Posture Guy
Professional
Very good article with the citations to support its assertions.
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/8-ridiculous-nutrition-myths-debunked
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/8-ridiculous-nutrition-myths-debunked
8 Nutrition Myths Debunked
- Thread starter Posture Guy
- Start date
r2473
G.O.A.T.
9) Myth: Bacon is the Devil in Delicious Disguise.
Fact: Bacon is a health food.
http://balancedbites.com/2011/05/bacon-health-food-or-devil-in-delicious-disguise.html
10) Myth: Bacon causes cancer (nitrates and all).
Fact: Bacon is a proven cancer cure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7L_1M6M2Sc
11) Myth: People who eat bacon are better lovers
Fact: This one isn't a myth. It's true.
Fact: Bacon is a health food.
http://balancedbites.com/2011/05/bacon-health-food-or-devil-in-delicious-disguise.html
10) Myth: Bacon causes cancer (nitrates and all).
Fact: Bacon is a proven cancer cure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7L_1M6M2Sc
11) Myth: People who eat bacon are better lovers
Fact: This one isn't a myth. It's true.
Last edited:
Interesting, sensible. Can easily be associated with the paleo blueprint. The bacon info is cool with a lot of support recently..Not much mention of sugar and grains: in my opinion the 2 most detrimental foods causing many "hidden" diseases that don't manifest themselves until later in life (when it's too late)
Posture Guy
Professional
yep, that article is completely congruent with both regular paleo and the Dave Asprey/"Paleo 2.0" approach.
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
"Fructose vs. Glucose: Fructose is more likely to stimulate hunger.."???
I am confused by this statement under "A Calories is a Calorie". Glucose, not fructose, can cause a quick & significant rise in blood sugar levels resulting in an insulin response. This insulin response can cause blood sugar levels to drop lower than the pre-glucose level. This action will often result in an increased desire for MORE.
.
I am confused by this statement under "A Calories is a Calorie". Glucose, not fructose, can cause a quick & significant rise in blood sugar levels resulting in an insulin response. This insulin response can cause blood sugar levels to drop lower than the pre-glucose level. This action will often result in an increased desire for MORE.
.
Last edited:
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
A calorie is a calorie as far weight loss goes in the strictest sense. If you put someone in prison and feed them a starvation diet, they will lose weight. The other stuff like satiation matters when you have an abundance of calorie sources. It would have been nice to see that expounded on rather than something vague.
If you don't like nitrates, there are plenty of sources of uncured bacon.
If you don't like nitrates, there are plenty of sources of uncured bacon.
New research. Glucose isn't great but the body counts it. Fructose because its processed by the liver doesn't do anything with regards to hunger satiation.
"After the glucose drink, the body seemed to recognize and respond to the extra calories with an increase in glucose and insulin levels. That response, which blunts hunger, was significantly greater than fructose's. Brain activity also slowed in the hypothalamus, the region that stimulates appetite.
After the fructose drink, on the other hand, the hypothalamus continued to stay active. There was little increase in insulin, and study volunteers said they felt hungrier, even though they weren’t told which sugar they’d had"
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I am really interested in knowing more about the salt (sodium) angle.
I seem to cramp if I don't add salt in my food. Also get dizzy sometimes (in summer). I have low BP. I use the salt shaker quite a bit.
Those of you who are active and sweat a lot -- do you eat a low salt diet, or do you supplement ?
I seem to cramp if I don't add salt in my food. Also get dizzy sometimes (in summer). I have low BP. I use the salt shaker quite a bit.
Those of you who are active and sweat a lot -- do you eat a low salt diet, or do you supplement ?
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Still not following. How does the body respond to the glucose intake with an increase in both glucose and insulin levels? The the glucose intake results in a blood sugar spike which, in turn, results in an increase in insulin levels. Is this not true? The increased insulin levels would tend to lower the blood sugar levels. Is this not also true? How does this response blunt hunger?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
/\ Perhaps both can be true, it is just two different mechanisms. Low bloodsugar is not exactly the same as hunger, or un-satiety.
I feel like I sweat a lot, I have to change shirts every set and then ring them out like a towel after the match.
