Fat is good, whole grains are bad.
Discussion
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/P...
Study of 18 countries over 5 continents, 135,335 participants over 10 years...
Short version of results:
- High carb intake = high mortality
- High fat intake = low mortality
- Fat intake is not associated with cardiovascular disease or heart attacks
- The more saturated fats you eat, the lower your chance of stroke
Thought this may be of interest to some
Study of 18 countries over 5 continents, 135,335 participants over 10 years...
Short version of results:
- High carb intake = high mortality
- High fat intake = low mortality
- Fat intake is not associated with cardiovascular disease or heart attacks
- The more saturated fats you eat, the lower your chance of stroke
Thought this may be of interest to some
How we have spent sixty years advising people to eat low fat deserves an inquiry. The epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and probably Alzheimer's and some cancers can be laid at the feet of the people pushing it. Somehow Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study was "chosen" despite all other evidence, including blindingly obvious examples like Eskimo tribes eating nothing but blubber for half the year and yet being perfectly healthy and long lived.
When I was looking at keto diets I read quite a bit about the amount of lobbying which took place in the 50's/60's in the US which enabled the health benefits of fatty diets to be suppressed. Shocking that it's taken decades and probably millions of deaths worldwide for the truth to come out.
grumbledoak said:
How we have spent sixty years advising people to eat low fat deserves an inquiry. The epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and probably Alzheimer's and some cancers can be laid at the feet of the people pushing it. Somehow Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study was "chosen" despite all other evidence, including blindingly obvious examples like Eskimo tribes eating nothing but blubber for half the year and yet being perfectly healthy and long lived.
I've very little knowledge of the subject, but aren't there other dependencies, such as lifestyle and location? How would your typical sedentary office worker in the UK fare on a blubber based diet?peter tdci said:
I've very little knowledge of the subject, but aren't there other dependencies, such as lifestyle and location? How would your typical sedentary office worker in the UK fare on a blubber based diet?
Only office, if they adopted a blubber based diet we'd at least have a use for the receptionist at last..peter tdci said:
I've very little knowledge of the subject, but aren't there other dependencies, such as lifestyle and location? How would your typical sedentary office worker in the UK fare on a blubber based diet?
Why would they fare differently? I don't see any reason why they would. Experiments support my view.https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/wonders-of-the-k...
Lifestyle is muddying the waters - smoking kills most smokers, and drinking is a high carb hobby.
But how do you think location changes things? You don't digest your food any different in Madrid than in Penge.
peter tdci said:
How would your typical sedentary office worker in the UK fare on a blubber based diet?
They'd fare very well. As their calorific needs are lower than an Eskimo, they would get hungry less often and eat less calories. Without quick-burning carbs causing cravings, they'd only eat what they needed.Carbs cause inflammation, so without them their joints and heart would benefit.
grumbledoak said:
Why would they fare differently? I don't see any reason why they would. Experiments support my view.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/wonders-of-the-k...
Lifestyle is muddying the waters - smoking kills most smokers, and drinking is a high carb hobby.
But how do you think location changes things? You don't digest your food any different in Madrid than in Penge.
Well, I did say that I had little knowledge about the subject! I thought that living in a very cold place (the Arctic) and having a very physically active lifestyle might have an effect.https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/wonders-of-the-k...
Lifestyle is muddying the waters - smoking kills most smokers, and drinking is a high carb hobby.
But how do you think location changes things? You don't digest your food any different in Madrid than in Penge.
The article doesn't surprise me at all, nor does the 'agenda pushing' from the food manufacturers telling us what we should and shouldn't eat.
A good few years ago I ballooned to nearly 18st and decided to go on an Atkins-style diet in attempt to shed some of it. Most of my friends and family told me that I would be dead within months from clogged arteries and/or a heart attack purely based on what they'd heard and read in the news (of course).
Once past the induction stage I found sticking to the diet a piece of piss and it's absolutely right what people say about rarely feeling hungry. The high protein in the meat keeps your hunger at bay and quite often I'd find that I hadn't eaten anything for 24 hrs. Sounds bonkers and not healthy in the slightest but the truth is that in the 12 months that I did it for I hadn't felt better since I was a nipper. Every day I used to look forward to getting up early and WANT to do stuff because I felt great and was full of energy. In contrast when I was eating a 'normal' carb rich diet I always felt rather lethargic and tired a lot of the time, not really in a mood to want to do anything and always seemed to be aching.
I lost nearly 6st over a year and contrary to what I'd been told would happen, I was not a wheezing wreck only minutes from my death bed. In fact to satisfy my own curiosity and shut up my friends and family going on about it I booked myself a well overdue check-up at my surgery. Unsurprisingly all tests came back absolutely fine and I was told I was in good health.
I'm certainly no expert in matters to do with nutrition but based on the findings in the Inuit article linked above and my own anecdotal evidence, I think the human body is extremely adaptive to different diets and can function perfectly fine on most things you throw at it. Eating a high protein, high fat diet of primarily meats, fish, eggs and cheese has certainly not caused me any ill-effects anyway - if anything it feels like my health has actually improved significantly.
YMMV etc.
A good few years ago I ballooned to nearly 18st and decided to go on an Atkins-style diet in attempt to shed some of it. Most of my friends and family told me that I would be dead within months from clogged arteries and/or a heart attack purely based on what they'd heard and read in the news (of course).
