Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

 
Message Boards
FORUM:   Diet and Nutrition
TOPIC:  

cardio-surgeon says saturated fats good for you



Click here to read our frequently asked Diet and Nutrition questions.

 
  Reply Create A New Topic
Search the
Message Boards:
Search
  I Liked This Topic Subscribe to this Discussion Share
Add This to My SparkFavorites
Advertisement -- Learn more about ads on this site.

Author: Message: Sort First Post on Top


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/26/13 2:18 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
My own reading has shown me that LDL cholesterol goes up in some people on a low-carb diet and down in others. Often, the people who have high LDL will also have high HDL and vice versa.
I'm in the category of high overall cholesterol. Here are my numbers from one year ago:
total cholesterol 361
triglycerides 51
VLDL 10
LDL 227
HDL 124

LDL/HDL ratio 1.8

Trig/HDL ratio 0.41

The types of LDL and HDL were not tested. My physician, who is very knowledgeable about how low-carb diets work told me she could tell just by looking at my Trig/HDL ratio that my numbers are perfect.
High LDL numbers are not a reason for concern, low LDL numbers may not be, either, but I don't know enough about that.
This is all very different from what my last physician told me when my total cholesterol went over 200 and he wanted to put my on statins. emoticon
High triglycerides combined with low HDL on the other hand increase the risk for heart disease significantly.
To learn more about cholesterol I highly recommend the 9-part series by Peter Attia, "The straight dope on cholesterol, which is on his website. There are also these shorter posts which are a little easier to understand for non-scientists:
eatingacademy.com/nutrition/what-is-choles
terol


eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-did-we-com
e-to-believe-saturated-fat-and-cholest
erol-are-bad-for-us


Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/26/2013 (14:28)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/26/13 11:31 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Russell - I am not a doctor so I can't say for sure. But your LDL is very low. Are you on a cholesterol lowering medication? From my research I have learned that cholesterol is essential to the immune system and as cholesterol levels drop below 200 your risk of infection disease and cancer increases and mortality from all causes rises.



I hope you specifically might find some of these links helpful.


www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/8551
/721-cholesterol-clarity-interview-wit
h-perfect-health-diet-author-paul-jaminet/


perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/06/blood-lipids
-and-infectious-disease-part-i/


perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/04/how-to-raise
-hdl/


blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2011/08/ce
ntral-role-of-thyroid-hormone-in.html


JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/26/13 10:21 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
JERF - You have to wonder if your doctor would be happy if you cut out saturated fats, and your total cholesterol was 130, but the HDL, LDL, and triglycerides were worse, and your ratios weren't good.

If saturated fats are the cause of a high total cholesterol, but also the other beneficial things that are happened, then cutting saturated fats might fix one problem, and make 5 other things worse. Personally, my cholesterol has never been 200, and even eating about 1500 mg of cholesterol daily, it is 100-125. My highest ever was 197. What was a problem for me, was my HDL, which I have increased to 37, and they want it above 40, which I hope happens next test. This was enough to get my off my cholesterol meds.

I am kind of worried about the new statin guidelines. As a heart patient, I am automatically supposed to be on it, no matter what my cholesterol numbers are. I am sure I will have a nice argument with my doctor about it, especially if my cholesterol numbers get better, including my HDL continuing to climb.

My LDL/HDL ratio is 1.38 51/37.. is that too low?

My Triglycerides/HDL is 2.0. My triglycerides are around 75, and my HDL is low 37, so hopefully as it goes up, this ratio drop to 1.0.

Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 11/26/2013 (10:30)
"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/26/13 8:48 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I'm just an experiment of 1 over here but I eat a diet high in saturated fat.

I feel great with lots of energy, my blood pressure is low, my body composition is really good and my weight is healthy and stable. Since cutting out gluten i have no health complaints at all.

My blood work was amazing at my last test.

Total cholesterol 215.78 from my research (FMR) 200-260 is ideal

Triglycerides 57.57 FMR 50-60 ideal

HDL 68.06 FMR 70 is optimum

LDL 136.12 FMR 130 is ideal (this number is an estimated number not an actual blood reading and contains both the large fluffy harmless type and the small dense oxidized harmful type)

LDL/HDL Ratio 3.17. FMR 3-3.5 is ideal

TRIG/HDL Ratio 0.85 FMR is the best indicator of whether LDL is the small dense kind or large fluffy kind.


This is what bugs me. My doctor said my overall health was awesome. My HDL, Trigs and RATIOS are great. However since my total cholesterol was higher than 200 I should cut out all saturated fats. It truly baffles me how such drastic dietary changes are made based on one little number. My research has shown that saturated fat raises HDL and lowers Triglycerides which is a good thing. I could link all sorts of articles and studies and would if I thought anyone would read them with an open mind. Please PM me if you are interested in reading my sources.

I took her pamphlet and kept my mouth shut but next time I have a lot of questions for her.

JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/26/13 7:52 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I think this is a very important point Birgit. Not that saturated fats are healthy, but how we define healthy/unhealthy.

The process by which we define things, determines whether it is healthy/unhealthy. If we start with the premise that saturated fats are unhealthy, we must ask why, accept the answer, and debate it. Otherwise, we are just accepting advice, without any reason to believe it.

Is it ALWAYS unhealthy? If I can eat 20 % of my entire diet in the form of saturated fats, and get healthier, is it unhealthy for ME? If the Inuit can eat 60% saturated fat, and not have heart disease at the rate we do, is heart disease a result of saturated fats?

If we agree with these premises.. that one CAN eat a diet higher in saturated fats, and not have heart disease, and get healthier eating this way, then on their own, saturated fat may not be the cause of poor health, or heart disease. There may be other factors. Even if it is rare for people to eat a high saturated fat diet, and be healthy, or have a lack of heart disease, if it is possible, then that means that other factors may cause saturated fats to be unhealthy, and on their own saturated fats aren't unhealthy.

At this point we need to look deeper, and ask... When are saturated fat unhealthy? When are they healthy ?

If you are sticking to the idea that saturated fats are ALWAYS unhealthy, you first need to explain the people who eat LOTS of saturated fats, and have no issues.

There is the possibility that low fat is the problem, or that saturated fats, eaten while following a low fat diet are unhealthy. Another option is that the types of saturated fats you eat vary based on diets, and some forms are unhealthy, and some aren't.

The statement " saturated fats are unhealthy " is just lazy. I would say the same is true of this thread, except the OP isn't trying to say that it is true, and just hope you believe. The OP is asking for debate on the topic.

If you are unwilling to back up your opinions, there are two possibilities. 1 ) you aren't sure you are right/ Have no idea why you have an opinion, or 2 ) Don't wish to get involved, and debate the topic.

If the answer is 2 ) then you probably aren't here. If you are, and have posted your opinion on the topic, then 2 ) isn't your reason. You are perfectly willing to become involved. For you the answer is 1 ) You have made a statement, and worried that someone might point out that you are wrong. You are desperately hoping that you can slip in, say what you think, and are praying that no one will ask.. why?

We learned 90 % of what we know by asking WHY? As adults, we have stopped asking that question for some reason. I think it is because we think that as adults, we should KNOW what is right, and admitting we don't makes us worried that we might look stupid. So we just do whatever the majority of people say to do. We worry that asking Why will make us look stupid, and then we worry that other people asking us Why might make us look stupid, so no one actually discusses anything, and we actually become stupid, because no information is being discussed.

Can anyone explain how several entire groups of people can eat a high saturated fat diet ( over 50 % ), and be healthy, with lower levels of heart disease? Not an individual here or there, but whole tribes, and regions of countries. Isn't anyone curious?

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/25/13 1:23 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
So now every time I feed my bunnies I remember this thread. emoticon
The example of feeding rabbits saturated fat and then being surprised that it causes problems is like so many kinds of research that use animals for experiments. Everyone knows ahead of time that the results won't transfer to people anyhow.
The same is so often true about transferring experiences from one person to another. Just because some people can tolerate a high amount of carbohydrates they say that a "balanced" diet of carbs, protein and fats are the best way to go for everybody.
People have so many different genes that our bodies could not possibly all react the same way to the same foods. There are general principles, for sure, but the susceptibility to different diseases differs hugely.
So maybe the question that is worth asking (and I don't pretend to have the answer) is: Since there are people who can not tolerate high levels of carbohydrates (because they will become insulin-resistant) and there are people who can't tolerate high levels of protein ( for instance because of kidney disease), are there also people who can't tolerate high levels of saturated fat or fat in general? Also, are some types of fats, like medium-chain triglycerides in coconut oil more suitable for some people?
Birgit


Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/25/2013 (01:26)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/20/13 5:02 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I love the idea that causing heart attacks in rabbits was HARD! Can you imagine if the highlight of your day was a rabbit having a heart attack so you could get more data.

What did you do today?

I killed bunnies!

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/20/13 4:59 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Very interesting link. I have several rabbits, will have to stop feeding them so much butter, LOL.
Just kidding they only get grass and grass hay. Not even any rabbit pellets with grain in them. emoticon
This shows that just because some does a research project that they got funding for does not mean it should be taken seriously.
Birgit

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/20/13 11:47 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
The reason the results from that rabbit study sat on a shelf for 40 years was that everyone knew that when you feed rabbits unnatural diet they will have unnatural results.

"Grass is 0.6% fat fresh weight and contains no cholesterol."

"A rabbit eating a diet of 5% cholesterol by weight equates to a human eating about 100 eggs a day."

high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.ca/2009/02/cho
lesterol-fed-rabbit.html


JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/20/13 11:25 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I missed the part of the video where Dr. Miller mention either HIV, or AIDS. I guess no one wanted to discuss the rabbits as test subjects for cholesterol. No one thinks that a scientist using herbivores to test the effects of cholesterol, when they don't consume any in plants, is curious?

It means a well educated scientist couldn't understand the difference between herbivores, and omnivores. Or chose to ignore the difference. It would be unimportant except that it is used to promote the lipid hypothesis.


On to the next major point though.. if anyone does want to talk about the rabbits feel free to do so

Ancel Keys ( America's doctor ) published 2 studies based on his research. In 1953 he put forth his 6 country study, and in 1970 the 7 country study. It showed how countries that had high saturated fats in their diet, had greater risk of heart disease. Overwhelming evidence that saturated fat was the cause of the rising rates of heart disease.

The only problem was.. the research collected was on 22 countries, and not 6-7. The other 16 countries did not fit into his pretty graph. Leaving out data would bring his conclusion into question,right? While not proving that saturated fats are healthy, it would take the central argument that they are healthy and throw it out the window. We just don't have all the data.

Except that we do! If you look at the 22 countries in the study, it is all over the place. Many of the countries with the HIGHEST levels of saturated fat consumption have the LOWEST rate of heart disease.

Plus, we have other data of primitive cultures, who eat 60-75 % of their diet from saturated fats, and their rate of heart disease is even lower than the countries in the study.

At the very least, Ancel Keys fixed the data to fit his theory. The lipid hypothesis, and the low fat diet are directly attributable to this study, and were used when the U.S. Congress came up with the diet we eat today, in the mid-70's.

Clearly there are other factors associated with being a developed society that would increase the rate of heart disease in us, but if it is possible for whole societies to eat 60-75 % saturated fat, and have almost no heart disease, then saturated fats are not the cause, are they? This isn't individuals, but entire groups of people.

Does anyone find it curious that no one has tested further, upon realizing that the whole basis for the lipid hypothesis was a fraud. How do we explain the outliers ( 2/3 of the countries )?



"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/20/13 11:20 A

Send Private Message
Reply
I went from that article and followed through looking for anything official. There is nothing official.



JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/20/13 6:52 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I saw that article too Brigit but when I looked at Sweden's national nutritional guidlines they hadn't been revised since 2005. It says nothing about this.

JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/20/13 12:54 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Here is an interesting article that says that Sweden officially advocates a low-carb instead of a low-fat diet.
healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-f
irst-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-
diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-f
at-nutrition/


I wonder when other countries will follow.

Birgit

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/19/13 8:00 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
So what was the reason again you think saturated fat is harmful?

Birgit

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/19/13 4:08 P

Send Private Message
Reply
'Six paradigms in the biomedical and climate sciences have become established orthodoxies. Some of them, like HIV/AIDS and the lipid hypothesis of coronary artery disease have achieved the status of dogma. Nevertheless, skeptics have raised valid questions about them'

Russell, I regret looking at this list to see if this guy indeed said that HIV does not cause AIDS. He said it all right as I interpreted the format of his argument.

He just didn't say those exact five words. He did not say 'HIV does not cause AIDS.'
He gave all the weight he possibly could to something that sounded like those five words but then didn't use those exact five words. .

What he said is that the REAL causes of AIDS are: (don't want to list them because some people may be squeamish!).

Because he uses the paradigm concept to make up his list, he can put extremely misleading statements there to which, when challenged, he can reply: 'but it's just a paradigm.' Nearly everything in science is questioned, so the fact that something is questioned 'by skeptics' is meaningless. For example, a substance may be poisonous but why it is poisonous and who it can poison is going to be discussed and studied and quantified. It would be foolhardy to ingest the substance because the 'paradigm' has changed.

I'm left thinking this guy must be related to Bill Clinton ('I did not have sex with that woman' and 'It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is...')

