# Health myths



## SnapDragon (Apr 12, 2011)

My dad: healthy diet, exercises. Went for a routine health check a few weeks ago, and turns out he has diabetes.
My aunt's husband: exercised, healthy diet with lots of fruit and vegetables, from what I can understand he ate very little meat, and usually chicken when he did. Diagnosed with bowel cancer. A month later, he was dead, aged 50. Went to funeral last week.
Parents' friend: good diet, always very active. Anomaly on a routine test. May have lymphoma or some suspicious thing. Stressed.
To my knowledge, none of these people have ever been fat in their lives.

"Good diet and staying the 'correct' weight for one's height protects against such diseases"?

_Bollocks_.

Enjoy your fatty meat and your sugary pudding.


----------



## penguin (Apr 12, 2011)

Everyone dies at some point, no matter how healthily you live your life. Might as well enjoy yourself on the ride, even if that is doing the healthy food and exercise bit


----------



## Tad (Apr 12, 2011)

In rough terms I'd say it breaks down like this:

1) Some parts of your body systems will be more robust than others--everyone has weaker and stronger areas. Some things will put more stress on some systems than on others. If you put more stress on weaker systems, they may well start breaking down when the rest of you is still in good working order. Lots of saturated fats or lots of sugar do stress particular systems, as does simply being big. 

2) Sometimes a weakness is so bad that even with minimal stress, it will start to fail early. Your kidney could be a 'lemon' that will fail in your forties with the healthiest lifestyle in the world.

3) Sometimes something just goes wrong. What triggers something going wrong varies, but in all cases it is a matter of probability. So much radiation going through your body has such a chance of damaging a gene in such a way that it becomes cancerous, for example. Some of this exposure we can't avoid, some we have some control over (how much UV we are exposed to, how many free radicals we generate in the process of processing our food, how many stressful chemicals we consume). But in all of these case you could have identical twins who live identical lives, and one could have something go wrong and one may not.....roll of the dice.

It is those category 2 and 3 things that can make healthy living seem so futile. All that effort won't get rid of congenital problems, and only lowers the odds of the random 'something goes wrong' stuff.

Life is a crapshoot in a lot of ways. You can adjust your odds, but you are never guaranteed a particular roll.


----------



## Buffetbelly (Apr 12, 2011)

The basic problem is that no one understands the laws of probability, including doctors. Most things found to be related to disease contribute only few percentage points to the probability of getting something. Al of these factors pale in comparison to genetics, mental stress and environmental pollution (in that order). Somehow people translate "5% lower risk" into "guaranteed perfect health forever" and it's just not so.


----------



## TheMildlyStrangeone (Apr 12, 2011)

anecdotal evidence is always best used in disproving a claim.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 13, 2011)

The problem is that these people think they are on a healthy diet and don't actually know what a healthy diet is. That includes doctors.


----------



## velia (Apr 13, 2011)

What is a healthy diet, GE?


----------



## bigpulve (Apr 13, 2011)

Saturated fat lowers your cholesterol level.
Aerobic exercise makes your body burn less fat not more
Anaerobic exercise like lifting, sprints, hill sprints etc, are far more effective and healthier.
Grains are not meant to be a staple of a humans diet
The low fat diet has created the "obesity" epidemic which should be renamed the metabolic disease epidemic.
I had lymphoma, and if you were to get a cancer, that would be near the top of the list of best cancers to get.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 13, 2011)

velia said:


> What is a healthy diet, GE?



Humans are predators, so this idea that meat and animal fats are bad for you is just ridiculous. The problem is that most animals are raised in an unnatural way that makes them unhealthy. If you eat sick animals, you will become sick. It's the same with plants. They are grown in ways that destroy the soil, which is where the plant gets its nutrients. Shitty soil = nutrient deficient plants. They are genetically engineered for better shape, better color, longer shelf life, to kill insects and parasites, larger size, faster growth, etc. No thought is given to nutrition or side effects. There is a reason that obesity and metabolic diseases are a modern problem, modern foods are farmed, processed and engineered for high yield and low cost not quality and health. Eat natural foods, grown the way nature intended, and processed using methods our ancestors used and you will greatly improve your health.


----------



## velia (Apr 16, 2011)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> There is a reason that obesity and metabolic diseases are a modern problem, modern foods are farmed, processed and engineered for high yield and low cost not quality and health. Eat natural foods, grown the way nature intended, and processed using methods our ancestors used and you will greatly improve your health.



I agree that natural, less processed and unprocessed foods are healthier, and that eating them in place of highly processed and genetically engineered foods would greatly improve the health of millions. However, I cannot say it would eliminate obesity-- also, I'm a little curious at your mention of obesity as a problem considering the forum.


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 16, 2011)

I'm diabetic, I eat whatever the hell I want, and I'm fairly skinny. And I'm healthier than most people I know. My cholesterol, blood pressure, kidneys, etc. all function just fine. Shows how much they know.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 17, 2011)

velia said:


> I agree that natural, less processed and unprocessed foods are healthier, and that eating them in place of highly processed and genetically engineered foods would greatly improve the health of millions. However, I cannot say it would eliminate obesity-- also, I'm a little curious at your mention of obesity as a problem considering the forum.



Obesity is a problem for a lot of people. Some obese people are healthy, most are not. Being on a fat acceptance forum does not change reality.


----------



## velia (Apr 17, 2011)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> Obesity is a problem for a lot of people. Some obese people are healthy, most are not. Being on a fat acceptance forum does not change reality.



Most are not? Interesting.


----------



## BeerMe (Apr 17, 2011)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> Some obese people are healthy, most are not.



