Michelle Obama gets her way on nutrition labels

Quote:

---

First lady Michelle Obama Friday unveiled the country's first update to nutrition labels in more than two decades — a move that helps cement her campaign to encourage Americans to eat healthier.

The new Nutrition Facts labels, which will take effect in two years and appear on billions of food packages, for the first time require food companies to list how much sugar they add to their products and suggest a limit for how much added sugar people should consume — two changes vehemently opposed by many food companies.

The impact of the rule is difficult to overstate — labels on products from candy bars and sodas to crackers and cereal, at every point of sale across America, must be overhauled at an estimated cost of $2 billion. And those labels will remind Americans every time they open a package of how much added sugar they are consuming.

"Very soon, very soon you will no longer need a microscope, a calculator or a degree in nutrition to figure out whether the food you're buying is actually good for our kids," Obama said today as she unveiled the new label at a health summit in Washington. "That's a phenomenal achievement."

The administration’s determination to stand its ground on added sugar labeling amid fierce opposition from business groups is a sign the first lady intends to bolster her already substantive food policy legacy in her final months in the East Wing. While the media has often painted Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign as soft and uncontroversial, the first lady has brought enormous pressure to bear on groups like the processed food industry and notched a series of wins related to what Americans eat. Those include the administration’s effort to all but ban trans fats, mandate more fruits and vegetables as well as less sugar, salt and fat for the meals served to 30 million school kids, and use government financing to get grocery stores into poor communities that lacked access to healthy food.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz49E65c9ly

---

The problem is that for the most part, the people that will read the labels are already aware of what it means to eat healthy and are already avoiding eating too much sugar, fat, etc.
The ones that aren't educated enough in this aspect aren't going to know or care what the new labeling means.

:lol those changes make no sense

She changed the portions to a more generous portion size for fat Americans :lmao

Sugar? As in only that which comes from sugar cane? What about agave, honey, maple syrup? Nutritional labels already list CARBOHYDRATES which is what is important. More healthy fats, less carbohydrates. She'd be more helpful if they left off the grains off the My Plate and turned the food pyramid upside down. Low carbs (mostly vegetables and some fruit), protein (meat, fish, eggs, beans) and HIGH fat - coconut oil, olive oil, avocados, olives, whole fat milk products - that's my recipe for good nutrition. No need for grains - especially rice which is laced with arsenic.

After reading the linked article, she's making serving size larger and it's true added sugar is processed the same way as naturally occurring sugars - no need to list them separately or at all.

Two billion. No big deal to fat ass Michelle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

After reading the linked article, she's making serving size larger and it's true added sugar is processed the same way as naturally occurring sugars - no need to list them separately or at all.

---

I really like the changes. Serving sizes are too often preposterously small. For example, I eat a normal size bag of popcorn and it's technically 3 serving sizes therefore the label is off by a factor of 3 (although I can use simple multiplication to figure it out of course). Also, regardless of how the added sugar is processed, I want to know how much sugar the manufacturer is adding unnecessarily so that I know whether it's even possible for me to find a similar alternative with less sugar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Two billion. No big deal to fat ass Michelle.

---

If clowns like you were totally running the show the past few decades then we probably wouldn't even have labels which are very useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Two billion. No big deal to fat ass Michelle.

---

Michelle is a pretty buff dude, tbh
https://intellihub.com/wp-content/up...6934773525.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mitch

Michelle is a pretty buff dude, tbh
https://intellihub.com/wp-content/up...6934773525.jpg

---

A face only a mother can love. And Obama.

I actually dig the fined tune muscles. They look hot as fuck on a chick. But you have to have the full package to go along with the body.

http://65.media.tumblr.com/2a28c60e4...5zto2_1280.jpg


Not bad amirite?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reck

A face only a mother can love. And Obama.

I actually dig the fined tune muscles. They look hot as fuck on a chick. But you have to have the full package to go along with the body.

http://65.media.tumblr.com/2a28c60e4...5zto2_1280.jpg


Not bad amirite?

---

Little too lean, tbh. Not ugly, tho

You voting Ivanka Trump 2024, bro? Keep America Great

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mitch

Michelle is a pretty buff dude, tbh
https://intellihub.com/wp-content/up...6934773525.jpg

---

She should fix her over(under) byte - her face is so so but her body is very good - tall and lean.

I like Michelle. I'd hit it.

Her influence as First Lady hasn't been as disastrous as Shillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

She should fix her over(under) byte - her face is so so but her body is very good - tall and lean.

---

It's unfortunate to see this post from a woman. Perhaps you should post a picture of yourself so we can point out what's wrong with your face.

Only in America can you find people who are outraged about having the food they're eating accurately labeled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Only in America can you find people who are outraged about having the food they're eating accurately labeled.

---

Willful ignorance is a virtue for many in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

After reading the linked article, she's making serving size larger and it's true added sugar is processed the same way as naturally occurring sugars - no need to list them separately or at all.

---

:lol bullshit, your body doesn't process blueberries the same way it processes oreo cookies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

It's unfortunate to see this post from a woman. Perhaps you should post a picture of yourself so we can point out what's wrong with your face.

---

what's unfortunate about it? people have physical appearances, is it really wrong to describe them? it's fine to discuss somebody's mental ability, accomplishments, but for some reason not their appearance? it's not as though rmt judged her based on her appearance (that would be misplaced)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

Willful ignorance is a virtue for many in this country.