Once past the induction stage I found sticking to the diet a piece of piss and it's absolutely right what people say about rarely feeling hungry. The high protein in the meat keeps your hunger at bay and quite often I'd find that I hadn't eaten anything for 24 hrs. Sounds bonkers and not healthy in the slightest but the truth is that in the 12 months that I did it for I hadn't felt better since I was a nipper. Every day I used to look forward to getting up early and WANT to do stuff because I felt great and was full of energy. In contrast when I was eating a 'normal' carb rich diet I always felt rather lethargic and tired a lot of the time, not really in a mood to want to do anything and always seemed to be aching.
I lost nearly 6st over a year and contrary to what I'd been told would happen, I was not a wheezing wreck only minutes from my death bed. In fact to satisfy my own curiosity and shut up my friends and family going on about it I booked myself a well overdue check-up at my surgery. Unsurprisingly all tests came back absolutely fine and I was told I was in good health.
I'm certainly no expert in matters to do with nutrition but based on the findings in the Inuit article linked above and my own anecdotal evidence, I think the human body is extremely adaptive to different diets and can function perfectly fine on most things you throw at it. Eating a high protein, high fat diet of primarily meats, fish, eggs and cheese has certainly not caused me any ill-effects anyway - if anything it feels like my health has actually improved significantly.
YMMV etc.
Edited by Ted2 on Tuesday 7th November 21:37
Kawasicki said:
Scientific consensus is worthless
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
― Michael Crichton
Some Gump said:
Kawasicki said:
Scientific consensus is worthless
This might be why you're sicki!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
admittedly without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up my view is we've evolved over millions of years to be omnivores -opportunists who eat whatever comes to hand -meat, fish, grains, fruit -whatever happens to be available. That adaptability is why we're so successful as a species. Its only if you eat silly amounts of anything (too much OR too little) that you have problems. As the saying goes "a little of what you fancy does you good".
monoloco said:
admittedly without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up my view is we've evolved over millions of years to be omnivores -opportunists who eat whatever comes to hand -meat, fish, grains, fruit -whatever happens to be available. That adaptability is why we're so successful as a species. Its only if you eat silly amounts of anything (too much OR too little) that you have problems. As the saying goes "a little of what you fancy does you good".
Close, but no cigar. Humans are hardly the only omnivores and others are able to thrive on a wider variety of food than us.For as long as we were "pure" omnivores, hunting and gathering whatever came to hand, there was a limit to how far we could expand. Tribes would grow to a sustainable size and stop there as there wasn't enough food to sustain an excess of new babies.
When we settled down and grew wheat - our health suffered, immunity to disease and natural disaster suffered, we had to work far longer hours and put more effort into gathering food than ever before, etc. But growing food meant we were able to have surpluses for the first time - this resulted in a population explosion that is still going on today.
Farming is a very recent invention in the scale of things.
Long before humans started settling down, before even leaving Africa, gathering and hunting was how 'we' survived and sometimes thrived. Mainly starches from tubers, fruit and berries with nuts and seeds. Hunting was a relatively rare treat as it was so time and labour intensive compared to digging up roots and picking fruit - fishing less so, if available.
As our ancestors made their way out of Africa and further North and East their diets had to adapt to what was available, to the extremes of the Eskimos surviving on a fat rich diet and the far East consuming little more than boiled rice. We can survive on most anything.
Pretty much all successful, long term populations ate primarily starch based diets; Asia - rice, South America - potatoes, Central America - corn, Europe - wheat, etc. Most of these also consumed beans, millet, barley, legumes, sweet potatoes and other starchy 'carbs'. Animal products including fish were rare treats, or reserved for the wealthy.
The reason why many find it easy to overeat today is that even those who consider themselves eating healthful, fresh products, a third to half their plate is filled with meat, poultry, fish, eggs and/or dairy combined with added fat - all calorie dense and nutrient poor. That, and processed industrialized foods packed with fat and highly processed grains, sugar and oil.
Vegans are funny though - they have the right idea to minimize animal products, but then consider absolutely anything okay, so long as no animals are involved - so a diet of chips, crisps and Oreos washed down with full-fat/diet coke is fine!
Long before humans started settling down, before even leaving Africa, gathering and hunting was how 'we' survived and sometimes thrived. Mainly starches from tubers, fruit and berries with nuts and seeds. Hunting was a relatively rare treat as it was so time and labour intensive compared to digging up roots and picking fruit - fishing less so, if available.
As our ancestors made their way out of Africa and further North and East their diets had to adapt to what was available, to the extremes of the Eskimos surviving on a fat rich diet and the far East consuming little more than boiled rice. We can survive on most anything.
Pretty much all successful, long term populations ate primarily starch based diets; Asia - rice, South America - potatoes, Central America - corn, Europe - wheat, etc. Most of these also consumed beans, millet, barley, legumes, sweet potatoes and other starchy 'carbs'. Animal products including fish were rare treats, or reserved for the wealthy.
The reason why many find it easy to overeat today is that even those who consider themselves eating healthful, fresh products, a third to half their plate is filled with meat, poultry, fish, eggs and/or dairy combined with added fat - all calorie dense and nutrient poor. That, and processed industrialized foods packed with fat and highly processed grains, sugar and oil.
Vegans are funny though - they have the right idea to minimize animal products, but then consider absolutely anything okay, so long as no animals are involved - so a diet of chips, crisps and Oreos washed down with full-fat/diet coke is fine!
Gassing Station | Food, Drink & Restaurants | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff