Nutrition and Diet

[Marc1152]

Quick search on the Pima Indians led me to this, from The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK):

The Pima Indians maintained much of their traditional way of life and economy until the late 19th century, when their water supply was diverted by American farmers settling upstream, according to Ravussin. At that time, their 2,000-year-old tradition of irrigation and agriculture was disrupted, causing poverty, malnutrition and even starvation. The Pima community had to fall back on the lard, sugar and white flour the U.S. government gave them to survive, says Ravussin.

However, World War II brought great social and economic change for American Indians. Those who entered military service joined Caucasian units. Many other American Indians migrated from reservations to cities for factory employment and their estimated cash income more than doubled from 1940 to 1944.

When the war and the economic boom ended, most Native Americans returned to the reservations, but contact with the larger society had profoundly affected the Pimas' way of life. Ravussin says it is no surprise that the increase in unhealthy weight among the Pima Indians occurred in those born post-World War II.

During this century people world-wide experienced more prosperity and leisure time, and less physical work. Since the 1920s, all Americans have consumed more fat and sugar and less starch and fiber. The greatest changes have occurred in consumption of fat. In the 1890s, the traditional Pima Indian diet consisted of only about 15 percent fat and was high in starch and fiber, but currently almost 40 percent of the calories in the Pima diet is derived from fat. As the typical American diet became more available on the reservation after the war, people became more overweight.

http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/pima/obesity/obesity.htm

In other words, at the end of the 19th century they started eating more calories (lard being a pretty high calorie food), and doing less work- a phenomenon that only got worse with time. Intake vs. output.

Please note the underlined sentence, also. Starch is a carb, by the way.

Yeah, what's up with  those lazy depression era kids, staying home all day and watching their HD TV's and playing video games..

Right starch is a carb..   That is why the recommendation is to avoid Potatoes.

You can stubbornly  say that the  calories in calories out paradigm for why people are obese applies to all situations no matter the evidence. But I think it is reasonable to question that assumption.

[Νεκτάριος]

But at the end of the day you end up with close to the same recommendations. Avoid sugar and refined carbs. Avoid highly processed foods
( "Don't eat any food you see advertised") and get your carbs from vegetables.

Any diet that gets you to avoid sugar and highly processed foods will do you good, a lot of good. The next question is then what is optimal..

No.  There is a massive difference between gorging yourself on meat as part of a diet that is socially irresponsible were it to be practiced on a large scale and eating a healthy, balanced diet that is sustainable.  

Polyface farms has been called the most productive acres in all of the Shenandoah Valley . This grass based farm is five times more productive than any other farm in the area. He gives the numbers is part two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkIUcOB2vA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tKvkehHsOE&feature=relmfu  

Several more parts. Click on them if interested.

It's nice, but you aren't going to feed cities like New York or Shanghai with meat three times a day without a factory farm.  I haven't seen any sort of academic study that would back the claim that it is possible to feed seven billion people on the paleo-diet.  That being said, I respect the work of Polyface even if there are some things there that are far from traditional (Cornish cross chickens, really?!?).  

[Marc1152]

About a month ago I watched one of those "My 600 lbs Life" shows on the Discovery Network. If it wasn't that exact show than it was one just like it.

It featured two young British women who were mildly obese, maybe in the 240 lbs range. They sent them to Mississippi to live for a week with three Black Women, two sisters and their Aunt. The husbands were all long dead.

They were super obese, 400 to 500 lbs. I think the idea was a kind of "scared straight" thing. Give the young women a glimpse of their future if they keep getting fatter. The three Super obese women all had various health problems, diabetes with neuropathy
 ( numbness in legs) swelling, high blood pressure, failing eye sight etc. Plus it was very hard for them to get around. The Aunt who was slightly less obese would come around and drive them as needed.

They ate a classic Southern Diet with lots of fatty foods. Pigs Feet in Collards, bacon, Chitlins etc. They also ate lots of sugar and potatoes. Pies, breads, corn bread, canned fruit in heavy syrup etc.

The two British Women were suitably appalled.  Near the end of the week they decided to cook a "Healthy meal" for them with the hope of getting them on a better track. What they thought was "Healthy " was lots of low fat dishes.

The three super obese women were polite about it "Oh this one aint too bad"..  

There is no possibility of those three going on a Low Fat Diet. None... Zero..  This advice is likely to kill them as there is now no alternative that they know about.

I would have said to them, eat all the pigs feet and collards and bacon and beef that you want. Eat until you are full, just put down the pies and canned fruit and no potatoes or bread..but dont worry about the fatty food. Eat all you want. Eat until you are full and when you get hungry eat again.

I think that would have given them a shot.  Bad science kills sometimes.

In the final scene they showed the two younger women back in London, highly motivated and jogging every day... Another doomed plan which I bet ended in failure.





  

[Νεκτάριος]

I would have said to them, eat all the pigs feet and collards and bacon and beef that you want. Eat until you are full, just put down the pies and canned fruit and no potatoes or bread..but dont worry about the fatty food. Eat all you want. Eat until you are full and when you get hungry eat again.

I think that would have given them a shot.  Bad science kills sometimes.

Certainly you'd agree there is a difference when crafting a plan to basically save a morbidly obese person and a healthy diet for a person of normal weight and in good health.  And not everybody can tolerate a lot of fat. 

[Marc1152]

But at the end of the day you end up with close to the same recommendations. Avoid sugar and refined carbs. Avoid highly processed foods
( "Don't eat any food you see advertised") and get your carbs from vegetables.

