General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,197
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> meh > wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:00:53 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>
> > > ImStillMags wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> >>> Here's a portion of an entry on grains from Mark Sisson's

> website. I >>> could provide you some studies from
> >>> universities and professors as well.....but he encapsulates it

> quite >>> well.
>
> > > Complete load of crap there.

>
> > That was my immediate reaction as well.

>
> It certainly isn't consensus-based (which is okay) but I suspect it
> isn't science-based either.


Nope, but alot of people can be fooled by web posts. They don't have a
science background so think if it sites a study, that the study was
scientifically conducted.

There's a strange lady in one of the pet groups who's convinced no
animal should ever go to a vet and no vaccinations at all. No grain
and feed them only raw meaty bones and organs. She'll spend hours
digging up sites to 'prove it', all of them crackpot driven with no
science but she doesnt 'get it'.

BTW, there *is* an issue with some grain types and some dogs and cats.
Evolunarily they did not get much of that unless in the partly digested
stomach contents of prey (a modicum there). It is not all that common
but wheat, corn and soy (in that order) can be an issue.

My cat had mild wheat issues. If she gets it more than once a week,
she'll start getting ear infections. Both of my dogs (one has it quite
bad) also will develop ear issues and one starts losing her fur and
chewing holes in her itchy skin. The one with the severe issues we
adopted back last Thanksgiving. The rescue place even realized it was
an allergy case and had her on the lowest grain food they could afford.
It didn't go far enough and the poor thing was in bad shape. A month
later, she was like a new dog.

Is it normal to have 3 pets with wheat issues? No, it definately is
NOT. I used to foster cats waiting for adoption so have had probably
50 or more collectively (usually 2 of mine and 2 fosters at a time) and
this is the first time I've seen it in a cat. Don's had dogs all his
life (farm boy, hunting packs and such of 6-10) and he's not seen it
before either.

--

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
Banned
 
Posts: 5,466
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Aug 18, 6:38*am, "cshenk" > wrote:

>
> Everything in balance. *You are no more healthy on a predominantly
> grain diet, than a grain free one.
>
> --


Well, there is myself and hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of
people who would disagree with that statement.

There are lots of books with actual scientific data coming out now
about the role of grains in illness in
the population. Here is an example.

http://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Grai...677015&sr=1-12


If you have not problems eating grains....good for you. There are
an awful lot of people who have health problems that have been
alleviated by cutting grains out of their diet.





  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61,789
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:38:00 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

> A friend of mine was convinced she
> was allergic to wheat but loved bread. I made her a loaf. No issues.
> It was the preservatives in cheap store bread she was reacting to. My
> home made bread has none of that in it.


IOW, a doctor didn't tell her that she had wheat/gluten issues - she
decided it completely on her own?

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,223
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On 08/17/2011 04:00 PM, cshenk wrote:
> ImStillMags wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Aug 17, 3:28 pm, Serene > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here's a portion of an entry on grains from Mark Sisson's website. I
>> could provide you some studies from
>> universities and professors as well.....but he encapsulates it quite
>> well.

>
> Complete load of crap there.


Yep. He wants to sell his books. It's dangerous nonsense. (Note that I'm
NOT saying that any individual shouldn't cut out any food they don't
want to eat. Our bodies are resilient and who knows, it may be best for
any individual person not to eat wheat. But this movement to act as
though grains are harmful is dangerous and misguided.)

Serene

--
http://www.momfoodproject.com
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Grains, especially wheat have been around for long enough the
> human species has (in my opinion) co-evolved with them.


According to my anthropology course 25ish years ago hunter gatherers
tend to have a few meals of cereal foods per year. Far too little to
evolve tolerance. Enough to weed out fatal allergic reactions.

> If there's
> a single foodstuff that is at the dead-center of human nutrition
> it is wheat, or more generally the grain-forming grasses.


It would be meat from grass eating animals. What domesticated species
were not grass eaters are mostly now fed grains by us. It's even put in
dog and cat food.

> There's no reason in the world to be surprised that persons of
> longevity have eaten wheat.


True. Equally true is there is no reason to expect that grain is
beneficial as a staple food. It is for some, not for others. And
the lower glycemic load of whole grains works better than the higher
glycemic load of refined grains. This principle continues through
cauliflower being more beneficial than any grain. Sure enough
cauliflower is a food on all lists of paleolithic and low carb plans.
It's not that grains are automatically bad it's that there are other
foods that are automatically better.


  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Hackmatack wrote:
> ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>> it seems that there are more
>> and more people who are finding out that when they eliminate wheat and
>> most other grains from their diets, their health improves greatly.

>
> It's hard to argue with success if a grain-free diet is working for you.


Not to some people. There is a constant stream of denial that eating
grain can possibly be damaging to anyone. There is a constant stream of
assertion that going grain freee is a fad choice that has zero benefit
to anyone. Mnay do argue with success. Note the people in this thread
who react to statements with "False" when the statements made are
irritating and to many-but-not all irrelevant but not incorrect.

Switching from ranching herds of grass eaters to farming grain that
started civilization aroun 10-15K years ago saw to it that grain was and
is an economic necessity. Do not confuse an economic necessity with a
biological necessity. Feeding grain to chickens to fatten them for
slaughter was not benefical to the chickens but it was suce benefical to
the humans who went from eating chicken eggs to eating both the eggs and
the meat. Do not confuse an economic necessity with use of that
product being beneficial to all. Diabetes remains common in most human
populations and those societies with the highest grain use also had the
highest obesity rates.

> But is he really saying that Our Daily Bread has been an evolutionary
> mistake?


Social or cultural mistake? Not at all. Dietary mistake? Certainly.
Evolutionary mistake? Clearly not. Eating bread allowed humans to
cover the planet. It also made a lot of us a lot less healthy. That
ill health has been putting evolutionary pressure on our gene pool ever
since. The net effect of increased population beats the net effect of
worse health. Evolution works by population numbers without respect to
effects on any one individual. Evolution is impersonal and it does not
care if someone is sick or infertile or is fat.

