Slashdot Mirror
You Are What You're Tricked Into Eating
Rambo Tribble (1273454) writes "Two prominent nutrition experts have put forth the theory that the current obesity epidemic is, in large part, the result of processed foods tricking our appetite control mechanisms. They argue that evolution has given humans a delicately balanced system that balances appetite with metabolic needs, and that processed foods trick that system by making foods high in fats and carbohydrates have the gustatory qualities of proteins. As the researchers put it, 'Many people eat far too much fat and carbohydrate in their attempt to consume enough protein.'"
It's sedentary living. You will never get millions to eat so little that they avoid obesity while watching screens 16 hours a day.
Imaging elaborate "processed" food conspiracies suits malcontents and justifies more laws and regulations so there we go.......
"Enough protein" is a difficult concept. There is no recommended daily intake for protein. In an experiment they put some male students on a very-low-protein diet and found no ill effects.
Our diet contains more meat than any other point in history, even before factoring in the abundance of nuts and beans.
While much fast or junk food is low in vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients, our protein intake is far from deficient.
Humans are anything but carefully balanced, besides. Living organisms are very adaptable and self-correcting - if they weren't, we'd all be long dead.
I know not all Anonymous Cowards love being plump but when I walk around in my Muumuus, I'm proud of my high energy demands and need for a Suburban SUV to transport me to my destinations, like the library across the street or the grocery mart two blocks away. I mean how else do I get around to acquire all my treats and other sugary food needs?
Exercise? I get that on the toilet each day, and I mean why else would I get off the couch? I have a Nintendo Wii but I haven't used it in a couple of years.
Also, I have a question for you smart computer folks, is there an internet site that will send me food? I keep hearing about Amazon's drones but I live in an urban area outside of those nice delivery services from Safeway... Purhaps, you could help me by searching google for me and give me good links?
Give the fatties something else to blame, god knows it's never their fault.
Yes, basically proteins have bee always of high nutritional value and not that easy to find, hence, accepted anytime its possible to get them, also right now we are used a much slower pace of life (physically speaking), which makes the body save reserves for the "bad days" that it was used to instead of only discard them.
sumary: its too much food to little activity, so to lose weight shut your mouth and walk more (im myself overweighted and have lost gained several pounds back and forth obesity, because my will power doesnt last too much but when i find it, it really works)
It would turn out that many people eat far too much protein in their attempt to consume "enough" protein. Meat consumption is far higher than healthy, leading to arthritis and circulatory system problems.
In general, people in the "civilized" countries eat far too much, period. While it's nice to blame food consistency for it, it's just lack of movement and overavailability of food that's totally suitable for explaining the balance between effort and intake to be so far off-whack that evolutionary grown organisms are not able to cope reasonably long-term. For now.
But that's where things are pointing right now. Would an attractive woman rather mate with a 250lb 6ft2 well-off millionaire with some height/weight induced back problems exacerbated by the office hours holding up his empire demands, or with a 90lb 5ft2 marathon runner from Kenia? I mean, the latter looks like a stick figure. A bit frail to feel well=protected when around. He's probably just going to run away when there is a problem rather than wheeze threateningly.
"Eat Food. Mainly Plants. Not too much"
catch (ModDownException mde) {post.modUp("Interesting")}
Atkins was right 40 years ago, and he is still right today. People get fat when they eat too much carbohydrate, which is what everyone's grandmother knew in the 50's and 60's. Is it just an amazing coincidence that the obesity epidemic got started at the same time US nutritional guidelines told everyone to stop eating fat? And now we serve lowfat milk in schools, but the kids don't want to drink it so we put strawberry flavored corn syrup in it, and Michelle Obama is worried that children are getting fatter.
The experiment you mention is irrelevant. The TFA does not discuss how much protein is good for your health. You can surely reduce your protein intake and have no ill effects, as long as your caloric intake/outake are balanced.
The TFA simply says that our bodies are tuned to crave for protein. Overprocessed foods have been tweaked to contain less protein because protein is expensive to produce.
So, if your diet consists of overprocessed foods, you need to consume a disproportionately large amount of calories to satisfy that craving. This led to an obesity epidemic.
That's it. Humans with exactly this strategy were most likely to survive the periods of hunger that were very much normal until a few decades ago.
Of course, this strategy fails completely if food is always available and hunger periods never occur. Constant availability of food is a relatively new phenomenon, too new for humans to have adapted to it.
Plants are an important part of a healthy diet, but they tend to lack in the protein and fat intake we need. Yes, we need fat to live. You can live without carbs for many months, but if you don't eat any fat, you're dead within three months. Even vitamins usually can be abstained from for longer periods of time without you dying. Carbs mess up our blood sugar and are proven to be one of the main contributors to the amount of diabetes type 2 we have today, as well as the enormous amount of obese people ( http://ds9a.nl/new-consensus/ ) . Carbs are addictive (they have bacteria in our guts produce "happy hormones") so even if you can afford to buy food that doesn't have carbs, you most likely don't want to, but you should seriously consider drastically reducing your intake in carbs. You can get your energy from fat and protein, no need for grain products at all.
New mantra: "Don't eat carbs, mainly fat, protein and plants". If you do it that way, the "not too much" will be easy.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
what about fruit and vegetable rights. you can just hear them scream as you rip the fruit from tree's. and the sound is soul-curdling as you put potatoes in boiling water.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
After going on a very low carb diet for a few months last year, I discovered that main-stream, "low fat" pushing dieticians really don't know shit about losing weight.
If you've tried all the traditional diets and they haven't worked for you I can highly recommend a ketogenic diet. By eating less than 100g of carbs per day your body will go into ketosis after a few days, and you'll be burning fat like nobodies business. You can eat as much fat as you want on ketosis, but you'll find you won't overeat because the fat in your diet satisfies your hunger. Once your body is using fat as it's energy source it can't store it at the same time. Drink lots of water and the fat will fall off.
The shelf life of grains and getting them into a product that is stable for a longer time is easier with grains than for high quality proteins too.
... food companies have scientists working 24/7 to hack human tastebuds for profit.
Much of this problem simply comes down to the fact that bad food is engineered to taste better than natural food we found in our environment over evolutionary history. The problem is our bodies aren't designed to deal with this new food environment and hence obesity. The environment that kids are raised in by clueless over stressed parents and shitty school environments doesn't help either.
Last but not least, human beings are not free. Probably one of the biggest myths that go along with the myth of responsibility.
Sam harris on free will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Also known as Banting.
The LCHF Paleo Primal Banting community, the people who have been reading Taubes' review of the literature going back pre-war, and so on, and who have tried this stuff for themselves, the basic insight is that it is the carbohydrates that are the problem.
The grain growers wanted to mass produce and sell the stuff, and some politicians liked a "heart healthy" message (despite scientists protesting that more research was needed before jumping to conclusions) and so the whole "heart healthy" movement was born, which emphasised high carb foods like cereals, by demonising fat.
Well after some decades, and people trying it for themselves, people are now realising that it was pretty much completely wrong. And manufacturers, because fatless food tastes of cardboard, knew they had to increase the sugar content to make up for the lack of taste. Low fat yoghurts loaded with sugar. Healthy smoothies, loaded with sugar.
The carbs create cravings, signal the body to store fat, and overwork your insulin production until it breaks.