Any diet that gets you to avoid sugar and highly processed foods will do you good, a lot of good. The next question is then what is optimal..

No.  There is a massive difference between gorging yourself on meat as part of a diet that is socially irresponsible were it to be practiced on a large scale and eating a healthy, balanced diet that is sustainable.  

Polyface farms has been called the most productive acres in all of the Shenandoah Valley . This grass based farm is five times more productive than any other farm in the area. He gives the numbers is part two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkIUcOB2vA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tKvkehHsOE&feature=relmfu  

Several more parts. Click on them if interested.

It's nice, but you aren't going to feed cities like New York or Shanghai with meat three times a day without a factory farm.  I haven't seen any sort of academic study that would back the claim that it is possible to feed seven billion people on the paleo-diet.  That being said, I respect the work of Polyface even if there are some things there that are far from traditional (Cornish cross chickens, really?!?).  

No one said to gorge yourself.. A bit a hype-boil on your part maybe? In fact, if you eat more fat in your diet you will become satieated much sooner and end up eating less.. That's a fact.  

I don't think they have factory farms in China btw.. Not just yet anyway.

You can say that to avoid factory farmed meat I will not eat much or any meat and be primarily vegetarian. That's fine in terms of motivation. What is not so fine is that a vegetarian diet will leave you deficient in several key nutrients. And if you're a Women your kids will be smaller than need be with jacked up teeth. It is defiantly not the diet humans have evolved to eat.  

It's better is to get  meat and eggs and dairy that is grass fed. Build up those businesses and farms. I have no trouble at all finding it.
I belong to a buying club. Meat, eggs and organic vegetables are dropped off every ten days. We get it from Amish Farms in PA.

Whole foods and several of the other similar food stores now carry grass fed meat. At least two restaurants use it. "Elevation Burger" sells nothing but grass fed beef and Chipolet ( Mexican) says they use it as much as they can..

And if none of that is convenient enough for you, there are dozens of on-line vendors. Not only can you get grass fed beef but their is also grass fed Bison and Elk available..Click click click and it's at your door in a couple of days.  

Win win

[Νεκτάριος]

But at the end of the day you end up with close to the same recommendations. Avoid sugar and refined carbs. Avoid highly processed foods
( "Don't eat any food you see advertised") and get your carbs from vegetables.

Any diet that gets you to avoid sugar and highly processed foods will do you good, a lot of good. The next question is then what is optimal..

No.  There is a massive difference between gorging yourself on meat as part of a diet that is socially irresponsible were it to be practiced on a large scale and eating a healthy, balanced diet that is sustainable.  

Polyface farms has been called the most productive acres in all of the Shenandoah Valley . This grass based farm is five times more productive than any other farm in the area. He gives the numbers is part two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkIUcOB2vA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tKvkehHsOE&feature=relmfu  

Several more parts. Click on them if interested.

It's nice, but you aren't going to feed cities like New York or Shanghai with meat three times a day without a factory farm.  I haven't seen any sort of academic study that would back the claim that it is possible to feed seven billion people on the paleo-diet.  That being said, I respect the work of Polyface even if there are some things there that are far from traditional (Cornish cross chickens, really?!?).  

No one said to gorge yourself.. A bit a hype-boil on your part maybe? In fact, if you eat more fat in your diet you will become satieated much sooner and end up eating less.. That's a fact.  

I don't think they have factory farms in China btw.. Not just yet anyway.

You can say that to avoid factory farmed meat I will not eat much or any meat and be primarily vegetarian. That's fine in term of motivation. What is not so fine is that a vegetarian diet will leave you deficient in several key nutrients. And if you're a Women your kids will be smaller than need be with jacked up teeth. It is defiantly not the diet humans have evolved to eat.  

It's better is to get  meat and eggs and dairy that is grass fed. Build up those businesses and farms. I have no trouble at all finding it.
I belong to a buying club. Meat, eggs and organic vegetables are dropped off every ten days. We get it from Amish Farms in PA.

Whole foods and several of the other similar food stores now carry grass fed meat. At least two restaurants use it. "Elevation Burger" sells nothing but grass fed beef and Chipolet ( Mexican) says they use it as much as they can..

And if none of that is convenient enough for you, there are dozens of on-line vendors. Not only can you get grass feed beef but their is also grass fed Bison and Elk available..Click click click and it's at your door in a couple of days.  

Win win

Well it is moot for me personally since I don't live in the US.  Regardless you don't need to eat meat three times a day or even all that often to have a perfectly healthy diet. 

[Marc1152]

I would have said to them, eat all the pigs feet and collards and bacon and beef that you want. Eat until you are full, just put down the pies and canned fruit and no potatoes or bread..but dont worry about the fatty food. Eat all you want. Eat until you are full and when you get hungry eat again.

I think that would have given them a shot.  Bad science kills sometimes.

Certainly you'd agree there is a difference when crafting a plan to basically save a morbidly obese person and a healthy diet for a person of normal weight and in good health.  And not everybody can tolerate a lot of fat. 

I am not sure I understand your point.

What I am saying is that the food establishment/ Government advice to eat a low fat diet (as if it was healthy) had no possibility of being accepted by them. I think an Adkins type diet could have saved them.   What a shame.  It kinda bothered me

[Marc1152]

But at the end of the day you end up with close to the same recommendations. Avoid sugar and refined carbs. Avoid highly processed foods
( "Don't eat any food you see advertised") and get your carbs from vegetables.

Any diet that gets you to avoid sugar and highly processed foods will do you good, a lot of good. The next question is then what is optimal..