I'll bet this guy has tenure. If you're a professor with tenure, you can pretty much write anything outside of the classroom and with tenure, they can't fire you. It has its advantages.

I sincerely doubt he teaches students that HIV does not cause AIDS. He definitely doesn't do research in that field (check NCBI and you will find that out).

'contagion, association and 'cause.' - common themes in discussions about AIDS. It's daring to try to change the vocabulary and even try to rewrite history but I don't think Miller can do that.

He seems to be saying he's proposing a new paradigm but by linking the new paradigm to an old paradigm, he shows he's also rejecting/replacing the old. When he says 'HIV causes AIDS' is the paradigm and shows the new one, if you are in a philosophical mood, you may try that on for size but then you have to question what was wrong with the old paradigm!

If you think 'HIV causes AIDS' as a foundation argument is strong enough to lead to the development of effective public policy ( condoms, sterile needles for drug users), then Miller does look WAY 'out there.'

The statement 'The real causes of AIDS are....' seems to imply that HIV does not cause AIDS. I'm focusing here on an important word, 'REAL.'

Actually, you could discuss and debate just that one thing but 'HIV does not cause AIDS' should have at least one infectious disease specialist here to explain why people wear condoms and don't use non-sterile needles

Why, hello, Dr Richard Hunt:
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/lecture/hiv13a.htm.

Did anyone say Miller was 'stupid'? I don't think so. Also, you will not find anyone to debate the merits of any argument when you insist of making the rules of a discussion unilaterally.

And:
'Why is it harsh to not expect much from someone who basically states that we can't make a decision on our own, after listening to evidence from several sources? '

I'll have to find that quote that 'basically states we can't make a decision on our own' - I think it is not there. It's hard to put words in someone's mouth when text records it all.

Using the word 'basically' before you repeat what someone did/didn't say is kind of like saying that you do all the interpreting of what people mean. That is best left up to them because they can say: What I mean is.....'

Otherwise, in addition to setting the rules of any discussion, you also speak for other people when they can speak for themselves. With all that going on, it's easy to get overwhelmed and start becoming downright rude.

'The idea that you think he is a crackpot, only makes it easier for you to refute what he has to say. '
Well,sure. But my complaint about him is not that he's a crackpot. My complaint about him is that he has exactly one book (by Bauer) that you would have to read in order to give any creedence at all to Miller's taking his stand. And this is what stops me from giving Miller any attention. I've worked enough on projects to know that you will attract more attention to a useless or nearly useless cause if you try to provoke people. It can really be a waste of time. But it's just not a waste of time - you end up angry that you even had to waste that time when you knew it was a hopeless case to begin with. The AIDS thing wouldn't even be a case of comparing studies. All Miller wants is for you to look at the one and only book he thinks turns science on its ear.



Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/19/2013 (16:24)


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 12:29 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Houndlover, I am going to move on, and people can just assume I am biased, and be skeptical of me. Hopefully they will debate the points in the video, which I will continue to put out there, and hope one gets a lively discussion going.

In 1913 Nikolaj Anitschkow gave high doses of cholesterol to rabbits, and noted that they developed atherosclerosis. Does anyone think that the fact that they are herbivores, and plant life has no cholesterol would prevent them from processing cholesterol in their bodies, or is using rabbits to test the effects of high cholesterol in humans relevant, despite humans being omnivores? Does it make a difference?

Have to add, that the speaker say that atherosclerosis does not happen when high doses of cholesterol are tested on rats and dogs. Maybe because they are omnivores? f this is true, then why did we hear about, and form ideas based on one set of data, and ignore the other, that was done with animals that are closer to us than rabbits?

Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 11/19/2013 (14:06)
"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 12:21 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Why is it harsh to not expect much from someone who basically states that we can't make a decision on our own, after listening to evidence from several sources? To put it bluntly, it means that a doctor can look at information, and come to a conclusion, but somehow we can't.. in other words, if we looked at the same data, we wouldn't be able to understand it, but a doctor would. This is either an admission on the part of those who think that, or an attempt to insult the intelligence of others, instead of actually discuss the topic.

You are attacking an idea, and not backing any of it up. You can't just make statements, and treat them as fact. You make statements about me, which are completely false, and act like I am crossing a line, when I point out things that other posters have actually said.

I have not stated whether I support the doctor, or the idea in this video, but instead of trying to refute one thing in the video you try to make it seem as if I am biased, if I ask for a shred of reasoning behind a statement made. I did not put this video up, and have only stated that when I upped saturated fats, my HDL went up.. that isn't saying saturated fats are healthy, just what happened to me, which is enough to make me question conventional wisdom, which we all should do. We are wrong sometimes.

Besides, making false statements about me, and saying that people are stupid, especially Dr. Miller..lol, I don't hear anything about the topic.

I even broke it down for everyone, so that they could deal with it in smaller bits, and pieces.

If one does not wish to actually debate or discuss a topic, why would they post at all? You want to be able to chime in with unsupported ideas, and not have anyone question why you made a statement.

I will concede that this guy may have some outlandish ideas, which you would then have to weigh as you decided whether to believe what he has to say. We can still debate what he says in the video, but you have to actually address those points.

The idea that you think he is a crackpot, only makes it easier for you to refute what he has to say. As I have shown, he at the very least has exaggerated the percentage of death from heart disease, and cancer, so at the least, he is prone to inflating numbers to fit his point. That still doesn't address the issue of the video though.. are saturated fats healthy? Sometimes people are right, and think it is necessary to exaggerate to make their point stronger, but it isn't proof that their point is wrong, just less likely. Smart people can listen to 3-4 opinions, and make a decision on their own. You may find that if you or LOVE actually made an argument, a majority of people would agree with you.

If you both have no wish to debate the topic, I won't respond to you as long as you don't make any statements about the topic. Once you do that, you are debating, and should expect to be challenged. If I say Dr. Miller is the smartest man in the world, I expect the same to be done to me.





"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/19/13 11:58 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I decided to copy and paste my original post at the very beginning of this thread here as a reminder of why this thread was started: to discuss the issues of saturated fat.
I respectfully ask those of you who do not want to discuss this issue to find other threads that are more interesting to you rather than to distract from the topic at hand.
For those who are interested in this topic but do not want to have to read things not related to it I want to invite you to join us on any of the low-carb or paleo teams on spark where this issue will be discussed with interest and respect for opposing view points.

Original post:
This talk by cardio-thoracic surgeon Donald Miller from the University of Washington contradicts conventional wisdom and I think is very much worth discussing. The author carefully explains why saturated fats are not bad for us at all and I think he is very convincing. If he is right then we need to completely change the way we eat to regain our health in this country. In fact, fixing the health care system without changing how we eat as a country will not work in my opinion.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRe9z32NZHY

Enjoy with an open mind and discuss with a positive attitude. emoticon

Birgit




Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/19/2013 (12:00)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/19/13 11:17 A

Send Private Message
Reply
'I guess I should not have expected much from someone who believes that people can't hear two sides of a debate, and come to a conclusion on their own.'

Whoa again, Russell. You asked ME why I'm not debating you about saturated fat - and when the tone turns this harsh (it's insulting actually), I have to think this is not a debate and cannot be a debate.

I did look at some of Miller's ideas. That was a first step. He does come off as a crackpot in some ways but basically the strength of his ideas is that they dovetail with yours. Well, everyone likes to hear a favorite position discussed.

I get a lot of information from NCBI every day in my email. I haven't found anything published by this guy that is relevant to saturated fats on NCBI. That's the end of my interest in him, then. That doesn't mean he doesn't have fans who will never be bothered by that.

His talk is also in text on the internet and I browsed it. When I saw some of his statements, I knew I didn't want to spend any time listening to him. But that's me.



LOVE4KITTIES
LOVE4KITTIES's Photo Posts: 1,829
11/19/13 10:48 A

LOVE4KITTIES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
No, Russell, I just can't be bothered to debate much with you or any of your friends who are promoting high fat diets here. Overall, I just don't see it as a good use of my time.

Yes, houndlover, he does agree that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. He also disagrees with the membrane-pump theory of cell physiology, thinks that low to moderate doses of radiation have health benefits, espouses multiple conspiracy theories, etc., etc., etc.

He's a crank. A pseodoscientist.


Edited by: LOVE4KITTIES at: 11/19/2013 (10:57)

Total SparkPoints: 13,753
 
10,000
11,249
12,499
13,749
14,999
SparkPoints Level 11


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 10:40 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
The burden of proof, lies with the person disagreeing with the topic being debated.

In this case that would be YOU.

If you have no desire to contribute anything, why are you even posting? You should be able to argue for and against the idea presented in the video, and since you actually have an opinion, and are concerned enough to try to " save " people from the dangers of saturated fats, the least you could do, is argue what is actually in the video, especially, if you think this doctor is not credible. It should be simple to show his ideas are wrong.

I guess I should not have expected much from someone who believes that people can't hear two sides of a debate, and come to a conclusion on their own. .

The funny thing is, I actually agree that his credibility may be in question...lol. I just think that you should have backed that up, when you said it. The only information I got was from Birgit. I had to go read HER link, to see what you meant.

Here's more help..

http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2012/01/12/causes-of-death%E2%80%8E

Heart disease, and cancer make up about 47 % of deaths in 2010, not 75%, so this may further damage his credibility. Not hard at all.

I think the real fear that you have is that if you were to actually explain an opinion, someone would tear your argument to shreds. You don't actually believe that you know what you are talking about.

I''ll leave you to your bliss.

Sorry.. link here..
www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2012/01/12
/causes-of-death%E2%80%8E


Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 11/19/2013 (10:41)
"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/19/13 10:37 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Instead of talking about the information presented in the video you have chosen distraction instead LOVES a sure sign you are losing this debate.

Did you even watch the video? This doctor is not the only Doctor who is saying these things. There are hundreds if not thousands of doctors around the world all saying this.

JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/19/13 10:34 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
He did not say that the HIV virus does not cause Aids.
The book which was linked to on one of his pages that talks about HIV is from 2007 and without reading it it is hard to know what this is really about.
It is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand or even to the issue of credibility of Dr. Miller. Take a look at his bio posted at the UW website instead.

Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/19/2013 (10:35)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


LOVE4KITTIES
LOVE4KITTIES's Photo Posts: 1,829
11/19/13 10:17 A

LOVE4KITTIES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
The exact percentage is not what would lead one to question his credibility. The fact that he thinks that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS is what would lead one to question his credibility...that along with a bunch of the other stuff he believes.

Russell, I don't have to prove anything and I'm not going to bother trying. The burden of proof is on people who disagree with the body of the scientific literature.

The fact that you are defending Donald Miller's credibility really only hurts your own.

Edited by: LOVE4KITTIES at: 11/19/2013 (10:23)

Total SparkPoints: 13,753
 
10,000
11,249
12,499
13,749
14,999
SparkPoints Level 11


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 10:15 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Love 4 Kitties... you have said nothing at all, except blanket statements. You have backed up nothing.

Even the idea that this doctor was not credible. Birgit is the one who shared the links, which might support your argument, and you can't even go and show us which statements are so wrong, and show us how they are wrong.

I am not even arguing that this guy is credible.. I am just literally BEGGING you to back up any argument you are making. I am willing to listen, but calling people names, isn't an argument.

Go find a link proving 98 % aren't IV drug users, and homosexuals.. please. Just do something simple, like that.. go find out the causes of death, and prove that 75 % don't die from heart disease and cancer. It would take seconds, and lend YOU some credibility, while at the same time as taking it away from this guy.

Of all the people on this thread, I am the one asking for you to prove the doctor wrong. Yet, you treat me as the #1 supporter of saturated fat dieting..lol.

I have even helped you, by explaining what you need to do to disprove these ideas..if anyone should question my bias, it is Birgit, who has presented this idea for discussion, and here I sit ( a low carber ), trying to help YOU debate the topic.






"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 10:05 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Thanks for the links Birgit.

You have to admit statements like 98 % of AIDS patients are gay, or IV drug users, can be researched, and if he is wrong, then his credibility can be questioned.

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


LOVE4KITTIES
LOVE4KITTIES's Photo Posts: 1,829
11/19/13 10:05 A

LOVE4KITTIES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Russell, I'm not going to debate with you. There's nothing anyone could say to you to convince you to change your views on nutrition. It would be a pointless exercise in futility on my part. The fact that you now seem to be saying that I'm picking on Donald Miller by saying he's not credible because he believes things like HIV doesn't cause AIDS shows me just how invested you are in your views.



Total SparkPoints: 13,753
 
10,000
11,249
12,499
13,749
14,999
SparkPoints Level 11


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 9:58 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Okay, Love, prove what you just said. I listed what he has said, show me evidence that it is wrong.

Saying he isn't credible isn't an argument.

There are 4 points that I got from just the first 5 minutes, and I think I have laid them out, and even made some suggestions why they might be misleading, in effect putting out a greater effort to disprove this, than you, who are totally against the idea. Since, I have been accused of being pro-saturated fat, and may be to some extent, your argument, should be more strenuous than mine .

You addressed none of the 4 points, even after I broke it down for you. I hope you do so, in your next post.