Then wouldn't you say the problem is living unhealthy?

I think the point here is that no matter what lifestyle you live, eventually everyone's body shuts down. No matter how much of your diet consists of natural foods, you won't always escape illness.

Some factors are completely out of our control.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 17, 2011)

BeerMe said:


> Then wouldn't you say the problem is living unhealthy?
> 
> I think the point here is that no matter what lifestyle you live, eventually everyone's body shuts down. No matter how much of your diet consists of natural foods, you won't always escape illness.
> 
> Some factors are completely out of our control.



That's definitely true, but a lot of problems can be minimized by eating better. Excluding those who are in good health, I see obesity as a symptom not a cause. Some people who eat terribly might not put on the excess body fat like others, but can be even more unhealthy.They generally don't get the same level of testing either, so some of the health problems can be more easily missed. When I go to the doctor they run every test imaginable just because I am 5'10", 375 with a 58" waist. I have no symptoms and no complaints but they run them all anyway. My blood sugar is normal, BP normal, Cholesterol is a little high. They give me MRI's, EKG's, Tilt Table tests, Cardiac Stress Tests, extra blood work including a bunch of hormone tests. You name it, they test it. I'm not a good example of a healthy diet though, I eat a lot of garbage. But since I know I am in good health I haven't really cared to do anything about it. My brother who is 5'7", 145 with a tiny waist goes to the doctor and they don't really do anything. So I am sure a lot of skinny guys that do have issues, don't know until it is too late.


----------



## SanDiega (Apr 17, 2011)

SnapDragon said:


> My dad: healthy diet, exercises. Went for a routine health check a few weeks ago, and turns out he has diabetes.
> My aunt's husband: exercised, healthy diet with lots of fruit and vegetables, from what I can understand he ate very little meat, and usually chicken when he did. Diagnosed with bowel cancer. A month later, he was dead, aged 50. Went to funeral last week.
> Parents' friend: good diet, always very active. Anomaly on a routine test. May have lymphoma or some suspicious thing. Stressed.
> To my knowledge, none of these people have ever been fat in their lives.
> ...




Indeed, these three anecdotes conclusively prove all those myths wrong.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 18, 2011)

Have to agree with several statements in this thread. Our bodies were designed to crave three things: Salty foods, Sweet foods, and Fatty foods. Our bodies need saturated fats to survive, and going on a low fat diet (a relatively new concept in the history of mankind if you go back to the beginning) is very damaging to one's body. It robs the body of the essential food that our cells require to sustain themselves. 

When we go on a low fat diet, our bodies go into starvation mode and store fat in our cells to slowwwwly feed upon. Our brains cannot replicate and repair brain cells as fast and therefore critical thought processes begin to slow and diminish (though not horribly visibly). In fact, none of our cells can be repaired as quickly because our bodies use the cholesterol we consume to repair them. Cholesterol is the "M.A.S.H." unit of our body's fight against cellular disease. When our arteries become injured, LDL carries cholesterol into our arteries to repair damaged tissues and HDL carries the cholesterol away to be processed in our liver and flushed from our bodies. If we have high LDL counts, we have more cholesterol being built into our cells than we can carry away and it begins to form what we call Heart Disease. 

A low fat, high carb diet destroys this process and we get sick. Eating tons of sugars and breads and grains and pastas (all of which eventually break down into stored glucose and causes our fat cells to bloat into what we see in Obesity) will keep us fat. Changing a diet to eating mostly fatty meats and cheeses and butters (YAY lard!!) as well as low starch vegetables and some fruits will cause weight loss. 

Another killer is corn oils and other vegetable/plant based oils. Virgin olive oil is a good source of good fats, as well as using butter and lard for cooking. Canola oil, vegetable oil, and other partially hydrogenated oils (aka trans fats) just raises LDL counts and helps expose us to heart disease.


----------



## velia (Apr 19, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> Have to agree with several statements in this thread. Our bodies were designed to crave three things: Salty foods, Sweet foods, and Fatty foods. Our bodies need saturated fats to survive, and going on a low fat diet (a relatively new concept in the history of mankind if you go back to the beginning) is very damaging to one's body. It robs the body of the essential food that our cells require to sustain themselves.
> 
> When we go on a low fat diet, our bodies go into starvation mode and store fat in our cells to slowwwwly feed upon. Our brains cannot replicate and repair brain cells as fast and therefore critical thought processes begin to slow and diminish (though not horribly visibly). In fact, none of our cells can be repaired as quickly because our bodies use the cholesterol we consume to repair them. Cholesterol is the "M.A.S.H." unit of our body's fight against cellular disease. When our arteries become injured, LDL carries cholesterol into our arteries to repair damaged tissues and HDL carries the cholesterol away to be processed in our liver and flushed from our bodies. If we have high LDL counts, we have more cholesterol being built into our cells than we can carry away and it begins to form what we call Heart Disease.
> 
> ...



What you're talking about here is something I'm curious about. Could you link up some reputable sources for more information about what you're discussing here?


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 19, 2011)

velia said:


> What you're talking about here is something I'm curious about. Could you link up some reputable sources for more information about what you're discussing here?



There are tons of books on the subject. These are a good starting point:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0916764206/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982565844/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20


----------



## LoveBHMS (Apr 19, 2011)

This all makes as much sense as saying that since some people who get lung cancer never smoked, just go ahead and smoke since it's possible to get lung cancer anyway. The fact that you can break your leg without ever having skiied doesn't mean that skiing won't put you at risk for breaking your leg.

It's just plain nonsense to suggest that eating healthful foods and exercising don't contribute to better overall health.