No.  There is a massive difference between gorging yourself on meat as part of a diet that is socially irresponsible were it to be practiced on a large scale and eating a healthy, balanced diet that is sustainable.  

Polyface farms has been called the most productive acres in all of the Shenandoah Valley . This grass based farm is five times more productive than any other farm in the area. He gives the numbers is part two.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHkIUcOB2vA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tKvkehHsOE&feature=relmfu  

Several more parts. Click on them if interested.

It's nice, but you aren't going to feed cities like New York or Shanghai with meat three times a day without a factory farm.  I haven't seen any sort of academic study that would back the claim that it is possible to feed seven billion people on the paleo-diet.  That being said, I respect the work of Polyface even if there are some things there that are far from traditional (Cornish cross chickens, really?!?).  

No one said to gorge yourself.. A bit a hype-boil on your part maybe? In fact, if you eat more fat in your diet you will become satieated much sooner and end up eating less.. That's a fact.  

I don't think they have factory farms in China btw.. Not just yet anyway.

You can say that to avoid factory farmed meat I will not eat much or any meat and be primarily vegetarian. That's fine in term of motivation. What is not so fine is that a vegetarian diet will leave you deficient in several key nutrients. And if you're a Women your kids will be smaller than need be with jacked up teeth. It is defiantly not the diet humans have evolved to eat.  

It's better is to get  meat and eggs and dairy that is grass fed. Build up those businesses and farms. I have no trouble at all finding it.
I belong to a buying club. Meat, eggs and organic vegetables are dropped off every ten days. We get it from Amish Farms in PA.

Whole foods and several of the other similar food stores now carry grass fed meat. At least two restaurants use it. "Elevation Burger" sells nothing but grass fed beef and Chipolet ( Mexican) says they use it as much as they can..

And if none of that is convenient enough for you, there are dozens of on-line vendors. Not only can you get grass feed beef but their is also grass fed Bison and Elk available..Click click click and it's at your door in a couple of days.  

Win win

Well it is moot for me personally since I don't live in the US.  Regardless you don't need to eat meat three times a day or even all that often to have a perfectly healthy diet. 

Agreed.The main point is the understanding of which foods are fattening.

[orthonorm]

No food in itself is fattening.

[Aindriú]

[Achronos]

I don't know why, but that pic reminds me of throwing some Spam on the skillet. Yum.

[ZealousZeal]

I have such a good tag for this thread, but it's too long.

[Marc1152]

Lard does not effect insulin. Therefore, it is not fattening. Plus the fat has good effects on brain function and other parts.

Butter is good too. Yummy

[Marc1152]

No food in itself is fattening.

Well Norm, you're wrong. Foods that drive insulin drive your body to hold fat.
Carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat. Easy Peezy

[orthonorm]

No food in itself is fattening.

Well Norm, you're wrong. Foods that drive insulin drive your body to hold fat.
Carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat. Easy Peezy

No I am not.

I'll gladly stay at any body weight / body comp you want (within reason) eating a diet laden with carbs of whatever source. In fact, if you were ever a real athlete, you would know this often necessary just to maintain a reasonable weight.

EDIT: I wish you were local and I could trust you, cause I would bet thousands on this.

[Marc1152]

No food in itself is fattening.

Well Norm, you're wrong. Foods that drive insulin drive your body to hold fat.
Carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat. Easy Peezy

No I am not.

I'll gladly stay at any body weight / body comp you want (within reason) eating a diet laden with carbs of whatever source. In fact, if you were ever a real athlete, you would know this often necessary just to maintain a reasonable weight.

EDIT: I wish you were local and I could trust you, cause I would bet thousands on this.

I don't really know what your point is.

Carbs are fattening. If you exercise like a madman you can blunt their effect. If a normally active person eats lots of carbs they risk becoming obese.

You claimed that no foods are fattening in and of themselves. That's not true. Carbs, fat and protein have different hormonal effects. The problem with weight gain is an hormonal imbalance primarily of insulin. Foods high in carbs are fattening because they  spike insulin and thereby cause your body to hold on to body fat. Carbs ( and also Fructose) are more fattening for people than Protein and Saturated fat in the diet. Your claim is false.

[JamesRottnek]

No food in itself is fattening.

Well Norm, you're wrong. Foods that drive insulin drive your body to hold fat.
Carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat. Easy Peezy

No I am not.

I'll gladly stay at any body weight / body comp you want (within reason) eating a diet laden with carbs of whatever source. In fact, if you were ever a real athlete, you would know this often necessary just to maintain a reasonable weight.

EDIT: I wish you were local and I could trust you, cause I would bet thousands on this.

I don't really know what your point is.

Carbs are fattening. If you exercise like a madman you can blunt their effect. If a normally active person eats lots of carbs they risk becoming obese.

You claimed that no foods are fattening in and of themselves. That's not true. Carbs, fat and protein have different hormonal effects. The problem with weight gain is an hormonal imbalance primarily of insulin. Foods high in carbs are fattening because they  spike insulin and thereby cause your body to hold on to body fat. Carbs ( and also Fructose) are more fattening for people than Protein and Saturated fat in the diet. Your claim is false.

Potatoes are carbs, right?  Then why did this man lose 21 pounds over 60 days eating nothing but potatoes: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40424707/ns/today-today_health/t/days-nothing-spuds-leaves-advocate-lbs-lighter/ ?

[Marc1152]

No food in itself is fattening.

Well Norm, you're wrong. Foods that drive insulin drive your body to hold fat.
Carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat. Easy Peezy

No I am not.