---

:madrun when I get type 2 diabetes, I don't want to have any idea it's coming :madrun

Funny thing is fat white America will basically read Michelle Obama's words everytime they stuff their faces :lmao

Slavery has gone full circle :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

what's unfortunate about it? people have physical appearances, is it really wrong to describe them? it's fine to discuss somebody's mental ability, accomplishments, but for some reason not their appearance? it's not as though rmt judged her based on her appearance (that would be misplaced)

---

She didn't describe her appearance, she said she should fix it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

She didn't describe her appearance, she said she should fix it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

She should fix her over(under) byte - her face is so so but her body is very good - tall and lean.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

lol

---

It seems like context clues would indicate to most people that it was the first part of her statement I was responding to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

lol

---

It seems like context clues would indicate to most people that it was the first part of her statement I was responding to, but if you want to continue to knit pick this tangential topic for a few more pages I guess I'm game.

And I have no idea why my edit posted a new reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

Funny thing is fat white America will basically read Michelle Obama's words everytime they stuff their faces :lmao

Slavery has gone full circle :lmao

---

those are the kind of people that never looked at the label in the first place and they still won't

just because you misspoke and got called out for it, you backpedal and call it tangential. ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

just because you misspoke and got called out for it, you backpedal and call it tangential. ok

---

I didn't misspeak, the part of the post I was responding to was clear. It is tangential, but like I said, if you're looking for a debate on it, I'm not doing anything right now either.

why dont they list how much growth hormone is pump into these products to get them ready to meat supply/demand onto the market for the masses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

It's unfortunate to see this post from a woman. Perhaps you should post a picture of yourself so we can point out what's wrong with your face.

---

Why should it matter that my post is from a woman? I notice you had nothing to say about CC's "fat ass" or Reck's "a face only a mother could love" which are worse than my comment. What I said is the truth. She does have a over(under) byte. It's not insulting. And I complimented her body - no mention of that. Double standard - you guys can comment on physical appearance, but I can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

It seems like context clues would indicate to most people that it was the first part of her statement I was responding to, but if you want to continue to knit pick this tangential topic for a few more pages I guess I'm game.

---

I could nitpick your spelling too, but I'll settle for being treated fairly - not any worse that the "I'd hit it" and "you have to have the full package to go along with the body" comments which you don't criticize.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

:madrun when I get type 2 diabetes, I don't want to have any idea it's coming :madrun

---

I have diabetes - didn't have any idea it was coming either - thought my dad had it because of old age (like high blood pressure and high cholesterol) but even though I ate a healthy diet, you can't fight the genes. But the stuff (pesticides, hormones) they put in our food probably does negatively affect the onset. I assume that he had a lot more natural, un-tampered food growing up in China and living in Jamaica than I had living the majority of my life here in the States. My advice, go low carb, high fat as prevention - diabetes is so prevalent now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

:lol bullshit, your body doesn't process blueberries the same way it processes oreo cookies.

---

When it comes to diabetes (which I'm pretty sure all this is aimed at), it doesn't matter whether the carbs come from blueberries, whole grains, or white sugar. It's the dietary fiber that tells you - how much you can subtract from the Total Carbohydrates to get the net carbs that affect blood sugar. The blueberries and whole grains, however, have other good stuff (like antioxidants, vitamins, etc.) that the white sugar doesn't.

And regarding Michelle's over (under) byte - it's not just appearance-wise but function-wise that she should look into fixing it. This coming from a mother who is steeling herself for braces on her last child this summer. I should look at the bright side - 1 out of 3 ain't bad, but God would choose the one with allergies to have the open byte.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

Why should it matter that my post is from a woman? I notice you had nothing to say about CC's "fat ass" or Reck's "a face only a mother could love" which are worse than my comment. What I said is the truth. She does have a over(under) byte. It's not insulting. And I complimented her body - no mention of that. Double standard - you guys can comment on physical appearance, but I can't?

---

I expect it from the others. As a woman, I'm guessing you've had to deal with superficiality more than most men, so I would think you'd want to be less quick to make everything about appearance.

Or you can play in the mud with the pigs and cry about double standards when someone says you should be better than the pigs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

When it comes to diabetes (which I'm pretty sure all this is aimed at), it doesn't matter whether the carbs come from blueberries, whole grains, or white sugar. It's the dietary fiber that tells you - how much you can subtract from the Total Carbohydrates to get the net carbs that affect blood sugar. The blueberries and whole grains, however, have other good stuff (like antioxidants, vitamins, etc.) that the white sugar doesn't.

---

My post about how the body processes oreos/blueberries wasn't aimed at diabetes, it was more America's general poor health/obesity. Blueberries/natural foods don't jack your insulin levels up the same way processed/added sugar does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Only in America can you find people who are outraged about having the food they're eating accurately labeled.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

I expect it from the others. As a woman, I'm guessing you've had to deal with superficiality more than most men, so I would think you'd want to be less quick to make everything about appearance.

Or you can play in the mud with the pigs and cry about double standards when someone says you should be better than the pigs.

---

lol

For people reading this thread, I implore you not to take nutritional or medical advice from people who are clearly not medical professionals. Avoid considering things like this:

Quote:

---

My advice, go low carb, high fat as prevention

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

For people reading this thread, I implore you not to take nutritional or medical advice from people who are clearly not medical professionals. Avoid considering things like this:

---

what's wrong with that advice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

For people reading this thread, I implore you not to take nutritional or medical advice from people who are clearly not medical professionals. Avoid considering things like this:

---

That's the part of her post that actually made sense, particularly the idea that the food pyramid is bullshit.

The part about natural sugars being processed the same way as added sugar was bullshit though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

what's wrong with that advice?

---

You mean aside from the fact fat contains more than twice the calories per unit weight than carbohydrates and our bodies aren't meant to maintain a low carb diet long term? There's also the fact of high protein (Atkins diet, etc) in the diet possibly leading to renal complications.

To live a healthy lifestyle, eat healthy things. That includes healthy varieties of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. It's not that difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

You mean aside from the fact fat contains more than twice the calories per unit weight than carbohydrates and our bodies aren't meant to maintain a low carb diet long term? There's also the fact of high protein (Atkins diet, etc) in the diet possibly leading to renal complications.

