How to drink more water and less bad "Crap"

[Skeptical]

words

 

 

Ok, since you are basically denying one of the fundamentals of putting on and taking off weight, what DOES work in your opinion?

 

[hide][/• Two main semi-starvation studies: Benedict's in 1917 and Keys's in 1944

◦ Parameters: 1400-2100 calories/day

◦ Results: some weight loss, but dramatic decreases in metabolism and other negative/

dangerous effects

▪ metabolism adjusted so that any consumption greater than normal led to weight

gain

▪ subjects were always cold, and couldn't keep warm

15

▪ lowered pulse and blood pressure, slowed movements, weakness

▪ psychological havoc: loss of ambition, irritability, depression, neurosis

▪ several of Keys's subjects cracked and binged

▪ constant complaints of hunger

▪ post-restriction, subjects ate enormous amounts (8000 cal), still felt hungry but

physically incapable of ingesting more

▪ rapidly gained back the weight, usually ending up fatter than before

▪ Keys's subjects ended up 5% heavier; with 50% more body fat!

◦ Conclusions:

▪ obese and lean subjects get the same effects

▪ energy expenditure decreased dramatically with intake restriction

▪ adding calories brought energy expenditure back up, but any lost fat would

be regained

▪ thus, weight loss via calorie restriction can only be

maintained by permanent calorie restriction

• Hirsch did a similar experiment in 1995 on obese subjects

◦ concluded that calorie restriction resulted in a disproportionate decrease in energy

expenditure and metabolism

▪ the body resists changes in adiposity

• Positive energy balance hypothesis: weight gain is a result of energy intake exceeding expenditure

◦ just doesn't work that way; calorie restriction has been remarkably ineffective for weight

loss in obese patients

◦ low-fat, calorie-restricted diets are no better than balanced calorie-restricted diets

◦ long-term calorie-restriction studies even show slight fat gain

• Conventional wisdom sticks with calorie restriction, despite the evidence

• Exercise: the other side of the equation

◦ since calorie restriction is ineffective, then by the process of isolation, energy expenditure

must be the key to weight control

◦ problem: exercise burns insignificant amounts of energy and increases appetite

▪ e.g., lumberjacks eat 5000 cal/day vs tailors at 2500 cal/day

◦ Mayer's evangelism overcame the prevailing attitude that exercise was ineffective or

counterproductive

▪ he noticed that obesity correlates with inactivity, then assumed that inactivity

causes obesity (it's really obesity that causes inactivity)

▪ problem: obesity correlates with poverty — more likely physical laborers

▪ Mayer's hypothesis: there is a loophole in the relation between appetite and

activity; hunger and activity are proportional only to a certain point — below that,

hunger remains even if you don't exercise

▪ based on two of his own studies, both of which are prime examples of bad

science

▪ public figure: wrote in NYT and had a syndicated column

◦ ultimately, the evidence has shown that exercise is ineffective for weight loss

▪ "underwhelming" support of Mayer's hypothesis in the scientific literature

• Flawed assumption: hunger is a psychological phenomenon, a question of will power

◦ No, it's a physiological drive to get enough calories; that's why we get hungrier after

exercise (or after not eating for a few hours)

Paradoxes

• obesity: psychological or biological (physiological)?

◦ fat deposition is very specific (men: above waist, women: below waist)

▪ suggests a role for sex hormones

◦ obesity is hereditary

▪ babies of diabetic mothers are born fatter and more likely to become obese

◦ a starved endomorph doesn't become an ecto or mesomorph

◦ different people fatten differently when they overeat: some gain weight easily, others not

at all

▪ one study overfed sedentary men (getting up to 10,000 cal/day)

▪ a minority gained weight easily (large differences in degree of fattening)

16

▪ all lost weight readily afterward (just as starved subjects gained it)

▪ what happens to all the extra calories in those who don't fatten when

overfed?

▪ farmers breed livestock to be more or less fatty: genetic component

◦ experiments on Zucker rats (one gene is changed, resulting in major obesity) demonstrate

that the rats will store fat even when half-starved

▪ this suggests the cause of obesity is biological (hormonal or genetic)

• Why does the "gluttony-sloth" hypothesis (caloric balance) persist?

