Skipper (sugar added) They eat french fries and yes they're fried in vegetable oil and so many times in the same oil that it becomes as dark as petroleum Also there are three things that French love and have the highest consumption per capita in europe and that are not exactly what you would define health 1) Pastries. Pastries are usually made with pasta frolla (refined flour, sugar and eggs) and filled with various english creams or chocolate creams Take a croissant for example. What's healthy stuff is left into it? It's a pasta made with flour and sugar and filled with 80% fructose-sucrose jam and covered in sugar granules (that I have tried to remove when eating that stuff because it was so sweet to be nauseating) Mostly margarine is used (France is famous for margarina, it's were it has been invented and one of the countries with the highest consumption) http://i15.tinypic.com/35hlkj6.jpg http://i15.tinypic.com/2z5j2w0.jpg 2) Pizza. The consumption of pizza per capita is very high and there's a pizzarie at every street corner 3) Ice cream. They eat tons of ice-cream and winter and summer alike even more than mediterranean countries A real difference is the consumption of vegetables If in american the consumption of vegetables went down since 1940 till reaching very low levels for many vegetables (especially greens) in France it has gone up since 1940 till reaching one of the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables per capita. I still reckon that if it wasn't for smaller portions, increased physical activity and higher consumption of anti-oxidants from veggies French would be as sick and overweight as americans are. Davide I also forget another aspect of the French diet which is as important as the others in the holistic system of nutrition. Okinawans for example have certain eating principles they all follow: hara hachi bu - Eat till you're 80% full, never leave the eating table totally bloated and full kuten gwa - eat small portions of many different foods rather than big portions of the same food nuchi gusui - eat with awareness and pleasure, mindless eating is dangerous The Okinawans swear by these principles as accounting for 60% of why thy're healthy and strong and have such a low incidence of diseases The French have the same philosophies of eating: Even teen boys for example have inborn a tendency to eat slowly, with elegance and calm Eating in front of television, eating as fast as you can, gorging on foods, eating while stanting still or in front of the computer ... are all concept rather foreign to French to prove the kuten gwa point let's just say that according to an investigation on food portions of america vs france: mean portion size is 25% greater in america than in france restaurant servings are 72% greater in america than in france soft drinks are 52% larger in america than in france an hot dog is 63% larger in america than in france a carton of yogurt is 82% larger in america than in france a croissant is 50% larger in america than in france In a survey where French people were inquired about their relationship with foods it emerged that all of them think of eating as a life-pleasure to enjoy slowly with passion and grace. There's also a strong a patriotic instinct that lead French to eating with awareness rather than eating just to survive while thinking about other issues and problems or watching a tv program A typical supper with friends or relatives is made of more courses than the typical american supper but all are very small in size and there's lot of break time between each course Although as I said French do eat at McDonald and do eat fast foods, it is saved for snack 80% of people eat their lunch and supper at home (this is also due to smaller working time compared to americans) The French stay 40% more time at the table than the Americans That's the real "paradox" Althought the French eat less than Americans they spend more time eating This is what a french nutritionist says about the relationship with eating: "'For France, a meal is a very particular moment, in which you share pleasure, the food as well as the conversation. From an Anglo-Saxon point of view, food is just fuel to give energy to your muscles. If you have no pleasure in it, you are breaking all the rules of eating" I think such relationship with foods as summarized by Okinawans eating precepts: hara hachi bu, kuten gwa and nuchi gusui are very important from a very physiological and metabolic point of view It all leads to the concept of "toxic hunger" vs. "true hunger" This I think is a fundamental ignored aspect of health And it's also consistent with caloric restriction findings that prove that caloric restriction is the only way to increase longevity and add quality years to one's life "When people eat an modern style diet, high in trans fats, refined grains, refined and heated oils, caffeine, salt and low in antioxidant nutrients they don't feel that ill from it; most people tolerate it. If a person eating a diet of nutritional excellence for years went back to eating the American diet again, they would feel ill from it. They would have lost their toleration for such an unhealthy eating plan. They might experience a runny nose, sore throat, indigestion, abdominal pain and diarrhea from trying to eat in such a radically, unhealthy manner without gradually acclimating themselves to it. Now if a person who has acclimated to or become tolerant to eating unhealthfully, stops eating, even for a few hours, they may feel ill, they may start feeling withdrawal from their toxic eating habits and excesses. The body cannot manifest symptoms or engage in right directed withdrawal symptoms from their disease causing diet while eating and digesting food. This begins when digestive activity diminishes. A few hours after eating most people begin to feel "hungry". They feel weak, headachy, tired, mentally dull, and have stomach spasms. Is this real hunger? It is "toxic hunger" because these symptoms only occur in those who have been eating a toxic diet. They are withdrawal symptoms and they force people to eat more frequently and take in more calories than they would have if they were eating healthfully. True hunger would not have occurred so early after the meal. True hunger signals when our body needs calories to maintain our lean body