 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / November 2007"Science writer blames obesity, disease on carbs."
This is the title of an article from www.newsday.com, and here is a passage from that article: "Imagine a world in which weight loss is as simple as dropping carbohydrates from your diet. Imagine avoiding cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's by ditching cookies, cakes, flour and starches..." As I said in other posts, this is not a claim that is consistent with historical facts, including pre-WW II American diets and present-day Amish diets. It is also inconsistent with the molecular-level evidence and with the conclusions of scientific committees set up to examine the evidence comprehensively (your library might have a copy of "Diet and Health," by the National Research Council, which is an example of this kind of endeavor). Moreover, I've been eating a diet rich in "simple carbs" and sugar for several years now, and I'm about as thin as I could be without looking ill. All of my "blood relatives," on the other hand, are clearly overweight, and the only difference is diet (none of us smoke, drink, or get very little sleep, for example); they eat a UFA-rich diet and eat cooked meat, whereas I do not. My diet is much richer in SFAs, at least relative to overall calories consumed. I make no attempt to restrict calories or salt, but eat what is tasty and satisfying (so long as it is very low in UFAs, and while I consume gelatin, I don't eat "meat" otherwise). And it's not difficult to find the studies pointing out that at least some UFA-rich oils "improve feeding efficiency" in livestock animals, meaning that they are fattened up by these oils. Coconut oil does the opposite. As biologist Ray Peat has pointed out, this was discovered before WW II. The only question I have in this context is, why do people like Gary Taubes (this Newsday article is about a new book by this person) either not know about such evidence or act like they don't? Interestingly, in this same major, New York City area newspaper, there was an article a while back that contained a relevant statement: ""Most of the corn and soybeans used to fatten cows, pigs, and chickens..." Newsday newspaper, May 4, 2005. And of course there is the old saying about the farmer's corn-fed daughter, meaning an overweight one. Again, I find it amazing how no "expert" in the mainstream media is even mentioning this point, which is clearly the best explanation of the "obesity epidemic," considering how soybean oil consumption rose tremendously since the early 1960s and canola has had a similar rise since the 1980s. On Oct 25, 5:47 am, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > Interestingly, in this same major, New York City area newspaper, there > was an article a while back that contained a relevant statement: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And of course there is the old saying about the farmer's corn-fed > daughter, meaning an overweight one. Corn-fed, not corn oil fed. > Again, I find it amazing how no > "expert" in the mainstream media is even mentioning this point, What point? That animals are given maize and soya to eat? How is that news? You seem to think animals are given troughs of oil to drink. > which > is clearly the best explanation of the "obesity epidemic," considering > how soybean oil consumption rose tremendously since the early 1960s > and canola has had a similar rise since the 1980s. It's not the oil, it's the starch in maize and soyabeans that fattens animals (and people) up. MattLB "It's not the oil, it's the starch in maize and soyabeans that fattens > animals (and people) up." There's no question that if you can get (or force) an animal to continually eat abnormally high amounts of "simple carbs," it will gain weight at some point. This could be the case for many instances of obesity among Americans these days, but: 1. There is no doubt the that dietary fatty acid profile has changed since about 1960 to an extreme degree. 2. If a diet is producing a great deal of lipid peroxidation, thyroid function can become impaired, leading to weight gain. 3. While some obese people undeniably eat a huge amount of food, my obese relatives don't, with the exception of one who does sometimes (but not usually) eat way too much. On the other hand, I do not restrict my diet at all, except to not eat cooked meat or UFA-rich items. I enjoy plenty of sugar-rich "simple carbs" every day, consuming very little fiber. If Taubes' notion was accurate, I would not be 5' 9"tall and weigh 140 pounds (or a bit less). Science must account for all factors, and if someone refutes your claim, as I have, and there is no other factor (I am not hyperthyroid), then it cannot be correct. Simple carbs might be problematic, but only if other factors are present. Another point: I've been calling for a nutritional science based upon comparison of the effects of actual diets, rather than the current approach, which essentially takes diets apart, often in a nonsensical way, then examines the various "associations," "links," "characterizations," "correlations," etc. Medical science is doing similar things these days with "markers," often indirect ones. With my approach, a diet that people might actually eat is compared to others based upon biochemical evidence. For example, my obese relatives like to eat knishes. I took a look at the nutritional information on ones they like, and each serving had 29 grams of carbs ("simple," obviously) and 6 grams of fat, but only .5 of a gram was saturated. With my approach, two diets would be compared, one that included these kinds of items (which are very common) and one that included "simple carbs" with the reverse fat profile. For example, a local store sells mint fudge cookies that have 8 g of fat per serving, 7 of which are saturated. I eat these kinds of items, but would never eat those knishes. However, I never eat such items by themselves, but rather always have something that is rich in high-quality protein with it. On Oct 25, 10:31 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > "It's not the oil, it's the starch in maize and soyabeans that fattens > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > continually eat abnormally high amounts of "simple carbs," it will > gain weight at some point. Starch isn't a simple carb. > 1. There is no