◦ Hilde Bruch found that fat children always overate; ~focus on psychological factors

◦ Louis Newburgh: published the seminal article on the subject

▪ strongly advocated the gluttony-sloth hypothesis (psychological; failure of will)

◦ problem: "obesity is caused by overeating and/or deficient activity" - this is both an

assumption and a tautology

▪ assumption: that the correlated phenomenon is the cause (and not effect)

▪ tautology: overeating and inactivity are defined in terms of the degree to which

they cause obesity

▪ we never say that a lean person with a big appetite overeats

▪ a fat person has overeaten by definition

▪ like saying that alcoholism is caused by chronic overdrinking

▪ vague terms, relative to whether the person is obese or not

◦ obese people don't gain weight endlessly, they stabilize at a certain weight

▪ someone at a stable weight is not overeating (calories in = calories out)

• other hypotheses like "gradual weight gain from consistent small caloric excess" and "toxic

environment" also fail

◦ the first doesn't explain why the person doesn't notice the fat gain and cut back

◦ the second doesn't explain why we all don't get fat, despite sharing the same toxic

environment

▪ deeply immersed in moral and class judgments: cheap fast-food is vilified while

equally high calorie Starbucks drinks are never blamed; if we watch too much tv

then we're couch potatoes bound to get fat, but if we sit around reading or

studying then we're not accused

• if obesity is a result of a psychological defect (willpower problem), why don't all other defective

individuals (drug addicts, gamblers, criminals) get fat?

• Hilde Bruch later re-evaluated her hypothesis, revising which was cause and which was effect,

coming to the view that overeating is the symptom of obesity, not the cause][/hide]

 

Essentially, cut carbs. Any and all benefits you will see from calorie restrictions is due to the elimination of the main components of the western diet: sugar and flour.

[Myweponsg00d]

Citing some ridiculous study from the early 20th century. Wow.

 

In fat, there is energy. Your body uses fat for energy. Where does that energy come from? It has to come from the things you eat. If something has more energy, your body needs to either use that energy as it digests, or store the energy.

 

You cite a single study from a very long time ago, yet if I Google "What are calories?" there will be thousands of pages of information (modern information) that states otherwise. Yes, eating less food does slow down your metabolism, but there are many important thechniques to boosting it back up. Eat 6 small meals/snacks instead of 2-3 big meals. Drink ice cold water (your body has to turn on the eat to warm your stomach). Do interval training. Do resistance training.

[tortilliachp]

Citing some ridiculous study from the early 20th century. Wow.

 

In fat, there is energy. Your body uses fat for energy. Where does that energy come from? It has to come from the things you eat. If something has more energy, your body needs to either use that energy as it digests, or store the energy.

 

You cite a single study from a very long time ago, yet if I Google "What are calories?" there will be thousands of pages of information (modern information) that states otherwise. Yes, eating less food does slow down your metabolism, but there are many important thechniques to boosting it back up. Eat 6 small meals/snacks instead of 2-3 big meals. Drink ice cold water (your body has to turn on the eat to warm your stomach). Do interval training. Do resistance training.

 

cold water: 1 kilocalorie (the calories we normally count) per degree the temeprature rises celsius (which is the same as kelvin). that means a glass of water can be a whopping 4 calories! :D sorry, just had to put that out there. you have to drink an awful lot of water for that to be the reason why you loose weight. being "full" so you eat less is the reason to drink more water :D

[Skeptical]

Citing some ridiculous study from the early 20th century. Wow.

 

In fat, there is energy. Your body uses fat for energy. Where does that energy come from? It has to come from the things you eat. If something has more energy, your body needs to either use that energy as it digests, or store the energy.

 

You cite a single study from a very long time ago, yet if I Google "What are calories?" there will be thousands of pages of information (modern information) that states otherwise. Yes, eating less food does slow down your metabolism, but there are many important thechniques to boosting it back up. Eat 6 small meals/snacks instead of 2-3 big meals. Drink ice cold water (your body has to turn on the eat to warm your stomach). Do interval training. Do resistance training.