----------



## fat hiker (Apr 19, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> Canola oil, vegetable oil, and other partially hydrogenated oils (aka trans fats) just raises LDL counts and helps expose us to heart disease.



I hate to be the one to tell ya, but canola oil is not a " partially hydrogenated oil" - like olive oil, it is free of transfats and has an excellent balance of polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats. By some measures, it is better for the heart than olive oil.

Canola also has the advantage of not having the olive oil taste, which some people find unpalatable, and which provides odd tastes in some recipes.

Just because it is a 'modern' oil (the product of careful plant breeding from a rapeseed base) is no reason to sneer at canola or put it down.

Try pure canola oil - your body will thank you!


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 19, 2011)

velia said:


> What you're talking about here is something I'm curious about. Could you link up some reputable sources for more information about what you're discussing here?



Some people might guffaw at the movie but Fat Head is full of actual doctoral information on the subject, as well as a list of sources and materials you can use to study more into the subject: 
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/no-bologna-facts/

Here is a huge list of books on the subject (most of which I've actually read, some are very interesting, some are very boring but most all agree on pretty much all of the basic facts)
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/recommended-reading/

http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/
A study done over several generations in Framingham MA where they watched over causes of death and they realized the findings I mentioned above. 

If you do a google search for "Low Fat Myths" you'll see a TON of sources and studies done. Yet, oddly you'll never EVER find a study that shows definitively that a high fat diet causes heart disease, or that a low fat diet prevents it. You WILL find that low fat diets DO lead to heart disease and you'll find the reasons I stated above (as that's where I generally get my facts, from the doctors themselves).


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

LoveBHMS said:


> This all makes as much sense as saying that since some people who get lung cancer never smoked, just go ahead and smoke since it's possible to get lung cancer anyway. The fact that you can break your leg without ever having skiied doesn't mean that skiing won't put you at risk for breaking your leg.
> 
> It's just plain nonsense to suggest that eating healthful foods and exercising don't contribute to better overall health.



I would suggest you look into what is being considered "healthful foods" as opposed to what is ACTUALLY healthy. Thinking about it logically, why would Nature lie to us and for some reason make human bodies, the only bodies in the natural kingdom that craves foods that are harmful for it? 

We as humans crave three things: Salty foods, Fatty foods, and Sweet foods. The reason is because these are the things our bodies need to sustain cellular activity and healthy growth. Think back to BEFORE the last hundred or so years. Most of our fats came from animal fats (saturated) and a few plant fats (i.e. olives etc...) and our populations were thin, fit, and healthy. The ONLY reason we are living longer now is due to medical advances in certain fields, yet for some reason in the last 40 or so years we've suddenly experienced a MASSIVE onset of obesity and heart disease that simply wasn't there in the numbers you see now. 

Coincidentally, the last 40 or so years is how long we've been told to eat "low fat" and stuff ourselves with carbs (grains, breads, pastas). In fact, until the early 1900's the Italians were considered one of the fattest nations on the planet due to their love of pastas and breads. We've managed to pass them by leaps and bounds here in the US because of our choices. Also, I've never said that exercise wasn't an important part to a healthy life. It most certainly is. However, nutritionally you may wish to do some fact checking with actual doctors in the field of fat studies. 

As for Canola oil, it's not a natural oil. Here's a snippet from an artical in the Wall Street Journal, June 7th, 1995



> The bad:
> 
> Canola oil took the market by storm, as it is relatively inexpensive to produce, especially compared to olive oil. Olive oil has a long history of scientifically documented health benefits. The problem with olive oil is that there is not enough olive oil in the world to meet the industry's needs. In addition, olive oil is too expensive to use in most processed foods. Canola oil has filled this need for a mass-produced, publicly acceptable form of a monounsaturated oil.
> 
> ...



Now, of course as with any study, it's open to some interpretation however, the case and evidence has been presented to show that Canola oil may not be the wonder oil you've been preached to about. Do some digging, and find out for yourself. 

Obviously I'm not a doctor as I've said, however I've done the research for myself, spoken with doctors who HAVE done clinical study and tested the theories and this is what I find to be the healthiest way for myself to live. If you choose not to go that route, that is perfectly ok for you  If you choose to believe it is crap, then that is also your prerogative, however I can guarantee you that there is more actual clinical and medical study and research backing the findings I've seen than there is backing the Low Fat Diet mythology. Hell, the Low Fat Diet myths weren't even pushed by Doctors, it was pushed by Politicians who didn't care about tests or results, they just wanted to push whatever got them elected.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

Also might want to check out this article by Dr. Al Sears, he lists some pretty interesting facts he's come across during his studies into fat and why there was a huge rise in Obesity. 

http://www.earlytorise.com/healthy/debunking-the-low-fat-myth/


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

Study results are also typically skewed to produce the intended results. Not ethical, but true. Look at the vaccination = autism ones. Andrew Wakefield is just one example.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/06/study-linking-vaccines-to-autism-is-fraudulent/


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> Study results are also typically skewed to produce the intended results. Not ethical, but true. Look at the vaccination = autism ones. Andrew Wakefield is just one example.
> 
> http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/06/study-linking-vaccines-to-autism-is-fraudulent/



True, but thankfully I didn't subscribe to just one simple study, I have been researching this for more than a year now and have gone through dozens of books from various people in the medical field and have researched the history of the low fat diet vs the US lifestyle and the above were what I found to be the most accurate for Me... I don't want anyone to simply take my word for it... do the research for yourself if you're truly interested  however I do have alot of great resources

**EDIT**: See for me it's not so much about losing weight as it is about feeling healthy and being able to be active. That's my goal.