The issue is there has not yet been time for that evolutionary pressure
on our gene pool to be enough. Tribes that used to eat mostly local
roots and hunted meat get up to 90% diabetes rates when they start
eating grain based diets. That's a lot of infertility. It's also
demonstration that there has been insufficient time on an evolutionary
scale.

We are now in a genetic situation where the number of people in the
large genetic segments of humanity have enough grain eating ancestry
that only one percent of us have celiac and probably under five percent
of us have reactions more serious than obesity from using grain as a
dietary base.

If our society were to treat grain foods as just another vegitable
option and thus under 5% of our calories there would be a lot less
celiac and intolerance symptoms. There are dietary recommendations to
try to have one serving of a cruciferous vegitable daily. If the
dietary recommendation on grain were similar that would reduce both the
incidence of symptoms in those who are intolerant as well as reduce the
amount of obesity in society. But grain is sold by the hundred pound
sack while cabbage is sold by the head.

Do I as a human who understands evolution want future generations to
continue to eat grain and evolve to handle it better? Yes.

Do I as an individual human who does have symptoms from certain grains
want to keep my exposure to grains in general lower than the general
population? Yes. And I want to educate people that many see improved
health when they greatly reduce their personal grain intake.

Are these two views in opposition? Yes. That's the way it goes with
issues revolving around evolution.

One 3-4 ounce serving of grain per day? Plenty. But grain is an
economic necessity for the many poor people in the world. Better they
eat too much grain as a source of their calories than they starve. For
the rich among us, better we eat more carrots and brocolli.
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Hackmatack wrote:
>
> No, he's saying that grains have *always* been toxic.


Which, while true, is irrelevant to most of the population.

Nearly all plants are toxic. As it says int he report he posted that's
an evolved defense by plants. Hot peppers evolved capsicum as a
defense. Too bad many humans like that particular toxin.

The problem isn't that grain is toxic. That's a technical nit that is
largely irrelevent. The problem almost isn't even that a segment of the
population gets symptoms from the toxins.

The problem is there is a vast pool of denial that any grain can be
harmful to any human. The problem is that overuse of grains does lead
to populations with higher obesity rates and that has always been true
even many centuries ago. The problem is that today there are so many
people so poor they literally have no other choice but to eat the only
food they can get, grain. The problem is that today there are so many
people who can afford to eat better quality food, but they are educated
that grain is not a source of obesity when it really is.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:


>> Grains, especially wheat have been around for long enough the
>> human species has (in my opinion) co-evolved with them.


>According to my anthropology course 25ish years ago hunter gatherers
>tend to have a few meals of cereal foods per year. Far too little to
>evolve tolerance. Enough to weed out fatal allergic reactions.


Read above. I'm saying adaptation to grain has evolved into
the species since grains started being cultivated.

You can look into it, but geneticists have identified specific
gene sequences associated with agriculture and settling into
sedentary life in cities.

>> If there's
>> a single foodstuff that is at the dead-center of human nutrition
>> it is wheat, or more generally the grain-forming grasses.


>It would be meat from grass eating animals. What domesticated species
>were not grass eaters are mostly now fed grains by us. It's even put in
>dog and cat food.



>> There's no reason in the world to be surprised that persons of
>> longevity have eaten wheat.

>
>True. Equally true is there is no reason to expect that grain is
>beneficial as a staple food. It is for some, not for others. And
>the lower glycemic load of whole grains works better than the higher
>glycemic load of refined grains. This principle continues through
>cauliflower being more beneficial than any grain. Sure enough
>cauliflower is a food on all lists of paleolithic and low carb plans.
>It's not that grains are automatically bad it's that there are other
>foods that are automatically better.


Wrong. Wheat is a great food. It has calories (the number
one most important thing one needs in a food), and its ratio
of protein to total calories is exactly in line with dietary
protein requirements. The protein is not complete, but that
is readily corrected by adding a small amount of variety to
one's diet. It also has some fat (whole wheat).

Steve
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

cshenk > wrote:

>There's a strange lady in one of the pet groups who's convinced no
>animal should ever go to a vet and no vaccinations at all. No grain
>and feed them only raw meaty bones and organs. She'll spend hours
>digging up sites to 'prove it', all of them crackpot driven with no
>science but she doesnt 'get it'.
>
>BTW, there *is* an issue with some grain types and some dogs and cats.
>Evolunarily they did not get much of that unless in the partly digested
>stomach contents of prey (a modicum there). It is not all that common
>but wheat, corn and soy (in that order) can be an issue.


There's also a strong possibility many cats and dogs receive too
many vaccinations. Vets are starting to become aware of this and
are making more of them optional. There are side effects including
a possibility of tumors at the injection site.

I know cat ladies who are semi-convinced that never taking a cat to
the vet is a good thing for its health. I know people who thing
that never seeing a doctor is a good thing. In both case, it's
a good thing if you can get away with it. Often you can't.


Steve
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,474
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Aug 15, 4:28*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been advertised,
> browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high carb, cholesterol
> is scary diet for the past 30 years......and that correlation to the
> obesity epidemic and accompanying health problems.
>
> Real food, meat, veggies, fruits, and little or no grains ....in other
> words a primal or ancestral diet is way better for the human animal
> than the convenience proccessed stuff people eat today.
>
> I know there are people on both sides of the fence here, but in MY
> life the primal-paleo-ancestral diet is
> doing amazing things for me weight wise and health wise.
>
> chime in....


It's very simple. Eat less and exercise. However, it's easier to say
than do.

http://www.richardfisher.com


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,197
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Serene Vannoy wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 08/17/2011 04:00 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > ImStillMags wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> >>On Aug 17, 3:28 pm, Serene > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's a portion of an entry on grains from Mark Sisson's
> > > website. I could provide you some studies from
> > > universities and professors as well.....but he encapsulates it
> > > quite well.

> >
> > Complete load of crap there.

>
> Yep. He wants to sell his books. It's dangerous nonsense. (Note that
> I'm NOT saying that any individual shouldn't cut out any food they
> don't want to eat. Our bodies are resilient and who knows, it may be
> best for any individual person not to eat wheat. But this movement to
> act as though grains are harmful is dangerous and misguided.)
>
> Serene


I agree. A simple sanity check. Doug just posted something with 5%
calories a day from veggies and grains. Hopefully he made a typo.

Sure, some folks can have wheat issues, but mostly the issue not eating
a balanced diet which uses a variety of grains in reasonable amounts.
I happen to center on rice, corn, oatmeal, and 50/50 rye/wheat breads
(home made). By volume, 60% roughly of our food is fruit and veggies,
30% will be rice or corn and the rest is meat based (seafood more than
other).

--

  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,197
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk > wrote:
>
> > There's a strange lady in one of the pet groups who's convinced no
> > animal should ever go to a vet and no vaccinations at all. No grain
> > and feed them only raw meaty bones and organs. She'll spend hours
> > digging up sites to 'prove it', all of them crackpot driven with no
> > science but she doesnt 'get it'.
> >
> > BTW, there is an issue with some grain types and some dogs and cats.
> > Evolunarily they did not get much of that unless in the partly
> > digested stomach contents of prey (a modicum there). It is not all
> > that common but wheat, corn and soy (in that order) can be an issue.

>
> There's also a strong possibility many cats and dogs receive too
> many vaccinations. Vets are starting to become aware of this and
> are making more of them optional. There are side effects including
> a possibility of tumors at the injection site.
>
> I know cat ladies who are semi-convinced that never taking a cat to
> the vet is a good thing for its health. I know people who thing
> that never seeing a doctor is a good thing. In both case, it's
> a good thing if you can get away with it. Often you can't.


Sure Steve, over vaccination can be an issue. This OP though doesnt
believe in *any* *ever*.

--

  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

cshenk > wrote:

>Fact is, some people overdo the wheat breads but to say that 'grains
>are bad for you' is innaccurate. Some small segment may have wheat
>intolerance issues but it is not common. If's a fad more often than
>not to say 'I'm allergic to wheat'.


I think there's a confluence of two things in the public's mind:

(1) The fact that some people -- no more than a few percent of the
population -- have Celiac disease, or other definable wheat conditions
such as wheat allergies or intolerances.

(2) The idea (supported by some science) that high-carb diets are bad
diets (either for weight loss, or for cardiovascular health).

These two ideas have merged into an overarching "wheat is bad"
headset that is, as a generalization, not even remotely correct.


Steve
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
Banned
 
Posts: 5,466
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Aug 18, 10:59*am, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
> Sure Steve, over vaccination can be an issue. *This OP though doesnt
> believe in *any* *ever*.
>

Where in the world did you see me say that? I've never advocated no
vaccinations at all.
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
Banned
 
Posts: 5,466
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Aug 18, 11:38*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:
> cshenk > wrote:
> >Fact is, some people overdo the wheat breads but to say that 'grains
> >are bad for you' is innaccurate. *Some small segment may have wheat
> >intolerance issues but it is not common. *If's a fad more often than
> >not to say 'I'm allergic to wheat'. *

>
> I think there's a confluence of two things in the public's mind:
>
> (1) The fact that some people -- no more than a few percent of the
> population -- have Celiac disease, or other definable wheat conditions
> such as wheat allergies or intolerances. *
>
> (2) The idea (supported by some science) that high-carb diets are bad
> diets (either for weight loss, or for cardiovascular health).
>
> These two ideas have merged into an overarching "wheat is bad"
> headset that is, as a generalization, not even remotely correct.
>
> Steve


You oversimplify. A convenient argument, but untrue.

I'm willing to be there are a lot of people who are on medications for
various ailments who, if they took the time to do
an 'elimination' diet, would find that most if not all of their
'ailments' would cease when they found out what foods their bodies
reacted to.

You are what you eat. This phrase is really true. Some people
do fine with foods that cause violent reactions in others.

I'm not advocating that everyone on the planet give up grains. What
I've been trying to say is that maybe people should look at grain
consumption with a less jaundiced eye and a more open mind.



  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
Banned
 
Posts: 5,466
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Aug 18, 10:42*am, Helpful person > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 4:28*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> > So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been advertised,
> > browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high carb, cholesterol
> > is scary diet for the past 30 years......and that correlation to the
> > obesity epidemic and accompanying health problems.

>
> > Real food, meat, veggies, fruits, and little or no grains ....in other
> > words a primal or ancestral diet is way better for the human animal
> > than the convenience proccessed stuff people eat today.

>
> > I know there are people on both sides of the fence here, but in MY
> > life the primal-paleo-ancestral diet is
> > doing amazing things for me weight wise and health wise.

>
> > chime in....

>
> It's very simple. *Eat less and exercise. *However, it's easier to say
> than do.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com


True. You can eat less and exercise, which is wonderful. But if
the food you are eating less of is still causing dis-ease in the body
you have accomplished little.

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Not to some people. There is a constant stream of denial that eating
>grain can possibly be damaging to anyone. There is a constant stream of
>assertion that going grain freee is a fad choice that has zero benefit
>to anyone. Mnay do argue with success.


The evidence points to there are a few percent of the public to whom grains
are toxic in some form or another. The rest of everyone can eat
grain and have no ill effects. I do not think the evidence supports
subclinical bad effects of grain in the larger population.

This is not "denial" it is merely skepticism.

Steve
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

ImStillMags > wrote:

>On Aug 18, 10:59*am, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>
>> Sure Steve, over vaccination can be an issue. *This OP though doesnt
>> believe in *any* *ever*.
>>

>Where in the world did you see me say that? I've never advocated no
>vaccinations at all.


Carol meant "other person" (someone she knows from elsewhere), not
"original poster".


S.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Hackmatack > wrote:

>Steve Pope > wrote:


>> Hackmatack > wrote:


>>> Jared Diamond, in "Guns, Germs and Steel," has argued that grains and
>>> seeds, because they could be stored over growing seasons and famine
>>> intervals, were instrumental in fostering the growth of basic human
>>> technologies. And because they were portable, but were sensitive to diurnal
>>> light levels for germination, they could only be transported successfully
>>> equitorially -- in other words, humans could take their seed corn east or
>>> west and rely on predictable crop yields, but not north and south into
>>> radically different climates that prevented reliable germination. From this
>>> he extrapolates the technological success of European societies spreading
>>> from the fertile crescent to northwest Europe, as opposes to the doomed
>>> north-south fate of pre-Columbian South America.


>> There was nothing "doomed" about pre-Columbian South America until
>> a bunch of Europeans showed up


>Diamond's point exactly.


Let me see if I can unpack this.

Indigenous Americans, especially south Americans with their
continent being so narrow in the east-west direction, were
limited in how far they could spread grain-growing and thus,
civilization, thus limiting the chances of developing new
population centers and new technologies, and this explains why
they had less technology than the Europeans did as of A.D. 1492.

Is that his argument?

It could be true, or it could be an answer in search of a question.
It ignores possibly more relevant facts such as... the Americas
had been habitated for a much shorter length of time than Eurasia.


Steve
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

cshenk > wrote:

>Serene Vannoy wrote in rec.food.cooking:


>> Yep. He wants to sell his books. It's dangerous nonsense. (Note that
>> I'm NOT saying that any individual shouldn't cut out any food they
>> don't want to eat. Our bodies are resilient and who knows, it may be
>> best for any individual person not to eat wheat. But this movement to
>> act as though grains are harmful is dangerous and misguided.)


>I agree. A simple sanity check. Doug just posted something with 5%
>calories a day from veggies and grains. Hopefully he made a typo.


>Sure, some folks can have wheat issues, but mostly the issue not eating
>a balanced diet which uses a variety of grains in reasonable amounts.
>I happen to center on rice, corn, oatmeal, and 50/50 rye/wheat breads
>(home made). By volume, 60% roughly of our food is fruit and veggies,
>30% will be rice or corn and the rest is meat based (seafood more than
>other).


I think if you look at the U.S. government recommendations it is
possible to eat a diet that has only 5% carb calories and still fall
within the recommended Daily Values. This is because there actually
isn't a Daily Value for carbohydrate, and the protein value (of 50
to 65 grams) is a minimum value, not a maximum.

Something like 65 grams of fat, 22.5 grams of carbs, and 281.25
grams of protein would fall within government Daily Value guidelines
as an 1800 calorie/day diet. It would however violate the food
pyramid or the Happy Meal they've replaced that with.

I think you'd also have trouble finding 281.25 grams of protein
that didn't come with its own load of toxins, that you are replacing
the supposed grain toxins with....


Steve



  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope > wrote:
> Hackmatack > wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope > wrote:

>
>>> Hackmatack > wrote:

>
>>>> Jared Diamond, in "Guns, Germs and Steel," has argued that grains and
>>>> seeds, because they could be stored over growing seasons and famine
>>>> intervals, were instrumental in fostering the growth of basic human
>>>> technologies. And because they were portable, but were sensitive to diurnal
>>>> light levels for germination, they could only be transported successfully
>>>> equitorially -- in other words, humans could take their seed corn east or
>>>> west and rely on predictable crop yields, but not north and south into
>>>> radically different climates that prevented reliable germination. From this
>>>> he extrapolates the technological success of European societies spreading
>>>> from the fertile crescent to northwest Europe, as opposes to the doomed
>>>> north-south fate of pre-Columbian South America.

>
>>> There was nothing "doomed" about pre-Columbian South America until
>>> a bunch of Europeans showed up

>
>> Diamond's point exactly.

>
> Let me see if I can unpack this.
>
> Indigenous Americans, especially south Americans with their
> continent being so narrow in the east-west direction, were
> limited in how far they could spread grain-growing and thus,
> civilization, thus limiting the chances of developing new
> population centers and new technologies, and this explains why
> they had less technology than the Europeans did as of A.D. 1492.
>
> Is that his argument?
>
> It could be true, or it could be an answer in search of a question.
> It ignores possibly more relevant facts such as... the Americas
> had been habitated for a much shorter length of time than Eurasia.
>
>
> Steve


I think you've fairly summarized the part of Diamond's argument I was
paraphrasing and, no doubt, oversimplifying. Diamond certainly has his
critics, but I've found his books stimulating.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

ImStillMags > wrote:

>On Aug 18, 10:48*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:


>> You still haven't answered my question about what you believe
>> the Daily Value for fat should be, if it is to be something
>> greater than the present value of 65 grams.
>>
>> In the link you just posted there is the following statement:
>>
>> "the ongoing epidemic of obesity in America and elsewhere is
>> not, as we are constantly told, due simply to a collective lack
>> of will power and a failure to exercise. Rather it occurred
>> . . . because the public health authorities told us unwittingly,
>> but with the best of intentions, to eat precisely those foods
>> that would make us fat, and we did."
>>
>> Now I have a bit of a problem here because the American public
>> is definitely not eating precisely the foods we are being told to eat.
>>
>> Specifically, we are being told to eat 65 grams of fat per day,
>> but instead we are eating 157 grams per day[*]. *Now... your conclusion
>> seems to be that Americans are obese because they are following
>> the advice the government is giving us. *But ... they're not.
>>
>> If you're stance is correct, Americans are already following the
>> higher-fat diet that would make them less obese. *Perhaps your
>> stance is that the appropriate Daily Value is something greater than
>> 65 grams, but still less than 157 grams. *This is why I am asking what you
>> (or any of your sources) think the Daily Value of fat should be.


>I tend to agree with Mark Sissons assessment of what are 'good' and
>'bad' fats as he has outlined, and has put up the studies to back up
>his assertions. The higher fat diet most people are eating
>consists of fats that are considered 'bad' by those who follow
>ancestral or paleo/primal eating.


>If you care to look at the primal charts you can find them
>here....this is only one of many sources:
>
>http://www.marksdailyapple.com/press...rint-diagrams/


Thanks.

He doesn't actually state a desired daily value for fat (he
says to enjoy fats freely) but one can back out a sort of a number
from his other figures.

The center of his carb maintenance zone is 125 grams/day, or
500 carb calories. He doesn't say how much protein to eat
either, but assuming one is eating at least 60 grams of protein
and no more than 2000 calories, that implies one is eating no
more than 140 grams of fat per day. Or slighly less than the
157 grams of fat per day that Americans are presently eating.

I suspect in the average case, his adherents are eating more
protein than 60 grams per day, and either less fat than I just
stated, or more total calories than I just stated.

I am just talking total fat, not the breakdown into different
types of fat (animal/vegetable/saturated/unsaturated/trans),
which is another issue.

Steve
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>>Steve Pope wrote:

>
>>> Grains, especially wheat have been around for long enough the
>>> human species has (in my opinion) co-evolved with them.

>
>>According to my anthropology course 25ish years ago hunter gatherers
>>tend to have a few meals of cereal foods per year. Far too little to
>>evolve tolerance. Enough to weed out fatal allergic reactions.

>
> Read above. I'm saying adaptation to grain has evolved into
> the species since grains started being cultivated.
>
> You can look into it, but geneticists have identified specific
> gene sequences associated with agriculture and settling into
> sedentary life in cities.


Some response to the evolutionary pressure does not equal sufficent
response to the evolutionary pressure. The 10-15K years is well under a
thousand generations. Enough to weed out only the strongest negative
reactions. Enough to make grain non-toxic to most of the total
population. Enough to make reactions to grain a percent of large
populations, several percent of some small populations.

You think that enough. I don't. It's a matter of judgment that folks
don't have to agree on.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>Not to some people. There is a constant stream of denial that eating
>>grain can possibly be damaging to anyone. There is a constant stream of
>>assertion that going grain freee is a fad choice that has zero benefit
>>to anyone. Mnay do argue with success.

>
> The evidence points to there are a few percent of the public to whom grains
> are toxic in some form or another. The rest of everyone can eat
> grain and have no ill effects. I do not think the evidence supports
> subclinical bad effects of grain in the larger population.
>
> This is not "denial" it is merely skepticism.


So you are not one of those who categorically deny that anyone ever gets
symptoms from eating grain. Nor are you one of those who say that when
the folks who experience the symptoms say so they are making it up.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

ImStillMags > wrote:

>On Aug 18, 11:38*am, (Steve Pope) wrote:


>> I think there's a confluence of two things in the public's mind:
>>
>> (1) The fact that some people -- no more than a few percent of the
>> population -- have Celiac disease, or other definable wheat conditions
>> such as wheat allergies or intolerances. *
>>
>> (2) The idea (supported by some science) that high-carb diets are bad
>> diets (either for weight loss, or for cardiovascular health).
>>
>> These two ideas have merged into an overarching "wheat is bad"
>> headset that is, as a generalization, not even remotely correct.
>>
>> Steve


>You oversimplify. A convenient argument, but untrue.


I'm just calling it as I see it.

>I'm willing to be there are a lot of people who are on medications for
>various ailments who, if they took the time to do
>an 'elimination' diet, would find that most if not all of their
>'ailments' would cease when they found out what foods their bodies
>reacted to.


>You are what you eat. This phrase is really true. Some people
>do fine with foods that cause violent reactions in others.


I hardly believe everything that conventional medicine says, but I
do subscribe to the theory that most ordinary food, if it has
not been adulterated or irradiated or genetically modified, is
non-toxic and a person without medical abnormalities can consume
it without toxic effects.

Jeffery Steingarten offered up the theory that most plant foods
contain toxins. This is true, but the toxins are there in such small
amounts that the liver can detoxify them.

Now, if a person has symptoms and there is no cause identified for them, a
dietary cause has not been eliminated from the range of possibilities. On
that I agree. Are elimination diets under-utilized by diagnosticians?
Possibly. I'll agree with that. But is wheat toxic to nearly anyone?
That I don't believe. There are too many people consuming it and
doing just fine. Coupled by the fact that it's been a mainstay of
human diets for 10,000 years. There is too much evidence that runs
directly counter to a widespread toxic-wheat theory.

Steve


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46,524
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.


"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> meh wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 18:00:53 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>
>> > ImStillMags wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> >> On Aug 17, 3:28 pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Here's a portion of an entry on grains from Mark Sisson's website.

>> I >> could provide you some studies from
>> >> universities and professors as well.....but he encapsulates it

>> quite >> well.
>> >
>> > Complete load of crap there.

>>
>> That was my immediate reaction as well.

>
> Fact is, some people overdo the wheat breads but to say that 'grains
> are bad for you' is innaccurate. Some small segment may have wheat
> intolerance issues but it is not common. If's a fad more often than
> not to say 'I'm allergic to wheat'. A friend of mine was convinced she
> was allergic to wheat but loved bread. I made her a loaf. No issues.
> It was the preservatives in cheap store bread she was reacting to. My
> home made bread has none of that in it.
>
> Everything in balance. You are no more healthy on a predominantly
> grain diet, than a grain free one.


Wheat and nightshades can also affect people with arthritis. But that
doesn't mean they will affect all of us that way.


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> You still haven't answered my question about what you believe
> the Daily Value for fat should be, if it is to be something
> greater than the present value of 65 grams.


Target for fat grams depends on protein and carb calories so it's not an
easy question to anwer. Pick a target for total calories that fits your
size. Pick a target for protein grams that depends on your lean body
mass. Pick a target for carbs that fits your plan style. The target
for fat grams comes out of this arithmatic. Because ideas of the best
carb and protein intake vary so widely, so does the total for fat.

My numbers for loss look a bit like this.

Daily calories 1800.
Protein 100 gram, 400 cal, balance 1400 cal.
Daily carb 50 grams, 200 cal, balance 1200 cal.
Daily fat cal 1200. Divide by 9 for grams gives 133 target grams.

The years I tried low fat the numbers for carb and fat were very
different.

My numbers for maintenance look a bit like this.

Daily calories 2400.
Protein 150 gram, 600 cal, balance 1800 cal.
Daily carb 100 grams, 400 cal, balance 1400 cal.
Daily fat cal 1400. Divide by 9 for grams gives target 155.

The years I tried low fat my experience was I got very hungry any day I
went under 100 grams of fat. Others don't experience such hunger until
much lower. Those folks tend to do well on low fat plans. I don't.

> In the link you just posted there is the following statement:
>
> "the ongoing epidemic of obesity in America and elsewhere is
> not, as we are constantly told, due simply to a collective lack
> of will power and a failure to exercise. Rather it occurred
> . . . because the public health authorities told us unwittingly,
> but with the best of intentions, to eat precisely those foods
> that would make us fat, and we did."


The advice is that low fat works for everyone. It does not. It works
for a lot of people but not even for the majority.

> Now I have a bit of a problem here because the American public
> is definitely not eating precisely the foods we are being told to eat.


That is true as well.

> Specifically, we are being told to eat 65 grams of fat per day,
> but instead we are eating 157 grams per day[*]. Now... your conclusion
> seems to be that Americans are obese because they are following
> the advice the government is giving us. But ... they're not.


My stance is that it's both. Having tried the 65 gram level and having
experienced the long lasting craving hunger it triggered I know that for
me when I did follow the advice it did not work. Having eaten closer to
the "standard American diet" at other times even that didn't keep me
from being hungry in spite of gaining weight. In 20 years I gained 50
pounds.

> If you're stance is correct, Americans are already following the
> higher-fat diet that would make them less obese. Perhaps your
> stance is that the appropriate Daily Value is something greater than
> 65 grams, but still less than 157 grams. This is why I am asking what you
> (or any of your sources) think the Daily Value of fat should be.


For me, and for many people, the number of carb grams has the largest
impact on my hunger level. In my case eating between 50 and 100 carb
grams leads me to eat near the numbers listed about and I'm not hungry.
My numbers above are not unusual for a low carber.

For folks who do not get hungry on low fat, when they run their
arithmatic the numbers are different but the process is the same. Total
dailiy calories, subject protein target, subtract fat target, calculate
carb target.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,474
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Aug 18, 11:45*am, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> True. * You can eat less and exercise, which is wonderful. * *But if
> the food you are eating less of is still causing dis-ease in the body
> you have accomplished little.


That's a little harsh. Which particular diseases are you concerned
about?

http://www.richardfisher.com
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
> cshenk > wrote:
>
>>Fact is, some people overdo the wheat breads but to say that 'grains
>>are bad for you' is innaccurate. Some small segment may have wheat
>>intolerance issues but it is not common. If's a fad more often than
>>not to say 'I'm allergic to wheat'.

>
> I think there's a confluence of two things in the public's mind:
>
> (1) The fact that some people -- no more than a few percent of the
> population -- have Celiac disease, or other definable wheat conditions
> such as wheat allergies or intolerances.
>
> (2) The idea (supported by some science) that high-carb diets are bad
> diets (either for weight loss, or for cardiovascular health).
>
> These two ideas have merged into an overarching "wheat is bad"
> headset that is, as a generalization, not even remotely correct.


Problem is most people never actually do an eliminate and challenge
process so they never actually know based on the way their body actually
works. So I encounter people who exhibit what I consider obvious mild
intolerance symptoms who assert they have no problems with any food.
And I encounter people who say they are allergic to wheat yet when I ask
them the process they used to decide that they say they feel better
going wheat free. Neither has a basis in useable personal data.

Go off wheat for at least two weeks, but do it at the same total carb
grams. See if you can tell any difference in your health. Even if
there was an improvement you likely won't be able to tell. See if
anyone else mentions your health improves. Outside perspective works
best at this step. Add wheat back again. See if you can tell any
difference in your health. If a problem comes back, you won't need an
outside perspective at this step.

The reason I specified at the same total carb grams is in our world that
stresses low fat, plenty of people who do better on low carb than on low
fat will free better simply because they switched to a diet that works
for them. I felt better when I switched to low carb but after
experimentation I can eat plenty without ill effects. I had to wait
months before adding wheat back in. I had to be used to my new stable
health level and only add wheat back in at the expense of other carb
sources. But when I tried wheat, bam specific symptoms returned.

The reason it seems like a fad is people think they are wheat intolerant
when what they actually discovered is they do better on low carb than on
low fat. If you used to be a pasta fan, removing wheat all by itself
turns you into a low carber.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

cshenk wrote:
>
> I agree. A simple sanity check. Doug just posted something with 5%
> calories a day from veggies and grains. Hopefully he made a typo.


Low carb veggies take vast amount to have much calories. My doctor
asked about how much fruits and vegitables I eat. I asked him how big a
serving is. When he showed me I laughed. It was half the size of my
regular low carb veggie serving and my ultra-low carb salad serving was
bigger. As I focus on 5+ servings of my size servings that's a daily
focus of 10+ servings according to him. He nodded and stopped asking
about what I eat. I only seem to pull off 8 of his sized servings most
days. What I eat isn't good enough to count as Atkins maintenance but
it was definitely good enough for him.

It doesn't take much pasta or potatoes to make up for a huge amount of
the vegitables that are better for you. A plate of cauliflower with 50
grams of carbs is the size of my head. A plate of pasta with 50 grams
is a smaller serving than I've seen at any restaurant in a very long
time.

Does anyone think there's any down side to eating 10+ servings of low
carb veggies even in place of that many calories of carby food?
Understanding that the replacement is low carb veggies, there's no
down side to going wheat free, potato free or whatever. If the
starchiest thing you eat today is a carrot and the sweetest thing you
eat today is a pear, you don't have a problematic diet.

You want to eat grain instead of cauliflower and chicken, go for it.
But don't imagine it's actually a better diet.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Indigenous Americans, especially south Americans with their
> continent being so narrow in the east-west direction, were
> limited in how far they could spread grain-growing and thus,
> civilization, thus limiting the chances of developing new
> population centers and new technologies, and this explains why
> they had less technology than the Europeans did as of A.D. 1492.
>
> Is that his argument?


It might be why there's maize/corn, buckwheat, amaranth and quinoa in
various locations as you migrate up and down the Americas. It is not
likely a reason why they did not develop a constantly advancing
machinery of civilization.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Problem is most people never actually do an eliminate and challenge
>process so they never actually know based on the way their body actually
>works.


Or, they may do an eliminate and challenge and still not know
what works, since the metrics are not easily observed.

The only thing I've done an elimination diet for is sodium,
and there because the desired metric (blood pressure) can be
readily measured.

One could eliminate (say) wheat and then measure blood presure,
serum lipid panel, fasting glucose, body weight and body fat
percentage and a few other things, but it's still very unclear
whether you would be validly predicting future caridovascular
health based on these measurements. The elimination diet
would be most useful if you are having some sort of immediate
symptom such as skin rashes, nasal congestion, or instestinal
malabsorption. Absent this sort of symptomology, I do not
think a wheat elimination diet (for example) is going to inform
you of anything.

>So I encounter people who exhibit what I consider obvious mild
>intolerance symptoms who assert they have no problems with any food.


What symptoms exactly?

>And I encounter people who say they are allergic to wheat yet when I ask
>them the process they used to decide that they say they feel better
>going wheat free. Neither has a basis in useable personal data.
>
>Go off wheat for at least two weeks, but do it at the same total carb
>grams. See if you can tell any difference in your health. Even if
>there was an improvement you likely won't be able to tell.


Yep.

>See if
>anyone else mentions your health improves. Outside perspective works
>best at this step.


That seems pretty dicey.

>Add wheat back again. See if you can tell any
>difference in your health. If a problem comes back, you won't need an
>outside perspective at this step.
>
>The reason I specified at the same total carb grams is in our world that
>stresses low fat, plenty of people who do better on low carb than on low
>fat will free better simply because they switched to a diet that works
>for them. I felt better when I switched to low carb but after
>experimentation I can eat plenty without ill effects. I had to wait
>months before adding wheat back in. I had to be used to my new stable
>health level and only add wheat back in at the expense of other carb
>sources. But when I tried wheat, bam specific symptoms returned.


>The reason it seems like a fad is people think they are wheat intolerant
>when what they actually discovered is they do better on low carb than on
>low fat.


Okay, that's another possibility, and one I alluded to -- a conflation
of wheat intolerance with high-carb diets in general.


Steve
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
Banned
 
Posts: 5,466
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

On Aug 18, 1:47*pm, Helpful person > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 11:45*am, ImStillMags > wrote:
>
>
>
> > True. * You can eat less and exercise, which is wonderful. * *But if
> > the food you are eating less of is still causing dis-ease in the body
> > you have accomplished little.

>
> That's a little harsh. *Which particular diseases are you concerned
> about?
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com


I'm not talking about disease.....dis-ease.....joint pain, headaches,
back pain, edema, inflammation, etc.

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Helpful person wrote:
>
> It's very simple. Eat less and exercise. However, it's easier to say
> than do.


If that worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. Anyone
who imagines that has not been tried by at least 99% of the fat people
at the mall is delusional. And not a helpful person.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting the same results. People who push eating less and
exercising more suggest the same thing over and over and expect the
results to be different the next time. Yes, whatever eventually the
solution is will include something that causes less hunger and thus less
eating. Yes, whatever eventually the solution is will include more
exercise than was done before the start of the obesity epidemic. Oh
right, people already do that part.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,197
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk > wrote:
>
> > Fact is, some people overdo the wheat breads but to say that 'grains
> > are bad for you' is innaccurate. Some small segment may have wheat
> > intolerance issues but it is not common. If's a fad more often than
> > not to say 'I'm allergic to wheat'.

>
> I think there's a confluence of two things in the public's mind:
>
> (1) The fact that some people -- no more than a few percent of the
> population -- have Celiac disease, or other definable wheat conditions
> such as wheat allergies or intolerances.
>
> (2) The idea (supported by some science) that high-carb diets are bad
> diets (either for weight loss, or for cardiovascular health).
>
> These two ideas have merged into an overarching "wheat is bad"
> headset that is, as a generalization, not even remotely correct.


Thats a sensible way to put it. High carb can be misleading as some
try to lower the bar on how much is allowed. What is true is some eat
little but processed wheat and high fat additives to it. They aren't
doing something like my morning bowl of oatmeal, or rice with pickled
veggies and dashi.


--



  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,197
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

ImStillMags wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Aug 18, 10:59*am, "cshenk" > wrote:
> >
> > Sure Steve, over vaccination can be an issue. *This OP though doesnt
> > believe in any ever.
> >

> Where in the world did you see me say that? I've never advocated no
> vaccinations at all.


IM, I'm talking about a different conference and no relation to you at
all. I didn't even know you had pets. Rec.Pets.Dogs.Health

--

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,197
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> ImStillMags > wrote:
>
> >On Aug 18, 10:59 am, "cshenk" > wrote:
> > >
> >> Sure Steve, over vaccination can be an issue. This OP though

> doesnt >> believe in any ever.
> > >

> > Where in the world did you see me say that? I've never advocated
> > no vaccinations at all.

>
> Carol meant "other person" (someone she knows from elsewhere), not
> "original poster".


Yup, context sensitive usenet term

--

  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46,524
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.


"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
> cshenk wrote:
>>
>> I agree. A simple sanity check. Doug just posted something with 5%
>> calories a day from veggies and grains. Hopefully he made a typo.

>
> Low carb veggies take vast amount to have much calories. My doctor
> asked about how much fruits and vegitables I eat. I asked him how big a
> serving is. When he showed me I laughed. It was half the size of my
> regular low carb veggie serving and my ultra-low carb salad serving was
> bigger. As I focus on 5+ servings of my size servings that's a daily
> focus of 10+ servings according to him. He nodded and stopped asking
> about what I eat. I only seem to pull off 8 of his sized servings most
> days. What I eat isn't good enough to count as Atkins maintenance but
> it was definitely good enough for him.
>
> It doesn't take much pasta or potatoes to make up for a huge amount of
> the vegitables that are better for you. A plate of cauliflower with 50
> grams of carbs is the size of my head. A plate of pasta with 50 grams
> is a smaller serving than I've seen at any restaurant in a very long
> time.
>
> Does anyone think there's any down side to eating 10+ servings of low
> carb veggies even in place of that many calories of carby food?
> Understanding that the replacement is low carb veggies, there's no
> down side to going wheat free, potato free or whatever. If the
> starchiest thing you eat today is a carrot and the sweetest thing you
> eat today is a pear, you don't have a problematic diet.
>
> You want to eat grain instead of cauliflower and chicken, go for it.
> But don't imagine it's actually a better diet.


Well for me there is a downside. I have gastroparesis and I don't digest
vegetables well. But I also don't digest some grains well.


  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46,524
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.


"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
...
> Helpful person wrote:
>>
>> It's very simple. Eat less and exercise. However, it's easier to say
>> than do.

>
> If that worked you could go to the mall and not see fat people. Anyone
> who imagines that has not been tried by at least 99% of the fat people
> at the mall is delusional. And not a helpful person.
>
> Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again
> and expecting the same results. People who push eating less and
> exercising more suggest the same thing over and over and expect the
> results to be different the next time. Yes, whatever eventually the
> solution is will include something that causes less hunger and thus less
> eating. Yes, whatever eventually the solution is will include more
> exercise than was done before the start of the obesity epidemic. Oh
> right, people already do that part.


The first time I lost weight I ate 1,000 calories a day. Low fat. Low
protein. Vegetarian. Pretty much Ornish. Exercised to exhaustion. I was
tired all the time. Felt like crap. Managed to keep the weight off for
three years but then lost it when my now husband made me a cheese sandwich.
He put like a slab of cheese on there. I had forgotten what real food
tasted like. And I missed it. I went back to eating what I wanted again.
Put on the weight and then some.

Got pregnant. Lost 12 pounds. Why? Hyperthyroid.

Had the baby. Gained weight after. Thyroid was still wonky.

Lost the weight back down to where I was before the pregnancy. Why? Don't
know.

Got diabetes. Lost the weight several times and put it back on. The last
time I believe it is from the insulin I am now on. I am still eating less.
That doesn't help. I can't exercise much because of my other medical
problems. I do as much walking as I can in large stores. I need the
shopping cart for my balance. It's enough exercise to give me low blood
sugar. But apparently not enough to make me lose weight.

I do know of a woman who ate several sandwiches at once. And one of those
tubs you see on display at the Baskin and Robbins of ice cream. One tub
every night. I can remember her telling me that she told her Dr. this. He
told her to stop eating ice cream and eat only one sandwich for a meal. For
her it was like a miracle. Somehow she had no clue she was eating abnormal
amounts. And somehow she did well on the new diet and wasn't hungry. I
don't think this is typical. If only it was this easy for the rest of it.
But it's not.


  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,197
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> cshenk wrote:
> >
> > I agree. A simple sanity check. Doug just posted something with 5%
> > calories a day from veggies and grains. Hopefully he made a typo.

>
> Low carb veggies take vast amount to have much calories. My doctor
> asked about how much fruits and vegitables I eat. I asked him how
> big a serving is. When he showed me I laughed. It was half the size
> of my regular low carb veggie serving and my ultra-low carb salad
> serving was bigger. As I focus on 5+ servings of my size servings
> that's a daily focus of 10+ servings according to him. He nodded and
> stopped asking about what I eat. I only seem to pull off 8 of his
> sized servings most days. What I eat isn't good enough to count as
> Atkins maintenance but it was definitely good enough for him.
>
> It doesn't take much pasta or potatoes to make up for a huge amount of
> the vegitables that are better for you. A plate of cauliflower with
> 50 grams of carbs is the size of my head. A plate of pasta with 50
> grams is a smaller serving than I've seen at any restaurant in a very
> long time.
>
> Does anyone think there's any down side to eating 10+ servings of low
> carb veggies even in place of that many calories of carby food?
> Understanding that the replacement is low carb veggies, there's no
> down side to going wheat free, potato free or whatever. If the
> starchiest thing you eat today is a carrot and the sweetest thing you
> eat today is a pear, you don't have a problematic diet.
>
> You want to eat grain instead of cauliflower and chicken, go for it.
> But don't imagine it's actually a better diet.


You aren't getting me Doug. I eat a very balanced diet. You've even
at times seem me post a daily family list. I don't even eat
particularily high carb though some days may work out that way, they
balance with another day.

My Doctors are *delighted* with my diet. I used to run an eye-popping
450 cholestrol test. Last 7 years, it's been under 120 with such a
high HDL they don't care that it's over 100. Diet does make a
difference. It's the blanket mentality that I and others are objecting
to. Just because *I* could solve a cholestrol issue with diet (a diet
reactive one in my case combined with genetics) doesn't mean another
can.

You've gotten it into your head that carbs are automatically bad
because *you* personally feel better with a very low carb diet. I say,
enjoy it then but don't expect others to think you have the be-all and
end-all of dietary 'best practice'.

Today was probably a high carb day by your standards, but there was no
wheat. Tomorrow there will be as a loaf of bread is finishing off.
(rye, whole wheat, oats, bit of buckwheat, almond flour, honey, salt,
yeast, a bit of added gluten for rise).

Breakfast:
- Japanese rice porridge, a soupy rice in dashi wth some 25 other types
of veggies, tofu or seafood bits added in so that each bite is
different.
- fresh peach

Lunch:
- Butternut squash soup with carrots and carmelized onions
- Steamed green beans with a sesame oil dressing
- Kimchee
- Baked eggplant with olive oil and a thin layer of smoked cheese

Dinner:
- More rice
- 4oz or so sashimi tuna each, served sashimi style with dipping sauce
- Steamed bok choy and mustard greens
- Sauteed early season gobo dressed in a miso/dashi sauce
- 1 cherrystone clam each with butter and garlic dip
- More of the butternut soup
- baked apples with honey and cinnimon

If that seems odd to you, you should be able to see plenty of threads
where I have posted very similar meals since 2007. A lot of them also
add bread or udon but today, wasn't any used. Wasn't any beans today
either and thats real common for us as well.


--

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
high protein, low carb pasta Cheri[_3_] General Cooking 1 05-04-2017 06:41 PM
A high-carb food - too much for most of you Robert Miles Diabetic 4 20-10-2008 07:34 AM
Help! Newly diagnosed with diabetes AND high cholesterol! jem General Cooking 87 09-03-2005 03:02 PM
Dr. Greger's ( vegan md ) new book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truthabout America's Low-Carb Craze Steve Vegan 0 05-03-2005 05:45 PM
Low Fat, Low Carb, High YUM Jennifer Diabetic 4 28-12-2004 02:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"