I'll gladly stay at any body weight / body comp you want (within reason) eating a diet laden with carbs of whatever source. In fact, if you were ever a real athlete, you would know this often necessary just to maintain a reasonable weight.

EDIT: I wish you were local and I could trust you, cause I would bet thousands on this.

I don't really know what your point is.

Carbs are fattening. If you exercise like a madman you can blunt their effect. If a normally active person eats lots of carbs they risk becoming obese.

You claimed that no foods are fattening in and of themselves. That's not true. Carbs, fat and protein have different hormonal effects. The problem with weight gain is an hormonal imbalance primarily of insulin. Foods high in carbs are fattening because they  spike insulin and thereby cause your body to hold on to body fat. Carbs ( and also Fructose) are more fattening for people than Protein and Saturated fat in the diet. Your claim is false.

Potatoes are carbs, right?  Then why did this man lose 21 pounds over 60 days eating nothing but potatoes: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40424707/ns/today-today_health/t/days-nothing-spuds-leaves-advocate-lbs-lighter/ ?

I saw that article some time ago.

He ate ten or so white potato's per day............... compared to what?

Before he went on the potato fast he was eating lots of sugar and soda and junk food by his own admission.

He actually improved his diet. He cut out sugar and all highly processed foods. The Potatoes ( with skin) added fiber that he didnt have before and probably cleared his colon out ( that alone can account for 20 lbs, gross as that is).

So he went from a horrible diet to a terrible diet. A net improvement and he lost weight. If he stayed on an all potato diet he would likely end up with both arthritis and diabetes. He also admitted that he couldn't stay on it much longer. That is because carbs drive your hunger way up. That is one of the important effects it has that leads to weight gain. He was able to resist this effect by force of will until he crossed the pre set finish line. If he had stayed on it he would have either been one miserably  hungry puppy or else he would have satiated that hunger and gained lots of weight.

Carbs are seen by your body as starvation food. They can keep you going for a short run during a famine or disaster. All he did was mimic a famine. Long term his increased insulin would have gotten to him.

      

[Sauron]

Carbs are seen by your body as starvation food. They can keep you going for a short run during a famine or disaster. All he did was mimic a famine. Long term his increased insulin would have gotten to him.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What on earth is a "starvation food"?

[JamesRottnek]

No food in itself is fattening.

Well Norm, you're wrong. Foods that drive insulin drive your body to hold fat.
Carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat. Easy Peezy

No I am not.

I'll gladly stay at any body weight / body comp you want (within reason) eating a diet laden with carbs of whatever source. In fact, if you were ever a real athlete, you would know this often necessary just to maintain a reasonable weight.

EDIT: I wish you were local and I could trust you, cause I would bet thousands on this.

I don't really know what your point is.

Carbs are fattening. If you exercise like a madman you can blunt their effect. If a normally active person eats lots of carbs they risk becoming obese.

You claimed that no foods are fattening in and of themselves. That's not true. Carbs, fat and protein have different hormonal effects. The problem with weight gain is an hormonal imbalance primarily of insulin. Foods high in carbs are fattening because they  spike insulin and thereby cause your body to hold on to body fat. Carbs ( and also Fructose) are more fattening for people than Protein and Saturated fat in the diet. Your claim is false.

Potatoes are carbs, right?  Then why did this man lose 21 pounds over 60 days eating nothing but potatoes: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40424707/ns/today-today_health/t/days-nothing-spuds-leaves-advocate-lbs-lighter/ ?

I saw that article some time ago.

He ate ten or so white potato's per day............... compared to what?

Before he went on the potato fast he was eating lots of sugar and soda and junk food by his own admission.

He actually improved his diet. He cut out sugar and all highly processed foods. The Potatoes ( with skin) added fiber that he didnt have before and probably cleared his colon out ( that alone can account for 20 lbs, gross as that is).

So he went from a horrible diet to a terrible diet. A net improvement and he lost weight. If he stayed on an all potato diet he would likely end up with both arthritis and diabetes. He also admitted that he couldn't stay on it much longer. That is because carbs drive your hunger way up. That is one of the important effects it has that leads to weight gain. He was able to resist this effect by force of will until he crossed the pre set finish line. If he had stayed on it he would have either been one miserably  hungry puppy or else he would have satiated that hunger and gained lots of weight.

Carbs are seen by your body as starvation food. They can keep you going for a short run during a famine or disaster. All he did was mimic a famine. Long term his increased insulin would have gotten to him.

      

This is foolishness.  During Lent, I was on a diet that was about 85% potato, and in no way was I hungrier than I am on my normal 50% (or more) meat diet.

[Νεκτάριος]

This is foolishness.  During Lent, I was on a diet that was about 85% potato, and in no way was I hungrier than I am on my normal 50% (or more) meat diet.

My guess is Marc is just repeating information from paleo websites that can't distinguish a twinkie from a potato. 

Everyone is different to some extent, so what works for one person isn't going to a panacea for all.  If you want a lenten meal with some serious staying power, a potato and some rye bread with some sauerkraut satisfies me for most of the day.  If it isn't Lent skip the sauerkraut and have a fresh cabbage salad dressed with olive oil and vinegar plus a potato with some olive oil.  If you want to add dairy throw in a glass of kefir.  And if you really want to celebrate throw  a couple of ounces of sardines, mackerel or herring on the slice of rye bread next to the potato.  The idea that one absolutely has to eat meat in order to have a full meal or feel satiated is just silly.