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> True, but thankfully I didn't subscribe to just one simple study, I have been researching this for more than a year now and have gone through dozens of books from various people in the medical field and have researched the history of the low fat diet vs the US lifestyle and the above were what I found to be the most accurate for Me... I don't want anyone to simply take my word for it... do the research for yourself if you're truly interested  however I do have alot of great resources
> 
> **EDIT**: See for me it's not so much about losing weight as it is about feeling healthy and being able to be active. That's my goal.



I'm a big believer in moderation myself. Except for vaccinations. I think the chance of a kid being autistic vs. dying of a disease which is mostly preventable, I'll go with the chance of autism. 

As far as psychological studies, I think a lot of those are very, very skewed to produce the results desired. I only say that from having studied psych. 

And also, criminal justice studies...those are oddly accurate. Because they've been researched the same factors a bunch of times.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> Study results are also typically skewed to produce the intended results. Not ethical, but true. Look at the vaccination = autism ones. Andrew Wakefield is just one example.
> 
> http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/06/study-linking-vaccines-to-autism-is-fraudulent/



Another addendum to my previous reply, just as an example of the very thing you're talking about, here's a study that was done by several researchers doing a clinical study on the results of Low Fat diets vs Low Carb/High Fat diets vs a Control Group: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637480701240752



> Objectives To compare the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate high-fat versus a moderate-carbohydrate low-fat diet for weight loss and cardiovascular risk reduction.
> 
> Methods In a prospective clinical trial, 137 participants (body mass index &#8805;25 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to Control (46 randomized, 44 completed), Low Carbohydrate (45 randomized, 42 completed), or Moderate Carbohydrate (46 randomized, 40 completed) groups. Outcomes included measures of body size and composition and blood chemistries.
> 
> ...



Notice how their results showed quite clearly that the low carb/high fat diet performed SIGNIFICANTLY better results in all categories, they concluded that the low fat diet was the way to go LOL... how backwards can you be?


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> Another addendum to my previous reply, just as an example of the very thing you're talking about, here's a study that was done by several researchers doing a clinical study on the results of Low Fat diets vs Low Carb/High Fat diets vs a Control Group: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637480701240752
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how their results showed quite clearly that the low carb/high fat diet performed SIGNIFICANTLY better results in all categories, they concluded that the low fat diet was the way to go LOL... how backwards can you be?



Ketones are a very, very bad way to lose weight...unfortunately, most people don't understand that. It equates to starvation. And also, can severely damage your kidneys. I say that because I'm a type 1 diabetic who's been in diabetic ketoacidosis a few times. Not intentionally of course, but weight loss is a side effect, at least for me.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> Ketones are a very, very bad way to lose weight...unfortunately, most people don't understand that. It equates to starvation. And also, can severely damage your kidneys. I say that because I'm a type 1 diabetic who's been in diabetic ketoacidosis a few times. Not intentionally of course, but weight loss is a side effect, at least for me.



Ketones themselves are not bad and ketosis is a perfectly acceptable state for most people. Ketoacidosis is a problem for Type 1 diebetics because they have trouble generating glucose form non-carbohydrate sources and their ketone metabolism is impaired.


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

Doing that can't be good for anyone's kidneys, though. And who wants to potentially make themselves sick that way?


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> Ketones are a very, very bad way to lose weight...unfortunately, most people don't understand that. It equates to starvation. And also, can severely damage your kidneys. I say that because I'm a type 1 diabetic who's been in diabetic ketoacidosis a few times. Not intentionally of course, but weight loss is a side effect, at least for me.



I think perhaps you should read more into historical studies on various diets through history and it's relation to ketones. Ketosis in the short term has been shown to be an altered state, but that is mostly because we've forced our bodies to try and adapt to a low fat lifestyle which has NO historically good results at all, they have also shown that after just a couple of weeks of "readjusting" to how we USED to eat as a species, our bodies suffer no real harm from that state as long as sufficient fat is consumed. This is the natural state for us. Look at the Inuits of the north. They life almost entirely on fat and blubber and they have done so for thousands of years with very healthy lives. Hell they live so long they have to send out their old people on ice rafts! LOL (obviously I know they don't really do that anymore)


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

*shrugs* I just don't think for most people it's a good way to go. Grains are good for you...at least for digestive purposes. I understand we're designed to process proteins and whatnot, but like I've said before, moderation. I know I feel not right if all I eat is meat. Or all I eat is starches or vegetables or fruits. Or anything else. I feel like that even when the insulin works as close to perfect as it gets.

As an addendum: I probably defy medical science by being alive after being in severe DKA at least three times. And being extremely healthy despite being diabetic for 26 years.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> Doing that can't be good for anyone's kidneys, though. And who wants to potentially make themselves sick that way?



BTW, if you're a type 1 Diabetic then obviously your health risks are different from someone who isn't so that's why I always say to do your own research for your own condition, don't take medical advice from Me LOL  

Unfortunately, alot of negative press has come out to try and further the Low Fat cause, and if you think about it... it makes sense. The health food industry has been BUILT on low fat ever since the initial recommendation by the politicians came out back in the 70's, and that's a HUGEEEEE money industry with A LOT of political pull due to their high dollar lobbyists. 

Not everyone can follow every way of eating, unfortunately some bodies are at times impaired for whatever reason. I know this works for me, it's been working for me and I've felt a lot better for it. I've had medical checks and they've all been positive even given the high fat/low carb regiment.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> *shrugs* I just don't think for most people it's a good way to go. Grains are good for you...at least for digestive purposes. I understand we're designed to process proteins and whatnot, but like I've said before, moderation. I know I feel not right if all I eat is meat. Or all I eat is starches or vegetables or fruits. Or anything else. I feel like that even when the insulin works as close to perfect as it gets.