To live a healthy lifestyle, eat healthy things. That includes healthy varieties of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. It's not that difficult.

---

Maybe I read it wrong but I didn't get the sense that her post was advocating for an extreme like the Atkins diet where you cut out all carbs and eat 2 pounds of bacon every morning. I think all she was saying was your diet shouldn't be grain-based and that there are plenty of fats that you should be eating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Maybe I read it wrong but I didn't get the sense that her post was advocating for an extreme like the Atkins diet where you cut out all carbs and eat 2 pounds of bacon every morning. I think all she was saying was your diet shouldn't be grain-based and that there are plenty of fats that you should be eating.

---

The diet of a normal and healthy adult should not be fat-dominant. It's questionable whether you can have a healthy diet be protein dominant. Even if that's the case, carbohydrates should be a large % of overall intake. The confusion and misinformation comes from what types of carbohydrates we are taking in. Simple sugars? Refined sugars? Complex carbs? Whole grains? Her advice is at best vague and people who are actually thinking about changing their eating habits should talk to their doctor and/or a nutritionist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

You mean aside from the fact fat contains more than twice the calories per unit weight than carbohydrates and our bodies aren't meant to maintain a low carb diet long term? There's also the fact of high protein (Atkins diet, etc) in the diet possibly leading to renal complications.

To live a healthy lifestyle, eat healthy things. That includes healthy varieties of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. It's not that difficult.

---

Totally agree. I truly believe nutrition basics should be taught in school, but I'm sure the sugar lobby and others would fight it. Nutrition as a class or as part of P.E. would be great and I think young people would actually be interested in it (at least much more than they might have been in a past generation).

there are good fats, even good saturated fats, and lots bad fats (esp mammal fats)

there are harmless (slow) carbs and tons of really bad, fast carbs like sugar and HFCS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

even good saturated fats

---

Such as?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

Such as?

---

palm oil, coconut oil, grape and grapeseed oil, avocado and other seed oils, etc. BigFood crap (subsidized) oils are corn oil and soy oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

palm oil, coconut oil, grape and grapeseed oil, avocado and other seed oils, etc. BigFood crap (subsidized) oils are corn oil and soy oil.

---

Those aren't solely saturated fats. Those you listed are fats that can be higher in saturated fat content. Saturated fat is not good and should be avoided as much as possible in regards to health. I think the only caveat is saturated fats are ok when not being ingested, but used topically.

coconut oil is naturally saturated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

coconut oil is naturally saturated

---

So what? Saturation is in reference to the chemical bonds and how they stack. Saturated fats stacking in vessels is why they aren't healthy. Origin of saturation doesn't matter.

Prior to the low fat movement that began in the 70s, Americans ate tons of it through whole milk, red meats, eggs, etc., and we didn't have the obesity/beetus/heart disease epidemic we have now. All the data shows that once we started taking the fat out of food and replacing it with carbs/added sugar, or when we introduced the "food pyramid" and told people they should be eating a grain based diet, America's health deteriorated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Prior to the low fat movement that began in the 70s, Americans ate tons of it through whole milk, red meats, eggs, etc., and we didn't have the obesity/beetus/heart disease epidemic we have now. All the data shows that once we started taking the fat out of food and replacing it with carbs/added sugar, or when we introduced the "food pyramid" and told people they should be eating a grain based diet, America's health deteriorated.

---

Are you trying to say people should be on a diet where the majority of calories come from fat? Or that our research into saturated fats is somehow incorrect? Correlation does not imply causation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

Are you trying to say people should be on a diet where the majority of calories come from fat? Or that our research into saturated fats is somehow incorrect? Correlation does not imply causation.

---

I'm saying a diet that's high in calories from fat is much better than the typical American diet that's high in starches/added sugar.

Obviously a plant based diet where the majority of what you're eating is vegetables beats both, but that was never a reflection of the average American diet.

http://image.slidesharecdn.com/gotsu...?cb=1337946712

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

You mean aside from the fact fat contains more than twice the calories per unit weight than carbohydrates and our bodies aren't meant to maintain a low carb diet long term? There's also the fact of high protein (Atkins diet, etc) in the diet possibly leading to renal complications.

To live a healthy lifestyle, eat healthy things. That includes healthy varieties of carbohydrates, fats, and proteins. It's not that difficult.

---

Where in any of my posts did I mention high protein. I advised a diet high in healthy fats and low in carbs - nowhere do I say high protein.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

That's the part of her post that actually made sense, particularly the idea that the food pyramid is bullshit.

The part about natural sugars being processed the same way as added sugar was bullshit though.

---

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Of course eating natural foods is better than sugar because you are getting other nutrients than aren't in the sugar. But in counting carbs - it's total carbs minus dietary fiber (which keeps the effect of the sugar/carb down) = NET carbs. Sugar doesn't have dietary fiber which fruits, vegetables and whole grains have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Prior to the low fat movement that began in the 70s, Americans ate tons of it through whole milk, red meats, eggs, etc., and we didn't have the obesity/beetus/heart disease epidemic we have now. All the data shows that once we started taking the fat out of food and replacing it with carbs/added sugar, or when we introduced the "food pyramid" and told people they should be eating a grain based diet, America's health deteriorated.

---

Totally agree. That 11-12 servings of carbs in the food pyramid are what hurt us. And the crusade against egg yolks was terrible. Restrict the carbs, and you will see almost all your lab numbers drop - especially triglycerides. Also add fish oil daily and a lot of problems caused by inflammation would be controlled. And there's nothing wrong with saturated fat - coconut oil which is high is saturated fats is excellent especially as a possible deterrent to alzheimer's.

