spike78's Link
Nope. Just seems longer. ;)
The study was huge because the results brought into question the high fat diets and how they could be more healthy than veganism. Well, after much research the uncovered the Dr. who 30 years prior became famous for linking high fat to heart attacks used faulty data and by the time he realized he was too famous to walk it back.
So I am happy I never cut out beautiful, marbleized steaks from my diet (along with plenty of great venison).
We have 99% Ice Age DNA. Ask yourself what the primary energy sources would be in the Ice Age and start choosing macros from there.
Yep canine teeth and forward eye placement.... predators all the way....
Diet Pepsi, munchies, (wild game) cheeseburgers, red wine; you name it, I do it.
I just had my annual physical:
Age, 68
Height, 5' 10 1/2 "
Weight, 158 lbs
Resting pulse, 50 bpm
Blood Pressure, 110/76.
More munchies and red wine for me! LOL!
Other than my age, these numbers have been pretty much the same for the last 40 YEARS.
TD's approach has merit with the exception that the longer folks expose themselves to a crappy diet, the more metabolically deranged they become. That's why it is more difficult to drop lbs as we age. It's not the body failing, it's the diet chemically (hormonally) retarding the body's ability to anabolize (convert energy to lean body mass). People would do well to replace simple carbohydrate calories with fat calories.
Don't claim that everyone in a certain data group is the same as everyone else in that group.
The facts are, no data group has enough information on the individuals in that group to make such a claim.
The simple fact remains, we are not adapted to eat the processed crap we do. Our production capacity has exponentially exceeded our genetic adaptability by about 30,000 years. The data bears that out.
Out of curiosity, can you please expand on the soil depletion issue?
Also, what are your thoughts on foods such as potatoes, quinoa, brown rice, and whole grain breads?
HA/KS's Link
Wheat today is exactly like wheat 50 years ago.
From the link about a study in Canada. "The scientists took seeds from 37 varieties of wheat representing grain from each decade from the 1860s onwards, and grew the wheat in the same field under the same conditions. They harvested the wheat and compared the nutritional composition against modern Canada Western Red Spring wheat.
Upon analysis of carbohydrates, protein and other nutrients in wheat, they discovered that wheat today is nutritionally similar to wheat grown in 1860, and that there is no evidence to suggest that the increased incidences of obesity, diabetes or other health conditions in today's society are related to the wheat varieties developed during the recent decades."
GMO foods in general are also EXACTLY like non-GMO by the time they reach the consumer.
Why do you insist on fear-mongering?
What is the difference? Inactivity and people are choosing to eat more unhealthy foods and fewer healthy foods.
When I was a kid, it was unusual for anyone to watch more than a couple of hours of TV in an evening. Now people are on their tech devices practically 24/7. One study showed that a kid's brain uses less energy when they are using a tech device than while they are asleep.
Portion sizes have expanded exponentially. When I was a kid, the standard size cola was 8 or 10 ounces. I remember when 12 ounces was a big bottle and then the 16 oz size was introduced and seemed huge. Now the most popular size at the convenience store is 44 oz.
HA/KS's Link
"Per capita wheat consumption in the U.S. has declined in recent years, while obesity rates have increased.
Wheat is consumed in 118 countries and the European Union, as measured by USDA. In many other countries with lower levels of obesity, wheat plays a larger role in the diet than in the U.S. For example, the Japanese population has a relatively high daily consumption of wheat, yet not a very high prevalence of overweight-obesity."
HA/KS's Link
While I suspect the author is right (and want the author to be right based on my own diet), I don't think we learned too much from him. By his own admission, he was "coming in contact with the odd Hadza baby and baboon poo lying about" - that, and traveling to Tanzania from the UK would greatly effect the bacteria in your body - even if you were eating the same diet. There could be a lot of neat experiments done on this topic with more controls that would have told us more - he might be right, but we don't know that from this article.
Soil depletion holds that intensive agriculture chronically strips nutrients such as iron, magnesium, vitamins, etc from the soil without providing enough respite between crops to naturally replenish stated nutrients. Soil depletion is relevant to diet because it results in diminished nutrient content of the plants we eat. (Plants uptake from the soil.) The effects are two-fold. First, we ingest less micro-nutrients required for optimal health and secondarily, because we are "malnourished," we are compelled to eat more in a vain attempt to get that in which we are deficient.
"Also, what are your thoughts on foods such as potatoes, quinoa, brown rice, and whole grain breads?" -Excepting the latter, all are better choices than a bag of Doritos but they all will cause an insulin spike when consumed. Some "whole wheat bread" has been found to be on par with candy bars relative to causing insulin spikes so go ahead and eat Doritos. But, most "whole wheat bread" is highly processed and anything but whole grain.