But dietary fat? Good natural fats are good for you. They are good for the guts, the heart, and the brain. Well, you can read books and various docs on this, and try it for yourself. See if their claims seem to work out. It isn't a short term diet, it is a lifestyle.
what about fruit and vegetable rights. you can just hear them scream as you rip the fruit from tree's. and the sound is soul-curdling as you put potatoes in boiling water.
So reduce plant suffering by not post-processing them into meat before eating them. That way, only about a sixth of the plants die. You could feed six times the humans with the same amount of plants by cutting out the pig in the middle.
I agree, no one should claim that our diet is deficient in protein. But the idea that increasing the proportion of protein in our diet might help with appetite regulation does not sound outlandish.
This has been found out over and over again, but the food industry will always lobby against anything which would reduce their market. They even lobby against labels. In the EU, there was an initiative which wanted to color code the amount of fat, sugar, salt and other carbohydrates with (green = low, yellow = medium, and red = high) together with numerical values. It was stopped after massive lobbying. So now these labels are all white or black, require reading, and the values are distorted in different ways.
So this is an uphill battle. What helps, is buying at a local market instead of a supermarket. And do not watch TV adverts.
Scientists have addressed this problem years ago by developing plants with no vocal chords.
Purhaps, you could help me by searching google for me and give me good links?
You want me to Google for links?
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
well, the meat that has as much fat as possible
I don't think you understand what processed food is. It's not the same thing as food that's naturally high in fat.
That's basically the deal here: It's way cheaper to squeeze out kibble made of carbs and fat rather than creating something that contains protein. Protein can be found in animal based food (fish, meat, eggs, cheese) or a few vegetables (mainly certain nuts and pulse). And neither of them is easy or cheap to cultivate in large quantity.
It is, though, fairly cheap to produce fat, especially since we found out how to turn dirt cheap crap fat into shortening. And carbohydrates are a staple for pretty much any culture in existence anyway, and we managed to perfect its production.
Fat and carbs, carbs and fat. We excel at producing them and we can do it for cents per ton. Ain't that easy for protein. So processed food will contain as much fat and carbohydrates and as little protein as we can get away with.
But our bodies are not fooled that easily. They know what stuff should be in our diet, and if you don't eat what you're "supposed" to eat, you'll stay hungry. Now the vicious cycle starts because we're hungry, so we eat. The wrong crap again, so we stay hungry.
A solution is probably only possible if we simply forgo processed food and actually start cooking and eating sensibly again. But, and this is the next problem, can we still afford that? You, me, we probably can. We have money to "waste" on internet access, obviously. But how about people who're not as well off? Can they?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's fairly easy to say that, but it gets a bit more complicated when you look at it closely. Your argument follow the logic "if people don't want to be drug addicts, they just need to say no to them". Hey, I remember even that there has been a campaign for that!
And? How well did that work out for your country? You don't have any drug addicts anymore now that you've explained to your people that drugs are bad for them, right?
Of course, we're looking at a different underlying problem here but simply saying "it's their own fault if they're so dumb" is a bit easy and shows very little insight into the core of the problem.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem is that we metabolize bread just as fast as sucrose. Even Coca Cola gives less of a 'sugar rush' than bread (because Coke contains fructose).
So, if you are big, fat and lazy, just stop eating wheat, potatoes and rice products and you'll be pleasantly surprised at the result. This is otherwise known as the Caveman diet, Paleo diet, Atkins diet, High Protein diet, or any number of other names. It works and there is no need to buy and read a book about it, though it won't hurt if you do.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
This sounds like the protein leverage theory. While it's been known for a while that protein is more satiating than fat or carbohydrates, it's been hypothesized that diluted protein content drives greater total consumption. A reasonable idea, but there's not a lot of support for it. And, coincidentally, new research was just published that does not support the theory:
Protein leverage effects of beef protein on energy intake in humans
Higher protein diets reduced total calorie intake, but lower protein diets did not lead to higher intake.
I'm sure the leftists will have us proles all eating insects and vegetables eventually..at least until the aspca gets around to defending insect rights. Of course, the party elite will still be dining on the few cows and fish that are left..
Amusing. Trying to derail a thread about how capitalism is fucking up people's diets by blaming "leftists"?
The obvious solution is for OP to just stop eating. It can't be that hard, millions of people starve to death of their own free will every year.
... whatever
So when I eat a fatty steak, I enjoy it because it's processed food?
*I don't think you understand what processed food is. It's not the same thing as food that's naturally high in fat.*
and I'm saying that it being processed or not doesn't enter the equation. look man, you can say it all day that natural lard is like eco-mega-good for you but really it's not. and the lard eaters get fat the same as westerners. what I'm saying that special tricks are unnecessary. only thing you need for people to get fat is for them to have enough money to buy all the food they want - no need for evil food mega corps to do any tricks(except that that mega industry started the trick of selling healthier food, in a decades going ongoing process. people who aren't obese - and even most obese people in the west! - are healthier than ever - and they didn't die of malnutrion as a kid, like a staggering percentage of farm kids did before the evil food industry started putting additives in food...).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Your argument follow the logic "if people don't want to be drug addicts, they just need to say no to them". Hey, I remember even that there has been a campaign for that!
Yes, and that campaign was actually quite successful. It was not an overnight panacea, but drug use among teenagers dropped rather significantly over the course of that campaign. This despite the fact that it was routinely reviled in the press and by educators.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If you have calbe, you're wasting money that could be spent on food, and time that could be spent cooking. Yes, almost everyone has access to some reasonable cooking facilities. They might not be your giant 6 burner stove, but you can cook with a hotplate and a 1 mile walk to the grocery in any urban environment. Any.
I eat fast food regularly, I never eat whole wheat, I live at a desk. I'm 5'9", weight 145 pounds and can bench press 175, not great but acceptable. Maybe I have a better metabolism that most everyone else or I just eat when I need to and no more.
Processed foods, fat and carbs are bad for me? What a revelation!
....used to be made with paper and tobacco leaf. That's it. That is how it was grown and manufactured for hundreds of years.
Today's cigarette contains hundreds of ingredients. And they sure as hell weren't added as flavor enhancers.
Anyone "tricked" over the concept of addictive chemicals being added to fast food that make you want to crave more of their product is rather ignorant of the world we live in, and the greed and corruption that built it.
I was a vegan for four years subsisting on 70% carbohydrates and none of it was processed foods. I put on weight like a MOFO (to compensate I had to exercise 2 1/2 hour per day) to maintain weight good body weight. Turns out carbohydrates were the culprit.
Now eat a mostly fat based diet with low carbohydrates. I eat as much fat as possible. My weight is easy to maintain. In fact, I sometimes have to raise my carbohydrate intake just to make certain I don't lose too much weight. I still only eat whole foods and quality proteins.