A recent article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) puts to rest a decades-old myth: Saturated fat is NOT bad for the heart. [1] This is news I’ve long suspected! And we now have science to support it. Fat is not the enemy when it comes to cardiovascular disease, weight gain, brain health, and so many other issues. It turns out that sugar — in all its many guises — is the real culprit for making you fat. What it also means is that because sugar causes inflammation throughout the body, it increases your risk of cardiovascular disease — and just about everything else!

We’ve all been sold a bill of goods about so-called healthy low-fat foods like cookies and muffins. When you begin to read labels, you’ll quickly see how much sugar is added to just about everything, especially to low-fat foods. When the fat is removed, so is the flavor. To make it more palatable, sugar, sugar substitutes, and salt are added in its place. And as you continue to read labels, I think you’ll be surprised by how much sugar is also in so-called healthy foods, like yogurt, tomato sauce, many fruit juices — even some salad dressings.

I can tell you without a doubt, it’s the sugar that so many of us struggle with, not the fat. Think about it. It’s NOT the burger with cheese and bacon that’s the issue. It’s the ketchup, the bun, and the fries. These are all carbs that instantly raise your blood sugar, because they are higher on the glycemic index than plain old table sugar. This is what I mean by sugar in all its guises.

Foods with little fat and loaded with sugar don’t leave you satiated after a meal — at least not for long. We need the fat to feel sated. Without it, we crave more sugary foods — until we learn to switch to or at least incorporate better food choices. It’s like being on a blood sugar roller coaster. Your body is subjected to the blood sugar highs and lows, and you literally NEED the sugar to feel OK when you’re in one of the lows.

So let’s not kid ourselves anymore about what’s really making us fat. Sugar is the leading culprit today in causing inflammation. Here are some specific stats from an article printed in February 2014 in the Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], which are worth sharing: [2]

Sugar is connected to an increased risk of heart attack and dementia, as well as other inflammatory diseases, such as insulin resistance and Type 2 diabetes, obesity, liver problems, arthritis, reduction in beneficial HDL cholesterol, increase in triglycerides, and cancer.
Those with the highest sugar intake had a 400 percent higher risk of heart attack than those with the lowest intake of sugar. Note the current recommendation by the American Heart Association: One’s daily intake of sugar should be only 5-7.5 percent of one’s total caloric intake.
It takes only one 20-ounce soda to increase your risk of heart attack by 30 percent.
If you consume 20 percent of your calories from sugar, your risk of heart attack doubles.
These statistics were determined after adjusting for independent risk factors for heart attack, such as smoking, high blood pressure, alcohol intake, and other factors.

If that’s not bad enough, it is sugar, not fat, that creates abdominal fat.

Did you know that the average American consumes 132 pounds of sugar a year? [3] And the rise in sugar intake in recent years has played a key role in the increase in the cellular inflammation — and the soaring obesity and diabetes rates?

So the right kind of diet for your heart (your brain and every other part of your body) is one which obviously includes lots of healthy vegetables and some fruit, plenty of protein, and high-quality, unprocessed, gluten-free carbs in moderation. Quinoa is one good choice.

And yes, I’ve watched the documentary Forks over Knives and was featured in another documentary on healthy eating called Hungry for Change. I realize that we all need more healthy greens and veggies — and less meat.

We also need a good deal of healthy fats, like coconut oil, avocados, nuts and seeds, and yes — saturated fat from animal sources. The best sources of animal fat are eggs, grass-fed and organically-raised chickens and beef, buffalo, and wild-caught fish. You can still be a vegetarian, of course. Just make sure you are no longer eating under the influence of the “low-fat police.” Because the lack of satisfaction you get from low-fat foods will almost certainly turn into a sugar binge somewhere down the road.

Aseem Malhotra, cardiologist and lead researcher on the study “Observations from Your Heart: Saturated fat is not the major issue,” told the BMJ that we have scientific evidence which shows that lowering our intake of saturated fat “has paradoxically increased our cardiovascular risks.” I’m glad that people everywhere are learning the truth about sugar and low-fat diets.

Were you surprised to learn that sugar is more harmful to your heart than saturated fat? I’d love to hear your impression of this blog, too. Please leave a comment, and LIKE or SHARE on Facebook if you think this news is important or can help others.

P.S. No — I’m not advocating a diet of nothing but bacon and burgers. But some good old grass-fed beef and nitrate-free bacon from pigs that haven’t been factory farmed won’t do you any harm, in my opinion. And neither will eggs and cheese. I prefer free-range organically raised eggs, of course. And raw milk cheese (which is legal in my state).

Here’s the bottom line: You don’t have to limit healthy fat in your diet. What you have to limit are trans fats and sugars. Period. End of story. So what does that look like on your plate? About one-third of your plate can be some kind of protein, including beans, tofu, or lentils. And the rest should be vegetables of all kinds. Healthy fats, like avocados, coconut oil, and butter can be used liberally. And here is the truth. Healthy fats are so satisfying that you won’t be tempted to overindulge. It’s only when they are combined with starch or sugar that the fats become a problem. Limit grains and fruits. But remember, there is no one size fits all dietary equation that is right for everybody. A lot depends on the season, your constitution, and other factors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...b_4914235.html

My contention is that the problem in our diet is too much carbs - no matter whether in the form of sugar, fruit or grains. The reason why fruit and WHOLE grains don't spike blood sugar as much is because of the high dietary fiber in them so of course, they are gonna be better than white hamburger bread (other than the vitamins/antioxidants). But the bread, rice, pasta, potatoes - that form the basis of our American diet all raise blood sugar as white sugar does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

Where in any of my posts did I mention high protein. I advised a diet high in healthy fats and low in carbs - nowhere do I say high protein.