I don't worry about how much salt is in what I eat and have never cramped up during activity. I season to taste while cooking and don't add extra when eating, so I also don't think I'm eating a ton of it.
Intuition tells me if you're not consciously trying to limit your intake you'll get more than enough salt during the day based on how most food is prepared.
Avles
Hall of Fame
Not sure why you'd do that. The author used to be a manager at a Domino's Pizza , so he clearly knows his nutrition.
(He's also a currently a student in med school-- actually seems like a pretty solid and well-sourced article to me.)
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I don't cramp during play. I get leg cramps at night while sleeping if I've sweated a lot (usually summer).
So if I’m concerned about hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, should I seek help from healthcare professionals, who undoubtedly would tell me to lower my sodium intake and cholesterol, or listen to these groundbreaking discoveries from the medical student genius/nutrition and health enthusiast/blogger/certified personal trainer?
I’m truly confused. Please help me people!
Posture Guy
Professional
maleyoyo...my advice is don't take his word for this, or your docs. Read the studies, read the data and draw your own conclusions. This article is pretty will cited. Read each citation and see what the data suggests.
The conclusions I've drawn from this data and other studies I've read is that there is zero evidence to suggest that lowering sodium intake is a responsible suggestion for improving cardiovascular health, and there is zero evidence to suggest that cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease. The more data we get, the more the problem appears to be inflammation, not lipids.
Don't trust your doctor, don't trust some guy on an Internet message board, don't trust some article. Read the data and make decisions for yourself.
The conclusions I've drawn from this data and other studies I've read is that there is zero evidence to suggest that lowering sodium intake is a responsible suggestion for improving cardiovascular health, and there is zero evidence to suggest that cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease. The more data we get, the more the problem appears to be inflammation, not lipids.
Don't trust your doctor, don't trust some guy on an Internet message board, don't trust some article. Read the data and make decisions for yourself.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> So if I’m concerned about hypertension and cardiovascular
> diseases, should I seek help from healthcare professionals,
> who undoubtedly would tell me to lower my sodium intake
> and cholesterol,
These are the guys that take research money from agricultural companies, processed food companies, Coca-Cola and pharmaceuticals, right? The US DOA has recommended low-fat, high-carb diets for the last 50 years. How's that working out? The whole nation is slim and trim, right?
I agree on research, read the citations and source materials. This can be difficult for a lot of people that don't have access to research libraries though as many journal articles are behind paywalls.
> diseases, should I seek help from healthcare professionals,
> who undoubtedly would tell me to lower my sodium intake
> and cholesterol,
These are the guys that take research money from agricultural companies, processed food companies, Coca-Cola and pharmaceuticals, right? The US DOA has recommended low-fat, high-carb diets for the last 50 years. How's that working out? The whole nation is slim and trim, right?
I agree on research, read the citations and source materials. This can be difficult for a lot of people that don't have access to research libraries though as many journal articles are behind paywalls.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> ^^ really? W.H.O. data and data from other sources
> show the US and few European nations to have the
> highest fat consumption per capita in the world. Clearly,
> people are NOT following US DOA recommendations, and
> the recommendations are not the problem.
Well, it all depends on what you do with statistics.
The CDC statistics show a high-carb diet.
You are claiming that Americans and some Europeans eat more fat per capita than the rest of the world. Assuming your statements are true, by no means contradicts my statements. High-carb, low-carb, high-fat, low-fat, high-protein, etc. refer to nutritional percentages. Your statement refers to absolute quantities.
Do you understand the difference?
> show the US and few European nations to have the
> highest fat consumption per capita in the world. Clearly,
> people are NOT following US DOA recommendations, and
> the recommendations are not the problem.
Well, it all depends on what you do with statistics.
The CDC statistics show a high-carb diet.
You are claiming that Americans and some Europeans eat more fat per capita than the rest of the world. Assuming your statements are true, by no means contradicts my statements. High-carb, low-carb, high-fat, low-fat, high-protein, etc. refer to nutritional percentages. Your statement refers to absolute quantities.
Do you understand the difference?