[Marc1152]

Carbs are seen by your body as starvation food. They can keep you going for a short run during a famine or disaster. All he did was mimic a famine. Long term his increased insulin would have gotten to him.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What on earth is a "starvation food"?

As you know carbohydrates are quickly converted by you system into sugar. Your body uses sugar for a quick boost of energy. Like in an emergency. Your body will burn sugar first to get this quick boost. It is a reserve fuel, not meant to be the main thing your body burns for everyday needs. If you try to use it as your everyday fuel, you may get sick and fat.

Furthermore, if you put an evolutionary template over the issue you will see that these foods could not have been a mainstay of a hunter gatherer diet as they leave you deficient in several key nutrients. The human race would have dead ended. Instead they were used secondarily, to supplement the protein from meat and eggs or during times when perhaps the game heards had moved on and people had to make do with only what they could gather...

In a natural hunter gatherer setting which constitutes the greatest span of time (by far) that humans have been around, these foods (starches in this case) were supplements, used in emergencies and during times of scarcity. It's best not to use them as your main source of food during times when you have better choices.   

[Marc1152]

This is foolishness.  During Lent, I was on a diet that was about 85% potato, and in no way was I hungrier than I am on my normal 50% (or more) meat diet.

My guess is Marc is just repeating information from paleo websites that can't distinguish a twinkie from a potato. 

Everyone is different to some extent, so what works for one person isn't going to a panacea for all.  If you want a lenten meal with some serious staying power, a potato and some rye bread with some sauerkraut satisfies me for most of the day.  If it isn't Lent skip the sauerkraut and have a fresh cabbage salad dressed with olive oil and vinegar plus a potato with some olive oil.  If you want to add dairy throw in a glass of kefir.  And if you really want to celebrate throw  a couple of ounces of sardines, mackerel or herring on the slice of rye bread next to the potato.  The idea that one absolutely has to eat meat in order to have a full meal or feel satiated is just silly.

My guess is Marc is just repeating information from paleo websites that can't distinguish a twinkie from a potato.


And now we start the ad hominem attack chapter of the thread...

Twinkies have no fiber, They hit your system harder. They are a direct sugar hit and will spike your insulin.

Potato's have fiber and are not as hard a hit. Potato's are converted by your system into sugar but it takes longer because the fiber slows down the process. Both spike your insulin. 

[Marc1152]

No food in itself is fattening.

Well Norm, you're wrong. Foods that drive insulin drive your body to hold fat.
Carbs drive insulin, insulin drives fat. Easy Peezy

No I am not.

I'll gladly stay at any body weight / body comp you want (within reason) eating a diet laden with carbs of whatever source. In fact, if you were ever a real athlete, you would know this often necessary just to maintain a reasonable weight.

EDIT: I wish you were local and I could trust you, cause I would bet thousands on this.

I don't really know what your point is.

Carbs are fattening. If you exercise like a madman you can blunt their effect. If a normally active person eats lots of carbs they risk becoming obese.

You claimed that no foods are fattening in and of themselves. That's not true. Carbs, fat and protein have different hormonal effects. The problem with weight gain is an hormonal imbalance primarily of insulin. Foods high in carbs are fattening because they  spike insulin and thereby cause your body to hold on to body fat. Carbs ( and also Fructose) are more fattening for people than Protein and Saturated fat in the diet. Your claim is false.

Potatoes are carbs, right?  Then why did this man lose 21 pounds over 60 days eating nothing but potatoes: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/40424707/ns/today-today_health/t/days-nothing-spuds-leaves-advocate-lbs-lighter/ ?

I saw that article some time ago.

He ate ten or so white potato's per day............... compared to what?

Before he went on the potato fast he was eating lots of sugar and soda and junk food by his own admission.

He actually improved his diet. He cut out sugar and all highly processed foods. The Potatoes ( with skin) added fiber that he didnt have before and probably cleared his colon out ( that alone can account for 20 lbs, gross as that is).

So he went from a horrible diet to a terrible diet. A net improvement and he lost weight. If he stayed on an all potato diet he would likely end up with both arthritis and diabetes. He also admitted that he couldn't stay on it much longer. That is because carbs drive your hunger way up. That is one of the important effects it has that leads to weight gain. He was able to resist this effect by force of will until he crossed the pre set finish line. If he had stayed on it he would have either been one miserably  hungry puppy or else he would have satiated that hunger and gained lots of weight.

Carbs are seen by your body as starvation food. They can keep you going for a short run during a famine or disaster. All he did was mimic a famine. Long term his increased insulin would have gotten to him.

      

This is foolishness.  During Lent, I was on a diet that was about 85% potato, and in no way was I hungrier than I am on my normal 50% (or more) meat diet.

Good for you. everyone is different. We all have different capacities for handling insults to the system.

But back to the question at hand, try eating 10 or 12 potato's with skin everyday after a lifetime of eating processed foods and your will crap out your lungs if you're not careful. Potato's also are high in vitamin C which also aides in evacuation. The colon flush that guy probably experienced easily accounts for the 21 lbs he lost. He may have even gained fat. 
Nice work...Don't try it

[Sauron]

As you know carbohydrates are quickly converted by you system into sugar. Your body uses sugar for a quick boost of energy. Like in an emergency. Your body will burn sugar first to get this quick boost. It is a reserve fuel, not meant to be the main thing your body burns for everyday needs. If you try to use it as your everyday fuel, you may get sick and fat.

This sort of statement does not even make sense to me because sugars are carbohydrates.

So according to you, carbohydrates are reserve fuel? Care to explain, then, why our bodies store energy as adipose tissue rather than sugar cubes?

Furthermore, if you put an evolutionary template over the issue you will see that these foods could not have been a mainstay of a hunter gatherer diet as they leave you deficient in several key nutrients. The human race would have dead ended. Instead they were used secondarily, to supplement the protein from meat and eggs or during times when perhaps the game heards had moved on and people had to make do with only what they could gather...

Well, you don't understand evolution, but let's pretend your ideas are reality. If the human body doesn't know what to do with carbohydrates, how could it be "starvation food"? I still don't know what that term means.

In a natural hunter gatherer setting which constitutes the greatest span of time (by far) that humans have been around, these foods (starches in this case) were supplements, used in emergencies and during times of scarcity. It's best not to use them as your main source of food during times when you have better choices.   

You still haven't explained what "starvation food" is supposed to mean.

The man in the 60-day potato experiment ate 20 potatoes a day. The reason he did this was because that is the amount of potatoes that would provide 2200 calories per day, the energy intake needed to maintain his weight. According to the paleo people such as you, over 2000 calories a day of potatoes should have made him fat, but instead he lost 21 pounds at the rate of just over 2.5 lbs per week. Do you have an explanation?

[ZealousZeal]

Carbs are seen by your body as starvation food. They can keep you going for a short run during a famine or disaster. All he did was mimic a famine. Long term his increased insulin would have gotten to him.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. What on earth is a "starvation food"?

As you know carbohydrates are quickly converted by you system into sugar. Your body uses sugar for a quick boost of energy. Like in an emergency. Your body will burn sugar first to get this quick boost. It is a reserve fuel, not meant to be the main thing your body burns for everyday needs. If you try to use it as your everyday fuel, you may get sick and fat.

No. Just, no. Carbs are not an "emergency" fuel. It absolutely is the main source of energy (adenosine triphosphate) for your body. And ATP does a lot more than you think. You can make energy from non-carb sources (see gluconeogenesis), but that is not as efficient, and is your body's plan B.

[Aindriú]

lol

[Sauron]

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

[ZealousZeal]

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

LOL.

Worth taking the time to Google translate.

[Sauron]

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

LOL.

Worth taking the time to Google translate.

I unfortunately was not able to find the standard Arabic transliteration for the names, so I just took my best shot.

[Asteriktos]

The colon flush that guy probably experienced easily accounts for the 21 lbs he lost.

Darn. ZealousZeal already said "No. Just No." (or close) fairly recently.  What then can I say?

[Aindriú]

The colon flush that guy probably experienced easily accounts for the 21 lbs he lost.

Darn. ZealousZeal already said "No. Just No." (or close) fairly recently.  What then can I say?

I like pictures. Unfortunately, my favorite ones have some language, and would probably just be removed.

[PeterTheAleut]

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

MODERATOR REQUEST: Would you translate this to English, please? Thank you.

[JamesRottnek]

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

Epic

[Achronos]

لا إله إلا اطكنس طبس رسول اطكنس

ROFL

[Νεκτάριος]

This is foolishness.  During Lent, I was on a diet that was about 85% potato, and in no way was I hungrier than I am on my normal 50% (or more) meat diet.

My guess is Marc is just repeating information from paleo websites that can't distinguish a twinkie from a potato. 

Everyone is different to some extent, so what works for one person isn't going to a panacea for all.  If you want a lenten meal with some serious staying power, a potato and some rye bread with some sauerkraut satisfies me for most of the day.  If it isn't Lent skip the sauerkraut and have a fresh cabbage salad dressed with olive oil and vinegar plus a potato with some olive oil.  If you want to add dairy throw in a glass of kefir.  And if you really want to celebrate throw  a couple of ounces of sardines, mackerel or herring on the slice of rye bread next to the potato.  The idea that one absolutely has to eat meat in order to have a full meal or feel satiated is just silly.

My guess is Marc is just repeating information from paleo websites that can't distinguish a twinkie from a potato.


And now we start the ad hominem attack chapter of the thread...

Twinkies have no fiber, They hit your system harder. They are a direct sugar hit and will spike your insulin.

Potato's have fiber and are not as hard a hit. Potato's are converted by your system into sugar but it takes longer because the fiber slows down the process. Both spike your insulin. 

It is not an ad hominem to point out that your posts present little original thought and more or less look like recycled information from paleo-blogs.  And the fact that you responded that the fiber content is essentially the difference between a potato and a twinkie is my point.  Twinkies don't form a part of any healthy traditional diet.  Whereas potatoes (and other taboo foods on the paleo list) are a huge part of many traditional diets of healthy populations.  That's why I reject the simplistic reasoning of a lot of online paleo-supporters: the claims to exclusivity don't stack up to observed date.  Other issues such as quantity control are very important but overlooked in most of paleo-literature out there. 

[Adela]

This is foolishness.  During Lent, I was on a diet that was about 85% potato, and in no way was I hungrier than I am on my normal 50% (or more) meat diet.

My guess is Marc is just repeating information from paleo websites that can't distinguish a twinkie from a potato. 

Everyone is different to some extent, so what works for one person isn't going to a panacea for all.  If you want a lenten meal with some serious staying power, a potato and some rye bread with some sauerkraut satisfies me for most of the day.  If it isn't Lent skip the sauerkraut and have a fresh cabbage salad dressed with olive oil and vinegar plus a potato with some olive oil.  If you want to add dairy throw in a glass of kefir.  And if you really want to celebrate throw  a couple of ounces of sardines, mackerel or herring on the slice of rye bread next to the potato.  The idea that one absolutely has to eat meat in order to have a full meal or feel satiated is just silly.