So what in your opinion, explains the fact that massive obesity and heart disease only began jumping like it has since we began focusing our diets on grains and starches, and away from high fat diets? The numbers are there, the science is there, but the only ones arguing against them are the non-medical professionals (aka civilians and politicians).


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

I'm aware of that. Notice I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a low carb/high fat diet, because it works for you. But some people attempt to completely cut the carbs out, which is stupid. Your brain runs on those. I'm talking about the extremists who seriously don't eat hardly any carbs at all. You need to fuel your brain. And low blood sugar can affect anyone, diabetes or not.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> I'm aware of that. Notice I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a low carb/high fat diet, because it works for you. But some people attempt to completely cut the carbs out, which is stupid. Your brain runs on those. I'm talking about the extremists who seriously don't eat hardly any carbs at all. You need to fuel your brain. And low blood sugar can affect anyone, diabetes or not.



Oh yes!! Hell I eat between 80g and 100g of carbs per day, which is high for the super low carb diets out there, but I've found it to be a good healthy number. I don't think any doctor worth his/her salt would ever suggest NO carbs, that'd be suicide.


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> So what in your opinion, explains the fact that massive obesity and heart disease only began jumping like it has since we began focusing our diets on grains and starches, and away from high fat diets? The numbers are there, the science is there, but the only ones arguing against them are the non-medical professionals (aka civilians and politicians).



For many, it is the fact that they don't get up and move. They use a car to go down the block for a half-gallon of milk. Or they don't go see their doctor. Or they're genetically predisposed. I'm not saying focus on grains and starches, for Chrissakes. Yeesh. I believe I've said twice now that moderation is a good thing. Y'know, balance between movement and the things you eat and all that. More calories, less movement generally equals weight gain. And that's pretty well covered, I believe. It's more energy input than output. That's simple physics. Energy gets stored if it's not used or it gets transferred elsewhere.

OK, talk amongst yourselves. I'm not really enjoying this anymore.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> For many, it is the fact that they don't get up and move. They use a car to go down the block for a half-gallon of milk. Or they don't go see their doctor. Or they're genetically predisposed. I'm not saying focus on grains and starches, for Chrissakes. Yeesh. I believe I've said twice now that moderation is a good thing. Y'know, balance between movement and the things you eat and all that. More calories, less movement generally equals weight gain. And that's pretty well covered, I believe. It's more energy input than output. That's simple physics. Energy gets stored if it's not used or it gets transferred elsewhere.
> 
> I knew I shouldn't get into this, 'cause when I do get into these things, people jump down my throat. I'm done.



Ohhh now, I wasn't trying to jump down your throat (at least not verbally O.O heh), I do enjoy a good debate though.


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

I think we both made our point.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> But some people attempt to completely cut the carbs out, which is stupid. Your brain runs on those. I'm talking about the extremists who seriously don't eat hardly any carbs at all.



This is completely untrue. I am going to take an educated guess and say you haven't studied biochemistry or any of the advances in scientific knowledge of the past 50 years. Your brain does NOT only use glucose as an energy source. Ketones are also used by the brain for fuel. This is not new information. It was discovered in 1967.


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 20, 2011)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> This is completely untrue. I am going to take an educated guess and say you haven't studied biochemistry or any of the advances in scientific knowledge of the past 50 years. Your brain does NOT only use glucose as an energy source. Ketones are also used by the brain for fuel. This is not new information. It was discovered in 1967.



OK, what I know about biochemistry is this. My pancreas doesn't produce a hormone known as insulin. I have to subcutaneously inject synthetic recombinant DNA, occasionally restructured from E. coli. 

I also know that you can't solely run on carbs OR fats. Nowhere did I say that your brain solely runs on carbs. You need omega-3s and whatnot to keep your neurons and such intact. You also need fats to repair blood vessels and the like. Nowhere did I say that your brain solely runs on carbs.

Jeebus. Take one little thing and turn it into "you don't know anything". I really hope I'm never that arrogant.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 20, 2011)

luvbigfellas said:


> OK, what I know about biochemistry is this. My pancreas doesn't produce a hormone known as insulin. I have to subcutaneously inject synthetic recombinant DNA, occasionally restructured from E. coli.
> 
> I also know that you can't solely run on carbs OR fats. Nowhere did I say that your brain solely runs on carbs. You need omega-3s and whatnot to keep your neurons and such intact. You also need fats to repair blood vessels and the like. Nowhere did I say that your brain solely runs on carbs.
> 
> Jeebus. Take one little thing and turn it into "you don't know anything". I really hope I'm never that arrogant.



You can run solely on fats and proteins. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Yes, there are functions in your body that require glucose. But, the human body has many mechanisms to produce glucose from protein and fat. If the body isn't getting glucose from food, most of your body tissues switch to ketosis, some of them actually run better on ketones than glucose. Then it will produce glucose from the glycerol molecule contained in fat. Humans can thrive on a completely carnivorous diet. I am not advocating the elimination of plant food from the diet, but nevertheless you don't require them. And of course those with autoimmune disorders and other diseases are going to be a bit different.

I don't see anything wrong with noticing that someone is either misinformed or ignorant about a topic and then disseminating knowledge. Especially when it is in a thread specifically about that topic.


----------



## Tad (Apr 20, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> Ohhh now, I wasn't trying to jump down your throat (at least not verbally O.O heh), I do enjoy a good debate though.