Also, it might help if you explain why Dr. Donald Miller is unable to weigh in on this topic with any credibility. He is a professor of surgery, cardiothoracic division, University Washington, and was Director of the Heart Institute at Swedish Medical Center. At one time he promoted the Ornish Diet, and I am sure he was perfectly reputable then, unless the Swedish Medical Center is in the practice of looking for morons to hire as the Director of their Heart Institute.

This method of questioning people's credibility, happened to Dr. Atkins too, despite him being a cardiologist.

I am not saying that they aren't credible, but you have made an assertion, without the backing of any evidence. Has this doctors license been revoked? What reason is his credibility in question?

If he is a nut job, then you should be able to refute these 4 simple statements he made. Less than 1 % obesity in 1911. That is either unknown, meaning he is just making up a number, or it is known, and he is right or wrong.. Aren't you even curious the least little bit? Take them one at a time, if you have to.

I am presenting his assertions one at a time, so that anyone can refute them, or explain why it might not be relevant. The OP wanted discussion, and knocking down each idea of his, is discussion, which we would welcome. If I am willing to question doctors on low fat, why wouldn't I expect others to question any doctor, stating any idea.

So let us start with determining if he is a doctor, if he has any knowledge that might help him in the field of study. Determine whether he is credible, or at least informed enough to explain his ideas. Then we can address the 4 points I presented, in just the first 5 minutes of the video.

I am not going to argue it, because I only care that we debate things. I know what works for me, and have no desire to prove this saturated fat theory true or false. I just think it is interesting, and am trying to actually put the focus back on the video. Seems that many haven't the time to watch the whole video, but do have the time to make comments.

If at any time, anyone feels I skipped an important, debatable point, or misrepresented the point made in the video, feel free to correct me.

One thing I have to wonder, is why his credibility has come up in the first 5 mins. So far the 4 points have nothing to do with having knowledge of any science. They are not medical in nature. How much education do you need to have to find out if 75 % of deaths today are from heart disease, and cancer? That is probably a simple Google search.

Still, I hope you can back up your statement about his lack of credibility, and then address the 4 simple ideas I posted.

Edited by: RUSSELL_40 at: 11/19/2013 (10:03)
"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


LOVE4KITTIES
LOVE4KITTIES's Photo Posts: 1,829
11/19/13 9:56 A

LOVE4KITTIES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
No quotes were taken out of context. He discredits himself and looking at his website makes that obvious. I hope everyone takes a look at his website and sees for themselves just how out there he really is...

Edited by: LOVE4KITTIES at: 11/19/2013 (09:58)

Total SparkPoints: 13,753
 
10,000
11,249
12,499
13,749
14,999
SparkPoints Level 11


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/19/13 9:50 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
How about we give everyone a chance to see for themselves if Dr. Miller is a reputable scientist and cardiologist rather then taking quotes completely out of context just to discredit him. That way everyone can make up their own mind:
His personal page:
www.donaldmiller.com/
His UW page:
www.uwmedicine.org/bios/view.aspx?CentralI
d=19456


Looks to me like he's got a pretty good education and is employed by a good medical school as a professor.

Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/19/2013 (09:54)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


LOVE4KITTIES
LOVE4KITTIES's Photo Posts: 1,829
11/19/13 9:10 A

LOVE4KITTIES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
He's not credible. Not at all.

Looking at Donald Miller's website, it appears that he doesn't even believe that the HIV virus causes AIDS. He seems to think that AIDS is a lifestyle disease. Really? This is an actual quote from his website:

"HIV causes AIDS
The real cause: Lifestyle (receptive anal intercourse), heavy duty recreational drugs (cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and amphetamines), anti-viral chemotherapy, and nutrition. In the West, 98 percent of AIDS cases occur in gay men and IV drug users."

He has also written an article entitled, "Afraid of Radiation? Low Doses are Good for You." Here's a direct quote from the article:
"low to moderate doses of radiation are not harmful — and that there is even good evidence it improves health"

Really???!!! I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Right now, I'm laughing at the absurdity of this guy.

I cannot believe that anyone would think Donald Miller is credible. He's anything but... He is truly, truly so far out there that I cannot possibly imagine how anyone would listen to anything he says. Just looking at his website makes me question his mental health. He's certainly not a competent scientist.

Edited by: LOVE4KITTIES at: 11/19/2013 (09:37)

Total SparkPoints: 13,753
 
10,000
11,249
12,499
13,749
14,999
SparkPoints Level 11


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 9:05 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Let's start with the first 5 mins of the video.

I think we can agree that Dr. Miller is breaking no new ground with his description of the chemical structure of fats. So we'll go further on, but if you watch that and disagree.. feel free to debate that too.

1 ) First of all, is the speakers claim that 100 years ago less than 1 % of America was obese. Is this true or false? Do we have data to support or refute this?

2 ) Coronary heart disease was unknown 100 years ago? True? Or is it just that we were unaware of heart disease due to inferior technology? Someone should be able to find out if they knew of it's existence, right?

3) Pneumonia, diarrhea, enteritis, and TB were the top reasons for death back then. Also able to be checked, but it may be that we just were better able to diagnose these, and not heart disease.

4) Today 75 % of all deaths are from our top 2 reasons.. heart disease, and cancer. Is this true? Or at least close? If 75 % is normal, were they diagnosing heart and cancer patients as dying from TB, diarrhea, pneumonia, and enteritis? Or has the rate climbed that much? If we were only diagnosing the 25 % of people dying from those 4 diseases, are 4 X the amount of people dying today, than a century ago, or were 75 % of deaths just labeled " mysterious causes "?

I don't really think we were diagnosing heart patients with tuberculosis. They actually died from tuberculosis, and pneumonia. Some of it has to do with the fact that TB, and pneumonia deaths are now rare, so the % of those have dropped dramatically. However if 75 % of all deaths are from heart disease, and cancer, and this is up from 0 %, do we believe that doctors were just wrong in their diagnosis?

That is just the first 5 mins, and several ideas to debate that actually matter as far as this topic is concerned.

P.S. If you think that doctors just misdiagnosed all the heart and cancer patients.. it weakens your argument that we should just listen to the advice of doctors..lol. Sorry, couldn't resist.

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/19/13 8:58 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Maybe the fact that nobody challenges the info in the video means that they really have no good arguments against it? emoticon

Birgit

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


LOVE4KITTIES
LOVE4KITTIES's Photo Posts: 1,829
11/19/13 8:51 A

LOVE4KITTIES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Donald Miller, the guy in the video, is not a reputable cardiologist. His views on a variety of things are contrary to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Instead of looking at the whole of the literature and presenting what it actually is saying, he cherry-picks data and studies, misrepresents things, misinerprets studies, and seems to be somewhat of a conspiracy theorist.

He's not presenting scientific data. He's spreading pseudoscience.




Edited by: LOVE4KITTIES at: 11/19/2013 (09:09)

Total SparkPoints: 13,753
 
10,000
11,249
12,499
13,749
14,999
SparkPoints Level 11


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/19/13 8:26 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I do agree that part of doctor's practicing is experience, and an experienced doctor will be a better doctor after practicing their trade Birgit. However, the belief that no one but doctors, or dietitians can read a study, or medical literature, and understand it, is amazing. I can understand a person saying, I haven't reviewed as much information, so therefore I am not as knowledgeable on a topic, but that doesn't mean that if we were to read that information, we couldn't determine what it meant.

This video is talking about one small part of nutrition.. saturated fats. If a poster believes that they can't listen to two sides of a debate and then choose which side is correct, then one has to wonder, why they have an opinion at all. If you can't decide if an argument is valid, based on the argument a person makes to prove their point, then you would not be able to do so, whether watching this video, which is pro- saturated fat, or the common advice we currently believe in .. anti- saturated fat.

You can't say that people are too stupid to review data, and form their own conclusion, but are then smart enough to look at data presented by a doctor, or dietitian, and say with 100 % certainty that they are correct. If I can look at scientific data, and agree that sugar is bad for us, I can also look at data given in this video, and make a decision whether they prove their point.

We either have the ability to look at the data presented for or against a topic, and make a decision ourselves, or we don't. If we are too stupid to be able to determine this, then we can't understand the arguments supporting the limitation of saturated fats either, so basically, we are too stupid to prove any debate pro or con. I reject this idea.

The opposite is that we can look at data a doctor gives, and make our own determination, of whether it makes sense. We can agree that sugar is bad for us, based on arguments made, that we believe are correct. If we can do this, we can also look at a video about saturated fats being good, and listen to our doctor, and Becky Hand, and then make a determination of who is correct also.

You can't have it both ways. What it seems people are saying is that we can only be smart enough to read data, and make a decision, if we agree with doctors and dietitians. Of course, many of the people making the arguments for these ideas, are ALSO doctors, so who do we listen to then?

Both sides are supported by doctors, and they all have studies they use to " prove " their points. If they are all experts, how does one determine who is correct? Don't we make these decisions every day? Your doctor tells you that being overweight is bad for your health.. are you sure that is true? You have seen evidence, and decided that is true, and are trying to become leaner, to become healthier. You have made a determination, based on experience, and data that has been presented to you. We don't get told that being overweight is bad for our health, and go " Wow! I would have never known that , if a doctor hadn't told me "

This is a bit more complicated topic, but just like you people listening to studies presented by Becky Hand, and making a decision that she is correct, others can see the video, and decide the opposite. Both groups of people are making an argument, and other people are listening to the arguments, and deciding one or the other is correct. The people who are against saturated fats, are doing the same thing that the people who are for it are.

What it all boils down to, is that you think anyone who disagrees with doctors, or dietitians, is stupid. We should just agree with whatever they say. You don't really think we can't hear an argument, and make our own decision, or else you would not have an opinion for OR against.

Of course that may be true.... " Doctors know best " isn't really an opinion on saturated fats being good or bad.

Has anyone questioned whether the guy in the video is credible, or any of the information presented is false? That might be an argument to show that this video is wrong. I don't really see anyone making that argument.

Instead, I guess, I will have to go re-watch the video, and ask direct questions, and we can debate that small part of the video. Lots of claims are made, and we should be debating those points, and not saying we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves, after hearing both sides of the issue.

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/19/13 7:57 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Did you know that only 15 percent of the cholesterol that you consume through diet is absorbed and used by the body; the other 85 percent is excreted?

This is why eliminating cholesterol-rich foods in order to lower cholesterol levels is kinda pointless (and typically doesn't work very well).

The cholesterol we eat has little to do with the cholesterol levels in our bloodstream.

Source: Peter Attia, MD

JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/18/13 10:40 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Since we are already off topic and I think the discussion is indirectly relevant I'm going to put in my 2 cents worth about intelligence, education etc.
Since I have a master's degree in education I hope that my opinion will at least be considered on this topic. emoticon
I can see both points on this one.
Yes, physicians have to go through a rigorous screening process to become doctors. How rigorous depends a little on which medical school they go to, but I assume that it may indeed not be easy at all and real dummies won't make it. There may be a few people who squeeze through just by virtue of having wealth and connection but that is another issue.
The important thing to keep in mind is that there are different types of intelligence. The most commonly recognized are verbal/linguistic, mathematical/logical, scientific/spatial, artistic, interpersonal (relating to others) and intrapersonal (understanding oneself). There are many more, but these will do for this purpose. Most people are more "intelligent" in one or two areas than in the others. For instance some physicians are highly skilled in their mechanical skills as surgeons, others are excellent at diagnosing and logical thinking, yet others stand out because of their amazing interpersonal skills, allowing them to relate very well with their patients. Surgeons are often (although there are exceptions) not at their best when relating to their patients. In any case, to be a good physician a lot more than skill and knowledge are required and I am getting the impression that that is in part what Russell was referring to.

Going back to the issue of saturated fat, I decided it may be helpful to find out why we feel so passionate about this and similar topics to spend significant amount of time on this thread.

For me it is this: If I can encourage people to look beyond the surface and beyond conventional wisdom for answers, then I know that collectively we can conquer the world-wide health crises or at least we have to try.
It does not matter to me so much, as long as we are willing to climb out of the box of conventonal wisdom, on which side of the box we end up. Doing the same we did for a long time will only get us more of what we already have, far too many sick and obese people.
Our country, the United States, is in a desperate situation as far as our nation's health is concerned. Our health care system is overburdened beyond it's abilities, regardless of what form health insurance and medicare/medicaid in this country takes. We have very little time to solve the problem before the system is bankrupt. The situation is similar in many other countries around the world. People are getting sicker as the rate of metabolic syndrome and diabetes rises quickly.
When I see a significant chance of helping people lead healthier lives, I will tell them about it, even if I'm not 100% sure. Evidence of all kinds is cumulative and I see the evidence for low-carb/high-fat diets (including lots of saturated fats) piling up wherever I look. Some of it is research, some of it is anecdotal evidence or something in between. But I have seen that low-fat diets don't work very often as is evident from the rise of obesity and metabolic syndrome everywhere.
I want to repeat my suggestion to watch the videos linked in this thread and others that have different answers, to hear both sides, or maybe I should say all sides, because there are more than two. With the internet new knowledge can spread very fast, faster then medical schools can change their curriculum. It is my hope that people will notice all the efforts that have been made through videos and podcasts all over the internet to make this knowledge accessible a large percent of the population who want to know.
Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/18/2013 (22:44)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/18/13 5:39 P

Send Private Message
Reply
'Doctors are practicing, for the very reason that their field is constantly shifting.'