My guess is Marc is just repeating information from paleo websites that can't distinguish a twinkie from a potato.


And now we start the ad hominem attack chapter of the thread...

Twinkies have no fiber, They hit your system harder. They are a direct sugar hit and will spike your insulin.

Potato's have fiber and are not as hard a hit. Potato's are converted by your system into sugar but it takes longer because the fiber slows down the process. Both spike your insulin. 

It is not an ad hominem to point out that your posts present little original thought and more or less look like recycled information from paleo-blogs.  And the fact that you responded that the fiber content is essentially the difference between a potato and a twinkie is my point.  Twinkies don't form a part of any healthy traditional diet.  Whereas potatoes (and other taboo foods on the paleo list) are a huge part of many traditional diets of healthy populations.  That's why I reject the simplistic reasoning of a lot of online paleo-supporters: the claims to exclusivity don't stack up to observed date.  Other issues such as quantity control are very important but overlooked in most of paleo-literature out there. 

Recently some reports have come out that humans fall into 3 enterotypes, which are defined by the predominant bacteria in your intestines.  This seems to be based on diet and probably explains why some people feel better with a vegetarian diet and others need to eat more of a meat-based diet.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/your-gut-bacteria-are-what-you-e.html

There just doesn't seem to be one magic diet that will cure everyone of everything. 

[Νεκτάριος]

Recently some reports have come out that humans fall into 3 enterotypes, which are defined by the predominant bacteria in your intestines.  This seems to be based on diet and probably explains why some people feel better with a vegetarian diet and others need to eat more of a meat-based diet.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/your-gut-bacteria-are-what-you-e.html

There just doesn't seem to be one magic diet that will cure everyone of everything. 

Fascinating!  Thanks for the link and information.   

[Marc1152]

As you know carbohydrates are quickly converted by you system into sugar. Your body uses sugar for a quick boost of energy. Like in an emergency. Your body will burn sugar first to get this quick boost. It is a reserve fuel, not meant to be the main thing your body burns for everyday needs. If you try to use it as your everyday fuel, you may get sick and fat.

This sort of statement does not even make sense to me because sugars are carbohydrates.

So according to you, carbohydrates are reserve fuel? Care to explain, then, why our bodies store energy as adipose tissue rather than sugar cubes?

Furthermore, if you put an evolutionary template over the issue you will see that these foods could not have been a mainstay of a hunter gatherer diet as they leave you deficient in several key nutrients. The human race would have dead ended. Instead they were used secondarily, to supplement the protein from meat and eggs or during times when perhaps the game heards had moved on and people had to make do with only what they could gather...

Well, you don't understand evolution, but let's pretend your ideas are reality. If the human body doesn't know what to do with carbohydrates, how could it be "starvation food"? I still don't know what that term means.

In a natural hunter gatherer setting which constitutes the greatest span of time (by far) that humans have been around, these foods (starches in this case) were supplements, used in emergencies and during times of scarcity. It's best not to use them as your main source of food during times when you have better choices.   

You still haven't explained what "starvation food" is supposed to mean.

The man in the 60-day potato experiment ate 20 potatoes a day. The reason he did this was because that is the amount of potatoes that would provide 2200 calories per day, the energy intake needed to maintain his weight. According to the paleo people such as you, over 2000 calories a day of potatoes should have made him fat, but instead he lost 21 pounds at the rate of just over 2.5 lbs per week. Do you have an explanation?

I am not sure how I could have been clearer. I'll go slower

Carbs are converted by your system into a simple sugar.

That is the only way your body can use it

Sugar in energy dense


Your body uses it for quick energy

When you use if as your main source of energy ( as apposed to fat) you risk getting diabetes and becoming obese.

No hunter gatherer community has ever been found that was vegetarian

These foods were supplemental

Or used in emergencies such as in times of scarcity

Let me go even slower for you:

Carbs = sugar = Bad for you if you eat too much

[orthonorm]

Recently some reports have come out that humans fall into 3 enterotypes, which are defined by the predominant bacteria in your intestines.  This seems to be based on diet and probably explains why some people feel better with a vegetarian diet and others need to eat more of a meat-based diet.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/your-gut-bacteria-are-what-you-e.html

There just doesn't seem to be one magic diet that will cure everyone of everything. 

Fascinating!  Thanks for the link and information.   

Gut bacteria, the new organ. A MD PhD I knew was into gut bacteria transplanting.

I'll follow later with some thoughts on IFing, been pretty "busy" lately.

[Marc1152]

Recently some reports have come out that humans fall into 3 enterotypes, which are defined by the predominant bacteria in your intestines.  This seems to be based on diet and probably explains why some people feel better with a vegetarian diet and others need to eat more of a meat-based diet.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/your-gut-bacteria-are-what-you-e.html

There just doesn't seem to be one magic diet that will cure everyone of everything. 

Fascinating!  Thanks for the link and information.   

Gut bacteria, the new organ. A MD PhD I knew was into gut bacteria transplanting.

I'll follow later with some thoughts on IFing, been pretty "busy" lately.

Why is my name in your tag line?

[orthonorm]

Recently some reports have come out that humans fall into 3 enterotypes, which are defined by the predominant bacteria in your intestines.  This seems to be based on diet and probably explains why some people feel better with a vegetarian diet and others need to eat more of a meat-based diet.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/your-gut-bacteria-are-what-you-e.html

There just doesn't seem to be one magic diet that will cure everyone of everything. 

Fascinating!  Thanks for the link and information.   