Don't lump sugar and fats into the same category. High carbohydrates and fat will cause problems. High carbohydrates and protein cause problems. Meat that has as much fat as possible is not an issue. Protein and fat with low carbohydrates work just fine. Let your metabolism to enter low ketosis and fat will become your body's main energy source. The problem is refined sugars and high salt like bread. Most other processed foods are loaded with cheap, highly processed carbohydrates. You will get fat eating a diet composed of these ingredients. You do not get fat by eating fat. The opposite.
and they didn't die of malnutrion as a kid, like a staggering percentage of farm kids did before the evil food industry started putting additives in food
Agreed but let's not forget it was WW2 and parts of Europe such as Holland, France, and Italy were experiencing famines of varying degrees even after the war had ended.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ever cooked food before? Ever ground anything into a powder before doing something else to it before eating it? In either case, congratulations, it's processed. This also includes *any* kind of oil or milk alternative, which are very heavily processed extracts from different kinds of plants. *ANY* kind of soy that is actually edible is also heavily processed.
This whole article is bullshit. I first tried dieting by avoiding processed foods (namely, the kinds that tend to be higher in sodium, carbs, fats, etc) and it didn't work for shit. Know what did work? Just watching the caloric intake. Already lost 60 pounds over the last year, and it mainly just involved getting proper perspective on what an actual serving is. I still eat fast food, indeed all kinds of junk foods. I've also lowered my cholesterol and triglycerides in the process, while eating burgers, fries, and pizza no less. The trick is eating portion sizes that an actual human would eat instead of what a rhinoceros would eat.
A plain old hamburger at mcdonalds has about 360 calories. Contrary to popular belief, these hamburgers have been around since way before the obesity epidemic. Know what hasn't? Big triple stacked burgers globbed with mayo and ranch dressing. Another thing that hasn't is eating cereal in the large quantities most people do, which is actually primarily a result of the vegetarian movement (before that happened around the 60's, most people used to eat what we today call a "heavy" breakfast, e.g. eggs, bacon, which IS mostly protein and possibly small amounts of grits or toast.
Cereal (any variety) is mostly carbohydrates on the other hand and you also tend to crave higher amounts of calories worth of vegetarian breakfasts than you do traditional breakfasts; note how cereal bowls used to be tiny, and now they're about three times the size of what they started at mere decades ago.) The following is unscientific, but when I watch most people eat breakfast, I typically see most of them eat 750 calories in the cereal alone (that's typically 5 oz of cereal; it's uncommon to find cereals with less than 150 calories per 1 oz serving.) In fact to be honest, I'm pretty sure the whole vegetarian movement is bunk:
http://www.cholesterol-and-hea...
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Yes. If we have been tricked, it is that we think we need so much protein. Meat consumption in the rest of the world is a luxury, and if you look at the places that eat less meat, they have way less chronic metabolic diseases than we do. I'm not saying they have no disease, I'm saying they have less.
We have also been tricked into thinking that carbs are bad...when in fact, lots of places in the world eat carbs all their life and are still healthier than we are. The difference is that there carbs are way less processed.
We have been tricked into thinking that soy is good for us, when the way they eat soy in the rest of the world is way different than the highly processed soy crap that we eat here.
We have been tricked into thinking that milk is good for us, when in fact it is not (but may help if you have a really crappy diet).
Yes, we have been tricked, all right! If you want to live, take a world map and throw a dart at it. Anywhere it lands outside of the US, adopt their diet. You will live longer and healthier than we do here in the US.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
A lot of the pro-organic crowd doesn't seem to realize that the "evil megacorps" also provide what they buy as well, only they sell organic at a much higher profit margin. People who go out of their way to buy organic food are really quite uneducated and gullible, to be honest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Processed foods bad, only "natural" foods are good, blah, blah blah...
The food faddists need new scriptwriters.
Actual non-diet industry research using tests with mice has shown it is heavily processed foods with about equal amounts of sugars and fats that cause issues. You can live quite easily and not get huge on high fat foods that are not processed. You can also live on a high sugar diet on foods that are not processed. Though either one is not a good long term choice. Our bodies are designed to eat certain amounts of both.
Tests on rats shows they will nearly OD on something like cheese cake and yet high sugar foods are simply nibbled on and high fat foods are eaten in moderation.
So no. Eating 'lard' itself is not going to do you severe harm.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
You'd have six times the mass of food, but you're not going to be too healthy if all you eat is pig feed.
....but it's clear to me, having been born in 1967, that the 'obesity epidemic' largely coincided with the obsession to eliminate fat from our lives.
In particular, for Americans who eat a significant amount of meals outside the home, when restaurants were compelled (I don't know if it had the force of law, or just lots of government pressure) to abandon animal fats in cooking in favor of the hydrogenated vegetable oils. That's where I really personally remember thinking "wow, was everyone really this fat before?"
Personally, I try to eat a moderate amount of all sorts of 'unhealthy' foods according to the government - eggs, coffee, bacon, and use lard for cooking - and I personally don't have a weight problem. Coincidence or genetics could surely be the answer, of course; then again, it might not.
-Styopa
A study last year found that in many American counties, especially in the deep South, life expectancy is lower than in Algeria, Nicaragua or Bangladesh.
http://www.pophealthmetrics.co...
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
The obesity problem is best understood not as the result of the overconsumption of a single macronutrient, but from a skewing of the proportion of each macronutrient in our diet - notably the dwindling quantity of protein in processed food products. The paucity of protein relative to fats and carbohydrates in processed foods drives the overconsumption of total energy as our bodies seek to maintain a target level of protein intake.
Reminds me of' Sable / Famine's pre-apocalyptic fast food business in 'Good Omens':
"Two years of Newtrition investment and research had produced CHOW(TM). CHOW(TM) contained spun, plaited, and woven protein molecules, capped and coded, carefully designed to be ignored by even the most ravenous digestive tract enzymes; no-cal sweeteners; mineral oils replacing vegetable oils; fibrous materials, colorings, and flavorings. The end result was a foodstuff almost indistinguishable from any other except for two things. Firstly, the price, which was slightly higher, and secondly, the nutritional content, which was roughly equivalent to that of a Sony Walkman...MEALS(TM) was Sable's latest brainwave. MEALS(TM) was CHOW(TM) with added sugar and fat. The theory was that if you ate enough MEALS(TM) you would a) get very fat, and b) die of malnutrition. The paradox delighted Sable."
...is also a major culprit in this story, in part due to the "low-fat" orthodoxy that developed in the 1970s. When you take out the fat, you lose a lot of the flavor, so sugar was used to make processed foods more appealing. Even worse, hydrogenated vegetable oil was used as a fat replacement. (Turns out that saturated fats are not as bad as they thought back then.) Another problem with processed foods is that they contain far less fiber, since removing the fiber is an easy way to extend shelf life. But this affects the way they are digested and absorbed, exacerbating the bad side effects.
Dr. Robert Lustig has an excellent lecture about sugar and how it is the single most important change in our diet in the last few decades, and the chief cause of rising obesity and diabetes rates. (The above link is a TED Talk, he also has several long format lectures available on YouTube.)
The author Michael Pollan has a simple set of 3 rules for managing your nutrition: 1. Eat food*; 2. Not too much; 3. Mostly plants.
* What he means by this is "real" food, rather than the "edible food-like substances" that constitute the bulk of the American diet. He has a simple rule for identifying real food: If you've ever seen it advertised on TV, it's probably not real food. Also, for various reasons, there is an inverse relationship between the "realness" of food and the distance it travels from its source to your plate.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
tree's
This made me scream.
A lot of meal are simple to cook, like pasta and stuff, but if you want to eat healthy, then you will spend time : 1) buy fresh vegetables and fruit on regular basis 2) wash it 3) cut it and prepare it for a family and by the time you are finished, you are an hour out and the rest of your todo list is nowhere finished. Unless you are doing the same damn most simply stuff every damn day.