Doctors are in a field that is pretty much the same as other fields mentioned. They are guided by information learned by obtaining an advanced degree, passing board tests to be certified (and having to retake those tests for various reasons) and having to stay current with continuing education, even if it is just online.

Accountants are in a field that specializes just as any other. One thing to remember about any profession (dentistry, medicine, plumbing, electrical, accountancy) is that someone has to challenge a result or a decision to show that best practices have been used. Math may have one right answer but accounting and finance can be fairly creative within the law. And when they stay within the law but are too creative ,the results can be disastrous. Not every lawsuit about taxes is about things not 'adding up' correctly. Like discussions about diet, it's just as important to find what was left out, minimized or creatively reworded.

' You may be thinking of a tax preparer, not an accountant.'
Tax preparers are not necessarily accountants. I AM thinking of accountants. They do prepare taxes. The skill involved in doing the taxes on a distribution of property may sound inconsequential on paper but when you are in court with the tax records, you better trust your accountant.

Doctors are not researchers but the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) is right on top of what's going on in research. And scores of other serious medical journals are too.


'A plumber may see a broken pipe, and have learned a faster, easier way to replace the pipe, but the pipe still needs to be replaced to fix the problem. There aren't other options.'
There are reasons to hire a licensed plumber but one reason is that you don't see the problems because they are hidden behind walls and often dug into the ground. It is not a strictly mechanical job; it is also not a terribly creative job, although plumbers have 'cutting edge' solutions just like any other profession and they keep up skills with continuing education just to be aware of them.

The best reason to hire a licensed plumber is that your health is affected by plumbing. Pipes that go to the sewer, the drain from your dishwasher and your clothes washer all effect your life and your health.

The plumbing code (which is one of the handbooks used by housing inspectors who aren't even plumbers) is going to be cited in court when a plumber is sued because a basement rec room was flooded after the new bathroom was added. Not a pretty sight. Get out your checkbook also. Call the lawyer. I wouldn't try to figure out any of this independently. Their fields may be shifting too but their careers depend on best practices.

'If you think that doctors come out of college, and can see you, and fix your problems on the first try, then you are either lying, or haven't ever been very sick. Doctors guess a LOT'

Please don't accuse me of lying. I recently had a dermatology conundrum that my family physician, erring on the side of caution and basing his judgement on his education (extensive) and his awareness of malpractice lawsuits (acute because he's a doctor!) urged me to have investigated. As I've said, dermatologists are the one branch of medicine that I think have prescription pads metaphorically sewn to the palms of their hands. But in this case, I saw 5 dermatologists and my bare bones basic insurance covered the visits, mainly because no one felt totally qualified as a specialist to diagnose what could be life-threatening.

Doctor #1: old guy, thorough, had never seen such a spot. Did a biopsy just to make absolutely sure.

Doctor #2 plastic surgeon, middle aged, kind, female, generous with her time, felt 99% sure of what SHE would diagnose but thought that since she doesn't see many patients who don't go to her for cosmetic reasons, I should see Doctor #4

Doctor #3 a podiatrist, who said he would offer his opinion just because Doctor #2 has the office next door and suggested him. Yes, it's his area - the foot - but the only suggestion of such a spot was xxxx, which he then looked up in his medical journals and texts and said, 'Nope, it doesn't fit that profile and you will be seeing Doctor #4 so let me know how it turns out.'

Doctor #4 a dermatologist young and JUST out of medical school (a few years ago) looked and said, 'It's perfectly fine, nothing to worry about' and it took him half a minute. I was a bit discombobulated by this (why had 1,2, and 3 not said that) and pressed him for information. At which point he said, 'I could tell you all I learned in my residency about this but I think for this what you need to know is that it is not anything to worry about. You can see Doctor #5 because at that hospital, they've seen everything there is to see and it may put your mind at rest.'

Doctor #5 a dermatologist, young, a woman and Asian said,' You've lucked into finding me because I'm the foot skin person around here.' She also said it was nothing to worry about but she gave a different reason than #4. She also had her nurse measure and take pictures and said, 'We'll watch this every 6 months, OK?'

My insurance? I left the office of #5 thinking that it may not be covered by my insurance. Whatever it cost, I would hav e had to pay it but I believe it was worth it. I went to the funeral of a coworker who died of melanoma.

Were all these people 'guessing'? If so, they were by far the most educated guesses I'd ever find and when the stakes are high, you want that to be so. 'Guess' is kind of a weak word for someone applying a substantial background of knowledge, guided by a code of ethics and using conservative judgement for a health issue.

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/18/2013 (18:27)


LOVE4KITTIES
LOVE4KITTIES's Photo Posts: 1,829
11/18/13 5:29 P

LOVE4KITTIES's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Okay...I have no desire to debate high fat with anyone, but...

"My cardiologist has skills, I won't ever learn, but your primary care doctor is nothing special, and in many cases, is the only person a patient sees."

Anyone who gets into medical school here in the United States (let's just limit it to US graduates so we don't get into different standards and acceptance rates worldwide) already has been through a highly, highly competitive process. Only a small number of people who want to become doctors will ever succeed.

I have actually taken several polls in college/university biology and chemistry courses which contain 1st and 2nd year students. Huge lecture halls filled with hundreds of first/second year biology majors and, in my experience, more than half of them will raise their hands indicating that they want to be doctors (and I'll bet there are a bunch more who are too afraid to admit that they want to be doctors because they are already thinking their chances of that are slim). Maybe 1/100 will make it by the time all is said and done.

Students are weeded out in numerous ways (and we're starting with college students here...the students who have been competitive enough in high school to get into college) and, honestly, most weed themselves out when they realize that they are never going to be competitive applicants to medical school. The ones who make it through the process until the point where applications to medical school are actually turned in (and usually people only turn in applications if they have good reason to feel they are at least somewhat competitive as applicants, meaning that, for example, they have earned the required grades in the required courses, received certain MCAT scores, have recommendations from certain people, have the required hours of experience in the medical field, etc.) find that they also have a good chance of not being accepted anywhere (veterinary school is even harder to get into than medical school, BTW). So, yes, doctors are (for the most part) highly intelligent people. They are something special, as least so far as things like intelligence, determination, motivation, etc. Yes, the average doctor is more intelligent than the average person.

Cardiologists are, overall, NOT more intelligent than general doctors, they have just received additional training in the field of cardiology. They actually end up with less breadth of knowledge about MEDICINE than a general practitioner (and more specific and in depth knowledge about the heart/circulatory system). Most doctors are not all that well trained in nutrition and this includes all these cardiologists who seem to be writing books these days.

I'm not a big fan of doctors. I seriously dislike most of them (as people). Yes, they do make mistakes. They are often biased, jump to conclusions, etc. Yes, they practice medicine and things are often not clear cut like they are with accounting. But, let's give some credit where it's due. It's a really difficult job.

Also:
"but if you aren't stupid, you can read the same information, and be more knowledgeable over time"

No, the average person absolutely does not have the training or knowledge to read complex scientific studies, understand these studies and interpret them correctly. You are also really not going to be able to gain the skills/knowledge that you need to do this on your own.

So far as scientists and doctors, certain studies are understandable to most. But, the more specialized the stuff gets, the more training you need to have in that particular field. For example, a brilliant neurophysiologist isn't going to do well reading many scientific studies about microbiology unless s/he has had extra training in that field and s/he will often turn to colleagues (microbiologists) for help interpreting these.

So far as scientific information, the average person cannot even weed out the pseudoscience from the real stuff because they are not trained to do so. It's not a matter of being smart or stupid, it's a matter of training (at least in many cases). Even doctors and scientists can occasionally fall (and fall hard) for pseudoscience or, if reading studies not in their area of expertise, they can fail to catch any inaccuracies or draw incorrect conclusions from what they have read.

Most average people who say they are doing research are reading stuff on the internet and most of what they are reading is inaccurate/psedoscience. They may read certain scientific studies, but they do not fully understand what they are reading because they actually lack the knowledge/training that they need to understand the science behind what they are reading. They usually have a lot of misconceptions even about the basics because they simply haven't had the education/training they need.

Most average people who do "research" like this will end up falling for the pseudoscience and, over time, they will become more and more convinced that what they believe is true.


Edited by: LOVE4KITTIES at: 11/18/2013 (19:26)

Total SparkPoints: 13,753
 
10,000
11,249
12,499
13,749
14,999
SparkPoints Level 11


RENATARUNS
RENATARUNS's Photo SparkPoints: (3,581)
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
Posts: 1,113
11/18/13 5:08 P

RENATARUNS's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
My mother's total cholesterol dropped like a rock after the only major change she made was to minimize saturated (and a smaller amount of other not-good) fats. Most of that change was LDL.

It makes me uneasy to read one-size-fits-all prescriptions and proscriptions on diet along the lines of "saturated fat is good for you". Maybe it is, for some people. Maybe some other people find that it's the worst thing possible for them. Maybe the data is overly influenced by mulitple confounding factors like what else is in the diet, and what saturated fat replaces/could be replaced with. Maybe nobody really knows what will work for them until they try it for a year or more and see what happens. (If even then.)

I wish we could come to some sort of agreement in all spheres from the scientific world right on down to message boards like this that there likely is no one size fits all solution for anything, and to instead spend most energy on advocating for a basic level of health and fitness that accommodates varied ways of eating and being active. And then acknowledging that that basic level might not be enough for everyone, that some people may need or desire more specialization, and supporting efforts to retain enough flexibility to manage it. But I don't expect it to happen.

Height 5'8 1/2"
SW: 190+
CW: 143.0

5K 4/21/11: 31:55


61 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
20
40
60
80


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/18/13 5:02 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
If your insurance doesn't cover referrals, or you are without insurance, that doctor, which you may only be able to see 1-2 times a year due to cash, is your only source of information, besides TV, or other people's experiences. Most people do not have a dietitian at their disposal, and I already explained that the only reason you would want to consult with one, is to get another viewpoint.

As far as the term " practicing " medicine, it is not akin to accounting. My brother is taking accounting and there is no wiggle room. If you are preparing a financial statement for a business, there are rules that need to be followed, and the report is based on strict criteria. Numbers do not lie, and if 5 accountants added up the numbers, they would all add up the same. Yes, mistakes are made, but it is not practice, if they made a mistake.

Doctors are practicing, for the very reason that their field is constantly shifting. The changes that happen, make it impossible for a doctor to know everything, especially as the facts change. They tell diabetics to follow a diabetic diet because they are told to.. practicing medicine comes into play, once they have actual experience with diabetic patients, and learn from those experiences ( kind of like what I do ). They then make corrections, and they are not the same for every patient. Some things work for one person, and not for another. They keep guessing, until they solve your problem. If an accountant keeps guessing, they are either fired do to incompetence, or jailed because of criminal activity. You may be thinking of a tax preparer, not an accountant.

A plumber may see a broken pipe, and have learned a faster, easier way to replace the pipe, but the pipe still needs to be replaced to fix the problem. There aren't other options.

If you think that doctors come out of college, and can see you, and fix your problems on the first try, then you are either lying, or haven't ever been very sick. Doctors guess a LOT, from a substantial base of knowledge, and testing to narrow the options, to be sure, but they guess on the problem sometimes, and more often on the proper treatment. They practice, which is why a doctor who has been doing the job will have a better grasp on treatment than a brand new one. A new doctor may be more open to change, and newer procedures, so it is a trade-off, but doctors make guesses, based on information, and experiences they see in their patients. They also use the experiences of all the doctors they know too. The best way to know if something works, is to see it happen.

This is okay for a bunch of doctors to do, but not for a bunch of us to do? Why?

My guess, is that you don't think that an average person on SP, could possibly be smarter than their doctor. I know I am smarter than many of my doctors. In fact some of them I consider pretty stupid. Every so often, we get a doctor smarter than us, and we need to listen to them, and learn, but we shouldn't just think.. they are smarter than us because they are a doctor. More knowledgeable maybe, but if you aren't stupid, you can read the same information, and be more knowledgeable over time. My cardiologist has skills, I won't ever learn, but your primary care doctor is nothing special, and in many cases, is the only person a patient sees.

I think we will just have to disagree on the wonder of doctors, and dietitians. Some are geniuses, and other are barely functional, so we have to listen to their advice, and decide what is best for us. The idea that you believe that one should follow the advice of their doctor, even if it produces no results, rather than attempt another method, from someone who has seen success, is scary.

I don't think we will ever agree on this point algebra, so how about we just call a truce on it, and see if we can debate something else..lol. Like whether saturated fats are healthy.



"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/18/13 4:00 P

Send Private Message
Reply
'Well, most of us ( Americans ), are not a member of Sparkpeople Algebra.'

I agree. That's why I mentioned referrals from your doctor (which may involve looking into what your insurance covers) and also the WILD WILD web (or the internet, as some people call it.)

'As far as doctors being wrong 1/2 the time. I think you would find that they would agree with it.'