---

Well you don't have to. Protein is the third source of calories so if you reduce carbohydrates, you will be increasing fat and/or protein. If you're seriously recommending fat as the primary source of calories :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

Totally agree. That 11-12 servings of carbs in the food pyramid are what hurt us. And the crusade against egg yolks was terrible. Restrict the carbs, and you will see almost all your lab numbers drop - especially triglycerides. Also add fish oil daily and a lot of problems caused by inflammation would be controlled. And there's nothing wrong with saturated fat - coconut oil which is high is saturated fats is excellent especially as a possible deterrent to alzheimer's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

My contention is that the problem in our diet is too much carbs - no matter whether in the form of sugar, fruit or grains. The reason why fruit and WHOLE grains don't spike blood sugar as much is because of the high dietary fiber in them so of course, they are gonna be better than white hamburger bread (other than the vitamins/antioxidants). But the bread, rice, pasta, potatoes - that form the basis of our American diet all raise blood sugar as white sugar does.

---

Again please don't take medical/health advice from someone who clearly isn't in the profession. Ask your physician or nutritionist about these things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

A recent article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) puts to rest a decades-old myth: Saturated fat is NOT bad for the heart. [1] This is news I’ve long suspected! And we now have science to support it. Fat is not the enemy when it comes to cardiovascular disease, weight gain, brain health, and so many other issues. It turns out that sugar — in all its many guises — is the real culprit for making you fat. What it also means is that because sugar causes inflammation throughout the body, it increases your risk of cardiovascular disease — and just about everything else!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...b_4914235.html

---

I found literally one study (the one the article references) that proclaims saturated fats aren't harmful in some way to the cardiovascular system. Nothing since to reaffirm or do more work to support such a claim. Not sure why I'm arguing with someone who thinks fat should be the main source of calories in a diet and whole grains/fruits are bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Time Magazine

If you cut out calories from saturated fat, the kinds of calories you replace them with can be just as detrimental...

For people who replaced the saturated with better-for-you whole grains, however, the story was different. They showed a lower risk of heart disease compared to those who didn’t make the switch. Those who replaced 5% of their daily energy intake from saturated fat with healthier fats or whole grains lowered their risk of heart events by anywhere from 9% to 25%. But there was no change in heart disease risk for those who replaced 5% of saturated fat with refined carbohydrates, like starches.

---

http://time.com/4052306/saturated-fat-heart-disease/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

Well you don't have to. Protein is the third source of calories so if you reduce carbohydrates, you will be increasing fat and/or protein. If you're seriously recommending fat as the primary source of calories :lol


Again please don't take medical/health advice from someone who clearly isn't in the profession. Ask your physician or nutritionist about these things.

I found literally one study (the one the article references) that proclaims saturated fats aren't harmful in some way to the cardiovascular system. Nothing since to reaffirm or do more work to support such a claim. Not sure why I'm arguing with someone who thinks fat should be the main source of calories in a diet and whole grains/fruits are bad.



http://time.com/4052306/saturated-fat-heart-disease/

---

Fine. Go ahead and get the majority of your calories from bread, rice, pasta, potatoes and oats (whole grains) and I'll get mine from coconut oil, olive oil, whole milk products, nuts, seeds, avocados, etc. Let's just agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

Totally agree. That 11-12 servings of carbs in the food pyramid are what hurt us. And the crusade against egg yolks was terrible. Restrict the carbs, and you will see almost all your lab numbers drop - especially triglycerides. Also add fish oil daily and a lot of problems caused by inflammation would be controlled. And there's nothing wrong with saturated fat - coconut oil which is high is saturated fats is excellent especially as a possible deterrent to alzheimer's.

---

:lol the claim that egg yolks would jack up your cholesterol was really the worst, and everyone believed it. I've been eating 8-12 egg yolks a week for the last year but have cut out added sugar/most starches and my overall cholesterol is 130.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

:lol the claim that egg yolks would jack up your cholesterol was really the worst, and everyone believed it. I've been eating 8-12 egg yolks a week for the last year but have cut out added sugar/most starches and my overall cholesterol is 130.

---

Same with butter/margarine. All these years they pushed margarine and hated on butter...suddenly it's...ooops...butters not so bad...

the cholesterol is World Champion Scam, seconded by the low-fat and whole-grain scams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

Fine. Go ahead and get the majority of your calories from bread, rice, pasta, potatoes and oats (whole grains) and I'll get mine from coconut oil, olive oil, whole milk products, nuts, seeds, avocados, etc. Let's just agree to disagree.

---

You can do whatever the hell you want, no matter how misinformed you are. Just stop telling people here what they should do as if you had any background in science or health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

You can do whatever the hell you want, no matter how misinformed you are. Just stop telling people here what they should do as if you had any background in science or health.

---

As if people with backgrounds in science or health are infallible. My third child has severe allergies and the consensus and advice of all those people with backgrounds in science and health when he was a baby was avoidance - avoid, avoid, avoid. Guess what the consensus is now - expose the children to everything - peanuts, dairy, eggs, everything as young as possible. Well, I followed their advice to the tee and now it's too late - instead of my child being exposed and gradually getting used to all these substances, he's super allegeric to lots of stuff and there's no going back.

My father told me to give him everything when he was a baby - he'll get used to it and of course, I chose to follow the PHD/MD "experts" instead of my common-sense, no-education father. This is a message board where we are allowed to post our opinions. No one has to believe or follow advice. But alternative opinions are out there to research and make up your own mind. I have learned a lot here. I appreciate the advice on suits, what others think about investments, what others are thinking about politics and the world in general. Most of the posts I don't agree with but people are allowed to (and should be encouraged to) post their opinions.

technicaly a carb is a carb is a carb. The difference in getting your carbs from more natural products instead of refined sugars and starches is what you don't get...the fiber, antioxidants, minerals etc. that have been stripped out of the refined products.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

the cholesterol is World Champion Scam, seconded by the low-fat and whole-grain scams.

---

whole-grain scam? They're better than refined as long as you don't use that as an excuse to unnecessarily carbo-load yourself everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

technicaly a carb is a carb is a carb.