mass. If we ate food demanded by true hunger and true hunger only, one could not have become overweight to begin with. In our present toxic food environment, humans have lost the ability to connect with the body signals that tell us how much food we actually need. We become slaves to withdrawal symptoms and eat all day long when there is no biological need for calories. True hunger is felt in the throat, neck and mouth, not in the stomach or head. It is not very uncomfortable to feel real hunger, it makes food taste much better when you eat, and it really makes eating an intense pleasure. There is nothing fluttering or bouncing around, it is not painful and you know it is a normal reaction that signals a need for food. It signals that the body is physiologically ready to digest food and the digestive glands have regained their capacity to secrete enzymes appropriately. In order to achieve an ideal weight and consume the exact amount of calories to maintain a lean body mass that will prolong life you must get back in touch with true hunger and eat when hungry and don't eat when not hungry. A healthy body will give you the correct signals We actually require less food than most people realize. Once we get rid of the perverted toxic hunger our central nervous system can accurately measure and give us the right signals for maintaining our ideal weight on the right amount of calories." The concept of eating because of true hunger is not only consistent with the smaller portion, larger eating time and eating with calm and sitting of French but would also result in a natural "caloric regulation" that would result in the same benefit seen in "caloric restriction" The Caloric Restriction Society of Walford has it all wrong To have the health enhancing and longevity increasing benefits of "caloric restriction" one doesn't need to set an artifical amount of calories not to exceed and one doesn't need to feel hungry all the time and to stand the cons of being "too thin" Those benefits comes when the amount of calories we consume is neither too much nor too low but naturallty mediated by true hunger. The average american finds it hard to find enough nutrients in 3500 calories but when "true hunger" is satisfied with high nutritious and unprocessed foods it's easy to provide all the nutrients the body needs consuming way less calories The average american person consumes 3700 calories daily It's impossible to justify such caloric intake. It would be hard to justify for a brick layer let alone someone working in an office, driving to home and spending the rest of the time on the couch ... Davide "White rice is not all that refined a carb. It is only polished rice. White wheat flour, high fructose corn syrup, sugars, soya lecithin, etc., are as refined a food as there exists, and they are all slow poisons, making us all fat and sick." snicker, what a hypocrite and what further ignorance of the basic realities of the science of nutrition and foods you continue to display. That white rice you so celebrate turns into almost 100 percent glucose very soon after being digested, 100 percent refined carbs in a diet where 70 percent of its calories is made of such refined carb sources. Spin as this kind shows is not limited to politics. "Propaganda. Yeah, sure. And these studies funded by industry that find in favour of the industries product nearly 100% of the time? What is that? Science? Bwaaahaaahaaahaaaaa! Yawn, continued display of ignerance to be able to discern what science is and what it says and how to evaluate its results. Circular logic, if it doesn't agree with my lifestyle food cult conclusions then it is the product of the evil empire. It is pure natural science if it does. "You are the such an ignorant fool to think that anyone is actually buying into your nonsense. You are one pathetic loser. No offense." Snore, attack the messenger, trash the science, kneel at the alter of the lifestyle food cult gurus and call it sound reason and rational. At least hand waving and foot stomping provides some minimal exercise. Dear TC I ran into your message quite accidentally while researching about some details on 'Nutrition' and thought of sharing some of my findings. I've read at 'http://medical-health-care-information.com/Health-living/nutrition/index.asp' that ' Nutritional information for you and your family including lots of heart healthy recipes and nutritional foods, special dietary concerns like celiac sprue, along with guidelines for prenatal and children.' I hope the above is of some help to you as well. > > About the w. price pages and the cherry picked articles: > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > TC "Again, general criticisms without specifics. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit." On the other hand there is brilliant bull sh.t. He had no method to his research on how subjects were chosen as representing the populations he said he was studying, he had no formal measure of the features he said he was observing, he had no way to confirm his observations about diet were common place or the result of his visit, he did parachute research;ie. drop in from nowhere for a short time and make unstructured observations, he used no statistical controls or analysis to evaluate even his crude data collection, he had no understanding of the cultures he visited and how diet was a part of each and how his very presence could drastically change behavior, and we could list more. In each of the cases above there were research techniques in use at the time to avoid all those mistakes but he did not make use of them. The only minimal valid observation he made was that there were was more tooth decay among consumers of increased sugar, even there statistical analysis was not used except in the crude nose count variety without using the more useful analysis of the significance of the count. As said, garbage in garbage out. This is not the first time these gross flaws in research have been brought to your attention. > In addition I might add that the original price "research" is in the > main grossly flawed which when steered by the current pricies only > distorts it all the more. Price was one of those people who believed in science, but totally failed to use the scientific method. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|