@ Cafolini - choline is where it is at. A very under-rated nutrient in my opinion. I sometimes take it supplementally.
Green tea is an excellent appetite-suppressent. As is yerba mate.
Printable View
@ Cafolini - choline is where it is at. A very under-rated nutrient in my opinion. I sometimes take it supplementally.
Green tea is an excellent appetite-suppressent. As is yerba mate.
That is completely false. Site your source, please. And if it isn't a peer-reviewed article from a scientific journal, it isn't worth citing.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Also, the word is "YOLK", not "YOKE". I certainly hope you are not eating yokes. That would be unpleasant.
ETA:
From the Journal of Poultry Science (Roberts, J.R. "Factors Affecting Egg Internal Quality and Egg Shell Quality in Laying Hens". (2004) Journal of Poultry Science, 41: 161-177):
"Yolk colour preference varies considerably
depending on the part of the world and pigments of either natural or synthetic origin
may be added to achieve a desired yolk colour. In Australia, the preferred yolk colour
is about ++ on the Roche scale. However, other countries prefer darker or lighter yolk
colour. Some countries such as Sweden do not allow the use of synthetic pigments. "
"Some of the problems with egg shell quality reported from free range systems (Fraser and Bain, +33.) may result
from an inability to ensure a balanced diet for the hens."
Soo...the opposite of what you said. Not a bad little review article if you're interested. The pdf is available for free as well: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article.../41_3_161/_pdf
duplicate
Biological Immune Superefficiency
I don't know if what I'm going to talk about has been catalogued. The idea dawned one day thinking about a girl I met who's now dying from cancer.
About 20 years ago I met this girl who was disabled at an early age. The housing authority gave her a small studio apartment with a good size living room, a large closet, a bathroom and a small 8x8 ft kitchen. She lived most of the day in the kitchen and smoked anywhere from 3 to 3 1/2 packs of cigarttes per day. I often talked to her through her window, very slightly opened, because it was impossible to get in that kitchen without choking to death. I told her so, but she said she was very strong and couldn't get hurt by it. She didn't have any sign of being such a smoker; no cough, no phlegm, none of the usual effects. People observing this situation would say she might not have inhaled any smoke. But even if she didn't tried, living in that kitchen it was impossible not to breathe it in.
A few years ago she was diagnosed with cancer. It was thinking about this that the idea of Immune Superefficiency dawned on me. I didn't know what else to call it, since the carcinogenic compounds were there and taking effect.
As one who had consumed an egg yoke a day but has now reduced to three per week, I'm not convinced that egg yokes in quantity are fine. Recent studies suggest that eggs will raise cholesterol, and that not all HDL is "good" cholesterol.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I am certain that the dairy industry has long funded research that paints eggs in the best possible light, and all of it is flooding the internet.
Do you seriously think more than three eggs a week is bad for you? OK, I can see that there is conflicting information with just about every single food on earth, and that studies and science continually fail us in such matters, but surely common sense can also prevail? Eggs are one of the most natural and nutritious foods you can come by, foods that we have been eating for millions of years so common sense suggests that an egg a day can hardly be 'bad' for you, quite the opposite. I used to eat about 30+ eggs a week a few months back, but now I eat less, maybe 10 a week, this is not because of any nonsensical fears about good vs bad cholesterol, HDLs or any of that, just a question of eating habits. I just stick to eating natural foods for the majority of my diet, listening to my body e.g. eat when hungry, balance things up a bit and job done. As a result I've never been healthier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
I eat three eggs a week because I think they are good for me. The question is whether seven or fourteen are? I am fairly certain that high egg intake is relatively low risk where you have no heart disease and your overall diet is low in saturated fats. Certainly our ancestors ate eggs, but they couldn't visit the supermarket week in and week out for a couple of dozen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I place greater weight on studies that suggest too much high cholesterol food presents a heart disease risk, because I can be sure there are no dairy corporations zealously funding them.
I always eat low salt, sugar and saturated fat, and haven't had the least weight problem in decades.