Still, sensitivities and degrees of metabolic derangement (metabolic syndrome) vary greatly and some of that can be consumed reasonably, imo. The more deranged one is (more insulin resistant) the less tolerant one is to starches and sugars.
One final note. I have mentioned in threads past and I'll say it again, there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. There are essential fatty acids, essential amino acids, and essential vitamins and minerals. We can do fine without carbohydrates and, frankly, they are best ingested only as incidental to micro-nutrient and fiber needs. If there is no 'essential' need, it logically sound to ask why eat them at all much less in corpulent proportions.
It seems you are advocating a diet along the lines of paleo?
I'm having a root beer float right now and someone in my office is baking chocolate chip cookies that smell like they will be done in minutes!
Good job, SA! Bravo to ya.
I follow a ketogenic protocol and I try to keep my carb intake between 30-50 grams. Most of my carbohydrates come from spinach, broccoli, cauliflower, etc. No breads, potatoes, pasta,cookies or root beer floats. And I don't miss them. At all.
As for fruit, I am so far down the slope of metabolic derangement, I just don't partake. I hope my body repairs itself enough to occasionally include berries into my plan. They are a natural seasonally available food source we are adapted to use so it would be best .
Juicing is a great way to get nutrients from foods that won't find their way to your fork. lol
Remind me to never eat dinner at Owl's place. ;-)
Matt
SA, agreed it is not complicated. Rather, very simple and logical. "So simple, a caveman can do it." lol
The complications are introduced with pathological social morays and nonsensical generalizations that are counter intuitive and disastrously counter-productive. The data supports my case. But we don't have to agree. If your lifestyle requires you eat junk food and you are happy, go for it. Me, I had to get the hyperinsulinemia monkey off my back. Just the way it is.
Also, I totally understand that I am lucky in the blood glucose department by the accident of genetics.....
The scientific American article talks about how higher yields have changed the nutrient content of some foods, yet concludes that the problem is soil depletion. A tree can grow fast and have weaker wood, or grow slow and have stronger wood.
Again, this fear-mongering has the same weight as the sky is falling climate "science."
From what I've encountered, most folks just don't know how much their diet regulates their hormones and how much hormones regulate their physicality. The information just is not popular enough to be casually available.
I'm not a scrawny 158 pounds, and I don't have a hummingbird metabolism like Kyle, but I'd hunt anywhere and anytime with him. ;-)
Matt
This was a crappy deal from the start......lol
Yes, you might try reading the one above that took actual grain from over a century and analyzed it in detail with essentially no difference in nutrition content.
"Wheat today is completely different from the wheat we ate back in the day.
First of all, it is processed differently. "
This statement is 100% self-contradictory. It says that wheat is different then immediately says the difference is in the processing. BTW, wheat is processed essentially identically to what it has been ever since white flour was invented between 1870 and 1880. Yes, we have the ability to separate various chemicals from the wheat, but it does not happen to any extent for the majority of flour produced. Also, these chemicals are mostly in the bran and germ which have not been in the flour for about 150 years.
"Back in the day, we used to consume ancient varieties like Emmer, Einkorn and Kamut."
Accurate analysis has shown that these varieties are essentially nutritionally identical to modern wheat. (read my link above).
Your study is conducted on pieces of soil so small that a modern machine wouldn't even have room to park. With the largest being less than 60 square meters. "The current plot lengths vary depending on the Section and are between 15.24m (Section 0) and 28.04m (Section 1). The plots are now 6m wide (except plots 2.1 and 2.2 which are 4m wide) with 48 rows at 12.5 cm spacing. Currently harvested area is plot length x 2.1m width." Another bit of information you should know about this study is that it has little or no outside support in the food or agriculture community. If it was considered to be important, many others would be attempting to prove or disprove the results. That is how science works.
Your other article starts with the words "Dirt Poor," yet the research states that some foods have lesser nutrition content due to higher yields, not soil depletion. What do we call an article with a sensational headline that contradicts the facts in the article?
One of the factors that you and others of similar opinion are choosing to ignore is that American Wheat is consumed around the world. Many nations have a much higher per-capita wheat consumption and are not seeing the same health issues you blame on wheat. Wheat consumption in America (see my link above) has been going down for a long time, but again the problems you are looking at are increasing at the same time, yet you choose to blame wheat.
If you have paid attention to what I have posted through the years, you know that I am more than willing to learn, to be proven wrong, and to call out someone who uses false information to support a position even if I agree with the position.