 

No, it is Ancel Keys' work that I am criticizing. Yes, some of those studies are older. Sorry, I didn't know that scientific inquiry had an expiry date.

[Bloodstain]

OP hasn't posted in like 3 weeks, why is everyone still arguing?

[Myweponsg00d]

Citing some ridiculous study from the early 20th century. Wow.

 

In fat, there is energy. Your body uses fat for energy. Where does that energy come from? It has to come from the things you eat. If something has more energy, your body needs to either use that energy as it digests, or store the energy.

 

You cite a single study from a very long time ago, yet if I Google "What are calories?" there will be thousands of pages of information (modern information) that states otherwise. Yes, eating less food does slow down your metabolism, but there are many important thechniques to boosting it back up. Eat 6 small meals/snacks instead of 2-3 big meals. Drink ice cold water (your body has to turn on the eat to warm your stomach). Do interval training. Do resistance training.

 

No, it is Ancel Keys' work that I am criticizing. Yes, some of those studies are older. Sorry, I didn't know that scientific inquiry had an expiry date.

 

Let's go back and dig up some of the initial research that was done on cigarettes then, shall we?

 

Scientific methods improve with time. The researchers you are citing have probably made an error. Either that, or their old science is somehow more accurate than our new science. I mean, it isnt impossible I suppose.

 

Also I would be interested in knowing what country the study was done in. I have heard rumors that some of this stuff is different for americans vs. europeans. I read an article somewhere that talked about how the French eat pastries nearly every day, yet they have no obesity problems. Unlike americans who will usually eat things like eggs or meat for breakfast. No idea what the cause of that was though...

[NorthernHero]

Please excuse me if i'm saying something irrelevant or something already said before but let me tell you why diets like atkins and other carbohydrate restriction diets work better than fat restriction diets in cutting weight (non caloric restriction). It all comes down to insulin.

 

1.Insulin is the hormone which makes energy turn to fat.

2.Insulin is created only when you have carbohydrates in your body.

 

So practically you could eat a can of lard and actually lose weight that day, debending on your activity level. Now i've never tested this, altought I do eat hella lot of fat every day. I even eat my eggs or semi fatty meat with butter on the side.

The exess fat which isn't used for energy or body functhions goes away with your urine. Your body a creates a small amount of carbohydrates everyday for it's needs, but if you don't eat any, it will be a very small amount of insulin you will be having in your body.

[Skeptical]

Please excuse me if i'm saying something irrelevant or something already said before but let me tell you why diets like atkins and other carbohydrate restriction diets work better than fat restriction diets in cutting weight (non caloric restriction). It all comes down to insulin.

 

1.Insulin is the hormone which makes energy turn to fat.

2.Insulin is created only when you have carbohydrates in your body.

 

So practically you could eat a can of lard and actually lose weight that day, debending on your activity level. Now i've never tested this, altought I do eat hella lot of fat every day. I even eat my eggs or semi fatty meat with butter on the side.

The exess fat which isn't used for energy or body functhions goes away with your urine. Your body a creates a small amount of carbohydrates everyday for it's needs, but if you don't eat any, it will be a very small amount of insulin you will be having in your body.

 

Thanks dude. That's exactly how I eat: I ate chicken fried in pork fat last night, a side of well-buttered broccoli, and ghee-fried eggs this morning: that's enough saturated fat to make a nutritionist cry, bread (even whole grain) at most one slice a week, no drinks other than small amounts of milk, large amounts of cream and water, and yet I feel better when I do it. I can't really speak from the perspective of weight loss, since I've never been overweight, but I'm quite sure that this would help as well.

[tortilliachp]

Please excuse me if i'm saying something irrelevant or something already said before but let me tell you why diets like atkins and other carbohydrate restriction diets work better than fat restriction diets in cutting weight (non caloric restriction). It all comes down to insulin.

 

1.Insulin is the hormone which makes energy turn to fat.