Thing about discussion boards is you get the people who want to debate, and you get the people just looking to casually talk. The former tend to find the latter won't stick to their points and don't have patience with a topic, while the latter find the former won't give up, always have to have the last word, and make the place no fun.

You may have good points, but finding that right balance between when to casually discuss and when to debate is important too--you can drive people away as easily as inform them. (and yes: been there, done that). Of course, not pointing out things that could be important for people to know is not really doing them any favor either. It is hard to strike that right balance.

Back on topic: there is a lot of evidence that various population groups tended to adapt to the diet that was available to them, at least to large degrees. On top of which there is large variations between people, no matter who their ancestors are. The result is that while there are general trends, the details do vary from person to person, so do please be careful with one size fits all prescriptions.....heck, as a BHM you know how accurate 'one size fits all' tends to be!

As for historical populations and what they ate, odds on your ancestors for the past couple of thousand years ate mostly carbs, unless you are descended mostly from nobility. At the lower socio-economic level the vast majority of calories came from cereals, rice, potatoes, and various root vegetables, with any form of fat or animal protein being quite prized. Even back in hunting/gathering days, anything I've read suggests that the majority of the calories came from the gathering side of things in most societies (it really only being those in unusual environments, like the inuit, that survive mostly on meat and fish). The one big exception would be nomads who survived largely off of their herds. Which is not tosay that this was the best diet for them, just that it was the diet which supported the largest population.


----------



## velia (Apr 20, 2011)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> I don't see anything wrong with noticing that someone is either misinformed or ignorant about a topic and then disseminating knowledge. Especially when it is in a thread specifically about that topic.



I think the issue here, GE, is that most of us were unaware of your status as a biophysicist or medical professional. Be that as it may, what you're discussing is a school of thought, not the end-all right or wrong answer. 

The you're-absolutely-wrong-and-I'm-right approach is going to continue to garner responses of people who are put off by a know-it-all arrogant attitude.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 20, 2011)

velia said:


> I think the issue here, GE, is that most of us were unaware of your status as a biophysicist or medical professional. Be that as it may, what you're discussing is a school of thought, not the end-all right or wrong answer.
> 
> The you're-absolutely-wrong-and-I'm-right approach is going to continue to garner responses of people who are put off by a know-it-all arrogant attitude.



In that specific exchange I was not talking about a "school of thought". It is just basic biochemistry, you don't need to be a medical professional to know the basics. I don't understand how someone can make important nutritional decisions or even worse, offer advice to others, without having any knowledge of the fundamentals involved. I don't care if it is interpreted as arrogance. As long as this lack of basic understanding is realized and hopefully researched so an informed decision can be made. As opposed to the typical ten o'clock news and hearsay sources for decision making.



Tad said:


> "As for historical populations and what they ate, odds on your ancestors for the past couple of thousand years ate mostly carbs, unless you are descended mostly from nobility. At the lower socio-economic level the vast majority of calories came from cereals, rice, potatoes, and various root vegetables, with any form of fat or animal protein being quite prized. Even back in hunting/gathering days, anything I've read suggests that the majority of the calories came from the gathering side of things in most societies (it really only being those in unusual environments, like the inuit, that survive mostly on meat and fish). The one big exception would be nomads who survived largely off of their herds. Which is not tosay that this was the best diet for them, just that it was the diet which supported the largest population."



The human genome hasn't changed much in the past 10,000 years. For the vast majority of our evolution we have been hunter-gatherers. Hunter-gatherers eat considerably less carbs than modern humans. Agriculture definitely allows for large population growth. But if you look at the research in anthropology and more specifically, nutritional anthropology, you'll find that it shows hunter-gatherers being much healthier than their farming cousins. Forensic analysis of skeletal remains gives a lot of good information on the diet and lifestyle of early humans. The great thing about researching primitive diets is that its pretty easy to put to the test. First, you can go out in the wilderness to hunt and gather. What you will find out is that gathering has a pretty low carbohydrate yield. Only in certain tropical areas are you going to find a decent supply of wild plant foods. Second, you can just try eating in the paleo fashion for a month or two to see how it makes you feel, and how it affects your blood work. It's pretty simple; animals(including organs), veggies, some fruit and nuts. Preferably grassfed, open pasture animals and organic plants. No grains, no dairy and no modern processed food. 

My only goal on a thread like this is an exchange of knowledge. If someone is just outright wrong on something, I will tell them. And if I am wrong on something I want someone to tell me and give me a quality source so I can investigate. But, on certain topics such as this one, I have already done a large amount of research and have probably heard, read and investigated the majority of counter-arguments. Arguments that include a statement like "well I just think it is this way or that way." will be mocked. And the crybaby "your arrogant" responses are laughable and just prove my point.


----------



## analikesyourface (Apr 22, 2011)

Can't we all just get along? Please?


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 23, 2011)

analikesyourface said:


> Can't we all just get along? Please?



Well that's no fun.


----------



## analikesyourface (Apr 24, 2011)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> Well that's no fun.



It could be.... 
Let's talk about... Why my grandmother seems to think the only thing I ever need to eat my entire life is lettuce and milk, cool?
THAT'S BULL AND IT MAKES ME ANGRY. CRAZY OLD BITCH.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 25, 2011)

analikesyourface said:


> It could be....
> Let's talk about... Why my grandmother seems to think the only thing I ever need to eat my entire life is lettuce and milk, cool?
> THAT'S BULL AND IT MAKES ME ANGRY. CRAZY OLD BITCH.



LOL, I love milk, but fuck lettuce.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 25, 2011)

analikesyourface said:


> It could be....
> Let's talk about... Why my grandmother seems to think the only thing I ever need to eat my entire life is lettuce and milk, cool?
> THAT'S BULL AND IT MAKES ME ANGRY. CRAZY OLD BITCH.