---

yeah, that's what "dieticians" love to say with their conventional education. It's meaningless, and useless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

yeah, that's what "dieticians" love to say with their conventional education. It's meaningless, and useless.

---

A food carb is technically 4 kilocalories and is essentially a measure of energy content. A food carb has the energy content to raise a kilogram of water 4 degrees celsius. So yeah, a Carb is a Carb is a Carb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

whole-grain scam? They're better than refined as long as you don't use that as an excuse to unnecessarily carbo-load yourself everyday.

---

yep, whole grain is only highly refined grain (fast carbs) with the very tiny bit of retained fiber (the grain's hull). Essentially, whole grain is still just grain, a low-nutrition, fast carb.

"whole grain" is marketed by BigFood and BigFood-captured USDA as healthy. It's not, it's just a marketing campaign to keep selling taxpayer subsidized grains.

I wish they would make restaurants label the diarrhea probability on their food.

Donald Trump’s ‘shady’ support for veterans

When Democrats make the case that Donald Trump has a controversial background when it comes to veterans’ issues, it’s not just wishful thinking. The presumptive Republican nominee, for example, has drawn criticism for supporting a privatization plan for veterans’ care. His associations with the sketchy Veterans for a Strong America exacerbated the problem.

And it certainly didn’t help matters when Trump, who avoided military service during the Vietnam War, said he “felt” like he’d served in the military because his parents sent him to a military-themed boarding school as a teenager. The Republican went so far as to boast that his expensive prep school gave him “more training militarily than a lot of the guys that go into the military.”

Making matters much worse are new questions about Trump and veterans-related fundraising.

In January, the New York Republican skipped a debate in Iowa to instead hold a fundraiser for veterans. Trump repeatedly boasted at the time that, thanks to his bold leadership, he’s raised $6 million for vets. Trump added that he’d contributed $1 million out of his own pocket.

Whatever happened to all of that money? The Washington Post took a closer look.

Campaign manager Corey Lewandowski said the fundraiser actually netted about $4.5 million, or 75 percent of the total that Trump announced.

Lewandowski blamed the shortfall on Trump’s own wealthy acquaintances. He said some of them had promised big donations that Trump was counting on when he said he had raised $6 million. But Lewandowski said those donors backed out and gave nothing. […]

Lewandowski also said he did not know whether a $1 million pledge from Trump himself was counted as part of the $4.5 million total. He said Trump has given that amount, but he declined to identify any recipients.

The number of questions, which the campaign does not want to answer, represents a real problem.

Exactly how much did Trump raise for veterans?

His campaign doesn’t know.

How much of it has been allocated?

His campaign doesn’t know that, either.

Who were the beneficiaries of Trump’s $1 million contribution?

The campaign doesn’t want to talk about it.

Just so we’re clear, there’s ample evidence that Trump did raise millions for veterans and some organizations benefited from the donations.

There is, however, additional evidence that Trump’s specific claims about the amount of money raised weren’t true,

and for whatever reason, the Republican candidate and his team have been reluctant to account for the money in detail.

Indeed, when asked for details about how Trump’s $1 million was allocated, the GOP candidate’s campaign manager responded, “He’s not going to share that information.”

Postscript: To put this in a slightly larger context, in April, the Washington Post reported on Trump’s frequent boasts that he’s given “more than $102 million to charity in the past five years.”

The newspaper found, however, “Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump’s own money.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

iow, Trump is a lying bullshitter.

How much did Hillary donate to veterans? Was it > 4.5 million?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

As if people with backgrounds in science or health are infallible. My third child has severe allergies and the consensus and advice of all those people with backgrounds in science and health when he was a baby was avoidance - avoid, avoid, avoid. Guess what the consensus is now - expose the children to everything - peanuts, dairy, eggs, everything as young as possible. Well, I followed their advice to the tee and now it's too late - instead of my child being exposed and gradually getting used to all these substances, he's super allegeric to lots of stuff and there's no going back.

---

You're describing two different scenarios here. It is good to expose immature immune systems to all sorts of potential allergens but if a child has displayed allergies to specific substances, I'd like to talk to the doctor who would tell you to continue to expose that child to said allergen. Your misunderstanding of this subject further proves my point that people shouldn't listen to your advice.

Quote:

---

My father told me to give him everything when he was a baby - he'll get used to it and of course, I chose to follow the PHD/MD "experts" instead of my common-sense, no-education father.

---

So your claim is if your child has a severe peanut allergy, the cure will be overexposure? :rollin

Quote:

---

This is a message board where we are allowed to post our opinions. No one has to believe or follow advice. But alternative opinions are out there to research and make up your own mind. I have learned a lot here. I appreciate the advice on suits, what others think about investments, what others are thinking about politics and the world in general. Most of the posts I don't agree with but people are allowed to (and should be encouraged to) post their opinions.

---

Oh are these your "opinions":

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

I have diabetes - didn't have any idea it was coming either - thought my dad had it because of old age (like high blood pressure and high cholesterol) but even though I ate a healthy diet, you can't fight the genes.

---

What? Are you trying to say old age leads to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes? Is this your professional opinion?

Quote:

---

But the stuff (pesticides, hormones) they put in our food probably does negatively affect the onset.

---

Another suspicious "opinion".

Quote:

---

When it comes to diabetes (which I'm pretty sure all this is aimed at), it doesn't matter whether the carbs come from blueberries, whole grains, or white sugar.

---

LOL another "opinion" that is just completely wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

Totally agree. That 11-12 servings of carbs in the food pyramid are what hurt us. And the crusade against egg yolks was terrible. Restrict the carbs, and you will see almost all your lab numbers drop - especially triglycerides. Also add fish oil daily and a lot of problems caused by inflammation would be controlled. And there's nothing wrong with saturated fat - coconut oil which is high is saturated fats is excellent especially as a possible deterrent to alzheimer's.