And there I disagree because I don't think they would agree. They aren't 'practicing' so that someday they will have acquired enough skill to be doctors. They are doctors already and the word 'practice.' just means to pursue a profession. My accountant works in a practice and is a practicing accountant. Like a doctor or a dentist. Like plumbers and house inspectors, they have to continue to review (accumulating continuing education units or whatever the designation is for the requirement from some licensing association) and stay current. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at some of the malpractice lawsuits for doctors, dentists, plumbers and house inspectors, but I'm 100 percent certain that is all going to be presented because it is required. What will also be presented is that you do your best and your best does not guarantee perfect health, perfect teeth, a perfect heating system or no leaks in your roof!

'There are 47 million people without health care, and millions more who can't get a referral to a dietitian, because it is not allowed as part of their insurance.'

That's about to change, isn't it? Non-U.S. spark people may not realize how much that affects lives and financial decisions here in the U.S.

Independently, you can consult a dietician and pay out of pocket if your insurance doesn't cover it. How important is it to you? Unless you are restricting this discussion to the truly destitute (who ironically may have access to services once they are connected with a social worker), poor people will still make decisions by prioritizing just as rich people and everyone else in the middle do.

'Also, since you want to nitpick my words, pay attention to the word " might ". There is no guarantee that any dietitian actually knows the right answer, '

Russell, I'm addressing what you wrote, not nitpicking your words. There is no guarantee that anyone knows any RIGHT answer - unless we're talking about math here. But then, the discussion is not really about a 'right' answer. 'Eat less and move more' is a right answer unless eating less means you are anorexic and moving more means you take risks with exercise.

'What really bothers you Algebra, is that you really don't believe that any person can read these same books, and repeat those same treatments, OR when they realize they don't work, read OTHER books, and listen to OTHER people, and come up with different ideas, which DO work. You have doctors, and nutritionists up on a pedestal, and think they are intellectually superior, and gracing us with facts. '

Whoa. I don't think you know what REALLY bothers me, any more than you know what I ate for lunch today (peanut butter in pita bread). Finding something that works is great. You live with the consequences. Doctors and nutritionists on a pedestal? I think saying that is somewhat provocative in a negative way. You think I believe they are intellectually superior? Again, that's being somewhat provocative, again in a negative way.

Let's put it this way: practicing medicine without a license is illegal. The reasons behind that law are very sound.

P.S. 'So congratulations on being argumentative, and submitting useless posts,' Chill, brother.


Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/18/2013 (18:32)


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/18/13 3:32 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Well, most of us ( Americans ), are not a member of Sparkpeople Algebra.

I have already found a way to control my cholesterol, diabetes, and weight, so I personally, do not need Becky's advice.

This thread isn't about SP members. It is a discussion, which Becky is welcome to join, and probably has, where she feels she can clarify things.

There are 47 million people without health care, and millions more who can't get a referral to a dietitian, because it is not allowed as part of their insurance. So for many Americans, they get their advice from TV, or the rare chances they have to see a doctor. These doctors are mostly clueless about nutrition, and just repeat the advice they are told to.

Also, since you want to nitpick my words, pay attention to the word " might ". There is no guarantee that any dietitian actually knows the right answer, just that they know what the government answer to the question is. If you have a theory, going to see a dietitian, and comparing your thoughts, with theirs, and asking them to explain themselves, " might " help you decide.

As far as doctors being wrong 1/2 the time. I think you would find that they would agree with it. It's why it is called " practicing " medicine. In most things besides nutrition, a doctor listens to the symptoms, makes a guess, based on the knowledge they have, and you follow that, then come back, and tell him side effects, or if the treatment worked at all. Then they make changes. What pills, dose, or a complete change, if the entire prognosis was wrong. Those are mistakes, that they correct all the time.

What really bothers you Algebra, is that you really don't believe that any person can read these same books, and repeat those same treatments, OR when they realize they don't work, read OTHER books, and listen to OTHER people, and come up with different ideas, which DO work. You have doctors, and nutritionists up on a pedestal, and think they are intellectually superior, and gracing us with facts. We are just stupid people down here, waiting for these medical gods to save us.

Has it even crossed your mind that maybe some of the people who are on this site are a LOT smarter than your average doctor? Or do you believe that to be impossible? If so, then provided they get the information they need, they may be able to actually determine that for them a diet that is low carb, or vegan, or high in saturated fats may be healthier for them.

I would use a nutritionist/dietitian as a source of information, but there are many sources of information, and we have to weight them all. I find that many times a dietitian, or a doctor has very low expectations of success, and their patients are wondering why they are still taking pills, and sick, if they are declaring success.

If a group of people try a treatment, and see wonderful results, with no side effects, and those results are better than what doctors, and dietitians are achieving, with their own achievement, we shouldn't dismiss the group's results, but question how they did it. The only reason to ignore this data completely is fear that they may be right.

You should be wondering why they stick to less effective treatments, instead of attacking those who propose new ideas for debate, based on evidence. At the very least, attack their evidence and disprove it. That would be part of the debate, and actually useful.

The only people sticking to the one diet works for everyone are the low fat people. I have stated numerous times that I think many diets can work, for certain individuals, even low fat, if done properly.

The idea that we can't just watch the video and discuss thing relevant to the topic is sad.

I don't see many people either sharing experiences they had CUTTING saturated fats, and the wonderful success they had afterwards, getting off their cholesterol meds.. did I miss that? Or the people who are sharing evidence that this saturated fat idea is nuts.

Instead we just have people saying.. we cant have debate, we know all the answers, you wrote the wrong word, or you are wrong.. no explanation.. you are just wrong!!

This entire thread is based on the OP wanting discussion.. to WANTING to hear all sides. She has opened this " wall , and invited debate. I said something, and you respond, and then I am answering what you wrote, and next you will either answer this, or move on. Hopefully, many others will chime in also. That isn't a BAD thing.

Also, the group thing at WW should be part of debate too. Any large group getting similar results, especially great ones, should be studied.You tend to give " experts " to much credit. They are one source of info, not the final word. If they are proven wrong, in 5 years they will be an "expert " on low carb dieting..lol. Do you think Mrs. Hand would quit being a dietitian, if we found out low carb was the best diet on Earth, or saturated fats helped with cholesterol? No, she would add that to her data, and switch the advice she gives accordingly.

She is bound by rules, which make it so that her advice is the most beneficial to the greatest amount of people possible. She can't see 5000 people have incredible results, and change her advice, so her advice will be slower in changing, as it should be. That, however, does not mean that we can't debate the possibilities of things.

It would be nice if the people opposing the ideas would attack the credibility of the doctors, or speakers in the video, if you disagree with it, or at least the ideas they put forth. Instead you tear apart a sentence I wrote, which does nothing to argue the point made in the video. Or argue the other statement I made as if I was using a statistic. If I was to actually use a statistic, my guess is that doctors would be wrong much more than 50 %, not intentionally, which you seem to be suggesting I said.

So congratulations on being argumentative, and submitting useless posts, that add nothing to the debate. Anytime you wish to talk about the video, and why saturated fats are bad ( if that is your stance ), I will read that with interest, and probably respond.

Have you watched the video? If so, what do you think about their idea? Are those ideas that you came up with on your own, or are you just repeating what you think is right?

As for me, I am undecided, although from personal experience upping saturated fats has resulted in a large increase in my HDL, and getting me off my cholesterol meds. I think there are other factors. My only point so far, is that we don't really know. We have beliefs based on some studies, and some were cited in the video that say the opposite. We also have personal experience, and luckily for us.. OUR OWN DIETITIAN. That is at least 4 sources of information, and we shouldn't assume that any of them are right, without debating the information. You shouldn't use the information in the video as proof either. I can use my experience, and those of people I know, but you should question that too.

I thought it was a pretty benign statement. Basically, question everything, because even experts make mistakes, and instead of questioning everything, they are questioning ONLY what I wrote..lol. Hopefully, in all of this, we actually address the video too, unless you prefer to discuss my sentence structure, which is sure to solve everything.


"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/18/13 2:26 P

Send Private Message
Reply
Russell39,
I think it's funny how you wrote this:
'A dietitian like we have here, might clear things up, but most of us don't have one at our disposal,'

Essentially, you wrote that most of us don't have a dietician at our disposal. A dietician 'like we have here.' Well, that kinda means we DO have one at our disposal, doesn't it?

Becky gives thoughtful responses in any discussions about any kind of diet here. She may not be my or your 'personal' nutritionist or dietician, available to call or visit any time we want, but she's pretty much HERE and responsive. BTW, there ARE websites that for fairly reasonable rates do give access to that kind of counsel. For convenience, email is hard to beat! Probably they will also have online or video chats - there's gotta be some entrepreneur who's thought of that!

What it comes down to is: what do you WANT to hear. It simply begins and ends there. No nutritionist or dietician can break through that wall, and I mean for any kind of diet!

'When 5000 low carbers get together, and discuss a topic, they find that their experience is almost identical. Their solutions to problems tend to be the same, and you can talk to them, and get an idea of what may happen. Is it scientific, or guaranteed to be right? NO, but neither are experts, and most doctors don't even get 50 % right, even by luck.'

WW get-togethers (their meetings) are just this way, too. Because I already declared myself to be non-cynical about science, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that experts (scientists) are going to be 'scientific' in a good and rigorous way. The statistics about doctors are questionable to the amateur scientist in me and downright wrong to my inner statistician!

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/18/2013 (14:32)


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/18/13 1:58 P

Send Private Message
Reply
'It is also interesting that quite a number of people who ended up in prison for crimes they did not commit go through great lengths to learn about law and study anything pertaining to their case.'

Houndlover1, being in prison and studying the law in a prison library is not something all prisoners can do. The complicated task of learning the law and how to navigate through the legal system takes years of law school and the student may still not pass the bar exam - and it is required!

The good news is: a prisoner at least has time to devote to the task and probably can get legal guidance from volunteers or someone at the library who knows the task.

I read something interesting lately: how do states know what the space needs are for correctional facilities? In other words, how do they know they will not run out of space for future inmates to be confined? One way - I'm not sure it's the only way - is to look at the literacy rate. A high rate of illiteracy is a bellwether of future crime rates. I don't know where this fact came from but I just read it recently. Made me think differently about education!

In the context of this discussion, it also makes me think there are more prisoners taking time to earn a GED than becoming self-taught lawyers.

'When it comes to nutrition, the experts are representing different interest groups. They rarely represent only one client, unless someone hires a personal nutritionist or other expert in the field.'

Here I think the word 'experts' is where we differ. I think of experts as scientists working in the field of science, whether it's nutrition or ethnobiology, etc. I am not cynical about scientists who must collaborate, publish, and have their studies read and evaluated. The many many journals that contribute to NCBI and which are read all over the world publish the letters to the editor that question or comment on the methodologies and conclusions of published studies. It's true that these journals require subscriptions. In many cases, however, the studies and the follow-up letters are free to download in PDF format. The Lancet, for example, is an expensive journal and widely read. But as a student, you can be a subscriber of lesser stature and still read many articles and download them. Not to mention those available to the general public anyway. The articles pretty much go through the meat grinder of blogs and what comes out at the other end is surprising to say the least.

I have never been offered the services of a nutritionist but I think that people with some conditions may get that through their insurance.

NCBI is a priceless service to plug in to all the research published every day. Not only can any person join free, and store research articles, but you can also be notified daily or weekly (or whatever) of ANY studies or published scientific reviews that match a search argument you save online there. This means that if you save the search argument 'PUFA,' you will get all the studies published about polyunsaturated fatty acids delivered directly to your email inbox. The abstracts and possibly the free PDF to download. From the PDF of the study, you can learn not only the particulars of the study, but all the references are listed at the end of the study. It takes a lot of time to really read and 'digest' but well worth it.

For me, NCBI is like having your own personal nutritionist. But the learning curve is steep, no matter where you start.



Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/18/2013 (14:33)


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/17/13 8:42 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
I think that desperate people will try things, that a healthy person wouldn't even try. So when that person tries something out of the mainstream, then they can't turn to just anyone and ask about what they are experiencing.

I started low carb, because of my heart problems ( and being 361 )..lol. Not a good mix. I wouldn't expect a healthy, lean person to just make a radical change in their diet, and even low carb dieters should question this post, and ask whether upping saturated fats are actually healthy. However, after trying a different diet than what my doctors recommended, and getting much better results, I believe low carb is best for ME, and may be for many others too ( like diabetics ). However, at that point, I was just trying low carb foods, and levels out, and hoping I didn't fail.

So, it is important to be able to discuss it with other people who are eating the same way, and help both of us find a healthier way to eat low carb. I have learned a lot that I have implemented into my version of low carb here on SP, and most of it from " non-experts ". Spacing of my carbs, glycemic index, and adding variety to types of vegetables, and fruit I eat. Without common experiences being shared, we would not be able to make changes, until we met our doctors again, so every 3-6 months.

We learn from other people all the time. I doubt anyone here hasn't borrowed a recipe from another person, and improved a dish. Shouldn't they wait to consult a chef ? We make choices all the time without experts, and while I would never ask advice on how to perform my own heart valve transplant with a butter knife, and Tylenol at home, I think that if I experience certain things on low carb, and want to make a change, asking a bunch of low carb dieters is a good idea. If I go to my low carb team, and ask them what their experience is, then they can either confirm it, or suggest where I may be wrong, or a better option to try.