TECHNICALLY... that makes sense (making you feel angry). It's also been shown that a diet that is low in fat, yet high in carbohydrates gives a depressive effect on the body due to the fat starvation your cells go through.


----------



## Sasquatch! (Apr 25, 2011)

OMG thin people die too?!


----------



## SanDiega (Apr 25, 2011)

Geodetic_Effect said:


> You can run solely on fats and proteins. There is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. Yes, there are functions in your body that require glucose. But, the human body has many mechanisms to produce glucose from protein and fat. If the body isn't getting glucose from food, most of your body tissues switch to ketosis, some of them actually run better on ketones than glucose. Then it will produce glucose from the glycerol molecule contained in fat. Humans can thrive on a completely carnivorous diet. I am not advocating the elimination of plant food from the diet, but nevertheless you don't require them. And of course those with autoimmune disorders and other diseases are going to be a bit different.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with noticing that someone is either misinformed or ignorant about a topic and then disseminating knowledge. Especially when it is in a thread specifically about that topic.



Well, you can run solely on fats and proteins, but you really arent supposed too. Proteins are mainly for tissue repair, and your body only likes to convert them to energy when it needs too.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 25, 2011)

SanDiega said:


> Well, you can run solely on fats and proteins, but you really arent supposed too. Proteins are mainly for tissue repair, and your body only likes to convert them to energy when it needs too.



What is your argument for "aren't supposed to run on fats and proteins." To me, if your body has to take in essential fats and proteins from a food source (there is no choice, no mechanism to produce them) or you will die, then that is what you are "supposed" to eat. The human body has several mechanisms to produce glucose from the fat and proteins you eat. Or, when necessary, produce glucose from body tissues. Anything you eat that is not essential is either a luxury or a liability. And again, I am not advocating eliminating all plant foods and carbohydrates from your diet. But making a non-essential macronutrient the staple of your diet, with recommendations has high as 60% of calories and demonizing the essential macronutrients doesn't make any sense.


----------



## bigpulve (Apr 26, 2011)

SanDiega said:


> Well, you can run solely on fats and proteins, but you really arent supposed too. Proteins are mainly for tissue repair, and your body only likes to convert them to energy when it needs too.


Proteins are not mainly for tissue repair. Proteins do just about everything in the body. Enzymes, lipid carriers, messengers, etc. Every cell in the body has a plethora of ribosomes that create all of the proteins in the body. The body needs two main things to function. Amino acids which make up protein, and fatty acids, which make up lipids. The body is very efficient at converting lipids into glucose or just using the fat itself. 

Now I am not saying the body can run solely on fats and proteins. The brain only uses glucose for energy. It would be very inefficient for the body to have to convert fat into the high quantity of glucose the brain needs to function. That is where eating plants and fruit comes in. Now there is a reason that the human body has many many different mechanisms to raise ones blood sugar, but only 1 real way to lower it. We really arent meant to eat the amount of straight sucrose/fructose/glucose/lactose that we eat in modern times. We are meant to derive most of the glucose needs from fruits and plants.


----------



## SanDiega (Apr 26, 2011)

bigpulve said:


> Proteins are not mainly for tissue repair. Proteins do just about everything in the body. Enzymes, lipid carriers, messengers, etc. Every cell in the body has a plethora of ribosomes that create all of the proteins in the body. The body needs two main things to function. Amino acids which make up protein, and fatty acids, which make up lipids. The body is very efficient at converting lipids into glucose or just using the fat itself.
> 
> Now I am not saying the body can run solely on fats and proteins. The brain only uses glucose for energy. It would be very inefficient for the body to have to convert fat into the high quantity of glucose the brain needs to function. That is where eating plants and fruit comes in. Now there is a reason that the human body has many many different mechanisms to raise ones blood sugar, but only 1 real way to lower it. We really arent meant to eat the amount of straight sucrose/fructose/glucose/lactose that we eat in modern times. We are meant to derive most of the glucose needs from fruits and plants.



I mostly just advocate carbs because they are delicious.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 26, 2011)

SanDiega said:


> I mostly just advocate carbs because they are delicious.



This argument I like


----------



## FishCharming (Apr 26, 2011)

Sasquatch! said:


> OMG thin people die too?!



no sassy; thin people don't die, they just fade away...


----------



## Sasquatch! (Apr 26, 2011)

FishCharming said:


> no sassy; thin people don't die, they just fade away...



FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU I thought thin people were immortals.


----------



## FishCharming (Apr 26, 2011)

Sasquatch! said:


> FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU I thought thin people were immortals.



you're confusing thin people with the highlander again...

There can be only none!!!


----------



## Sasquatch! (Apr 26, 2011)

FishCharming said:


> you're confusing thin people with the highlander again...
> 
> There can be only none!!!



You're right. Sorry. Ever since some guy at the gym told me thin people were immortals, I've had a hard time facing up to facts.


----------



## Goreki (Apr 26, 2011)

Sasquatch! said:


> You're right. Sorry. Ever since some guy at the gym told me thin people were immortals, I've had a hard time facing up to facts.


I'm at LEAST the size of two thin people. Does this mean I am doubly immortal? Discuss.


----------



## Sasquatch! (Apr 26, 2011)

Goreki said:


> I'm at LEAST the size of two thin people. Does this mean I am doubly immortal? Discuss.



Double immortality creates a negative quanto-spiritual flux, rendering you anti-immortal or nega-immortal.