2.Insulin is created only when you have carbohydrates in your body.

 

So practically you could eat a can of lard and actually lose weight that day, debending on your activity level. Now i've never tested this, altought I do eat hella lot of fat every day. I even eat my eggs or semi fatty meat with butter on the side.

The exess fat which isn't used for energy or body functhions goes away with your urine. Your body a creates a small amount of carbohydrates everyday for it's needs, but if you don't eat any, it will be a very small amount of insulin you will be having in your body.

 

Thanks dude. That's exactly how I eat: I ate chicken fried in pork fat last night, a side of well-buttered broccoli, and ghee-fried eggs this morning: that's enough saturated fat to make a nutritionist cry, bread (even whole grain) at most one slice a week, no drinks other than small amounts of milk, large amounts of cream and water, and yet I feel better when I do it. I can't really speak from the perspective of weight loss, since I've never been overweight, but I'm quite sure that this would help as well.

 

god save you from cardiac disease! you're going to need divine intervention if you continue at that rate. internal fat, and total body fat aren't necessarily related. it's better to be over-weight and in shape, than lean and out of shape, just like it's better to be overweight yet eat healthily than lean eating unhealthily.

 

 

OP hasn't posted in like 3 weeks, why is everyone still arguing?

a topic isn't about the OP, but about the topic, hence the name :D

[NorthernHero]

god save you from cardiac disease! you're going to need divine intervention if you continue at that rate. internal fat, and total body fat aren't necessarily related. it's better to be over-weight and in shape, than lean and out of shape, just like it's better to be overweight yet eat healthily than lean eating unhealthily.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all. We have been eating saturated fat as long as we have been eating meat. So you could say we have evolved to eat it and it is part of our natural diet. It isn't poison.

So where where does this arrogance come that this new invention, vegetable oils are better for us? We have been eating them for very very short time compared to animal fats. They need very hight rate of technology to be produced. There are many cases of evidense where a population had no heart or cardiovascular diseaces before but then after their diet got westernised (vegetable oils, grains) they suddenly got those diseaces in them, plus bunch of others..

Sorry i'm slipping out of original topic, just had to state that.

[tortilliachp]

god save you from cardiac disease! you're going to need divine intervention if you continue at that rate. internal fat, and total body fat aren't necessarily related. it's better to be over-weight and in shape, than lean and out of shape, just like it's better to be overweight yet eat healthily than lean eating unhealthily.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all.

except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all.

if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another.

 

sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science

[Myweponsg00d]

god save you from cardiac disease! you're going to need divine intervention if you continue at that rate. internal fat, and total body fat aren't necessarily related. it's better to be over-weight and in shape, than lean and out of shape, just like it's better to be overweight yet eat healthily than lean eating unhealthily.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all.

except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all.

if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another.

 

sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science

 

What the hell are you rambling on about now? NorthernHero was agreeing with you...

[tortilliachp]

god save you from cardiac disease! you're going to need divine intervention if you continue at that rate. internal fat, and total body fat aren't necessarily related. it's better to be over-weight and in shape, than lean and out of shape, just like it's better to be overweight yet eat healthily than lean eating unhealthily.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all.

except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all.

if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another.

 

sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science

 

What the hell are you rambling on about now? NorthernHero was agreeing with you...

 

saturated fats are the "dangerous" type of fat. he's directly contradicting the advice that oils such as olive oil, which is largely unsaturated, is more healthy for cooking than butter, which is saturated.

 

he's disagreeing with me, unless "written irony" has yet again been used.

[NorthernHero]

Yeah.

tortilliachp: saturated bad, unsaturated good.

NorthernHero: saturated good, unsaturated bad.

[Skeptical]

god save you from cardiac disease! you're going to need divine intervention if you continue at that rate. internal fat, and total body fat aren't necessarily related. it's better to be over-weight and in shape, than lean and out of shape, just like it's better to be overweight yet eat healthily than lean eating unhealthily.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all.

except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all.

if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another.