Funny thing is, other low carb dieters are right more often than my doctors, and when I ask really complicated questions, my doctors aren't wrong, they just say they don't know. Medicine is a huge field, and unless you have a specialist in your particular area of interest, you aren't getting anything more than the basic idea. My regular doctor knows just the basics on a wide variety of issues, and is an expert on none of them, or just one of them. Most are clueless when it comes to nutrition in particular. They can give you a referral to a specialist, but not every time you have a question.

When 5000 low carbers get together, and discuss a topic, they find that their experience is almost identical. Their solutions to problems tend to be the same, and you can talk to them, and get an idea of what may happen. Is it scientific, or guaranteed to be right? NO, but neither are experts, and most doctors don't even get 50 % right, even by luck.

People just use the "expert " argument because they are either unwilling to debate the topic, or losing the debate.

The idea that if 2 people are discussing something, and millions will read our discussion, and blindly follow whatever is written, is not going to happen, and quite insulting to people's intelligence. Give people some faith. They can discuss things, and decide if it is quackery, or not, or research further on their own, to get more opinions.

I do not think the OP expects everyone to start eating sticks of butter to become healthy. She just presented a video, and asked for comments. This should be able to be discussed with moderate civility, and I find it very interesting. I would be hesitant, if I wasn't already eating this way, and I think all people should question everything.. whether it is from an " expert ", or anyone else. Even question whether they are an actual expert, or have a bias towards one theory.

Personal experiences should be weighed against common beliefs, and tested. The video states one idea, and you can either agree or disagree with it. There are many people upping saturated fats, and seeing rises in HDL, which is a good thing..I think.

The idea that we shouldn't explore things further is a very troubling trend in today's society. Most low carbers fail, and re-try several times before they get it right. We constantly tweak our diets, as we learn. So we already are willing to admit that we are not experts, and might be wrong from time to time. I think the #1 reason that low fat isn't working is inflexibility. They are not getting results, but continue to do the same thing, and it leads to the same results.

A dietitian like we have here, might clear things up, but most of us don't have one at our disposal, so we just sit there for 6 months, failing, sickly, and miserable, because we can't ask the other 300 million low fat dieters. They aren't experts.

What is actually amusing, is that people following a low fat diet, ask questions, and are given direct advice daily on SP. Not suggestions, or even a link , as is done here.. statements given as fact, with no supporting information, by members who might not be an expert. It is given as if that person was an expert. No one says anything, because the experience of a group tends to usually yield a common solution, and multiple examples of people succeeding by following that method. The OP can then determine whether the solution is worthy of them trying it out.

As far as I can tell, this is only a discussion. If you actually were worried about people giving out advice, who aren't experts, go rant on the 100's of threads where they do that. If you want to come back afterwards and discuss the idea presented in the video, whether pro, or con, you are welcome to. We will be here discussing it.

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/17/13 3:37 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Algebragirl,
I think your example is one that works for me to compare. In a court of law one should always get the help of an expert. This expert is bound by law to represent the interests of his/her client as well as he/she is able to do. Most people can only talk to one lawyer because of cost but will consider the input from more than one person, including family, friends etc. in a legal battle. What the lawyer says will be given greater weight of course, at least in most cases.
When it comes to nutrition, the experts are representing different interest groups. They rarely represent only one client, unless someone hires a personal nutrionist or other expert in the field.
Also, in the field of nutrition, just like in the field of law, there are great differences in the interpretation of the existing knowledge. Some of these disagreements are not easily resolved and some come down to values questions rather than knowledge (do I do what is legal and works, but immoral type questions).
It is also interesting that quite a number of people who ended up in prison for crimes they did not commit go through great lengths to learn about law and study anything pertaining to their case. They do not rely on the experts alone. Sometimes when we run into health situations that are as difficult as being in prison we need to be brave, and try something new and different, not any quackery, but options that are alternative to the conventional teaching.
Early adopters of new knowledge engage in greater risk but are also the first ones to benefit from new discoveries.
It is everyone's personal decision to weigh risks and benefits.
I was not able to make the improvements I needed to make in my health using conventional advice on nutrition so I carefully evaluated alternatives, leading me down a long path of continued improvements that I want to share with others who may find hope where they thought there was none.
Should they just blindly follow my advice? Of course not. I hope that people will research, ask lots of questions and find what works for them. But I do think it can be dangerous to just dismiss anything that looks like it does not follow what the majority does, even if it is successful for some.
Birgit


You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/17/13 2:58 P

Send Private Message
Reply
'To suggest that any capable adult should leave it to the "experts" to decide what to do about their health and nutrition is in my opinion disrespectful of people's intelligence and desire to get healthy. '

I don't believe anyone has done that.

There are people engaged in rigorous scientific investigations and even they are not 'experts' on any one particular person's life and related health. However, when they are scientists, their career goals are to work with expertise in the realm of science.

Recently I had first-hand experience in a legal situation that reminded me what 'expert' can mean. A person I know insisted he did not want to pay a lawyer and would represent himself in court. After losing (very quickly, I might add, because he had no idea what preparation was necessary or of the legal principles to be discussed), he was somewhat stunned that he did not sway the judge based on something different from those requirements! Not only did he not know precedents or the relevant issues, but he didn't know what to do next in terms of obtaining the legal document from the decision. From all the people who know him, I gather he's an intelligent person, so he understood what he was taking on.. Where there was a lack of respect: he didn't respect the work of the legal profession and what is required to work within the legal profession!

A lawyer I know who was present told me that judges in general don't like to see someone represent himself, even if he insists. Of course, it is an option and a right, so it happens. But after the judge asks the relevant questions and sees the evidence, it is not his or her job to try to educate the plaintiff about the law and his performance in his role defending himself. (This man could have actually hired a lawyer or paralegal just to do that and still proceeded to defend himself... )

Some people can defend their position very well in a court of law but it's not easy. In this particular case, the money in dispute was a substantial amount.

To tie this together - what's at stake? A person's health, as valuable as money. 'I represent myself in the court of health' is a pretty good statement.

(The analogy kind of ends there. The law in the United States may allow an appeal, but decisions about health don't always allow that in a metaphorical sense.)



HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/17/13 12:45 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Russell,
you hit the nail on the head when you talk about quality of life vs. length of life. Just because I am still alive does not mean my quality of life is worth living.
When I ate a high-carb diet but had no energy to exercise, was too tired to work in the early afternoon and had to deal with other side effects of diabetes I was miserable. Statins may have kept me alive when my triglycerides were high and insulin may have kept my blood sugars closer to normal.
But a low-carb diet made ALL my health indicators get much better and my quality of life and overall health is better than when I was in my early 20's, so for me 50 is truly the new 25. I can engage in any exercise I feel like and generally keep up with most people who are half my age. Nobody can tell me to ever go back to government recommendations for my eating. emoticon

Birgit

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/17/13 12:36 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
" it is irresponsible for people to perpetuate pseudo science and unsubstantiated science to those on a "diet" or "healthy living" site. "
This sentence I completely agree with. But rather than giving general statements like this it would be more helpful to be able to discuss the actual information in the videos.
I would also be careful to making statements about the education level of people on this thread. You might be surprised what you would find out. There are plenty of people with and without PhD's who are very able to understand and discuss the information here presented and learn more on their own. There are also many people with and without PhD's who are misinformed, too arrogant or stubborn to admit they don't understand something or they don't want to change what they have believed to be true for a very long time. It all comes down to the humility and openness to be challenged in one's field of expertise and along with it in one's own personal life and health.
I believe there is not better challenge for individuals than to take responsibility for their own health as much as possible. This means to read, watch and learn about newer scientific findings and to apply to one's own life what may bring improvements. It also involves discussing what we learn with people who may not agree with us.
Spark gives us this opportunity in a forum like this one and the benefit is for everyone who cares to read these threads. If someone is intimidated or not interested they are free to find info primarily on Spark teams or wherever they like.
To suggest that any capable adult should leave it to the "experts" to decide what to do about their health and nutrition is in my opinion disrespectful of people's intelligence and desire to get healthy. Even those people here who have less formal education may be of high intelligence and wisdom that come from life experience which may qualify them more to sort out truths from untruths in many cases than if they had earned PhD's, even in nutrition or medicine.
I am very thankful for all the input on this thread as it helps me to think things through further. emoticon

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/17/13 12:17 P

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Money controls research.

I never mentioned the illuminati as I don't know anything about it/them, you did.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 11/17/2013 (15:19)
JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


JENNILACEY
JENNILACEY's Photo SparkPoints: (72,679)
Fitness Minutes: (56,420)
Posts: 2,486
11/17/13 12:12 P

JENNILACEY's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Aren't you Canadian? Yeah... our government doesn't quite work the way it does in the US. Nor is that the case in many other developed nations and the science community is in a league of their own. Unless you're suggesting a world wide conspiracy that all nations, all scientists, WHO, "Big Pharma", "Big Agriculture", the Illumanti, etc. are all in on... we're talking 1984 here. Unless you can offer some solid proof of this theory, it's the equivalent of me calling on the underpants gnomes in a debate.

Russell,

I believe I said people were not healthier in the past... it was a bit of an oversight on my part to use an absolute here.
"nor do we possess the proper statistics to prove anything conclusively." If I were to expand on that it's difficult to compare any data we do have because of the obvious reason that we did not keep records back then like we do now and you'd have to rule out as you said "accidental death" rate and medical advancements today, people died from different diseases, etc. My point was that you can't take that sort of history and use it to make a blanket statement like people were more healthy in the past than now. I would think it would also become an issue of comparing apples to oranges.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 11/17/2013 (12:39)

Take your focus off the Marshmallow.

www.leangains.com/2010/01/marshmallo
w-test.html


"Toning" is marketing muscles to women who are afraid if they pick up a barbell, they'll leave the gym looking like She-Hulk. It doesn't happen, what does happen is you get results. Lifting Barbie weights does nothing but waste time.


70 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
20
40
60
80


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/17/13 12:10 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
It is intellectually dishonest to say that the 40 year lifespan of a Paleolithic man was due to poor health, which it seems you are implying Jenni.

We live longer, due to science, and medicine, but also because we don't get gored by wooly mammoths, or starve to death, due to famine.

It is just as likely that thousands of years ago, people died at 40 due to a loss of hand eye coordination from age or injury, and were just a bit too slow, when running from a sabre-toothed tiger. There are too many variables to say that they were healthier, or more unhealthy

One could also argue though, that while they might die from the common cold, they may not have suffered from heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. This could be due to them dying, and being weeded out of the gene pool, but I seriously doubt that if prehistoric man was as unhealthy as we are today, we would be here as a species.

That could be argued both ways forever, but what is known, is that while we live longer due to doctors keeping more sick people alive today, we aren't healthier than we were 50-100 years ago. Being able to do a heart transplant may extend your life, and increase the life expectancy average, but it doesn't mean we are healthier, just that we can keep people alive longer.

The rates of diabetes, heart disease, and especially obesity are climbing by the year, so saying that modern man is healthier than prehistoric man is laughable. Take away your supermarkets, and medicine, and let modern man chase down animals for dinner, suffer from famine, and die from broken bones, and the common cold, and I think you would see a huge percentage of the population struggling to get to 40 years of age, and millions ( or billions ) dying within 3 months.

We could have a healthier diet, and KEEP all the benefits of modern society too. We can argue which diet, or combination of diets would do that, but suggesting that paleolithic ate a poor diet, and so they lived shorter lives is just not a proven fact.

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/17/13 12:06 P

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
The people who make decisions in government are influenced by big money and lobbyists. To not acknowledge that shows a complete lack of understanding about politics.

JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/17/13 12:06 P

Send Private Message
Reply
'Sorry if I'm taking the OP wildly off topic and coming across as preachy.'

There was no preachiness there!

What_the_heck: good to know....

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/17/2013 (12:12)


JENNILACEY
JENNILACEY's Photo SparkPoints: (72,679)
Fitness Minutes: (56,420)
Posts: 2,486
11/17/13 11:56 A

JENNILACEY's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
What's sad and shows a weak argument in debate is calling on boogie men for everything that doesn't mesh with a person's argument. I've been in countless debates and have countlessly been attacked with conspiracy theories with absolutely no factual evidence backing them. It just shows lack of understanding of how the science community and the scientific method functions.

"may". If he is correct it shows a normal fluctuation in a single generation. Not on the health and longevity of our nations historically. There has been fluctuations in lifespan/health over single, even multiple generations since pre recorded history.

It's funny because on many things I agree with you on, we should eat more "real" food and eat as natural as we can, that obesity is a huge epidemic. Heck, the whole dietary community can agree with you on that. I find the low-carb lifestyle intriguing and I think they will bring some interesting observations to the table. It's the method and delivery of fringe (pseudo) science and conspiracy theories, I disagree on.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 11/17/2013 (12:07)

Take your focus off the Marshmallow.

www.leangains.com/2010/01/marshmallo
w-test.html


"Toning" is marketing muscles to women who are afraid if they pick up a barbell, they'll leave the gym looking like She-Hulk. It doesn't happen, what does happen is you get results. Lifting Barbie weights does nothing but waste time.


70 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
20
40
60
80


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/17/13 11:47 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
“Because of the increasing rates of obesity, unhealthy eating habits and physical inactivity, we may see the first generation that will be less healthy and have a shorter life expectancy than their parents."

www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/Weig
htManagement/Obesity/Overweight-in-Chi
ldren_UCM_304054_Article.jsp


"When I hear Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, etc... it reminds me of the Illumanti. They are big business with interests in capitalization over health of our nations and their own set of "scientists and studies" but they do not have as much influence over the scientific community as a whole as they're given credit for."

That might be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 11/17/2013 (11:49)
JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


WHAT_THE_HECK
SparkPoints: (4,360)
Fitness Minutes: (3,939)
Posts: 28
11/17/13 11:19 A

WHAT_THE_HECK's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Thank you Jenni for your common sense approach to nutrition and thoughts about scientific (and not so scientific) studies on the message boards. I have a Master's degree in epidemiology and I am candidate for the PhD working on nutritional epidemiology. I agree with what you have written about strength of scientific evidence being necessary and that it is irresponsible for people to perpetuate pseudo science and unsubstantiated science to those on a "diet" or "healthy living" site.

As a side note, I have and am working on studies on human nutrition and have yet to have "big agriculture" or "big pharma" try to change my results. My studies are funded by NIH yet they have no say in the results. And, yes, I have had studies published in peer reviewed journals.

Edited by: WHAT_THE_HECK at: 11/17/2013 (11:22)

 current weight: 193.6 
 
230
210
190
170
150


JENNILACEY
JENNILACEY's Photo SparkPoints: (72,679)
Fitness Minutes: (56,420)
Posts: 2,486
11/17/13 10:23 A

JENNILACEY's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
The lifespan of humans has risen from an average (20-40 yrs) from the upper Paleolithic to the early 20th century where it nearly doubled after that.... people were not "healthier" in the past either nor do we possess the proper statistics to prove anything conclusively. This explains my point exactly, when unqualified individuals take small grains of 2nd and 3rd hand "facts and truths", don't see the broader picture or allow personal bias to cloud the conclusions they draw. They don't consider other environmental, statistical, etc. factors and draw logical fallacies, generalizations based on limited knowledge of the subject.

When I hear Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, etc... it reminds me of the Illumanti. They are big business with interests in capitalization over health of our nations and their own set of "scientists and studies" but they do not have as much influence over the scientific community as a whole as they're given credit for.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 11/17/2013 (10:35)

Take your focus off the Marshmallow.

www.leangains.com/2010/01/marshmallo
w-test.html


"Toning" is marketing muscles to women who are afraid if they pick up a barbell, they'll leave the gym looking like She-Hulk. It doesn't happen, what does happen is you get results. Lifting Barbie weights does nothing but waste time.


70 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
20
40
60
80


JUSTME9898
JUSTME9898's Photo Posts: 1,105
11/17/13 10:20 A

JUSTME9898's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Science is always changing as we get new evidence in. I think the main things is where is the greatest evidence at the moment, and right now that says cut back on sat fat and if you can eliminate hydrogenated and trans fat.
People were not healthier long ago they died early and lived hard.
But one thing they did do was exercise a lot, healthier people around the world exercise more and exercise lowers LDL and trigs.
The best thing I think we can do is keep reading and keep up on the latest lit.
I was surprised to learn that the FDA has raised the recommended sodium levels from 1500 to 2000-2500

goal is to be able to walk again
Linda
high desert, California


 current weight: 252.0 
 
270
240
210
180
150


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/17/13 10:06 A

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Personally I think the biggest experiment ever is being conducted right now on the general public. People have never been this sick and lifespan predictions are shortening. People were healthier before they knew what a calorie was and before "experts" started telling them what to eat and how much to exercise. The vast amount of additives and preservatives that is in our food these days is astounding and no one knows what the long term effects of these are. No one knows what possible side effects the varied combination of these additives and preservatives might have on human health.

Personally I think that there are many factors influencing this but the most detrimental to human health is smoking, increased sugar consumption, convenience "foods" and cars not necessarily in that order.. Big Agriculture, Big Pharma and Big Business don't have our health as their #1 priority and unfortunately they have a great deal of influence over the powers that be.

I choose to eat a diet consisting of Real Food and I feel great. I am a healthy weight with a healthy body fat %. My blood sugars are steady through out the day and my cholesterol numbers are fantastic. I eat butter, coconut oil, bacon and bacon fat (50% monounsaturated!) and 3 eggs almost every day. I am very strict about limiting my sugar (in all it's many forms) and convenience food consumption.

This is a great thread :)


Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 11/18/2013 (07:01)
JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


JENNILACEY
JENNILACEY's Photo SparkPoints: (72,679)
Fitness Minutes: (56,420)
Posts: 2,486
11/17/13 8:16 A

JENNILACEY's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Observations = experiments, individual studies (that include their own hypothesis, observations, conclusion)

Scientific hypothesis = conclusions drawn from scientific knowledge/background, preliminary observations and logic. They can be supported or disputed. ***They are used to describe a narrow set of phenomena.

Theory = explains why something happens and is supported by a ***wide range of hypothesis. It is no longer a theory once it is disproved. It is discarded. It is the most accepted explanation to date of why something happens unless proved otherwise. ex; Newton's Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution.

Law = Is used to make predictions and usually involves a mathematical equation(s). Unlike a theory, it doesn't explain *why* something happens. Something remains a law unless an exception has been found. ex; Newton's Law of Gravity, the Law of Conservation of Mass.

Remember nothing in science is absolute, not even a law. Science always leaves a margin for error and growth. However, considering how much cross evidence is required to support a law or theory, they are rarely proved wrong.

Diet science consists mainly of observations (studies) and hypothesis. Some hypothesis better supported/accepted than others. Although scientific hypothesis can be disputed (like a law or theory) they hold water until disproved. Studies should not be confused with proof. It requires the support of many, many irrefutable studies/observations to become a strong scientific hypothesis and hold its ground to a panel of peer review. Anyone can have an hypothesis but not everyone can have a scientific hypothesis supported by peer review and generally accepted by the scientific community. Many, many tests and steps these science folk have.

That doesn't mean random scientists or those with scientific knowledge are wrong in their individual hypothesis. It just means their hypothesis is not strong enough to convince a panel of peer review it should replace or change a scientifically accepted hypothesis. It may require much more evidence/support to dispute the currently accepted hypothesis.

I personally lean toward hypothesis that currently have the most data, research, support, studies (observations) backing them and can hold their ground to peer review.

But I say if something is working for someone else and they feel it has given them nothing but better health benefits, then by all means, keep doing what is working for you. Where I take issue is when people who are not medically trained or of scientific background advise others on a diet website to follow controversial science. That is where the irresponsibility comes in. None of us... as far as I know (aside from our resident dietitians at Spark) are qualified to analyze the data for ourselves. Sure, we can attempt to do so as individuals, go out and read the research, find out what's out there for yourself, even talk/debate amongst ourselves (which was a fabulous idea by Exotic to start a private group) but as unqualified individuals we only add confusion and possibly dangerous advise when we offer up our opinions on prelimenary studies and interpretation of the data to other members (particularly new members) at Sparkpeople. Such as those who may be reading this and with little or no knowledge of dietary science become easily manipulated.

Sorry if I'm taking the OP wildly off topic and coming across as preachy.

Edited by: JENNILACEY at: 11/17/2013 (10:06)

Take your focus off the Marshmallow.

www.leangains.com/2010/01/marshmallo
w-test.html


"Toning" is marketing muscles to women who are afraid if they pick up a barbell, they'll leave the gym looking like She-Hulk. It doesn't happen, what does happen is you get results. Lifting Barbie weights does nothing but waste time.


70 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
20
40
60
80


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/17/13 1:58 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
They do have some things that are not a " maybe " ALGEBRAGIRL .. they are called LAWS. They are indisputable, or at least believed to be..lol. We can't prove them wrong though.

The problem with most theories, or hypotheses, is that we don't actually know, because there are too many variables, and other factors to consider, so we can't prove it.

I also think this is a good thing. We can admit that we don't know that much. If it can't be proven, we should just say so.

The problem occurs when we take a hypothesis, or theory, and start using it as if it is a law, which we do way too often in nutrition. We stack a whole bunch of unsupported hypotheses together, and make more conclusions, without consideration that all the supporting ideas might be WRONG. Of course, if one of the supporting studies is wrong, then the whole idea is wrong, unless you just get lucky.

Experts love to use these hypotheses because it soothes their ego. It is much better to state a hypotheses as a law, rather than just sitting there saying " We don't know ! ". They feel stupid, so they just refuse to say those 3 words, and as experts, people just believe them, and repeat it. After all, they are experts, and no one thinks that they might just want to sound smart, and are " pretty sure " they are right.

Some things are unable to be tested to 100 % conclusion. We shouldn't use these studies as the basis for anything to do with nutrition. We certainly shouldn't be saying saturated fats cause heart disease, based on the lipid hypothesis.

We were pretty sure that the flat Earth was the center of the universe at one time, and that Zeus hurled thunderbolts at us when he was angry. As time goes by, we prove more and more things, and find a better understanding of the world around us, but there is no need to skip steps, so that you can say something is true, before proving it.

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/17/13 12:06 A

Send Private Message
Reply
When you read studies, or abstracts of studies, the idea of 'hypothesis' is pretty much always there. The conclusion in the study will state 'X may lead to Y' and the 'may' is important because whatever was done only shows part of a larger picture. When the evidence is weighted so heavily in some area, the words 'may' still are in the conclusion.

Which is a good thing.

Also, 'associations' are given, not 'causes.' I don't recall reading studies that say in the conclusion that smoking 'causes' lung cancer or emphysema. Maybe I just missed that in a conclusion. Instead, there will be a sentence in the 'background' statement to a study that makes an emphatic statement. It's like the 'given' that is assumed, but it is itself something that may or may not be accepted or controversial. But what the conclusion of a study will say is that something is a 'risk factor' or there is some association, not a 'cause.'

The title of a study with the PMID: 24206794 in NCBI is 'Lung cancer correlates in Lebanese adults: A pilot case-control study.'

CONCLUSION:

'In this pilot study, it was found that in addition to smoking, outdoor and indoor pollution factors were potential risk factors of lung cancer. Additional studies would be necessary to confirm these findings.'

Yep, even in Lebanon, smoking may lead to lung cancer.

Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 11/17/2013 (00:12)


EXOTEC
EXOTEC's Photo Posts: 2,975
11/16/13 8:01 P

EXOTEC's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
On a slightly tangential theme...

The whole point of the cholesterol controversy is based upon reducing it because of (unproven) research suggests it *causes* atherosclerosis and heart disease. That isn't so: those with LOW and highly elevated cholesterol may be listed as having died of CVD, but in most cases, those with higher levels than are recommended are actually better protected and suffer fewer cardiovascular events than those outside that inverse bell curve.

But we didn't go far enough. What we want to know is how diet can improve risk factors for heart disease. Why did we stop at cholesterol? Cholesterol isn't the culprit. We're missing the point. Cholesterol is necessary in every tissue and for nearly every function in our bodies. If we don't eat enough, our bodies simply create more. We produce MORE cholesterol in this way than (most) any of us eat.

The "Lipid Hypothesis" is called that for a reason: it's a hypothesis. It's never been proven, and current research seems to point in an altogether different direction. This is what happens when non-scientific (politicians and special interests) individuals make policy. Consensus isn't confirmation, nor causality.


...the problem with people these days is
they've forgotten we're really just animals ...
(attributation forgotten)

We did not create the web of life; we are but a strand in it.
~Chief Seattle

We don't have souls. We ARE souls. We have bodies.
~C.S. Lewis


 current weight: 249.0 
 
380
322.5
265
207.5
150


ALGEBRAGIRL
Posts: 1,498
11/16/13 1:44 P

Send Private Message
Reply
A 32% carb diet sounds a lot like the Zone diet!



HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/16/13 10:54 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Russell,
thank you for summarizing the video. I did not have time to do that. I agree that it was a good study. I really liked that they handed people the books and gave them help for a number of weeks but let everyone decide what to eat rather than controlling food. This showed better how people manage on their own with a particular diet. I do agree that many people on low-carb would have had greater benefits if they had lowered carbs to 10% which would have meant that they would have had the benefit of nutritional ketosis and thereby avoided all cravings. It is also true that as people increase carbs sometimes this works and for some people it does not. When I added more fruit this summer my blood sugar levels went back up to the pre-diabetic range, although I did not gain weight and dropped body fat. Insulin sensitivity can vary hugely between individuals.
Overall my personal experience lines up mostly with the findings of the study in that my HDL, Triglycerides, A1c and Insulin levels went down on Atkins.
The one thing that makes eating low-carb harder is that our world is filled with high-carb foods. It is not only grains, beans, sugar and processed food but also an ever growing number of root vegetables and fruits that are bred for either higher sugar or starch content. While slower carbs may not spike insulin as suddenly they still raise it much more than keeping carbs low. Even grains vary quite widely in their starch content and for some people it may be beneficial to switch out regular rice for wild rice and potatoes for sweet potatoes etc.
For me I am by far the healthiest when my carbs are almost all from lower glycemic veggies and one small serving of fruit.
For me, knowing that saturated fat is not harmful but actually has benefits (coconut oil , whichis mostly saturated fat,improved my thyroid levels) gives me a much wider range of foods I can enjoy, including butter, cheeses, full-fat dairy and eggs as well as meat of all kinds. I don't have meat that often but I enjoy it occasionally when I get tired of eggs or cheese.
Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/16/2013 (10:58)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/16/13 10:03 A

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Great video Birgit. I saw the guy in the video do a debate with Gary Taubes, so he really is a high carb vegetarianm so maybe he is more credible, than someone who is a fan of the diet.

I was very pleased to hear that the ADA says low carb may be beneficial, even if it was more of a reluctant admission, rather than a ringing endorsement. Change takes time.

The video from 42-46 minutes was about how low carb might be more beneficial for Insulin resistant people, and I have to say, it may be the reason that as a diabetic, I do so well. Also why some people who are not Insulin resistant don't see the results I do, or find Atkins to be as easy to do. I personally think a 20-30 % carb diet is much harder to follow than a 10 % carb diet, because of ketosis, and it's hunger reducing qualities. So maybe if they could actually get some people to stick to very low carb, they would get better results.

At the end, the Atkins dieter's were at 32 % carbs, which would have a lot of variety. The goal of their study was for them to stay at 15 % carbs, but on the Atkins diet, you would increase carbs as time went on anyways, so it may have simulated what you would do on Atkins in real life. I think I am rare to stick to 10 % carb/60% fat/30 % protein for years. Most people start adding carbs back in, as the book says to.It may never get to 32 %, but a 20 % carb diet at 2000 calories, is 100 grams of carbs, which many people find doable.

Another point I thought was relevant, was that the exercise among all 4 diets remained constant. This is only important because of the myth that low carbers have less energy. If anything, we have more, because we lose weight faster.

Next was the list of factors that they tested..

1) weight
2) BP - diastolic, and systolic
3) triglycerides
4) HDL/LDL
5) Insulin
6) Glucose

In no category did any of the other 3 diets perform BETTER than Atkins. This is something I have noted, as a heart patient, who is constantly tested. My numbers get better at every test.I have gotten off diabetes, and cholesterol meds.

The other important note that people should pay attention to, is that low carb causes triglycerides to go down, and HDL to go up.. which I have personally noted, especially after adding saturated fats to the diet in greater quantities. This says that on a low fat diet, the opposite occurs.. triglycerides go up, and HDL goes down.. which I also experienced..lol. Not sure if that is common knowledge, or controversial. The speaker treated it as if that was a rule.

The study seems to confirm everything I have experienced on low carb, and believe in. The idea that Atkins helps you lose weight faster, and improves bloodwork. Also that it may be more beneficial to diabetics, and if so, might be the diet we would want diabetics to follow.

This is just another move towards making low carb more mainstream, and I am excited to see the study done in a real world setting. Even the lackluster results of the other 3 diets, showed some success, and that data should probably be studied, and other studies should spring from that. While total weight loss might be higher on low carb, most of us have carbs as part of our diet, so the types of carbohydrates can make a difference, both as part of a high carb diet, and as the 10-30 % of the Atkins diet. Principles that would work on the Ornish diet, would work on a smaller scale in the 10-30 % of carbs on Atkins. Low glycemic index, non-white foods, higher fiber etc. might be a way to eat healthier carbs, even if they are a small part of your diet, as it is on Atkins.

We don't want to eat just any fat, or any carbs. How you get to your macro percentages matters.

"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


AGILEDOBE
AGILEDOBE's Photo Posts: 428
11/15/13 2:04 P

AGILEDOBE's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Excellent video presentation. A lot of good information, thanks!

DobeLady


 current weight: 176.6 
 
178
173.5
169
164.5
160


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/15/13 12:15 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
And here is another link that of a talk by someone who compared several popular diets including Atkins, Ornish and Zone:


www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

What do you think?

Birgit

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/15/13 10:20 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
This was exactly the point of several of these resources. Sugar is the culprit AND so are high levels of carbs because they turn into sugar in our body. I agree that slow carbs work better for some people as you avoid severe, sudden insulin spikes. But they still raise insulin levels, just over a longer time, and anything over 50-80 grams of carbs a day causes severe food cravings and raises my A1 c level in the pre-diabetic range. This increases my risk of diabetes, Alzheimer's, heart disease and a host of other conditions.
All caused by consuming too many carbs, not by consuming too much saturated fat.
As far as sugar alcohols, they are not all the same. The most common in processed foods, maltitol, raises my blood sugar, Xylitol works a whole lot better, unfortunately all of them are highly toxic to pets so I am extremely careful to not leave anything around that contains them.
Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/15/2013 (10:26)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


TINIERTINA
TINIERTINA's Photo Posts: 4,899
11/15/13 6:23 A

TINIERTINA's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Sugar is not the culprit. Most carbs are. Even the so-called "slow carbs". Though, admittedly, some people can metabolize slow carbs very well, who are otherwise insulin resistant.

I do not avoid sugar alcohols. I am 59 and diabetic, but I have to live in the real world ... I do find glucose numbers I test at, "too low" what other diabetics gauge as "ideal". Is your priority avoiding getting a heart attack or avoiding getting Alzheimers dementia? Avoiding one does work at cross-purposes to avoiding the other.


Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.

- Igor Stravinsky

Find a way.

--Diana Nyad

(Said after swimming from Cuba to Key West without fins or shark cages)

Team Co-Leader of:

◈ Free Form Dance Team
www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/groups_i
ndividual.asp?gid=62398


Now 109 pounds less than at age 24–w/o surgery!


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/15/13 12:20 A

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Yes, it is great news and very encouraging to see so many lectures on these topics and that more and more respected scientists are speaking out against big pharma interests and telling people the truth about the fact that not high blood cholesterol levels, but sugar and smoking cause heart disease.
Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/15/2013 (00:20)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


JUSTEATREALFOOD
JUSTEATREALFOOD's Photo Posts: 1,088
11/14/13 8:46 P

JUSTEATREALFOOD's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Wow! Powerful stuff.

JERF - Just Eat Real Food


I'm a Certified Personal Trainer.

I eat mostly vegetables, fats, meats, some fruit and dark chocolate. Unprocessed and preservative free. And it's changed my life!

5'4"
Goal weight 125lbs
36 years old
2 kids

Keeping my blood sugar levels low on my high fat/ low carb/ moderate protein diet.


Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.

- Vince Lombardi


169 Maintenance Weeks
 
0
45
90
135
180


TINIERTINA
TINIERTINA's Photo Posts: 4,899
11/14/13 7:43 P

TINIERTINA's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
And how about this one... Caution: Health-at-Every-Size and size acceptance alerts implicit in this video ...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjJrXHWLP_M


Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.

- Igor Stravinsky

Find a way.

--Diana Nyad

(Said after swimming from Cuba to Key West without fins or shark cages)

Team Co-Leader of:

◈ Free Form Dance Team
www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/groups_i
ndividual.asp?gid=62398


Now 109 pounds less than at age 24–w/o surgery!


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/14/13 5:32 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
And here is another link that addresses the same issue, but from a different view point:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vr-c8GeT34

Birgit

You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/14/13 4:58 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
And here are the new guidelines for the US concerning statin use, courtesy of the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology. I found it interesting that this article clearly states that "Roughly half the cholesterol panel members have financial ties to makers of heart drugs, but panel leaders said no one with industry connections could vote on the recommendations."
This makes me wonder how they define "industry connections". I would consider it an industry connection if physicians make a profit from selling statin drugs either directly or indirectly through incentives that they get from drug companies.

abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-doctors
-urge-wider-cholesterol-drugs-20867216


What really annoyed me was the description of side effects from statins as "a small increased risk of muscle problems and accelerating diabetes in patients already at risk for it, ..."
Anyone who looks up side effects on statins, even on the manufacturers websites, knows that there are very common and very severe side effects due to statin use.
It is also known that statins work to some degree because they reduce inflammation, not because they lower cholesterol levels. There are much better ways to reduce inflammation, for instance by lowering sugar and carbs in the diet.

There is still no distinction made between different types of LDL cholesterol (small, dense type vs. big fluffy type) when it is common knowledge amoung physicians that only the small,dense type is harmful.
All I can say is that every consumer needs to do their own research, not trust anyone who makes a ton of money by selling drugs or services.

Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/14/2013 (16:59)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


TINIERTINA
TINIERTINA's Photo Posts: 4,899
11/14/13 4:48 P

TINIERTINA's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
In my case, the amount of red meat must be quite portion-controlled.

Not as much as carbs should be.

Everything has to be portion controlled.
Low carbing, yes ... but even slightly more calorie-restricted than when I'd been entering into the throes of insulin resistance and blood sugars tested under the diabetes threshold.

Or else my blood sugars shoot up.

My weight had plummeted to uncomfortably low levels ... for me and what I used to be and do ...



Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.

- Igor Stravinsky

Find a way.

--Diana Nyad

(Said after swimming from Cuba to Key West without fins or shark cages)

Team Co-Leader of:

◈ Free Form Dance Team
www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/groups_i
ndividual.asp?gid=62398


Now 109 pounds less than at age 24–w/o surgery!


RUSSELL_40
RUSSELL_40's Photo Posts: 16,790
11/14/13 3:43 P

RUSSELL_40's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Tina I was on Lovastatin, and am a type 2 diabetic. thank goodness, I don't have any gastointestinal issues.

I just have to ask for a few clarifications though.. did you say it was necessary for diabetics to eat red meat, or was that a typo? I do so twice a week, but most of my meals are chicken and vegetables.

Are you saying these gastointestinal issues make it so that you can't eat many varieties of red meat, or any at all?

It sounded like you said you avoided red meat for 10 years, then had to have it because of Type 2, and then have a small selection of the types of red meat that you can eat, now..

If I got any of that wrong, feel free to correct me. Maybe better explanation of your last post as far as meat consumption, at different times in your life, and the causes.

I don't think red meat is necessary for Type 2 diabetics, but I want to understand what you meant before replying.



"We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them "

- Albert Einstein

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.”

- Henry Ford


 current weight: 179.6 
 
361
311.75
262.5
213.25
164


TINIERTINA
TINIERTINA's Photo Posts: 4,899
11/14/13 3:05 P

TINIERTINA's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
It is much more my gastroesophageal reflux disease, rather than the fact that I have been a medically treated cholesterol patient - having been on statin drugs for nearly 18 years and continuing - that keeps my choice of red meat (hello, red meat, in fact - after 10 years !?! of avoidance...) pretty lean. I have to eat red meat due to my Type 2 diabetes that came in very severely ...

If I pay the price for slightly higher blood sugar numbers because of lean meat, so be it ... never functioned well when I'd been hypoglycemic whether when younger or when diabetes-treated ...


Lesser artists borrow, great artists steal.

- Igor Stravinsky

Find a way.

--Diana Nyad

(Said after swimming from Cuba to Key West without fins or shark cages)

Team Co-Leader of:

◈ Free Form Dance Team
www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/groups_i
ndividual.asp?gid=62398


Now 109 pounds less than at age 24–w/o surgery!


HOUNDLOVER1
HOUNDLOVER1's Photo Posts: 7,981
11/14/13 2:20 P

HOUNDLOVER1's SparkPage
Send Private Message
Reply
Russell,
glad you had the chance to see the video. I found the interpretation of the Ancel Keys study very interesting as well.
Concerning animal experimentation, I know that my favorite dog breed, Beagles, are frequently used for nutrition studies in lab situations.
You make a very good point that there are probably better (and kinder) ways to learn from animal feeding trials than by putting those animals in a lab.
I'm doing my little home-made study on that and have been for years. I own 8 different dogs, technically omnivores like humans, although leaning a bit more toward being carnivores some would argue.
In dogs there is an obesity epidemic just like in people. Dogs on cheap dog food eat primarily GMO modified corn, soy, wheat and other grains with a little bit of animals-by products added for protein and cheap fat. Just look at almost any grocery store dog food. They get obese quickly, and don't have much energy to exercise, matching their owners nicely in many cases. emoticon
So my dogs are on a low-carb diet as well, expensive but extending the length of their life and the quality as well.
Unlike so many dogs they are not overweight, are highly active into old age (15 years), are never sick, no cognitive dysfunction (equivalent to Alzheimers and/or dementia), no allergies, no auto-immune problems, no arthritis.
As a dog trainer I can tell what a dog is eating based on it's looks and it's behavior in most cases. After having evaluated thousands of dogs over the years I can see patterns, not convince anyone else, but to me it's as good as proof. Same is true for cats for the most part.
Birgit

Edited by: HOUNDLOVER1 at: 11/14/2013 (14:21)
You can talk to God all you want and that's great, but the changes happen when you start listening to him.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN OTHERS.




 Body Fat %: 18.1
 
23.6
21.7
19.8
17.9
16


 
Page: 1 of (2)   [ 1 ] 2 next page > last »
Search  

I Liked This Topic Subscribe to this Discussion Share
Add This to My SparkFavorites
Report Innappropriate Post


Thread URL: http://www.sparkpeople.com/myspark/messageboard.asp?imboard=7&imparent=32384792

Review our Community Guidelines



 
Diet Resources: school healthy snacks | healthy snacks at school | healthy recipes for school