Posture Guy
Professional
I've got a link somewhere showing some interesting charts, one of which shows that the nations with the highest per capita consumption of saturated fat have the lowest incidence of heart disease.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
That's like saying my "bacon diet" follows Paleo (in aggregate).
Perhaps you should read the guidelines in detail. Then ask yourself if again if most Americans are following the guidelines.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> Perhaps you should read the guidelines in detail.
> Then ask yourself if again if most Americans are
> following the guidelines.
I don't need to. I didn't state that Americans are following the guidelines in detail. They are following what they hear and what they find in restaurants and grocery stores.
> The US DOA has recommended low-fat, high-carb
> diets for the last 50 years.
This is the message that the consumer has been getting for decades.
And it's why you have so much sugar in the American diet. After all, a can of Coke is fat-free.
> Then ask yourself if again if most Americans are
> following the guidelines.
I don't need to. I didn't state that Americans are following the guidelines in detail. They are following what they hear and what they find in restaurants and grocery stores.
> The US DOA has recommended low-fat, high-carb
> diets for the last 50 years.
This is the message that the consumer has been getting for decades.
And it's why you have so much sugar in the American diet. After all, a can of Coke is fat-free.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> I've got a link somewhere showing some interesting
> charts, one of which shows that the nations with the
> highest per capita consumption of saturated fat have
> the lowest incidence of heart disease.
A friend of mine went on a low-carb diet and gradually started up an exercise program. He lost 95 pounds in a year and I think that he's around 155 pounds now. His doctor thought that his progress was amazing and asked him what he was doing. Basically a low-carb, high-fat diet including bacon, ham, chicken, salmon, beef, vegetables, olive oil, etc. He didn't tell his doctor that - what would a doctor say if you basically did the opposite of what doctors recommend and you had much better results than the people that do what they recommend? This guy has fantastic bloodwork numbers too.
> charts, one of which shows that the nations with the
> highest per capita consumption of saturated fat have
> the lowest incidence of heart disease.
A friend of mine went on a low-carb diet and gradually started up an exercise program. He lost 95 pounds in a year and I think that he's around 155 pounds now. His doctor thought that his progress was amazing and asked him what he was doing. Basically a low-carb, high-fat diet including bacon, ham, chicken, salmon, beef, vegetables, olive oil, etc. He didn't tell his doctor that - what would a doctor say if you basically did the opposite of what doctors recommend and you had much better results than the people that do what they recommend? This guy has fantastic bloodwork numbers too.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
So because people believe(d) all sorts of things about Atkins diets (and by extension low carb diets), this is the fault of the diet plans?
http://www.atkins.com/Library/Truths---Myths.aspx
This is the major turn off for me to the "low-carb bandwagon" crowd. Everything else must be demonized because the ONLY true way to eat is this "new" way.
The Paleo/low-carb/whatever diet is great. Nothing wrong with it. Nobody in the world is telling us to eat more sugar and junk food carbs (or junk food fat or any junk food for that matter). This isn't exactly new stuff.
Find me a study where a large group has actually eaten according to the USDA guidelines and lets see their relative health. Do you really think that if people actually followed the USDA food plate/food pyramid they would be unhealthy?
Last edited:
TimeSpiral
Professional
Lulz ^
Now I have to read and vet the article. Geez ... and I was looking to do exactly nothing today. Darn.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> So because people believe(d) all sorts of things about Atkins diets
> (and by extension low carb diets), this is the fault of the diet
> plans?
I think that there's a major difference between the power of the Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural lobbies, processed food companies compared to this guy Atkins that wrote a book or two about his diet. In one case, you have parties doing something against the known science at the time for financial gain. I do not know anything about Atkins on whether his motivations were to make people healthier, make more money or both.
But if you want to know what to follow amidst all of the noise, look at the science.
> This is the major turn off for me to the "low-carb bandwagon"
> crowd. Everything else must be demonized because the ONLY true way
> to eat is this "new" way.
I don't consider the low-carb approach to be homogeneous. My target is 30% carbs. Some people target 10%. There's a big difference between 50% and 30% though.