 

sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science

 

This is what Michael Pollan discussed in Easters Manifesto: it's the blind, unquestioning dedication to anything you're told. You consider authority absolute, scientists gods, and the doctors that manipulate their work un-erring dem-gods: to question is dangerous, to be paranoid is naive, and trusting necessary.

 

How well do you think it would go over in these institutions, governmental or otherwise, to say that the sermons that they've delivered, the demands for blind obedience, were all wrong? That the very foundations of their work was a mistake, propagated by circular reasoning and fallacies that a 10 year-old could see through? Really, they have no choice, and bad science is experimentation influenced by emotion - what they've created is a monster of propaganda, corruption, and confusing and conflicting information.

 

saturated fats are the "dangerous" type of fat. he's directly contradicting the advice that oils such as olive oil, which is largely unsaturated, is more healthy for cooking than butter, which is saturated.

 

he's disagreeing with me, unless "written irony" has yet again been used.

 

Saturated fat is not bad for your. Industrial seed oils, are. Olive oil isn't as bad for you, but butter is better. Ghee is about the same, although it's hard to find products to the same level of purity.

 

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/03/leave-your-brain-at-door.html

[tortilliachp]

god save you from cardiac disease! you're going to need divine intervention if you continue at that rate. internal fat, and total body fat aren't necessarily related. it's better to be over-weight and in shape, than lean and out of shape, just like it's better to be overweight yet eat healthily than lean eating unhealthily.

I know we've been discussing about this before but saturated fat has got a bad name for no reason at all.

except for as good as all research on the subject, i guess there is no reason. If you choose to deny science, few things have reason. If you choose to apply scientific principles only in some cases, they're not science at all.

if all nutritional information is wrong, why would our governments all over the world still have the same advice? the lobbies in one country aren't the same as another. the money to be made in one country (if you believe the conspiracies) isn't the same as another.

 

sorry, you're argument makes little rational sense. it makes no scientific sense, it makes no statistical sense (in terms of survivability and heart disease). you cannot deny science

 

This is what Michael Pollan discussed in Easters Manifesto: it's the blind, unquestioning dedication to anything you're told. You consider authority absolute, scientists gods, and the doctors that manipulate their work un-erring dem-gods: to question is dangerous, to be paranoid is naive, and trusting necessary.

 

How well do you think it would go over in these institutions, governmental or otherwise, to say that the sermons that they've delivered, the demands for blind obedience, were all wrong? That the very foundations of their work was a mistake, propagated by circular reasoning and fallacies that a 10 year-old could see through? Really, they have no choice, and bad science is experimentation influenced by emotion - what they've created is a monster of propaganda, corruption, and confusing and conflicting information.

 

saturated fats are the "dangerous" type of fat. he's directly contradicting the advice that oils such as olive oil, which is largely unsaturated, is more healthy for cooking than butter, which is saturated.

 

he's disagreeing with me, unless "written irony" has yet again been used.

 

Saturated fat is not bad for your. Industrial seed oils, are. Olive oil isn't as bad for you, but butter is better. Ghee is about the same, although it's hard to find products to the same level of purity.

 

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/03/leave-your-brain-at-door.html

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

 

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research. do you believe in the mathematical formulation of gravity? It was found with the same scientific methods as evaluating the cardiac risks of ingesting ghee. want to see some of the numbers for yourself, or do you distrust them, because a scientist did the work? http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/ayurveda-health-wellbeing/399907-butter-vs-ghee.html

 

I don't accept science unquestioningly, rather, with a reasonable level of skepticims. However, when thousands of surveys confirm the same trend over and over again, when I've physically SEEN the testing in for instance the norwegian HUNT 3 project, when i've SEEN the same raw data cataloged later, when i've seen these things, you ask me to ignore them because they are science?

 

skepticism is arguably important. However, it's a lot easier to be unilaterally over-skeptic than accepting fact as fact without considering possible, yet extremely rare cases of bias that may occur. there's a balance to be found before skepticism becomes over-skepticism.

 

I happen to have parents, family and friends who work in the sciences. I happen to see how science works on a personal level. I happen to see how not all authority is bad authority (as you conveniently label it), because I've sat through board meetings as part of my regular schooling, without them knowing we were going to be there prior to us showing up.