---

We've already talked about how incorrect your statements, err sorry "opinions", about saturated fats are (though I didn't focus on the insane alzheimer's claim). But maybe you have some evidence for your "opinion" that TGs and other labwork will improve by cutting out carbohydrates, yet increasing fat intake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

But the bread, rice, pasta, potatoes - that form the basis of our American diet all raise blood sugar as white sugar does.

---

Again, your "opinion" here is just not accurate. Which makes it less an opinion and more a falsehood.

You like to say "we'll agree to disagree" but yet again there's nothing to agree about. Many of your assertions aren't based in science or reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

But maybe you have some evidence for your "opinion" that TGs and other labwork will improve by cutting out carbohydrates, yet increasing fat intake.

---

It's only anecdotal but my personal lab work got a lot better after I cut out most of the starches I ate and increased my consumption of eggs and meats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

whole-grain scam? They're better than refined as long as you don't use that as an excuse to unnecessarily carbo-load yourself everyday.

---

Which is something that a lot of people do.

Everyone has the one fatass friend/coworker who's ordering an 1100 calorie footlong sub at subway but thinks he's dieting because he's "choosing the healthy bread!" :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Which is something that a lot of people do.

Everyone has the one fatass friend/coworker who's ordering an 1100 calorie footlong sub at subway but thinks he's dieting because he's "choosing the healthy bread!" :lol

---

It kind of makes what Jared did losing all that weight eating so much bread that much more impressive... before the whole "thing" happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

You're describing two different scenarios here. It is good to expose immature immune systems to all sorts of potential allergens but if a child has displayed allergies to specific substances, I'd like to talk to the doctor who would tell you to continue to expose that child to said allergen. Your misunderstanding of this subject further proves my point that people shouldn't listen to your advice.

---

That was not the consensus of the majority of allergists 14 years ago. Their advice was avoidance - cut all the allergens out of the diet. I was nursing at the time and there was no formula that he could tolerate so guess what - I eliminated all his allergens from my diet. For 20 months, I cut out dairy, nuts, eggs, soy, seeds, gluten, even rice from my diet. It is now too late to expose him to those allergens. Because he has avoided them for so long, any exposure is magnified. So much for following the advice of so called experts (medical docs). I would have been better served following my father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

So your claim is if your child has a severe peanut allergy, the cure will be overexposure? :rollin
Oh are these your "opinions":

---

Did you not above say that "it is good to expose immature systems to all sorts of potential allergens?" Currently, they are experimenting with exposing kids to incremental increasing amounts of peanuts but back then, their advice was avoidance. They've had some success with the current experiments but I was told just 6 months ago by the allergist that even that fails - when the kids get sick, they have to start all over again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

What? Are you trying to say old age leads to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes? Is this your professional opinion?
Another suspicious "opinion".

LOL another "opinion" that is just completely wrong.

We've already talked about how incorrect your statements, err sorry "opinions", about saturated fats are (though I didn't focus on the insane alzheimer's claim). But maybe you have some evidence for your "opinion" that TGs and other labwork will improve by cutting out carbohydrates, yet increasing fat intake.

Again, your "opinion" here is just not accurate. Which makes it less an opinion and more a falsehood.

You like to say "we'll agree to disagree" but yet again there's nothing to agree about. Many of your assertions aren't based in science or reality.

---

I know a lot of old people, and I'd be hard pressed to find one who doesn't have either high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes. As we age, our bodies do not function as efficiently/well as when we are younger. Most old people have some kind of health problem that they didn't have when they were younger.

I have just given you an example where allergists were wrong about their avoidance advice. Others have mentioned the egg yolks, the butter/margarine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

It's only anecdotal but my personal lab work got a lot better after I cut out most of the starches I ate and increased my consumption of eggs and meats.

---

My lab work backs this up too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

You're describing two different scenarios here. It is good to expose immature immune systems to all sorts of potential allergens but if a child has displayed allergies to specific substances, I'd like to talk to the doctor who would tell you to continue to expose that child to said allergen. Your misunderstanding of this subject further proves my point that people shouldn't listen to your advice.

---

I wonder if I should trust your understanding or mine on the subject of allergies when I have (literally) eaten and lived with this for the past 14 years and been to many allergists. Who do you think ate that diet for 20 months while nursing and has home cooked this special diet for the past 14 years? Who has been inconvenienced because we can't go on a plane for fear of peanut dust from snacks in the cabin? Who do you think sits in the ER every time he has a severe allergic reaction? Who has to watch him breaking out from touching a door knob that some one who's eaten dairy, touched their mouth and touched the doorknob? Who do you think has to stay home with him every Easter Sunday because he can't go to church as there are eggs all over the place? Who can't step out of the house without carrying his meals because he cannot eat at any restaurant? Who watches him in the pediatrician's office having an anaphylactic reaction from the DTap vaccine? Who do you think is deathly afraid of sending him to public school with all that milk and peanut butter around? Please don't lecture me on allergies till you have lived them. Again, the advice of allergists until recently has been AVOIDANCE - the total opposite of what it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

It kind of makes what Jared did losing all that weight eating so much bread that much more impressive... before the whole "thing" happened.

---

It was a starvation diet with Jared, nothing more. He had nothing for breakfast, a 6 inch sub for lunch and a 6 inch sub for dinner, with no snacking in between. The discipline and self control there was impressive, but there wasn't anything special about that diet.

Still, even though he lost tons of weight, he was still a pudgy guy after the diet. I didn't look at Jared and think "wow that guys in great shape".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

That was not the consensus of the majority of allergists 14 years ago. Their advice was avoidance - cut all the allergens out of the diet. I was nursing at the time and there was no formula that he could tolerate so guess what - I eliminated all his allergens from my diet. For 20 months, I cut out dairy, nuts, eggs, soy, seeds, gluten, even rice from my diet. It is now too late to expose him to those allergens. Because he has avoided them for so long, any exposure is magnified. So much for following the advice of so called experts (medical docs). I would have been better served following my father.


