Mic e Obama gets her way on nutrition labels

[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.

[Shastafarian]

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.

[Will Hunting]

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.

[rmt]

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.

[rmt]

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

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

[rmt]

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.

[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!

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 subs utes, 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 do entary Forks over Knives and was featured in another do entary 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 cons ution, and other factors.

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

[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 e 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.

[Shastafarian]

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

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.

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 e 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.

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.

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/

[rmt]

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


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.

[Will Hunting]

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.

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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...

[boutons_deux]

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

[Shastafarian]

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 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.

[rmt]

You can do whatever the 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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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.

[DMX7]

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.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[CosmicCowboy]

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.

[boutons_deux]

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.

[SpursforSix]

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

[boutons_deux]

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 bull ter.

[CosmicCowboy]

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

[Shastafarian]

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.

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?

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":

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?

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

Another su ious "opinion".

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.

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.

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.

[Will Hunting]

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.