 

this is getting ridiculous. how can anyone dare to give dietary advice with no knowledge of science. food science cannot simply be ignored. statistics don't lie, even to a food scientist, publications don't publish junk if they can check it.

[NorthernHero]

First off,

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats?

 

 

As I see it,

Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body.

 

The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade!

 

This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger.

Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods.

[tortilliachp]

First off,

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats?

 

 

As I see it,

Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body.

 

The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade!

 

This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger.

Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods.

 

one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk.

 

further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful"

 

you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains.

 

http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

 

inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind.

 

I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook.

 

reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet.

[Skeptical]

First off,

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats?

 

 

As I see it,

Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body.

 

The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade!

 

This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger.

Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods.

 

one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk.

 

further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful"

 

you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains.

 

http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

 

inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind.

 

I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook.

 

reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet.

 

Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept.

 

If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen?

 

Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before!

 

Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels.

 

//

 

As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns.

 

When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it.

 

And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594

[tortilliachp]

First off,

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats?

 

 

As I see it,

Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body.

 

The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade!

 

This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger.

Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods.

 

one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk.

 

further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful"

 

you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains.

 

http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

 

inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind.

 

I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook.

 

reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet.

 

Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept.

 

If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen?

 

Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before!

 

Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels.

 

//

 

As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns.

 

When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it.

 

And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594

 

and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc.

 

the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are.

 

that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic.

[Skeptical]

First off,

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats?

 

 

As I see it,

Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body.

 

The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade!

 

This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger.

Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods.

 

one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk.

 

further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful"

 

you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains.

 

http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

 

inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind.

 

I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook.

 

reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet.

 

Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept.

 

If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen?

 

Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before!

 

Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels.

 

//

 

As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns.

 

When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it.

 

And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594

 

and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc.

 

the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are.

 

that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic.

 

And yet most studies draw from the pool of nurses, which is even worse evidence than vegetarians. They are, once again, being compared to the general public, whose health practices are not so impressively close-minded: many studies didn't and some still don't even account for smoking. What about fast food? Should we call everyone who eats burgers healthy? Of course not, it's "meat" dressed up in carbohydrates, a deadly combination.

 

I am aware that it is anecdotal evidence; I presented it as such. How, exactly, though, can one be allergic to carbohydrates? There is intolerance, but inflammation is not a symptom of it. Intolerance itself is extremely rare, mostly misdiagnosed when the real culprit is gluten. http://www.preventcci.com/diagnosing/default.aspx

[tortilliachp]

First off,

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats?

 

 

As I see it,

Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body.

 

The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade!

 

This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger.

Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods.

 

one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk.

 

further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful"

 

you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains.

 

http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

 

inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind.

 

I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook.

 

reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet.

 

Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept.

 

If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen?

 

Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before!

 

Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels.

 

//

 

As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns.

 

When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it.

 

And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594

 

and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc.

 

the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are.

 

that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic.

 

And yet most studies draw from the pool of nurses, which is even worse evidence than vegetarians. They are, once again, being compared to the general public, whose health practices are not so impressively close-minded: many studies didn't and some still don't even account for smoking. What about fast food? Should we call everyone who eats burgers healthy? Of course not, it's "meat" dressed up in carbohydrates, a deadly combination.

 

I am aware that it is anecdotal evidence; I presented it as such. How, exactly, though, can one be allergic to carbohydrates? There is intolerance, but inflammation is not a symptom of it. Intolerance itself is extremely rare, mostly misdiagnosed when the real culprit is gluten. http://www.preventcci.com/diagnosing/default.aspx

 

the vegetarian adventists have their non-vegetarian counterparts as the perfect control group. that's what separates the studies on them from almost all other dietary statistics. that's why i mentioned that example in particular: it's too strong to ignore.

 

inflammation and bleeding are not the same thing (which you know). you can basically be allergic to anything, it's just rare.

 

however: this is the splitting of hairs. you haven't been able to respond to the major claims at hand the role of carbohydrates and fats.

[Myweponsg00d]

Can we all agree that there is at least a degree of individuality in the way our bodies responds to things?

 

I eat bacon, dark meat chicken, ground beef, etc all the time and don't ever have problems with it. But when it comes to carbs, even if I eat too much FRUIT I will put on too much fat. Let alone things like pastries...

 

But my sister is completely different. She eats tons of fruits and white breads and never has a problem with it. But if she eats some of the higher-fat things that I do, she tends to add weight.

 

Everybody's body is different, to some extent. The best thing to do is really just play around trying different diets until you find the one that leaves you feeling the healthiest.

[Skeptical]

Can we all agree that there is at least a degree of individuality in the way our bodies responds to things?

 

I eat bacon, dark meat chicken, ground beef, etc all the time and don't ever have problems with it. But when it comes to carbs, even if I eat too much FRUIT I will put on too much fat. Let alone things like pastries...

 

But my sister is completely different. She eats tons of fruits and white breads and never has a problem with it. But if she eats some of the higher-fat things that I do, she tends to add weight.

 

Everybody's body is different, to some extent. The best thing to do is really just play around trying different diets until you find the one that leaves you feeling the healthiest.

 

People's definition of "healthy" varies just far too much. I would be fine with just leaving people on their own, but I live in Canada: I'll be paying through the nose every single time someone decides to buy a "low-fat" alternative, or to choose the Western Diet over others.

[Skeptical]

First off,

when you call Ghee or butter a health product, you ignore all scientific research

Say what? All scientific research? Who says there isn't positivic scientific results on saturated fats?

 

 

As I see it,

Ghee does pose a cardiovascular threat., BUT only if it is mixed with unhealthy foods. Allow me to explain.And please correct me if you see error in this reasoning. Ghee comes with hella lot of cholesterol. Which is good. Read that again. Cholesterol is good. It acts like a bandade to fix damages in cardiovascular system. Now, the problem arises when you eat too much foods which cause stress to your body, and damage the cardiovascular system, like exess carbs (insulin is a poison in large amounts) or vegetable oils. These are called inflammatory foods because they create inflammation in the body.

 

The more you eat these stressful foods, the more your body tryes to fix the damage with cholesterol. See where this is leading? One day you wake up (or don't wake up) with clogged arteries, because there just is too much bandade!

 

This is whats going on. You go to a doctor. Get your cholesterol levels measured, you got too high, which can cause you to get a hearth attack. Where does cholesterol come from? Foods with lots of saturated fats. So you cut the saturated fats. Now your risk of hearth attack is decreased. What have we done here? Answer: We have shot the messenger! This is not the cure! Because it causes another types of problems, like for example obesity. Cholesterol is a messenger, there is something wrong. And we shot that messenger.

Instead we should have aimed our gun at the source of the problem, the real evil at the root. Inflammatory foods.

 

one problem with that theory: vegetarians have lower cholesterol levels, healthier cardiovascular systems and lower rates of obesity. they eat more carbs and less saturated fat. . blood platelets are the fixers in the cardiovascular system, not cholesterol. the balance of HDL and LDL cholesterol in animalia increases cardiac risk.

 

further issue: vegetarians live on average 10 years longer than others. their intake of the foods you label "stressful"

 

you umbrella-term carbohydrates as inflammatory foods, when carbohydrate-intensive foods like sweet potatoes are anti-inflammatory. you're getting at sugars, not starches, which are the main source of energy in grains.

 

http://www.metabolismadvice.com/anti_inflammatory_food/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

 

inflammatory foods include those with saturated fats: diary products, red-meats spring to mind.

 

I haven't found plant oils under foods that increase inflammation, at least in my nutrition textbook.

 

reducing the amount of animal fat (read: high degree of saturation) is indeed one of the main things to change in your diet to get a less inflammatory diet.