Did you not above say that "it is good to expose immature systems to all sorts of potential allergens?" Currently, they are experimenting with exposing kids to incremental increasing amounts of peanuts but back then, their advice was avoidance. They've had some success with the current experiments but I was told just 6 months ago by the allergist that even that fails - when the kids get sick, they have to start all over again.

---

One thing I'll admit to is that medical progress is real and we're discovering things all the time, especially related to immunology. What that tends to mean is that previous recommendations need to be updated. And exposure treatments for allergies are only for certain allergens and definitely not for severe allergies that could lead to anaphylaxis.

Quote:

---

I know a lot of old people, and I'd be hard pressed to find one who doesn't have either high blood pressure, high cholesterol or diabetes. As we age, our bodies do not function as efficiently/well as when we are younger. Most old people have some kind of health problem that they didn't have when they were younger.

I have just given you an example where allergists were wrong about their avoidance advice. Others have mentioned the egg yolks, the butter/margarine.

---

Being old isn't a disease. There needs to be a reason they develop those conditions. It's not just, hey Bob is old now so he's gonna get diabetes. No. Genes and diet likely gave you and your father diabetes. But this all comes back to my only real point here; don't trust people on internet forums with medical/health decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

I wonder if I should trust your understanding or mine on the subject of allergies when I have (literally) eaten and lived with this for the past 14 years and been to many allergists. Who do you think ate that diet for 20 months while nursing and has home cooked this special diet for the past 14 years? Who has been inconvenienced because we can't go on a plane for fear of peanut dust from snacks in the cabin? Who do you think sits in the ER every time he has a severe allergic reaction? Who has to watch him breaking out from touching a door knob that some one who's eaten dairy, touched their mouth and touched the doorknob? Who do you think has to stay home with him every Easter Sunday because he can't go to church as there are eggs all over the place? Who can't step out of the house without carrying his meals because he cannot eat at any restaurant? Who watches him in the pediatrician's office having an anaphylactic reaction from the DTap vaccine? Who do you think is deathly afraid of sending him to public school with all that milk and peanut butter around? Please don't lecture me on allergies till you have lived them. Again, the advice of allergists until recently has been AVOIDANCE - the total opposite of what it is now.

---

How do you know I haven't lived it? And did you refute any of what I said?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

It was a starvation diet with Jared, nothing more. He had nothing for breakfast, a 6 inch sub for lunch and a 6 inch sub for dinner, with no snacking in between. The discipline and self control there was impressive, but there wasn't anything special about that diet.

Still, even though he lost tons of weight, he was still a pudgy guy after the diet. I didn't look at Jared and think "wow that guys in great shape".

---

My nigga DOK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

It's only anecdotal but my personal lab work got a lot better after I cut out most of the starches I ate and increased my consumption of eggs and meats.

---

Did you focus on a variety of meats or was it predominantly red meat? I'm not advocating for high starch diets. I advocate for balanced diets that don't rely of faux-science or fads. Whole grains as a large portion of the diet is not terrible. Gluten will not kill you. Carbs aren't the enemy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shastafarian

One thing I'll admit to is that medical progress is real and we're discovering things all the time, especially related to immunology. What that tends to mean is that previous recommendations need to be updated. And exposure treatments for allergies are only for certain allergens and definitely not for severe allergies that could lead to anaphylaxis.


Being old isn't a disease. There needs to be a reason they develop those conditions. It's not just, hey Bob is old now so he's gonna get diabetes. No. Genes and diet likely gave you and your father diabetes. But this all comes back to my only real point here; don't trust people on internet forums with medical/health decisions.

How do you know I haven't lived it? And did you refute any of what I said?

---

I just explained to you that the body breaks down as we age - that the body does not process or heal as well as it did before resulting in higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol or less blood sugar control.

I am assuming that if you have lived it and went to many allergists, you would know that the previous treatment (14 years ago) was avoidance - not exposure as it is today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rmt

I just explained to you that the body breaks down as we age - that the body does not process or heal as well as it did before resulting in higher blood pressure, higher cholesterol or less blood sugar control.

---

You explained nothing. What are the actual processes that lead to hypertension or elevated cholesterol or diabetes? Those things don't just happen because someone gets older. To assume a severe condition like diabetes presents simply because the body is "old" would be asinine.

Quote:

---

I am assuming that if you have lived it and went to many allergists, you would know that the previous treatment (14 years ago) was avoidance - not exposure as it is today.

---

I never refuted your claim. In fact I said science and medicine can make mistakes or be incomplete. That's what progress is. Adjusting recommendations and books to reflect advances. But again, you have done nothing to refute any of my points.

This is my last post on this subject - I feel like an old person arguing with a young person. I don't have any of the scientific data/expert opinion that you put so much store in but most of my friends/contemporaries (late 40s/early 50s) are experiencing pre-diabetes, higher blood pressure and higher cholesterol. They're being put on Lipitor, Metformin and blood pressure medication if they won't change their diets and exercise. What we are experiencing now - our parents didn't develop until their 60s.

I have been through the low-fat, high "whole grain" carb food pyramid recommendation and found that it is terrible with regard to my family's labs. I've done a lot of experimentation with my family's diet and seen the effect on our lab numbers. And yes it's anecdotal, but our numbers are better when we eat eggs with their yolks, meat with the skin and fat on it, full fat cheese and butter, limit our carbs and increase our healthy fats. Because of my son's severe allergies, I am willing to try almost anything to improve his health and am open to opinions/alternatives that might or might not go against most mainstream "experts." This is a message board with a whole range of different opinions. We are free to share, consider or dismiss anything anyone posts.