We should also take into consideration that although our ancestors may have eaten more high cholesterol food, they were also generally more physically active (No cars to take them where they wanted or all the modern facilities that make our life more sedentary), so they could easily reduce the excessive amount of cholesterol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Yes but over on the primal forums they can't get enough of saturated fats and cholesterol!! Some of them put butter in their coffee!! Over there it's carbs that are the big no no, not carbs from fruit and veg, carbs from breads, pastas etc. I'm not active in those forums any more because I've got all the info I need and put that together with common sense and my own lifestyle and it works for me. Low salt and sugar is also a good thing. Here's the link if you're interested:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/#axzz2UVC7Qvnw
What's flooding the Internet are the goons from the FDA trying hard to justify prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries that sustain false diagnoses. I'll soon talk about some differentiations that will show specific examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
I think that the point Gladys is trying to make is that the type of diet you are describing has no foundation in the scientific literature. What you call "common sense", I call a fad diet. All of the extreme diets come and go in popularity- high carb diets, high protein, the Atkins which was high fat, high fiber. They are all extreme diets that people claimed simply made sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
Unfortunately, when it comes to diet, health, and medicine, "common sense" means nothing.
It is hugely popular right now to talk about everything being "natural", especially food. Natural, whatever definition you decide to give that term, does not necessarily mean best for you. The entire point of food science research is to find out how best to deliver nutrients to our bodies in a way that satisfies our physiological and behavioural needs. It is the reason we know the difference between the different types of cholesterol (HDL and LDL primarily), what their functions are in the body, and how much of them we need to consume to maximize their effects without causing detriment. Eggs have been a huge part of that investigation. There are recommendations for the max number of eggs one should consume in a week because they have the potential to cause negative effects on your health. Ignoring that is ignorance, not common sense.
The idea that we should eat the way we presume our ancestors ate is absurd- we do not live the same lifestyle, nor do we live in the same type of environment. We also have many more foodstuffs available to us that are better sources of nutrition. You made the claim that "low salt and sugar is a good thing". That is not from your "common sense", that is the result of scientific study. If it were common sense, people would not have soaked their meat in salt in order to preserve it.
Except that there are no limits on the number of eggs that can be eaten. That's 'old' science. From The British Heart Foundation website:
http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/c...olesterol.aspxQuote:
I've heard that eating too many eggs can raise your cholesterol - how many can I eat?
For most people there is currently no limit on the number of eggs that you can eat in a week. However, because the recommendation has changed over the years, it's often a common source of confusion.
In the past a restriction on eggs was recommended because we thought that foods high in cholesterol (including liver, kidneys and shellfish, as well as eggs) could have an impact on cholesterol levels in the body.
However, as research in this area has developed, so has our understanding of how foods that contain cholesterol affect people’s heart health.
For most people, the amount of saturated fat they eat has much more of an impact on their cholesterol than eating foods that contain cholesterol, like eggs and shellfish. So unless you have been advised otherwise by your doctor or dietician, if you like eggs, they can be included as part of a balanced and varied diet.
I don't disagree that there are lots of fad diets out there and people should be guarded against them, but there is also a lot of old science which has now been debunked which people still follow because despite the more current information they still feel that the old message is 'common sense'. Ignoring the current information could also be seen as 'ignorance' but I think that food science is still so difficult to unravel what else are people supposed to do than follow an approach which makes sense to them?
Again, you are not listening to what's being said. You are ignoring precisely that science that does no fit your scheme. Case closed.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Are you actually saying that science does not corroborate my argument? Or that yours is outside the realm of scientific study?Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
If I don't get it, perhaps you ought to state your argument more succinctly.
The recommendation varies depending on where you are from and the typical type of diet consumed in that region. In most places now, you are correct. The "old science" did not account for confounding factors of which we now know more. Your article states that "In the past a restriction on eggs was recommended because we thought that foods high in cholesterol (including liver, kidneys and shellfish, as well as eggs) could have an impact on cholesterol levels in the body. However, as research in this area has developed, so has our understanding of how foods that contain cholesterol affect people’s heart health." I suspect that this refers to the fairly recent understanding that dietary cholesterol contributes only slightly to plasma concentrations of LDL (our "bad cholesterol" measurement). What is newly developing (2010- present ongoing research) is our understanding of how dietary cholesterol stimulates other potentially harmful metabolic reactions in the body.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFifthElement
It's an ongoing story, and as I said, the recommendations vary by country due to cultural dietary variations as well as the prevalence of cardiovascular disease.
Common sense can also vary according to the times and available knowledge. Salt-curing meat, for example, was common sense at the time: spoiled meat = bad, salt preserved it, therefore salting it = good. Now that's changed because we know about the detrimental health effects of too much salt.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
Its funny. I was in the best shape of my life when I worked in a chinese/burger joint and ate a massive plate of sweet and sour pork and chow mein or a double decker burger with a hot-dog on it 5 days a week every week.
I'll give you that one haha, the example was weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
My point is that common sense is subjective. To me, common sense is to question extreme claims and respect the work of experts in their fields. It is not common sense to interpret my individual personal experience as an ultimate truth (that is, "I eat this way, and I am healthy, therefore this must be the right way for everyone to eat").