The thing that I see from an anecdotal perspective is that people do much better losing weight with a low-carb approach.
> Find me a study where a large group has actually eaten according to
> the USDA guidelines and lets see their relative health. Do you
> really think that if people actually followed the USDA food
> plate/food pyramid they would be unhealthy?
I think that the USDA guidelines aren't particularly effective at fat loss. The USDA can't really speak out that loudly against processed foods, sugar or even the ethanol mandate in gasoline (they have proposed lowering the ethanol amounts to account for decreasing gasoline usage in the US but it would be nice if the mandate weren't there at all). They'd risk large export markets for US products.
> (and by extension low carb diets), this is the fault of the diet
> plans?
I think that there's a major difference between the power of the Department of Agriculture, the Agricultural lobbies, processed food companies compared to this guy Atkins that wrote a book or two about his diet. In one case, you have parties doing something against the known science at the time for financial gain. I do not know anything about Atkins on whether his motivations were to make people healthier, make more money or both.
But if you want to know what to follow amidst all of the noise, look at the science.
> This is the major turn off for me to the "low-carb bandwagon"
> crowd. Everything else must be demonized because the ONLY true way
> to eat is this "new" way.
I don't consider the low-carb approach to be homogeneous. My target is 30% carbs. Some people target 10%. There's a big difference between 50% and 30% though.
The thing that I see from an anecdotal perspective is that people do much better losing weight with a low-carb approach.
> Find me a study where a large group has actually eaten according to
> the USDA guidelines and lets see their relative health. Do you
> really think that if people actually followed the USDA food
> plate/food pyramid they would be unhealthy?
I think that the USDA guidelines aren't particularly effective at fat loss. The USDA can't really speak out that loudly against processed foods, sugar or even the ethanol mandate in gasoline (they have proposed lowering the ethanol amounts to account for decreasing gasoline usage in the US but it would be nice if the mandate weren't there at all). They'd risk large export markets for US products.
r2473
G.O.A.T.
Conspiracy's are fun I'll grant, but again, if you read the USDA food plate/pyramid guidelines, I'm just not seeing it.
Anyway, it really doesn't matter I guess. What's the old saying? Something like "when the facts disagree with my prejudices, so much the worse for the facts".
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
The pyramid shows 6-11 servings of bread, cereal, rice and pasta; 3-5 servings of vegetables, 2-4 servings of fruits, 2-3 servings or milk/yogurt/cheese and 2-3 servings of meat, poultry, fish, beans, eggs and nuts. So we have around 60+% carbs here. You don't see that as a problem?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Let's not demonize the low carb concept. And yes, the above is pretty high in carbs I would say. It is all relative.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I have been told that the origins of the carb-based food pyramid lies also in economical considerations.
rk_sports
Hall of Fame
#7: Bottom Line: Eggs are one of the healthiest and most nutritious foods you can eat and there is no association between egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease.
check this out .. http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/11/1...ail&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-be5e32b7a5-23406189
r2473
G.O.A.T.
You are referencing the 1972 guidelines I believe (or the 1992).
Regardless, I'm not carb-phobic, so no, I don't see any problem. If you ate the types of carbs (and amounts) recommended, I don't see any problem.
Just stay away from the junk food.
This is more than likely true. I'm sure economic considerations certainly have some influence. Which is "good" IMO. Meat is expensive. Quality fat is expensive.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> Let's not demonize the low carb concept. And yes, the above is pretty
> high in carbs I would say. It is all relative.
I used to think that the low-carb approach was nuts because I've heard that high-carbs is the way to go for decades. Then this guy goes on a low-carb diet and loses 95 pounds in a year. Now I'm stubborn but losing weight takes a lot of effort and fighting brain chemistry has its disadvantages so I give it a try at 33% carbs. Hey, this stuff works! My approach is a blended Mediterranean low-carb approach. There are lots of different approaches and varying percentages.
> I have been told that the origins of the carb-based food pyramid lies
> also in economical considerations.