----------



## Goreki (Apr 26, 2011)

Sasquatch! said:


> Double immortality creates a negative quanto-spiritual flux, rendering you anti-immortal or nega-immortal.


what about if I'm tyhe size of THREE thin people? a triple negative? TOUCHE!


----------



## Sasquatch! (Apr 26, 2011)

Goreki said:


> what about if I'm tyhe size of THREE thin people? a triple negative? TOUCHE!



There are two schools of thought on this:

1) the addition of another positive immortality stabilizes the quanto-spiritual anomaly to the "immortal" side.

2) One's nega-immortality quotient becomes over 9000.


----------



## Goreki (Apr 26, 2011)

Sasquatch! said:


> There are two schools of thought on this:
> 
> 1) the addition of another positive immortality stabilizes the quanto-spiritual anomaly to the "immortal" side.
> 
> 2) One's nega-immortality quotient becomes over 9000.



Ahh crap. My Cells are gonna end up in the Freezer, aren't they? Boo!


----------



## Sasquatch! (Apr 26, 2011)

Goreki said:


> Ahh crap. My Cells are gonna end up in the Freezer, aren't they? Boo!



Yes. And no.

It's Schrodinger's freezer!


----------



## Goreki (Apr 26, 2011)

Sasquatch! said:


> Yes. And no.
> 
> It's Schrodinger's freezer!


WILL YOU LET ME REP YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT REFERENCING ARSE ALREADY?


----------



## FishCharming (Apr 26, 2011)

Sasquatch! said:


> Yes. And no.
> 
> It's Schrodinger's freezer!



so she will be immortal AND dead at the same time? as long as she stays in the freezer though, right? and what kind of freezer are we talking about? a chest or an upright? i'd try and spring for a walk in; if you're potentially going to quasi-exist for all eternity you wanna have room to stretch a bit...

and if it's over 9000 does that mean her hair will turn blond and she'll start floating? i'm pretty sure that would mess with the cooling system... and then there's always the possibility of nocturnal-kamehamhehas...


----------



## Goreki (Apr 26, 2011)

FishCharming said:


> so she will be immortal AND dead at the same time? as long as she stays in the freezer though, right? and what kind of freezer are we talking about? a chest or an upright? i'd try and spring for a walk in; if you're potentially going to quasi-exist for all eternity you wanna have room to stretch a bit...
> 
> and if it's over 9000 does that mean her hair will turn blond and she'll start floating? i'm pretty sure that would mess with the cooling system... and then there's always the possibility of nocturnal-kamehamhehas...


THIS freezer. 





And manfish, where have you BEEN?


----------



## analikesyourface (Apr 27, 2011)

SanDiega said:


> Well, you can run solely on fats and proteins, but you really arent supposed too. Proteins are mainly for tissue repair, and your body only likes to convert them to energy when it needs too.



How about you eat when your body actually tells you you're hungry, and eat a variety of food that your body craves/needs?

Honestly, since I stopped eating what I craved, and when I FEEL hungry, I've gained MORE weight, and felt shittier.

Most of the time, our body knows what it wants. You just need to ignore it when it tells you to eat gratuitous amounts of something that you know will make you feel sick.


----------



## Rathkhan (Apr 27, 2011)

analikesyourface said:


> How about you eat when your body actually tells you you're hungry, and eat a variety of food that your body craves/needs?
> 
> Honestly, since I stopped eating what I craved, and when I FEEL hungry, I've gained MORE weight, and felt shittier.
> 
> Most of the time, our body knows what it wants. You just need to ignore it when it tells you to eat gratuitous amounts of something that you know will make you feel sick.



Exactly... our bodies are not going to tell us to eat foods that will harm us. We eat harmful foods because we train our bodies to expect them. We confuse what our bodies tell us to eat, with what the Government has told us to eat (and yes, the Government is responsible for the low-fat diet craze, not doctors). Our bodies crave fatty foods, salty foods, and sweet foods (like fruits). Why would nature lie to us? It's not like it gains anything from us dying off.


----------



## Geodetic_Effect (Apr 28, 2011)

Your body will definitely tell you to eat foods that harm you.


----------



## luvbigfellas (Apr 28, 2011)

How many people are affected by pica in the general population?


----------



## WillSpark (Apr 29, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> Our bodies crave fatty foods, salty foods, and sweet foods (like fruits). Why would nature lie to us?



Because when we actually had to get those things from nature it wasn't based solely on desire but also on supply. We crave them because back when they came from nature we needed to stockpile and indulge as much as possible when it was available to make up for when it wouldn't be. Fat, salt, and sugars are all necessary but nonetheless harmful in overabundant doses just like literally everything else that exists.


----------



## bigpulve (Apr 29, 2011)

Rathkhan said:


> Exactly... our bodies are not going to tell us to eat foods that will harm us. We eat harmful foods because we train our bodies to expect them. We confuse what our bodies tell us to eat, with what the Government has told us to eat (and yes, the Government is responsible for the low-fat diet craze, not doctors). Our bodies crave fatty foods, salty foods, and sweet foods (like fruits). Why would nature lie to us? It's not like it gains anything from us dying off.



Its not always the body telling your brain what it wants to eat. Many organisms in the body can affect what the brain craves. Candida, a type of yeast, will tell the brain to eat lots of sugary/starchy food because that is what it eats. Cancer can tell the body to eat more sugar as well because its an easy form of energy and cancer grows rapidly and needs a lot of easy energy. 

Not to mention most people confuse the cravings. Lots of people get a craving that they think means sugar, when actually the body wants protein. Also a growling stomach doesnt always mean Im hungry. It could also growl if your body wants more water.


----------