In my opinion and view, due to my background and education, claims made about food or diet have no significance unless they have been tried, tested, peer-reviewed, published, and analyzed critically. To me, that is how knowledge of a subject and truth about it can be acquired. I think it absurd to believe in a claim simply because it sounds right, even intuitively, or because it is popular. I think it irresponsible and potentially dangerous to influence others with those claims.
If that isn't how other people seek or recognize knowledge, so be it :)
The diet I am suggesting has basis in human evolution, i.e. meats, fish, fresh fruit and vegetables, nuts, eggs, preferably organic/free range where available. If you feel the need to read peer reviewed scientific literature to test whether that is healthy or not then fine, I do not. If such a diet - a diet that the human body has evolved with - doesn't have any foundation in modern science then in my opinion it is the fault of modern science. Personally I'd rather make such things the core of my diet where possible. I would rather try to eat natural foods that our bodies are adapted to from millions of years of evolution, as opposed to Frankenstein foods produced in a laboratory in the last 20 years. This is the common sense I speak about.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
In terms of eggs, I have seen studies where people have consumed 40+ eggs a week with no rise in cholesterol levels, and anyway, cholesterol itself has recently been called into question of whether it is even harmful at all!! Same old conflicting data. No, I'll take my chances with eating natural foods, real foods, thanks and not continually change the things I eat because of the latest fad health scare - butter's bad eat margarine, no margarine causes cancer whoops eat butter...
I've spent about a year reading into paleo/primal lifestyle, 'fad diet', as in meat, nasty fish, killer vegetables, harmful fruit, fattening nuts, HDL eggs etc. You can read about it here if you want because I can't be bothered to go over old ground again and again whenever this comes up it gets really really tedious:
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ighlight=paleo
The result of my reading/ignorance, is that I am 100% convinced about it.
Oh and the levels of sugar and salt in the modern diet is way, way above what you would find in a typical primal diet, so that's nothing to do with recent studies either, again common sense, something quite rare these days it seems.
I tend to not buy or eat anything that comes out of package.
Agree completely. Keep the science in science.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
I can also recommend checking out the thread Neely linked to. Among other discussions, he and I had a very enjoyable point/counterpoint on the paleo diet in there.
I see things much as you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*
I would add that science, in medicine and nutrition particularly, is rather frail. For instance, despite countless studies on heart disease and high cholesterol, the impact on cholesterol, in its various physical and chemical configurations, is far from clear even now. Not all HDL is good it seems; other cholesterol is worst of all; and cholesterol particle size is important. The full story may be millennia away.
i think the problem is that everyone touts that they are right, creating the illusion that we have it all figured out. at the same time that the United States has record incidences of high cholesterol/blood pressure, heart attacks, diabetes, and cancer. i think it really comes down to not eating processed foods, drinking lots of unfluoridated water, and getting exercise (this country is nuts in terms of people sitting around all day at work then going home and watching tv).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gladys
Water fluoridation has nothing to do with it. For most of my life I've been in marvellous physical shape and I've always daily consumed great quantities of tap-water.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
Your other points are spot on though. They key is to cut out the processed foods and make sure you simple move.
i guess fluoridation has more to do with your mental state than physical. not saying there is anything wrong with you, but fluoridation simply has no dental benefit, whereas its affects on the pineal gland are quite profound.
there's a reason why Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland have all discontinued fluoridation of public water.
To change the subject because fluoridation is for more than just protecting teeth unless you have better technology available that many poor countries don't have.
There is a way for the elder to deal with insonia due to perhaps anguish or anxiety. The drug used is dangerous beyond 5mg,but at that dosis is safe. Imsomnia can be corrected by taking a pill every 5 to 10 days. I'm talking about Ambien. The generic name is Zolpidem Tartrate. Beyond 5mg it could be addictive and have bad side effectcs. If you are suffering from extreme lack of sleep, ask your doctor for a safe prescription. Often, the problem is corrected and you might not have to keep taking it. If you buy it without prescrition (not recommended), remember 5 mg, no more.
That reason is mostly politics. The dental benefits of water fluoridation have been very well documented over decades--it hardens the tooth enamel, thus hindering decay--and for that matter, several countries without water fluoridation, like Germany, fluoridate salt instead for the same reason. Never heard the pineal thing before; a Google search turned up lots of new-agey/conspiracy quackery (as in, fluoride in the pineal has the effect of making us more docile, and is introduced by the government into our water just for that purpose), but no reputable science that I could see on an admittedly quick skim.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
Article in the Trib today about some nutrition myths:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,1842434.story
Very good article. Take heed. One more thing: Mix Amaranth flour, 10 grain flour, pecan flour, and corn tortilla flour in equal proportions. They don't need to be refrigerated. When you get ready to bake, mix some apple powder cider and some powdered butter. Add enough water to make dough and some baking powder. You can make some healthy dumplings, tamales, gorditas, scones, etc. If you are making scones, you can use some berries and sweeten it with concentrated niagara or concord grape juice. This is a very healthy deal. No myth.
Soy is not very good unless it has been fermented.
With the mix described above, you can make some great pecan pie. Don't use the apple cider. Still sweeten with grape juice and use carob powder as a chocolate substitute if you wish.
If you wish to eat actual chocolate, use very dark. Don't exaggerate. That's all.
The problem with nutrition myths is that they change with the weather. You can easily find any number of articles that would argue the opposite. And you can play article tennis all day long and it won't prove anything either way. As Gladys said about one particular thing, cholesterol, the full story is probably a millennia away, well, we haven't got that long! This is way in the absence of any reliable info I stick to a common sense approach in my diet and have done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
That's not good enough, Neely. You should specify the articles that argue the opposite. You'll have a hard time finding them, except that the goons at the FDA would argue the opposite and they no longer count.
Whole grains, fruits and veggies, quality source of protein. Anything beyond that amounts to needless over-complification.
I agree only there's a question mark over grains, so I limit my intake of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Ha, Cafolini I'm not playing tennis.
One suffers from malnutrition to get to 150 to become a model. LOL His over-complication amounts to over-simplification.
The other doesn't play tennis. It's a good sport, Neely. You don't have to stop tennis to ignore the issues. ROFLMAO
I wouldn't say I am malnourished. I started drinking green smoothies made of fruits and vegetables.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Oh I like real tennis, in fact I intend to play tomorrow morning with a very slight hangover via some Cumberland Ale tonight, but this monkey is done with playing article tennis about food. Not much fun there!Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
what kind of fruits/vegs do you mix for your smoothies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
Avocado, kale, lettuce, spinach, oranges, bananas, kiwis, apples.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
Hospital ripoffs of medicare, but not to be associated with the nature of medicare or medicaid or medical. This is abuse on the part of hospitals.
I will cite just one case, although there are many similar ones. This one is about diverticulosis/diverticulitis and usually has to do with the health of the elderly.
What is diverticulosis?
Diverticulosis is a condition that develops when pouches (diverticula ) form in the wall of the colon (large intestine ). These pouches are usually very small (5 to 10 millimeters) in diameter but can be larger.
In diverticulosis, the pouches in the colon wall do not cause symptoms. Diverticulosis may not be discovered unless symptoms occur, such as in painful diverticular disease or in diverticulitis. As many as 80 out of 100 people who have diverticulosis never get diverticulitis.1 In many cases, diverticulosis is discovered only when tests are done to find the cause of a different medical problem or during a screening exam.
What causes diverticulosis?
The reason pouches (diverticula) form in the colon wall is not completely understood. Doctors think diverticula form when high pressure inside the colon pushes against weak spots in the colon wall.
Normally, a diet with adequate fiber (also called roughage) produces stool that is bulky and can move easily through the colon. If a diet is low in fiber, the colon must exert more pressure than usual to move small, hard stool. A low-fiber diet also can increase the time stool remains in the bowel, adding to the high pressure.
Pouches may form when the high pressure pushes against weak spots in the colon where blood vessels pass through the muscle layer of the bowel wall to supply blood to the inner wall.
What are the symptoms?
Most people don't have symptoms. You may have had diverticulosis for years by the time symptoms occur (if they do). Over time, some people get an infection in the pouches (diverticulitis). For more information, see the topic Diverticulitis.
***
The care entails some antibiotic to prevent infection and a high fiber diet such as oatmeal.
I know this person who went to a hospital's ER with the symptoms and was confined to a room, given the antibiotic for five days and simply kept under observation. The cost of the bed was U$S1000/per day, which is already high. At the end of the 5 days, the person went home. The hospital billed Medicare for 30,000; six times as much as the cost of the bed. The person did not even had a dedicated nurse. Only the usual monitor used for anything else. There wasn't any intensive care.
How was this justified. It wasn't. Medicare paid it and the person received a duplicate of the bill, as usual. Exaggerate itemization was of breakfast, lunch and dinner, and dedicated nurses that never existed in actuality.
Be careful about the mongers who will come here trying to associate this ripoff with the programs.