Carbs make a lot of sense in an environment of food scarcity if there's good ability to grow crops. A cup of rice has a lot of calories in it, is easily stored, relatively easy to grow in a lot of places and easy to cook. It certainly makes sense historically in Asian cultures. It can be pretty hard to forego if you're from a culture of eating rice. Same thing with pasta in some European countries. Italians have decreased pasta consumption because they're learning about the downsides of too many carbs. Our culture is into bread in the form of sandwiches, pizzas, calzones, etc. It can be hard to remove these from your diet. Farmers want to sell their products and politicians like exports so we want to encourage consumption domestically and internationally.
> check this out .. http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/11/19...2b7a5-23406189
Interesting stuff.
BTW, I typically eat two eggs/day. No history of cancer in my family but there is a history of cardiovascular disease. Son works in Oncogenomics - I'll ask him about it tonight.
> You are referencing the 1972 guidelines I believe (or the 1992).
I just looked at the first thing that came up in google images for USDA pyramid nutrition.
> Just stay away from the junk food.
Part of the problem is that Americans have been engrained to think that fat is bad - so you go through the supermarket and see all of the low-fat or non-fat products that are loaded with sugars. It's quite rare that you see low-sugar as a selling point (some cereals are doing this now). What you're more likely to see is several different forms of sugar so that it doesn't show up as the first ingredient. We think that All Natural is a selling point and what's more natural than sugar? Or Honey? Or fruit-juice extract?
> high in carbs I would say. It is all relative.
I used to think that the low-carb approach was nuts because I've heard that high-carbs is the way to go for decades. Then this guy goes on a low-carb diet and loses 95 pounds in a year. Now I'm stubborn but losing weight takes a lot of effort and fighting brain chemistry has its disadvantages so I give it a try at 33% carbs. Hey, this stuff works! My approach is a blended Mediterranean low-carb approach. There are lots of different approaches and varying percentages.
> I have been told that the origins of the carb-based food pyramid lies
> also in economical considerations.
Carbs make a lot of sense in an environment of food scarcity if there's good ability to grow crops. A cup of rice has a lot of calories in it, is easily stored, relatively easy to grow in a lot of places and easy to cook. It certainly makes sense historically in Asian cultures. It can be pretty hard to forego if you're from a culture of eating rice. Same thing with pasta in some European countries. Italians have decreased pasta consumption because they're learning about the downsides of too many carbs. Our culture is into bread in the form of sandwiches, pizzas, calzones, etc. It can be hard to remove these from your diet. Farmers want to sell their products and politicians like exports so we want to encourage consumption domestically and internationally.
> check this out .. http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/11/19...2b7a5-23406189
Interesting stuff.
BTW, I typically eat two eggs/day. No history of cancer in my family but there is a history of cardiovascular disease. Son works in Oncogenomics - I'll ask him about it tonight.
> You are referencing the 1972 guidelines I believe (or the 1992).
I just looked at the first thing that came up in google images for USDA pyramid nutrition.
> Just stay away from the junk food.
Part of the problem is that Americans have been engrained to think that fat is bad - so you go through the supermarket and see all of the low-fat or non-fat products that are loaded with sugars. It's quite rare that you see low-sugar as a selling point (some cereals are doing this now). What you're more likely to see is several different forms of sugar so that it doesn't show up as the first ingredient. We think that All Natural is a selling point and what's more natural than sugar? Or Honey? Or fruit-juice extract?
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
Are those saturated fats primarily medium-chain fatty acids (or MCTs)? These sat fats act differently in the body than long-chain and short-chain sat fats.
Never really been a fan of the low-carb diet craze. Isn't a thing of the past already? It certainly does not appear to be as popular as it was 5-10 yrs ago. Has long-term ketosis been proven to be healthy?
It seems to me that many, if not most, nutritionists seem to indicate that athletes with high-caloric requirements need more carbs, not less.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Well call it phobic or open to discuss the possible benefits of reducing carb intake.
2: It might be "good", but perhaps not so healthy or conducive to weightcontrol as it has been made out to be.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, it is not really rocket science. And you don't have to be dogmatic or extreme (or carb-phobic) to reap some benefits from this.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Not according to the people who share their positive experiences here. But I doubt they consider themself a part of "a craze".
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Perhaps we could ask the eskimos (or is inuit the correct term?).
TimeSpiral
Professional
Pop-sci is good, and the article appears pretty legit.
This thread is actually a pretty good example of something that happens all the time in what I call the 'alternate health' communities. Somebody who knows what they are doing publishes something, or conducts a study (or experiment), and then layman's (of which I am one, mind you) read it and think they are saying something they are not. They go and write a post, comment, or article, and then cite the study (the effective ones make citations, but many of them simply say things like "it's been document," or "it's been studied or proven by science.").
It's a good article, and me and my buddy discussed it. As it happens, many of these don't appear to be the myths that need debunking; with perhaps the 8th point being the most potent of the whole article. Most people know this stuff already; eggs are mana, protein is kinda necessary for survival, coffee is Unicorn blood, our understanding of heart disease is a little better than fat = bad hearts ...
Here are some things the article is absolutely NOT saying:
This thread is actually a pretty good example of something that happens all the time in what I call the 'alternate health' communities. Somebody who knows what they are doing publishes something, or conducts a study (or experiment), and then layman's (of which I am one, mind you) read it and think they are saying something they are not. They go and write a post, comment, or article, and then cite the study (the effective ones make citations, but many of them simply say things like "it's been document," or "it's been studied or proven by science.").
It's a good article, and me and my buddy discussed it. As it happens, many of these don't appear to be the myths that need debunking; with perhaps the 8th point being the most potent of the whole article. Most people know this stuff already; eggs are mana, protein is kinda necessary for survival, coffee is Unicorn blood, our understanding of heart disease is a little better than fat = bad hearts ...
Here are some things the article is absolutely NOT saying:
- You should eat like a caveman.
- Wheat causes disease, like diabetes.
- You should eat your food raw.
- You should avoid eating legumes.
- Wild game is better than farmed.
- The FDA, USDA, and other agencies are run by shape-shifting lizardmen bent on human domination.
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> Never really been a fan of the low-carb diet craze. Isn't a thing of
> the past already? It certainly does not appear to be as popular as
> it was 5-10 yrs ago. Has long-term ketosis been proven to be
> healthy?
I think that it's more popular but more low-key and the "low" in low-carb has a range up to 30+ percent which makes it sound less extreme than Atkins.
Here are my calculations of the carb percentages of popular US diet programs. All of them except for the Ornish diet are lower-carb than the typical American diet. I would not call percentages in the 40s low-carb but they are lower-carb.
Weight Watchers 45%
Slim-Fast 47%
Zone 33%
Ornish 73%
Atkins 7%
Jenny Craig 52%
South Beach Phase I 10%
South Beach Phase II 28%
Volumetrics 45%
> It seems to me that many, if not most, nutritionists seem to indicate that athletes with high-caloric requirements need more carbs, not less.
It's easier to get more calories with carbs or fats bound to carbs. A pound of chicken has 520 calories. A Ghirardelli chocolate square has 80 calories. I'm sure that I could eat far more calories of Ghirardelli chocolate squares than I could eat backed chicken. If you need a lot of calories, carbs are the way to get it into you and I think that it's easier to metabolize. I don't think that the problem with most Americans is that they are athletes with high-caloric requirements though.
> The FDA, USDA, and other agencies are run by shape-shifting lizardmen bent on human domination.
These are organizations that are influenced by lobbying from commercial organizations. I do a lot of trading and investing so I spend a lot of time looking at commodities, companies, corporate reports, conference calls, and lots of other things related to technology, marketing and the nexus between corporate and political interests. Given that, companies do unsavory things in the financial interests of their shareholders. It doesn't take much effort reading the Wall St Journal or New York Times to learn that.
> the past already? It certainly does not appear to be as popular as
> it was 5-10 yrs ago. Has long-term ketosis been proven to be
> healthy?
I think that it's more popular but more low-key and the "low" in low-carb has a range up to 30+ percent which makes it sound less extreme than Atkins.
Here are my calculations of the carb percentages of popular US diet programs. All of them except for the Ornish diet are lower-carb than the typical American diet. I would not call percentages in the 40s low-carb but they are lower-carb.