 

Exactly! Vegetarians do live longer, have less heart disease, less cancer (except for colon, but that's a very complex subject all on its own: http://www.vegsource.com/harris/cancer_vegdiet.htm But that's because these are different people: one of the main failings of nutritionism is the idea that studies are perfect: the people that adhere to there results don't question, they accept.

 

If you took a group of 100 Americans, "average" and all identical: non-smoking, identical diet, drinking habits, exercise routines - and made them all vegetarian, what would happen?

 

Suddenly, they would be substituting vegetables, fruits, and massive amounts of grains for.... wait for it... a diet filled with industrial corn products, chemical filled pastries, pretend-meat hotdogs, and hydrogenated vegetable oils. Hell yea, they're going to do better than they were before!

 

Vegetarians are more likely to be health conscious, to avoid carcinogens and sodium, and to exercise, care about their bodies, and make healthy choices (except in diet). As such, they compare favorably against the general population, who these days, is inclined to subsist on little else but beer and over-salted pretzels.

 

//

 

As for inflammation, I'm not very well-read on the subject, although I do have a fair bit of personal (anecdotal) evidence. Yes, I know that not much can be drawn from this, but enough that it's influenced my eating patterns.

 

When I eat carbs (at times it is entirely unavoidable) my gums will bleed. They become so inflamed that when I brush my teeth, I will spit out blood. Literally. My knee inflammation is usually increased as well, although it's a very hard thing to track and I normally won't bother to record it.

 

And the research that you posted is garbage: Wikipedia provides links to research, not actual research: for definitions, fine, but not for anything else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18046594

 

and that's where the adventist studies come into the vegetarian question: their Christianity is based on eating healthily. the vegetarians in the group still do better, although they are as similar as any human population will get in terms of smoking, drinking, exercise etc.

 

the link to wikipedia is only on the general, commonly knowledge that carbohydrates are divided in different groups with different properties. starches vs. disaccharides (sugars) , and their very different properties. sugar consumption isn't good, starches are.

 

that's personal experience, not research or science. you may be allergic.

 

And yet most studies draw from the pool of nurses, which is even worse evidence than vegetarians. They are, once again, being compared to the general public, whose health practices are not so impressively close-minded: many studies didn't and some still don't even account for smoking. What about fast food? Should we call everyone who eats burgers healthy? Of course not, it's "meat" dressed up in carbohydrates, a deadly combination.

 

I am aware that it is anecdotal evidence; I presented it as such. How, exactly, though, can one be allergic to carbohydrates? There is intolerance, but inflammation is not a symptom of it. Intolerance itself is extremely rare, mostly misdiagnosed when the real culprit is gluten. http://www.preventcci.com/diagnosing/default.aspx

 

the vegetarian adventists have their non-vegetarian counterparts as the perfect control group. that's what separates the studies on them from almost all other dietary statistics. that's why i mentioned that example in particular: it's too strong to ignore.

 

inflammation and bleeding are not the same thing (which you know). you can basically be allergic to anything, it's just rare.

 

however: this is the splitting of hairs. you haven't been able to respond to the major claims at hand the role of carbohydrates and fats.

 

I have some insight here, having been raised a Seventh-day Adventist. For generations, the SDA church promoted ABSOLUTE avoidance of all alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. The avoidance of caffeine extended to a ban on chocolate and colas. I think this really accounts for much of their longevity.

For years they also promoted absolute avoidance of pork and shellfish, but only recommended vegetarianism and never promoted veganism. A Seventh-day Adventist might eat beef, chicken, and finfish, and still be a member in good standing, but an SDA who began to drink coffee or alcohol or eat pork was considered apostate. No burnings at the stake, mind you , but you would find yourself on a prayer list if anyone found out. And, you could be expelled from an Adventist college if you were found to be drinking or smoking.

frm:

 

Nutritionism's greatest failing is that of unacknowledged imperfection: people lie, break diets, and are just generally impossible to place in groups, control or otherwise. We're not germs in petri dishes, and you can't pretend that any evidence from unscientific studies can be considered fact. There ARE studies that refute the hyperlipid hypthesis. There are also studies that show prayer works.