doubt the that dietary fatty acid profile has changed > since about 1960 to an extreme degree. Define extreme. > 2. If a diet is producing a great deal of lipid peroxidation, thyroid > function can become impaired, leading to weight gain. Are you really suggesting that everyone who's obese has thyroid dysfunction? Grasping at straws. > Science must > account for all factors, and if someone refutes your claim, as I have, What claim, and how have you refuted it? > and there is no other factor (I am not hyperthyroid), then it cannot > be correct. Anecdotes about your unique physiology aren't science. MattLB Haven't you considered that there may be more than a single "my way" of keeping one healthy? For instance you can go with the Hollywood stars practicing the Paleo diet. In that case carbs and dairy are severely restricted and you consume ample amounts of meat including fatty fish or supplementing with fish oils. Together with high intake of vegetable and whole fruits you will keep the cancer cells at bay as they will be smashed into apoptosis by the PUFA-derived lipid peroxides as soon as they appear. The meat also ensures enough arachidonic acid for "proper" maintenance of muscle and connective tissue so you can happily engage in bodybuilding exercises. The body will look good with minimal amount of subcutaneous fat but the question is for how long this may go on since your stem cell niches are suffering the same damage as the cancer cells so may be depleted prematurely ... The other Monty's way would be enjoying carbs in all forms but restricting dietary PUFAs and iron from meat sources. As long as you don't have too many insulin spikes per day and "supplement" with reasonable amounts of SFA/coconut oil and high quality protein as well as essential nutrients like vitamins (B6) and minerals there is no reason to believe that the body is harmed in any way. But a problem may arise (like in today's western world) when you mix up the 2 different styles and combine high PUFA diet with high carbs and iron. This is a real prescription for disaster ... Taka On Oct 25, 4:31 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > "It's not the oil, it's the starch in maize and soyabeans that fattens > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > be correct. Simple carbs might be problematic, but only if other > factors are present. Monty, there is a guy in the movie, SuperSize Me, named Don Gorske who eats two or three big macs a day ( a couple of years ago he consumed number 19000) who is tall and thin and has a cholesterol of 140. He seldom eats the fries. Some people can eat anything they want and remain thin and have good cholesterol readings. So using yourself as an example is not proof that the rest of us won't get fat and sick by eating saturated (or unsaturated) fats and in Gorske's case, red meat. It is possible that it is not your diet but darn good genes that you were lucky enough to be born with. I am not saying that it is not your diet, but your good health could be due to something else. The Japanese and others who consumed traditional diets with very low fat and high carbs did not suffer from heart disease. The Cretans who consumed lots of olive oil did not suffer from heart disease. Now these people are switching to a western diet and the incidence of heart disease is rising. I do not think coconut oil is going to save them, but who knows. Dolores > On Oct 25, 4:31 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > going to save them, but who knows. > Dolores I think it's important to restore the original environment+diet on which we have evolved. The problem is that the natural selection has ceased long time ago and different human races have crossbred leading to a great variability. Every individual is unique so it's hard to find common recommendations. Using the molecular mechanisms as clues may be helpful otherwise you can "waste" whole lifetime searching for the right diet. Unfortunately there are so many misleading places on the Internet looking only for profit behind the curtains so one has to be careful. I agree with Monty that one of the most dangerous compounds to consume are the highly unsaturated fatty acids in excess and if they are damaged by cooking. However, there may be individuals with a higher tolerance and perhaps even needs in extreme conditions like if the body is going to freeze. I have seen some people competing in the eat-as-much-as-you-can races who just pass the food through their digestive tract without absorbing much. They are quite slim and even small ladies. Such individuals may be resistant to many deleterious compounds because they are not actually taking them in large amounts (just passing through). And the meat doesn't even have time to start rotting (like in the intestines of predators). > > On Oct 25, 4:31 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > large amounts (just passing through). And the meat doesn't even have > time to start rotting (like in the intestines of predators). > > On Oct 25, 4:31 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > large amounts (just passing through). And the meat doesn't even have > time to start rotting (like in the intestines of predators). Yes, I agree. Fiber intake can help speed things thru the GI tract. And certain supplements if one isn't careful will blast things thru in laxative like fashion. >I think it's important to restore the original environment+diet on >which we have evolved. The problem is that the natural selection has >ceased long time ago and different human races have crossbred leading >to a great variability. I'm all European so fortunately don't have that last problem, but in the US some foods are hard to impossible to get even when we know what they should be. For instance in my state the only legal raw (unpasteurized) dairy is from one's own cow or cheese aged over 60 days. Some people get around that with cow share programs, but these farms are few and far between, and the programs are often full. I think raw goat milk directly from the farm is still legal but regulators jump hard and immediately at any hint any illness might have come from it, so the supply is spotty and the farmers are often buried in legal problems. -- First, eliminate the poison. |
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
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.