"BTW, wheat is processed essentially identically to what it has been ever since white flour was invented between 1870 and 1880." - That's a horribly short yardstick and rather revelatory of the problem given obesity started being studied as a health crisis in the early 20th century.
That study is far too vague to draw conclusions. For instance, there is no mention of foods utilizing processed (value added) wheat. Still, in that study, they report wheat has been consumed for about 10,000 years. I agree. Unfortunately, our DNA is predicated on fuel sources that pre-date agriculture so, in wheat and other grains, we are ingesting a fuel source to which we are not hormonally or molecularly adapted. And I believe we are paying the price, exponentially in the more highly processed forms.
Our bodies can burn glucose - most likely because we developed to store and access glycogen in our muscles for "fight or flight" bursts of energy. "Back in the day," the stored glycogen likely came from the conversion of excess protein into glucose via a process called gluconeogenesis. Humans also used glucose(fructose) seasonally as a fat storage mechanism prior to the onset of winter. (Think about the seasonal timing of the natural availability of fruit.) The ingested glucose triggered fat storage by increasing the blood serum levels of insulin, the hormone responsible for directing calories into the accumulation of adipose tissue.
Due to speed of innovation, our food sourcing has shifted radically to sources we aren't built to thrive on. It is really that simple.
HA, One thing I've noticed since jumping to the other side of the thermogenic health model is that people are literally willing to die to maintain their illusions and habits so, when you say my argument is bunk, I am unsurprised.
Physical health starts by regulating hormones and reducing systemic inflammation. We also need to fix our gut biome but that is another thread. None of that happens with the modern high carbohydrate diet regardless of how deeply we stick our heads in the sand.
slowalker's Link
Our genetics, combined with degrees of environmental and behavioral adulterations dictate the type and severity of the manifestations of pathology(ies). At the end of the day, we need to dispense with the nutritional modalities that cause injury to our bodies and that is impossible following conventional western (1st world) nutritional habits.
They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
Romans 14:3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.
Second, Roundup is seldom used on wheat fields in the United States at harvest time. Wheat naturally dies as the grain ripens. In fact, of all the major foods grown in the us, wheat is probably the one that is least often sprayed with chemicals of any kind.
Third, there is zero scientific proof that roundup causes any harm to humans.
Your link contains fake news of a dangerous kind.
HA/KS's Link
" However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you:
16 You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country.
17 Your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed.
18 The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks.
19 You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out.
20 The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.[a] 21 The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish."
I believe that Paul's words have the same power as those of Jesus since all Scripture is inspired by God. However if you need it in Jesus' words Mark 7 :14-23. "And he called the people to him again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.” And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) ..."
The real lesson is that without Jesus, it does not matte what we eat, but this is also a pretty direct way of saying that food is food. If it is eaten with the intent of serving God, any food is OK. This must be taken within the context of Biblical admonitions about gluttony and doing everything in moderation.
FWIW to put my part of this discussion in context, I eat very little bread and try to limit sugar intake as well. I don't obsess over it, but consider moderation of diet to be an important part of taking care of my body.
I consider the efforts to smear certain foods to be part of the overall efforts to deny that God is in charge and has given us freedom in Christ - including freedom to eat. This fits in very well with the leftist agenda to do away with personal freedoms including economic freedom. Farmers are one of the barriers to government takeover of economic and food independence of the population.
However, this argument you are making is not unfamiliar. It actually hits fairly closely to home as I lost my paternal grandmother and her daughter, my aunt, to obesity related issues. They were both practicing Christians and repeatedly defended their bad food choices with your logic. "God made all food acceptable.," etc. That actually caused quite a bit of strife because it was plain to everyone that they were using Scripture to justify their flesh.
Grandma, kindly as she was, was a very undisciplined diabetic. My aunt passed from what we can only guess was a heart attack. By the time she died, she had been house bound for years. I am sure they are in heaven and I am sure they went at the time prescribed by the Lord. However, they wasted combined decades of life in chronic food-based diseases. And they drug the whole extended family through all the trappings of care taking and worry.
You and I will just have to disagree but, as in every internet debate, I am just glad to state my side of the issue.
"If there's ever a famine all the thin trim people will be the first to go." lol DL, there is a case from the 70s where a morbidly obese man fasted for over a year and lived.:) He supplemented vitamins and minerals but that was, allegedly, all he ingested.
Mike B's Link
Your link reminds me, there is a tribe of indigenous people in South America that eschews food storage measures even though they are both aware and capable of doing so. When asked how they store food, they say, "In the belly of my brother." I take that to mean they eat of ton of critters and very little Ben& Jerry's. :) Interestingly, they comfortably go a day or more between meals and do not suffer the ailments of 1st world nations.
HA/KS's Link