One can argue for increased protein, but the frequent claim that this represents a better, more "natural" way of living is suspect. We have to come to terms with the fact that humanity's natural state is technological. We cannot even survive in most of the climates in which we live without clothing, which is a basic form of technology. The protests against processed food are, in a sense, highly dishonest, because (1) they delude themselves into thinking that the technological aspect of our food is the problem, rather than any issue of self-control, and (2) especially for Americans the call for government regulation shows that while we pretend that the market itself can regulate everything and set the terms of value, we are uneasy with the results, which tend to devalue human life and well-being for the sake of profit.
Besides, I certainly don't need to go to the freezer section to buy unhealthy, fatty food. Some of my favorite homemade meals, such as traditional Mexican enchiladas, are bad enough for me.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
No, the medical establishment (who still have unconscious roots in medieval moralism, mind you) will eventually decree that the only healthy diet is cardboard and sewer water. This will start off as a recommendation, and when people refuse to go along, will start to creep into law. First they'll seek to ban all non-cardboard entrees in schools. They they'll use our taxpayer dollars to fund an expensive "Sewer Water is for Kool Kids!" ad campaign in the school. Then they'll put pressure on the FDA to ban all non-cardboard, non-sewer foods altogether.
All part of the medical establishment's underlying "If it's fun or enjoyable, it's bad for you" mentality.
Because dude, sorry, lots of 3rd world countries, ex soviet countries have open markets, with fresh food sellers everywhere.
Who cant get fresh food? People in tip of alaska?
Heres a tip of Mericans, go to your local asian or ethnic food store to get fresh food or snap frozen goodies.
Cant cook? Ask google or youtube.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Nothing is "tricking" me into eating McRibs. I do it because I like the taste!
This was back when it was still not widely accepted and scoffed at as a fad. I lost about 40-45 lbs on it in a very short period of time and noticed how little I wanted/needed to eat. I was in the best health of my life IMO at that period of time. Everyone badmouthed it back then from friends with nutrition degrees to physical trainers.
The only problem with Atkins is cost and convenience. It can be extremely difficult to stick to meals that are veggies and proteins, but it's much better now that even fast food restaurants offer salads with grilled chicken.
I've read similar information.
Sugar- not so bad if you are not diabetic.
Fat- not so bad.
Sugar + Fat - pretty bad in your blood stream when both there at the same time in large quantities.
When I dropped sugar a decade ago, I raised my fat intake. My weight went down by 10 pounds and has stayed down.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Also, for various reasons, there is an inverse relationship between the "realness" of food and the distance it travels from its source to your plate.
As accurate as the rest of that may be, this last bit is bullshit.
An apple shipped to Florida from Washington is just as much an apple as one grown a few hundred miles away.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Neither will you be if all you eat is pork.
There is an excellent book about this: http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Sug...
The modern processed food industry, OK the American processed food industry, works hard to make processed foods appetizing by tweaking formulations and experimenting with salt/sugar/fat ratios.
I think the book does a balanced job of presenting the info without blaming the industry (too much). They do make the point the food industry targets convenience and cost, which consumers respond to. It isn't all the food companies fault that their customer base is kinda lazy.
The food industry has tried a few times to make their stuff healthier by reducing additive amounts, trying new tech - one very interesting thing for example is trying to use a different salt crystal, one ground into a different shape that absorbs quicker. It gives the same "pop" with less, due to its different shape. That's pretty cool!
Does posting as AC make one stupid, or do otherwise intelligent people decide to post stupid things and tick the AC box?
No-one is suggest a carnivorous diet where we eat only meat, but people are suggesting vegetarianism where we eat no meat at all...
But there are still people who get addicted. Why's that? By now everyone should know with some certainty that it's probably not the best idea to push some H.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Amusing. Trying to derail a thread about how capitalism is fucking up people's diets by blaming "leftists"?
THAT is what this thread is about? :)
I guess to a hammer, every problem is a nail... and to a sickle, every problem is a stalk of wheat.
Dark Reflection
And manufacturers, because fatless food tastes of cardboard, knew they had to increase the sugar content to make up for the lack of taste.
And salt. Look at those low fat "Healthy Choice" meals - LOADED with salt.
No, the medical establishment (who still have unconscious roots in medieval moralism, mind you) will eventually decree that the only healthy diet is cardboard and sewer water. This will start off as a recommendation, and when people refuse to go along, will start to creep into law. First they'll seek to ban all non-cardboard entrees in schools. They they'll use our taxpayer dollars to fund an expensive "Sewer Water is for Kool Kids!" ad campaign in the school. Then they'll put pressure on the FDA to ban all non-cardboard, non-sewer foods altogether.
All part of the medical establishment's underlying "If it's fun or enjoyable, it's bad for you" mentality.
The food industry has far more say over what you eat than scientific/medical establishment, and industry is far better at and spend much more money on influencing your individual behaviour (those 'choices' that you think you are making) than governments or public bodies can.
Sometimes people make decisions that are not in their best interest, not everyone makes the wisest decisions. Of course, sometimes people decide that they do not consider the negatives of addiction greater than what they consider the positives of drug use (or whatever else they become addicted to). I may disagree, but that is their decision to make. Few of the people who become drug addicts did not know what they were doing when they started down that path. Some of them lied to themselves about where they were headed, and a few truly did not.
However, the "Just Say No" campaign did a good job of making sure that people knew that drug addiction was likely if you went down that road, and made it harder for people to lie to themselves about the likely consequences of doing drugs. The best part about it was that it relied less on false horror stories about doing drugs and relied more on creating negative peer pressure towards drug use.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Tests on rats shows they will nearly OD on something like cheese cake and yet high sugar foods are simply nibbled on and high fat foods are eaten in moderation.
But you said cheesecake. Mmmm.. so cheeeeeesy and sweeeeeeet... aaahhhghghhhh..
>When I dropped sugar a decade ago, I raised my fat intake. My weight went down by 10 pounds and has stayed down.
It's only been a couple of years for me, but I did the same, lost 35lbs, and feel fantastic. Sugar was VERY bad for me.
Read the link. "They qualify as "low-access communities", based on the determination that at least 500 persons and/or at least 33% of the census tract's population live more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (10 miles, in the case of non-metropolitan census tracts)."
They're not "food deserts"; they're places that only have small grocery stores. This is all political bullshit. Of course places with high real estate prices don't have suburban supermarkets. However, a lot of these have bodegas that don't count, because that wouldn't support the political agenda. Yes, I live in a "food desert" and buy fresh food off the subway every day.
Great points. I've gone through similar processes essentially balancing calories-in vs. calories-out. It's easier today using any number of apps for my phone.
What's most shocking about selecting the proper foods is portion sizes.
I had a meal last night that was lean pork loin (6 oz/168 grams), green peas (1 cup) and about 3 cups of potatoes. It felt like a huge serving to me. That meal had significantly fewer calories (556) than my 1/2 of a fast food meal my wife and I shared the day before while we were driving across Arizona.
I now look at food as expensive or cheap based on calories provided rather than dollars. My wife will ask me if I want a particular item to eat and I might respond, "No thanks, that's too expensive," meaning that I'll spend too many of my day's allotted calories on that particular food.
One can still eat at a fast food restaurant by getting a grilled chicken sandwich (relatively cheap calorie wise) vs. a fried chicken sandwich (very expensive calorie wise). If one is careful then one can eat a larger volume of food and feel fuller while getting fewer calories and better nutrition.
It does require, however, a certain level of personal responsibility and ownership.
The most basic cable packages are like $20/month. or like 4 hours of work at minumum wage a month. $20 isnt going to buy healthful food for a family of 4 for more than a couple days a month. Most people are going to look at it as something like "I can have two or three days of healthy meals a month, and still eat crap the other 27 days or so, or I can just stick with my crap food, and actually have something to do between my 3 shitty jobs that leave me so tired I cant do anything but sit on a couch"
what about fruit and vegetable rights.
Plants produce fruit to be eaten, so that the eater will spread the seeds. The fruit wants to be eaten. That is its purpose. So eating an apple is ethically different than eating a carrot, which of course kills the carrot plant. People that eat only fruit are fruitarians.
The OP was talking about people who are working 2-3 jobs and dont have time to cook, and your solution is to take their $500 iPAD and watch pay TV while cooking?!? Talk about a lack of perspective.
A chicken stir fry with a big bag of pre-cut vegetables takes me 10 minutes, tops, if I make the chicken in advance and freeze it. I can grill various foods in the same amount of time. I have to work (with overtime) also. The original poster was correct, it is a matter of organization and convenience, not because of some manufactured lack of resource to prove some point.
No, the medical establishment (who still have unconscious roots in medieval moralism, mind you) will eventually decree that the only healthy diet is cardboard and sewer water.
The food industry has far more say over what you eat than scientific/medical establishment, and industry is far better at and spend much more money on influencing your individual behaviour (those 'choices' that you think you are making) than governments or public bodies can.
I don't know about that - McDonalds, among others, was hurt pretty badly by Spurlock's SuperSize Me film. Also the "pink goo" chicken nuggets, "parts is parts", etc stories/rumors that went around. Or Taco Bell's "it's less than 30% beef" beef taco lawsuit.
Regarding the cardboard being served for lunch at schools, I think that's already been achieved. It's all processed crap, at least locally, I don't think there's even an oven in the "kitchen".
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
For the most part, yes. But if it travels such a long distance it's more likely to be picked early and "ripened" in transit. Also, supermarket produce is more likely to be treated with pesticides, herbicides, etc.. Your best bet is either to grow your own or get to know your local farmer.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Do you even know what protein is? Do the researches even know? Do you know how the human body uses it?
If you had even a small understanding you'd know that the only thing humans need is essential amino acids *all of which are made only in plants*. The only reason animals have it is because they ate the plants.
Eating anamials "for protein" (aka for essential amino acids) is like using Microsoft word to write C++ code - it's inefficient, overly complicted, a bad use of resources, stupid, and cruel.
Stop following treds and do some damned research yourself.
Eat oats for breakfast -- low carbs --there you are, not all breakfasts are bad for you
You're being funny, but the fact of the matter is that there are websites out there (aimed at kids for fuck's sake) that literally say "dying is the best thing you can do for the planet Earth!" and I don't think they are being funny when they say it. Of course all the tree-hugging ecological extremists all spout crap about how bad us Humans are for the planet and how we should at least give up our technology and civilized ways and go back to nature, then they get in their Prius and drive home to blog about how bad Humans are for the Earth on their Apple Mac and Twitter on their smartphone.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
No way.
I live in Uruguay, we grow some fruit here, but also import a lot. Local fruit usually looks like you picked it up from a tree.
Imported fruit looks more uniform, and more colorful, and usually has some kind of wax to protect it. They also have small labels in each piece, some times.
Also, local fruit smells like fruit, imported fruit has no smell, in comparison.
Of course, YMMV, but the closer you are to the source, it's easier to get fresher produce.
I eat five pieces of raw fruit and five servings of vegetables every single day ("five and five"). Anything goes. My fruits are usually those high in potassium: apricots, plums, bananas... but also apples and oranges. Vegetables are carrots, asparagus, broccoli, spinach, green leafy varieties, and some but not many beans.
I get protein from eating tasty animals and from pasta, which is quite high in protein.
Honestly I sometimes have a hard time eating enough, because the fruits and vegetables are so damn filling. During the summer cycling season my wife has to force-feed me steak to keep me over 170lbs (I'm 6'0).
I would say the first step for anyone to become a "former" obese person (as I am) is to STOP DRINKING LIQUID SUGAR! Jesus christ. It's the dumbest goddamn thing anyone can do. You get the calories, but no signals from your stomach to say you're full. Consuming sugar is not bad, but in nature it's packaged with tons of this wonderful stuff called fiber that makes you feel full after you've had just a little sugar, and the fiber slows the uptake.
Oh, speaking of fiber... eating "five and five" every day will... well... let's just say.... nevermind... you can figure it out.
If you don't eat the seeds and crap them out somewhere random, in an environment similar to the one the fruit tree was growing in, you're breaking your contract with the tree. Not very ethical.
While that is true for many, it is not true for all, otherwise there would be no fruits with thorns or toxins, There are many fruits that are dangerous to eat, which don't "want" to be eaten.
The food industry has far more say over what you eat than scientific/medical establishment, and industry is far better at and spend much more money on influencing your individual behaviour (those 'choices' that you think you are making) than governments or public bodies can.
That's actually not true. To influence people, they need to trust you. No one these days trusts the government or corporations - but they do trust NGOs. In fact NGOs are the most trusted sources of information all over the world. That's why government bureaucracies (and the US State Department) provide so much funding for NGOs - they use them to get their message out to people.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The problem is all the junk "food" that's been processed to hell (eg cereal, cookies, chips, soda). Among other things, junk food generally has very little fiber which would otherwise make you feel fuller, help remove fat, burn calories from digestion, and regulate sugar absorption. The best thing you can do is eat as much raw plants as you can, instead of processed crap. Just buy a box of bananas, some other fruit for flavor, and whatever veggies you like, then blender it all up!
Side note: Plant juices are better than soda in many ways, but there isn't any fiber to slow down sugar absorption, so it might be just as bad as soda in that aspect.
Fiber: http://www.webmd.com/diet/fibe...
NutritionFacts.org: https://www.youtube.com/channe...
Durianrider: https://www.youtube.com/channe...
Spurlock's SuperSize Me
Except that movie was a bunch of horseshit, as are most of the rumors that float around about fast food ingredients. Eating McDonalds for 30 days will not make you fucking sick. Hell, I lived off Dominoes and Ramen noodles in college for *years* and never got as sick as Spurlock pretended to be to get a distributor for his shitty movie.
Is it WISE to eating nothing but fast food? Fuck no, of course not! But does anyone really need to be told that eating a single type of food for every meal, every day is not particularly healthy? Maybe if they're fucking retarded.
And if you want to just blame McD's food here, I'll tell you what. I'll eat McD's for 30 days and you eating nothing but leafy salads and let's see who feels better at the end.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I didn't know you knew my 2 sister-in-laws. The funniest was when they were both in town and over for dinner with the whole family and cooked up some venison chops without telling them. They wanted to know if the meat was organic, hormone free, antibiotic free, free range, etc and at first were very pleased but after eating a couple of bites and realizing that it wasn't beef asked what it was. They weren't too pleased when they found out it was venison from the deer I shot a few months previous, but liked it up until that point.
Time to offend someone
...in frequencies humans can hear. I remember reading two years ago that plants do emit a very high frequency sound when they are cut. There are studies that support it. Heck, I probably read this on slashdot.
I love meat, but I do have one favorite vegetarian dish.
Corn tortilla flat round shell, spread with refried beans and top with shredded lettuce/tomato or whatever typical taco toppings you like.
Is better when you don't add meat to it.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
If you don't eat the seeds and crap them out somewhere random, in an environment similar to the one the fruit tree was growing in, you're breaking your contract with the tree. Not very ethical.
Whereas with livestock, we fulfill our side of the contract by providing them with food, water, protection from predators, and ensuring the survival of their offspring. They fulfill their side by being docile and delicious.
I recall an article once about the act of eating rice for example, among other foods as well, actually alters our DNA over time.
Beer contains all the carbs and proteins you need.
I agree, low fat is the worst - very high in sugar. Whole is good, e.g whole milk.
Completely bullshit. I am sorry, the pineapple I get from the store tastes NOTHING like the pineapple I had fresh picked an hour earlier when I was in Chile. The strawberries I pick fresh from a local farm taste heavenly, the ones I get from a supermarket are extremely bland. It's because they pick the stuff when it isn't ripe (they have to), and it ripens either in delivery or on the shelf of the grocery store. It loses a lot of flavour when it doesn't ripen naturally on a tree. When you go to the produce section and see all green bananas that take a day or two to ripen taste nothing like a banana picked fully ripe off a tree in Ecuador.
This is an opportunity to be smarter about it. To eat more less carbs and fats and processed foods. To understand why we eat the way we do. This allows everyone to be more healthy. Not just the obese. It may allow us to change as a society.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
*ANY* kind of soy that is actually edible is also heavily processed.
Never heard of edemame? You're literally eating soy beans out of the pod. Are you saying it's not edible, or that it's highly processed? Tempeh is the beans mashed together (most not even breaking open), with bacterial culture added...is that heavily processed? Tofu is literally boiled and mashed soy beans (aka soy milk), but with the solids filtered out, and a coagulant like calcium chloride added...i would define those all as 'minimally processed'.
Glad you had success reducing calories to lose weight, but i'm confused - you say the article is bullshit, but aren't you regurgitating the message in your final paragraph by saying that protein is needed to balance out what we're eating? And that link is dreadful. Simply put: our bodies produce all the cholesterol we need. Yes, there is a lot of bad 'vegetarian' info out there, yes...but what's worse is the bad 'eat meat' info.
"You will never get millions to eat so little that they avoid obesity while watching screens 16 hours a day."
But that's wrong. The vast majority of Americans do not get enough exercise. Yet the majority of Americans are also not overweight. So in fact your "average" person has already adapted properly.
One interesting video I found from a University TV tries to explain the diet failure of the last 30 years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Processed food also takes almost all of the work out of eating food. It's made where you bite it and you swallow. That way you eat more.
Because people are brought up only eating this stuff, the only way they can get their greens is by juicing them. The only hamburger they can eat is from a fast food chain.
If food makes you think twice about eating it because of the chewing or the work, IT MEANS YOU ARE NOT HUNGRY.
This was a subject of a "Tales of the Unexpected". I won't spoiler the (somewhat lame) ending.
I'm a vegetarian that eats no animal products at all and I've noticed a sharp improvement in how healthy I feel.
While that is true for many, it is not true for all, otherwise there would be no fruits with thorns or toxins
They still want to be eaten, they are just picky about who they want to eat them. Some fruits are toxic to mammals, but edible by birds, because birds will spread the seeds much more widely. Sometimes the seeds are toxic, to deter animals from chewing them up, rather than passing them through intact while only digesting the fleshy part of the fruit.
Accidentally hit the submit link...
Thus, I was not shocked when this research came out...
http://news.discovery.com/human/health/diet-high-in-meat-cheese-can-be-as-bad-as-smoking-140304.htm
I can promise if he eats leafy salads where all vegetables are game, he'll win the contests hands down and probably look 2 years younger in the process. You might wanna try it out yourself afterward.
The author Michael Pollan has a simple set of 3 rules for managing your nutrition: 1. Eat food*; 2. Not too much; 3. Mostly plants.
* What he means by this is "real" food, rather than the "edible food-like substances" that constitute the bulk of the American diet. He has a simple rule for identifying real food: If you've ever seen it advertised on TV, it's probably not real food.
Since I don't watch TV, how do I know what is advertised on TV versus what is "real food"?
Much better that it die from disease or starvation, of course.
it's uncommon to find cereals with less than 150 calories per 1 oz serving.
Not sure how your math works. At 4 calories per gram for carbs and protein, a 1 oz / 28 gram serving is ~110 calories. It's true for Count Chocula and for Special K both. You can't reach 150 calories unless the cereal contains 8 grams of fat, which is a pretty greasy cereal. More likely you're including the milk in your numbers.
You are correct that vegitarians had a lot to do with the amount of cereal eaten, but you got the century wrong.
Your bit about breakfast is wrong, actually. The traditional american breakfast is coffee and toast and the heavy bacon and egg breakfast was one of PR's first campaigns to change public behavior.
From wiki:
"One of Bernays's favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway." he said. In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat heavy breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as an ideal heavy breakfast and superior for health to the then traditional breakfast of tea (or coffee) and toast."
Just use a little common sense and you can entirely eliminate some of these issues. For example, if you heat up the water slowly, the potato never screams at all, just sits there contentedly as it boils.
Funny thing is it fullfiled all their criteria :) As natural as can be ffs!
Here I what I experienced. After college I had a live-in Japanese girlfriend, which basically meant I was eating a Japanese diet, along with a job that required some amount of walking. I lost weight below my college weight with NO effort or thought on my part, and I wasn't that heavy in college. Today, years latter and many pounds fatter, I am again able to lose weight but to do so I have to count every calorie on my FitBit and typically walk around hungry all the time, to the point where I have even sat around not eating during extended family meals, and of course I have to dutifully record everything I eat very carefully. So manually overriding my bodies food desires is possible, but the healthy diet choice simpler but not in my case easier. Nuts do seem to help some. This seems to match other research that has shown exposure to US food products result in obesity in nearly identical population along the U.S.-Mexico boarder.
Craved for a big mac while reading all this?
Yeah, let's have a look at how young and energetic he feels after 30 days of no protein or carbohydrates.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Spurlock's SuperSize Me
Except that movie was a bunch of horseshit, as are most of the rumors that float around about fast food ingredients.
You missed the part that this was a response to "industry is far better at and spend much more money on influencing your individual behaviour (those 'choices' that you think you are making) than governments or public bodies can", not an argument for/against fast food or anything of the sort.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Apple's a fruit, so they're taken care of.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
An apple shipped to Florida from Washington was bred specifically to make that transportation possible. Flavor and texture took a back seat to physical toughness, because a delicious apple is still worthless if it's squashed before it gets to your mouth. Of course, that same apple is just as disgusting back in Washington; it's the genes that make it crappy, not the transportation itself. However, you might be able to find other apples in Washington that are bred to be delicious but are unsuitable for long-haul transportation. You won't find these apples in Florida, because they would never survive the trip. That's why some people are into locally grown produce (for foodie reasons, not environmental ones). Not because it's inherently better, not because transportation somehow makes food taste bad.