Gut bacteria, the new organ. A MD PhD I knew was into gut bacteria transplanting.

I'll follow later with some thoughts on IFing, been pretty "busy" lately.

Why is my name in your tag line?

What are you talking about?

[Asteriktos]

This sums up my views on food and nutrition, and I'd have to say Pollan has influenced my eating habits more than any other food writer.  Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Sauron's posting about intermittent fasting has piqued my curiosity.  I found this link about it.  Has anyone else done anything like this?  As far as I understand it, this is what the a regular Wed / Fri fast actually ought to look like if one is concerned about such matters.  

If you read his stuff carefully you will see a big overlap of agreement between him and Taubes and the others.

For example, he says, "Don't eat anything you see advertised". That's a great rule of thumb

He blames carbs for the increase of obesity

He understands that saturated fat does not make you fat nor does it promote hear disease.

He is grossed out by the Beef industry, as we all should be and the lack of quality  in factory raised beef.

Therefore, he recommends a plant based diet, plants as your main dish, locally grown if possible.

However, he has said good things about places like Polyface Farms that produce grass fed beef, chicken and eggs. Factory raised beef is inefficient and environmentally bad which is a big part of his objection. Grass based farms that raise beef are environmentally sound.

He understands that grass fed beef is good for you but doesn't seem to think it is available to a large enough extent, hence the advice to eat plants mainly, avoid sugar and refined carbs and all highly processed food. He wants you to avoid factory raised meat.

Slight differences.. all these people seem to be reaching similar conclusions.  

I decided to go back and read the article. Pollan says very little that supports the Paleo diet--in fact, he says quite a lot against it, albeit without actually naming it. The basic jist of the article was to eat in moderation, don't eat too much meat, to eat mostly plants (and btw, the plant category includes whole grains), and to avoid information/nutritionism that tries to demonize a particular macronutrient.

[Marc1152]

Recently some reports have come out that humans fall into 3 enterotypes, which are defined by the predominant bacteria in your intestines.  This seems to be based on diet and probably explains why some people feel better with a vegetarian diet and others need to eat more of a meat-based diet.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/09/your-gut-bacteria-are-what-you-e.html

There just doesn't seem to be one magic diet that will cure everyone of everything. 

Fascinating!  Thanks for the link and information.   

Gut bacteria, the new organ. A MD PhD I knew was into gut bacteria transplanting.

I'll follow later with some thoughts on IFing, been pretty "busy" lately.

Why is my name in your tag line?

What are you talking about?

Your tag line has the name Marc and asks if I made the statement.. Please consider removing it.

Thanks

[Marc1152]

This sums up my views on food and nutrition, and I'd have to say Pollan has influenced my eating habits more than any other food writer.  Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Sauron's posting about intermittent fasting has piqued my curiosity.  I found this link about it.  Has anyone else done anything like this?  As far as I understand it, this is what the a regular Wed / Fri fast actually ought to look like if one is concerned about such matters.  

If you read his stuff carefully you will see a big overlap of agreement between him and Taubes and the others.

For example, he says, "Don't eat anything you see advertised". That's a great rule of thumb

He blames carbs for the increase of obesity

He understands that saturated fat does not make you fat nor does it promote hear disease.

He is grossed out by the Beef industry, as we all should be and the lack of quality  in factory raised beef.

Therefore, he recommends a plant based diet, plants as your main dish, locally grown if possible.

However, he has said good things about places like Polyface Farms that produce grass fed beef, chicken and eggs. Factory raised beef is inefficient and environmentally bad which is a big part of his objection. Grass based farms that raise beef are environmentally sound.

He understands that grass fed beef is good for you but doesn't seem to think it is available to a large enough extent, hence the advice to eat plants mainly, avoid sugar and refined carbs and all highly processed food. He wants you to avoid factory raised meat.

Slight differences.. all these people seem to be reaching similar conclusions.  

I decided to go back and read the article. Pollan says very little that supports the Paleo diet--in fact, he says quite a lot against it, albeit without actually naming it. The basic jist of the article was to eat in moderation, don't eat too much meat, to eat mostly plants (and btw, the plant category includes whole grains), and to avoid information/nutritionism that tries to demonize a particular macronutrient.

I am not sure that I am specifically using  and The Paleo-Diet as my standard measure. I think there are several alternative theories that overlap, each has a few things for and against it. The Paleo-Diet, Weston Price, Gary Taubes, Blue Zone, Zone Diet, Gary Taubes and Robert Lustig
 ( "Sugar, the Bitter Truth"). Michael Polan easily fits on to that list.

For example, I think Dr. Lustig's theory about Sugar is very logical and the evidence is compelling. I am not sure he is on the Paleo Diet or the Weston Price Diet or if there is something about them he doesnt like. But his central theory is exactly in concert with their central theories.

I saw a you tube where Lustig criticizes Taubes that he did not put enough emphasis on the detrimental role of Fructose during his lecture ( Dr. Lustig was apparently in the audience). Taube back tracked and agreed with Lustig about Fructose and it's dangers.Taubes emphasizes Carbs in general. Lustig emphasizes Sugar.......... Over lap.

Polan is definitely on the side of alternative food and finding a healthy diet free from factory farmed food. He makes his environmental concerns central. Other people have other idea's about that such as in the Polyface Farm video I posted. They are all fundamentally on the same side..

You should hear the Weston Price people fight with the Paleo Diet people.. But to you their differences would appear inconsequential I bet.  

These people actually squabble amongst themselves quite a bit.  But that is inside baseball differences, not whole sale disagreement from what I can see.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Nutrition and Diet