Weight Watchers 45%
Slim-Fast 47%
Zone 33%
Ornish 73%
Atkins 7%
Jenny Craig 52%
South Beach Phase I 10%
South Beach Phase II 28%
Volumetrics 45%
> It seems to me that many, if not most, nutritionists seem to indicate that athletes with high-caloric requirements need more carbs, not less.
It's easier to get more calories with carbs or fats bound to carbs. A pound of chicken has 520 calories. A Ghirardelli chocolate square has 80 calories. I'm sure that I could eat far more calories of Ghirardelli chocolate squares than I could eat backed chicken. If you need a lot of calories, carbs are the way to get it into you and I think that it's easier to metabolize. I don't think that the problem with most Americans is that they are athletes with high-caloric requirements though.
> The FDA, USDA, and other agencies are run by shape-shifting lizardmen bent on human domination.
These are organizations that are influenced by lobbying from commercial organizations. I do a lot of trading and investing so I spend a lot of time looking at commodities, companies, corporate reports, conference calls, and lots of other things related to technology, marketing and the nexus between corporate and political interests. Given that, companies do unsavory things in the financial interests of their shareholders. It doesn't take much effort reading the Wall St Journal or New York Times to learn that.
TimeSpiral
Professional
Of course they are. The only way to get anything done--ever--regardless of what you advocate, it to lobby policy makers or influential organizations.
When you write a letter to your congressman, you are lobbying for something (usually). When you attend a rally, and lend your support, you're lobbying. When a company has a vested interest in the outcome of a political race of issue, they invest time, money, and personnel into lobbying for their cause.
It's that last bit that has created a huge mess, in my opinion. When the US Supreme Court ruled that money equals speech, and that there could be no limits or regulations on campaign contributions, [US Citizens] lost a tremendous amount of freedom. Typically a group of citizens who may disagree with a particular organization, or have a vested interest in a law going another way, will not have the money or the ability to compete with the private companies at the lobbying table.
The FDA and the USDA (just two examples I happened to list, there are many more), are government agencies. Some people will say this inherently makes them bad, or inefficient, or less effective than a private market counterpart, but I would push back and disagree. They are not inherently any of those things. They are our (US citizens') responsibility and if we let them get overrun with corruption and corporate money ... that is our fault (largely).
movdqa
Talk Tennis Guru
> The FDA and the USDA (just two examples I happened
> to list, there are many more), are government agencies.
> Some people will say this inherently makes them bad,
> or inefficient, or less effective than a private market
> counterpart, but I would push back and disagree. They
> are not inherently any of those things. They are our (US
> citizens') responsibility and if we let them get overrun
> with corruption and corporate money ... that is our fault
> (largely).
Well, we agree there.
But my point that ag lobbying has been effective in resulting in recommendations that aren't in our best interests stand.
Of course if I had a position in ag commodities or ag companies, then I might have a different point of view. At the moment, I only have a small position in a large egg producer. I haven't been in soybeans in a long time.
The US stock markets have been the place to be for the last five years. A flexible workforce at low wages, cheap energy resources, relative ease of lobbying, stable political system (relative of course), relative law and order, best transparency in the world, etc. That corporate power carries a lot of clout. I just object when it infringes on my health.
> to list, there are many more), are government agencies.
> Some people will say this inherently makes them bad,
> or inefficient, or less effective than a private market
> counterpart, but I would push back and disagree. They
> are not inherently any of those things. They are our (US
> citizens') responsibility and if we let them get overrun
> with corruption and corporate money ... that is our fault
> (largely).
Well, we agree there.
But my point that ag lobbying has been effective in resulting in recommendations that aren't in our best interests stand.
Of course if I had a position in ag commodities or ag companies, then I might have a different point of view. At the moment, I only have a small position in a large egg producer. I haven't been in soybeans in a long time.
The US stock markets have been the place to be for the last five years. A flexible workforce at low wages, cheap energy resources, relative ease of lobbying, stable political system (relative of course), relative law and order, best transparency in the world, etc. That corporate power carries a lot of clout. I just object when it infringes on my health.