I love American-style Italian food. Give me some cheese, tomato sauce, and pasta and I'm in heaven. When I cook, I've been known to go overboard more often than not. I have barely any 10-minute or 30-minute recipes, but a handful of 8-hour or 3-day recipes. I enjoy cooking as a hobby, so when I have time, I like to have fun and strive for perfection. While I've made my own cheeses and my own pasta from scratch, I've spent the last decade focusing on tomato sauce.
If you're a tomato lover, you may have noticed that a majority of tomatoes you see at the supermarket taste like nothing. They have a vague hint of tomato flavor, but they're not exactly something you'd want to sink your teeth into. Some varieties are better than others, particularly the campari which seems to be growing in popularity. In any case, most of these tomatoes are still garbage. Over the last decade or so, I've been growing my own tomatoes for making sauce; it seems that any variety that I choose for the garden has significantly more flavor than what you can buy in stores. I also visit local farms during peak tomato season and find their products are generally much better than what you find in stores as well. Well, why is it that when I grow a tomato it's fine, when someone near by grows a tomato it's fine, but when someone on the other side of the country (or world) grows a tomato, it's garbage?
Selective breeding. Crops are bred for certain desirable traits. One guy may be breeding tomatoes that are as sweet as possible. From each successive generation, he replants seeds from the sweetest tomatoes of the current generation. Eventually, he has very sweet tomatoes. Another guy may be breeding tomatoes that are most resistant to bruising (for less waste during long-haul transportation). From each successive generation, he replants seeds from the hardiest tomatoes of the current generation. Eventually, he has bulletproof tomatoes. Of course, by selecting for one trait, you're necessarily not selecting for other traits. The sweet tomato isn't likely to hold up well for long trips, and the hardy tomato isn't likely to be very sweet. Of course, it's possible (in theory at least) for a tomato to be both sweet and hardy, but breeding it will be more difficult and will take more time. Sure, people are shooting for the perfect tomato, one that is both sweet and capable of being trucked around the world, but perfection is a lofty goal, and instead we have some breeds that are better for transportation and others that are better for eating.
My next batch of sauce will not be made from tomatoes I grew myself. It won't be from locally-grown tomatoes either. It will be from canned tomatoes. Peeled canned tomatoes. You see, when you're growing tomatoes that are just going to be canned anyway, you don't need to worry about how pretty they look, or how well they hold up during transport. You can focus on flavor and flavor alone. Over the years, I've discovered that canned tomatoes can taste really, really amazing. Better than anything I've grown, better than anything I've bought at a farm. I'd imagine these tomatoes destined for the cannery look unsightly and break at the slightest bump. The breeders have the luxury of ignoring c
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Shazbot! We ran into some trouble getting the comments.
Try again... na-nu, na-nu!
Oh well
I'm fat and it's not my fault.
I'm a half-ass vegetarian. I don't actively try to eat meat, but I don't have a problem with it, as long as other people have to do the dirty work of killing the meat for food. I'd have a really hard time looking a cow or chicken into the eye, and telling it sorry buddy, you're lunch, as long as there are other things without eyes or a central nervous system to eat, such as chicken eggs for proteins. In dire economic circumstances and heavy hunger it would be easier to look a cow or chicken or deer in the eye and just do it, so one measure of one's luxury is how vegetarian can be afford to be? How much morality can you afford for yourself?Really rich Rajah's in old India could afford to hire people to sweep the ground before them so they don't accidentally step on a bug, and harm another conscious being with eyes and a central nervous system.
"If your carbs are strong, so is your dong."
Eating fruit is oral sex with plants and if you don't shit out the seeds in fertile ground, it's rape, obviously!
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
To all those who think that eating out (read at mcds or bbking, etc.) is cheaper or better or faster, a regular combo can hit you around 7$ for a single person.
Just FYI: poor people don't buy $7 McD meals, they buy two $1 mcdoubles.
This whole article is bullshit. I first tried dieting by avoiding processed foods (namely, the kinds that tend to be higher in sodium, carbs, fats, etc) and it didn't work for shit. Know what did work? Just watching the caloric intake. Already lost 60 pounds over the last year, and it mainly just involved getting proper perspective on what an actual serving is. I still eat fast food, indeed all kinds of junk foods.
Your anecdote doesn't disprove the article. Humans are extremely diverse and there are a lot of causes for obesity, maybe the cause of your obesity had nothing do to with processed foods.
There's a ton of reasons people overeat, process foods are one of them, but another big one is mental cues. Ever notice how you can not feel hungry a moment before supper then feel ravenous the moment you start eating? You didn't burn a bunch of calories walking up to the table, it's just your mind realizing its time to start eating and acting accordingly. Sometimes if I'm particularly busy I can miss an entire meal and finish the day with a healthy calorie deficit without feelings side effects, when backpacking I routinely lose 0.5 kg / day or more because I'm too preoccupied to feel hungry, the mental portion of the game is huge.
Similarly if you leave a box of doughnuts on your desk all day you're probably going to get really hungry and eat a bunch of extra doughnuts every day. The doughnuts didn't rewire your digestive system, they just sat there looking really yummy and your brain decided it wanted some.
I'm not saying you did anything like that, but it watching caloric intake consistent of preparing slightly smaller plates and moving snacks out of sight, you were probably successful in removing some of those mental stimulus to hunger. It could even be that processed foods are a contributor to whatever weight you have left, but they weren't the biggest ones.
My issue with the paper is with the second part of the abstract:
But this approach misses a fundamental point. The obesity problem is best understood not as the result of the overconsumption of a single macronutrient, but from a skewing of the proportion of each macronutrient in our diet — notably the dwindling quantity of protein in processed food products. The paucity of protein relative to fats and carbohydrates in processed foods drives the overconsumption of total energy as our bodies seek to maintain a target level of protein intake.
They basically say the macronutrient ratio is a big part of the problem, but I know there's a bunch of ancestral populations with macronutrient ratios all over the map and they're all pretty thin. It might be a bit of the problem, and processed foods might be a bigger part, but I doubt they're the primary problem as they seem to imply.
I stole this Sig
While I completely agree with your comment, I've had some extremely delicious pineapple from the grocery store in the middle of the U.S. It makes me wonder just how amazingly delicious a fresh ripe pineapple in the tropics can actually be.
TFA concludes with a statement along the lines of (paraphrasing) "diet is complicated and what's wrong with our current diet is more than just one demonized nutrient." People used to blame fat. Then sugar. Now carbs. It seems likely that it's a wee bit more complicated than that.
"1. Eat food*; 2. Not too much; 3. Mostly plants."
Michael Pollan hey? I like the guy already. Those rules (well, the first is a little fuzzy) summarize the scientific evidence pretty well. You could also add "4. Not trans fats".
The problem is that "processed food" is very unspecific. The article uses the term "engineered food" which is better. If the food you're eating is some concoction created in a factory, designed by an engineer, there's a financial incentive for it to have a poor balance of macro-nutrients. Food that is processed, but not engineered (e.g. plain canned foods, waxed fruits, frozen berries) doesn't have that problem.
This is just the sort of self-righteous privileged claptrap I would expect from this site.
Look, some people don't have the money to buy ingredients. Some people DON'T HAVE A KITCHEN. Some people live in areas where it's smarter to eat processed foods because they aren't spoiled, infected, or poisoned. Some people think pasteurized reconstituted fruit juice with "added vitamin C" is a superior drink, simply because no one has told them otherwise. Cola Cola obviously has no interest in doing so.
And here you sit, boasting that everyone else is "just lazy", and that it's a "culture of buying everything". Maybe that's what YOU see. Others aren't so lucky.
Amend that to "eat LESS of wheat, potatoes and rice products" and I think you've found a statement that is universally agreed upon.
Sure, but I wasn't commenting on the health benefits/downsides of vegetarianism, I was pointing out the absurdity of the comparison in
Neither will you be if all you eat is pork.
Of course, the comment before was absurd too, on the face of it. No-one is suggesting eating actual pig-feed, and vegetarian diets are certainly possible, as the existence of vegetarians demonstrates.
Have you ever traveled to a Third World country with a group of Westerners? My experience is that your group will likely be a full head taller and noticeably more muscular than the the locals. Yes, our diet is better than people in the past had available to them, that doesn't make it wrong.
Never been to Africa I take it.
I have, as as well as Asia and the Americas. You have no idea what you're on about.
People in places like Asia or the Caribean are shorter not because of the lack of food (which is a lie, most countries have plenty of food, it's medicine, education and other essential services they lack) but because they've evolved to be shorter. Africa, which has the most famine affected areas tends to have the tallest people.
Now most westerners will be fatter than most people in 3rd world countries.
But seriously, people who live in the poorest areas of the Philippines, Myanmar or the Dominican Republic have enough food. Education, no, food, yes and definitely eat a healthier diet than the overwhelming majority of westerners. These people lack good education, decent housing, a good standard of medical care, stable government and a whole bunch of amenities that we lack, but they aren't hurting for food. The poorest people will be eating food that is grown locally, even those in large towns or cities will be eating food from fresh markets rather than boxed food from supermarkets.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
No, that's why each tree produces quite a lot more than one seed per season. It's assumed that only a small minority of seeds will be crapped out somewhere fertile. That's built into the contract.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Robert Lustig ---- Sugar the Bitter Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceFyF9px20Y
Robert Lustig ---- Fat Chance
medical researcher ; pretty convincing
Actually, in my country pretty much all drugs are legal for private consumption, and addiction rates have been falling for three decades. Oops.
And really, comparing fat people stuffing their faces with junk food and people who are physically addicted to heroin is just another attempt to play the victim instead of taking responsibility. Heroin (and cocaine, and so on) are psychoactive drugs; they can radically change the way people think and have extremely unpleasant - even life-threatening - withdrawal symptoms (as does alcohol). Big Macs and Twinkies have no such effects. At most, eating one instead of five will make you feel slightly hungry.
I'm also not sure where (lack of) exercise fits into your "fat people are like drug addicts" metaphor, but I suspect neither do you.
You are aware that vegetables / fruits also have proteins and carbohydrates and can be present in salads?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Hell, it's pretty much the entire premise of MK Shamalan's The Happening.
what about fruit and vegetable rights. you can just hear them scream as you rip the fruit from tree's. and the sound is soul-curdling as you put potatoes in boiling water.
All I remember is "Bigger it up for 89" And all the POP you can drink for a buck, and.... sports drinks and...
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
You people sound like a bunch of idiots.
eom
Good observation about canning! Yeah, if you're gonna can 'em near the field (rather than across the country) then you don't need to select for transport-hardiness.
Just curious, which canned tomatoes do you find taste best? I like 'em with lots of flavor but not much acid... of what I've tried and can get locally, S&W seem to be best.
Know what's bizarre to grow yourself? Cauliflower. The entire plant is edible and it all tastes the same... there are nodules on the roots that taste just like the part we normally eat, and look similar too, but smaller. (I grew one once. It proved perennial in the desert, and took over the yard. Had roots 10 feet long like living ropes. I finally pulled it up because it was attracting mice.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Or be eaten alive by wolves (who don't always bother to finish killing the deer before tucking into the haunch). That's natural, right?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You'll like the song "Carrot Juice is Murder", by the Arrogant Worms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
actually I over exaggerated pineapple as it actually is alright in the grocery store, but it is still significantly better in chile. I find strawberries, apples, bananas to all be horrible from the grocery store.
Honestly, I haven't really had an opportunity to taste them all yet. I'm so set on switching to canned tomatoes because of an overwhelming tendency in the literature to promote this approach. Most sauce recipes start with canned tomatoes, and most explanations for why this is the case tend to focus on flavor. That being said, the ones I have tried have all been surprisingly good. I'm just nowhere near deciding which is my favorite. I don't think I've seen S&W over here (NJ), but we do get quite a variety of canned tomatoes imported from Italy that are pretty delicious.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I think we got Hunt's at Costco. They are really tasty but rather acidic (add a handful of brown sugar to mitigate that). The best ones for flavor seem to be the small whole slices, not the chunks.
Interesting that literature (I assume you mean stuff chefs would read?) is promoting canned. I can see that as a better route to uniform results.
It's not uniform across time, tho -- frex, canned peaches used to be very tasty (not nearly as good as tree-ripened, but better than picked-green-and-ripened), but in recent years have become bland. :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
In the past, my goal has been to make as close to 100% of my sauce from scratch (right down to growing my own veggies and herbs), so I've been using carrots (while I've considered growing sugar beets, I don't know how hard it is to refine the sugar from them) as the primary sweetener in my sauces to great effect. It seems like they also act as an emulsifier, which is incredibly useful when starting with fresh tomatoes, less so with canned.
:P
And no, by the literature, I mean the interwebs (recipes, cooking blogs, etc.). Great way of making oneself not sound as stupid
My girlfriend and I recently made a "quick" sauce from canned tomato (don't remember what brand off-hand). It still feels wrong to me to make a sauce in less than one day, let alone 3 hours, but I'll just say that it was really delicious. I can see why people would argue in favor of canned tomatoes, laziness aside.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I'm not that dedicated. Tho there are a few things that Just Ain't Right without some specific fresh bit... frex, you can't have proper soup without throwing in a peeled and chopped turnip. It disappears entirely, but alters the flavor and texture much for the better.
So my soup tricks you into eating boiled turnips. :D
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
This is the IT Department. You use of this computer is not authorized for personal use. Your Supervisor has been notified.
This is the IT Department. Your use of this computer is prohibited for personal application. Your Supervisor has been notified...and your Mommie !
Eat a tomato right off the vine, then try saying that again with a straight face. Or crack open a local farm fresh egg and compare its rich color and flavor to the sad pale yolk in the eggs you buy at the supermarket. GP is absolutely correct.
If you haven't seen the movie, "Forks over Knives," it's worth a look. The problem we have is that our culture has evolved to make food quick, convenient, and satisfying –these three together do not equal healthful. I'm particularly sensitive to this issue since I'm going back to work Monday in the later stages of recovering from a quintuple bypass operation.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
interacting with African students visit www.analysethis.co the global education network
Interacting with African students visit www.analysthis.co a global education network