The Diet/Fitness Thread

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.

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.

[Gladys]

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 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.

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.

[Aylinn]

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.

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.

[LitNetIsGreat]

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

[cafolini]

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.

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.

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.

[*Classic*Charm*]

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

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.

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.

[TheFifthElement]

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:

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.

http://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/c...olesterol.aspx

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?

[cafolini]

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.

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.

Again, you are not listening to what's being said. You are ignoring precisely that science that does no fit your scheme. Case closed.

[*Classic*Charm*]

You are ignoring precisely that science that does no fit your scheme. Case closed.

Are you actually saying that science does not corroborate my argument? Or that yours is outside the realm of scientific study?

If I don't get it, perhaps you ought to state your argument more succinctly.

[*Classic*Charm*]

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.aspx

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?

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.

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.

[Calidore]

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.

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.

[Darcy88]

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.

[*Classic*Charm*]

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.

I'll give you that one haha, the example was weak.

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

[LitNetIsGreat]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Darcy88]

I tend to not buy or eat anything that comes out of package.