IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New One cookie a day...
Or, thermodynamics and diet - http://motherjones.c...lternate-universe :

[...]

There's a disturbing lack of common sense at work here. The handy illustration on the right, taken from the article, is for a 210-calorie cookie, not a 60-calorie cookie, but still: does anyone believe that adding a single cookie to your daily diet will take you from 200 pounds to 320 pounds in six years? Has anyone ever believed that? Of course not. It defies reason.

Not surprisingly, then, no one has ever suggested such a thing. Ceteris paribus, a certain number of calories will sustain a certain amount of weight. Take, for example, this calorie calculator from the fine folks at the American Cancer Society. It says that 2,818 calories per day will sustain a sedentary 200 pound man. Now add in that 210-calorie cookie. According to the ACS, 3,028 calories will sustain the same man at a weight of 215 pounds. It does not say that after 30 years he will weigh 830 pounds.

This is not based on dazzling new science. It's the same result you'll get from every calorie calculator in the world. It's possible that new research will change the simplistic formula this is based on, but it's going to be a rather more subtle change than 6 pounds vs. 600. Common sense should have sent this story back to rewrite.

[...]


In the comments, there's a link to Michael Eades's blog, which has this link to Robert McLeod's blog and his review of Taubes's Good Calories, Bad Calories:
http://entropyproduc...ng-within-95.html
[...]

In return for knocking down a bunch of accepted "common knowledge" hypotheses , Taubes presents ten new hypotheses (p.454) and I will add a few more than I extracted from reading the book:

1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease, or any other chronic disease of civilization.
2. The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis—the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
3. Sugars—sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful, probably because of the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.
4. Through their direct effect on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's diseases, and the other chronic diseases of civilization.
5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating, and not sedentary behavior.
6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter, any more than it causes a child of grow taller. Expending more energy than we consume does not lead to long-term weight loss; it leads to hunger.
7. Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism. Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses the balance.
8. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated—either chronically of after a meal—we accumulate fat in our fat tissue. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and use it for fuel.
9. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be.
10. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.

11. RM: Man, being the premier predator on the planet, evolved to eat a diet high in fat (and in particular the saturated and mono-unsaturated fat found in animal tissue). In the absence of clinical data, we should endeavor to structure our diet to be similar to that we evolved eating, prior to the introduction of agriculture approximately 10,000 BCE.
12. RM: Advanced Glycation End-products (abbreviated AGEs) may be a cause or byproduct of the oxidative stress that causes aging and many of the maladies associated with it.
13. RM: A low-calorie, high-carbohydrate diet will make you lethargic as chronically high insulin levels will try to convert glucose to fat while not leaving sufficient calories for the remainder of your basal metabolism. In comparison, low-carbohydrate, moderate-calorie diet will leave you energetic and lean.

[...]


We're still in the infancy of dietary "science". I don't know how strong the evidence is for the 13 points above, and how much is quackery. But in my case, eating lots of carbs (while fun) doesn't satisfy my hunger pangs. It's just anecdotal, but my experiences seem to fit with this picture better than with the conventional "food pyramid", etc., picture.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who will probably go back on his "hot dog and Ben&Jerry's" diet soon to try to lose the ~ 10 pounds he picked up over the winter. http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=14677 )
New I never heard of this one

The canard that saturated fats, "clog your arteries," is just that, bogus. The medical establishment has never believed this since they knew full well plaques form inside the arterial wall, not on the surface. Why this idea was allowed to percolate through the public, I do not know.


At least not the "inside of the arterial wall" aspect.
New Haven't read the original yet, but ...
The thing with cholesterol is that's the substance that provides rigidity in our veins and arteries. If we didn't have cholesterol in our bodies, our circulatory system would collapse and we'd die.

However, blood cholesterol levels are almost completely independent of dietary cholesterol. But try finding a consensus on that.

American Heart Association -- http://www.americanh...l?identifier=4488
[Cholesterol is] an important part of a healthy body because it's used to form cell membranes, some hormones and is needed for other functions.

So we need it, right? So we should eat it?
People get cholesterol in two ways. The body — mainly the liver — produces varying amounts, usually about 1,000 milligrams a day. Foods also can contain cholesterol.

And how much are we eating?
The average American man consumes about 337 milligrams of cholesterol a day; the average woman, 217 milligrams.

And does all of that go right into our blood?
Some of the excess dietary cholesterol is removed from the body through the liver.

How much is "some"?
...

Well ... So that's what the AHA says. How about Harvard? http://www.hsph.harv...-and-cholesterol/
Cholesterol in the bloodstream is what's most important. And the biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats in your diet—not the amount of cholesterol you eat from food.

Wha-wha-whaaaat? First of all, is it the fat or the cholesterol in our diet that raises cholesterol in our blood? Second of all, if the average person produces 1,000 mg a day, and we eat 217-337 mg per day (Tangent: Why is endogenous cholesterol production reported as a single value, but dietary cholesterol intake is reported with a range over 50%?) then dietary cholesterol could have at most a 30% impact on blood cholesterol levels. That counts as "the biggest influence"?

Hmm, so what do the Brits have to say? http://www.physorg.c...ews139156140.html
This research provides further evidence to support the now established scientific understanding that saturated fat in the diet (most often found in pastry, processed meats, biscuits and cakes) is more responsible for raising blood cholesterol than cholesterol-rich foods, such as eggs.

So that's now established. Has anyone sent a memo to Harvard and the AHA? Maybe that hasn't made it back here to the states. Oh, wait. http://blog.nutritio...-cholesterol.html
The most recent research indicates that cholesterol from your food has very little effect on how much cholesterol is in your body. If you're trying to reduce your LDL cholesterol, it's more effective to reduce your intake of saturated fat.


All of this points to a major flaw in the way we do medical research today. People learn the latest scientific theories in college. When they go into research, they specialize on a very small piece of knowledge, and challenge the current thinking about their piece. But they never reassess all the other assumptions surrounding their area of expertise.

So people spend years studying the effect of dietary cholesterol on blood cholesterol levels, without ever considering whether it's dietary fat that's driving the numbers. Or whether elevated blood cholesterol levels are actually a bad thing to begin with.

Then an industry trade group takes finding "A" from study "X", chains it together with finding "B" from study "Y" to draw conclusion "C", for which there is no original research. Then conclusion "C" is taught in school, or more accurately taught through media campaigns and government programs, so that it becomes the assumption behind decades of further research.
--

Drew
New Or, as I say in the intro to my "Oils and Health" page . . .
Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of nutritional science, where all sides on any issue justifiably point to the others as "junk science" supported by faulty studies and distorted by commercial interests, and where today's "medical knowledge" is tomorrow's snake oil. All sides in any heated health controversy are likely right in part and wrong in part, but since this is America, and big money and politics are involved, the truth is very difficult to know.
New Taubes, Good Calories/Bad Calories
I'm about halfway through reading it. My BS detector is not going off.

And some old questions are getting answers, the most common being "actually, we don't know, somebody just made it up a long time ago based on a sloppy observation that was factually incorrect".

Realize this, and be very afraid: Evidence-based medicine is a current fad. I think it's a great idea. What were they doing before? I don't know.
---------------------------------------
Why, yes, I did give up something for lent. I gave up making sense.
Expand Edited by mhuber April 4, 2010, 11:08:42 AM EDT
New That's a pithier way of saying what I said above
--

Drew
New nothing new
the science has been done, ignored then forgotten then rediscovered.
as usual wiki is slightly off but the jist is there
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Adelle_Davis
her book "let's eat right to keep fit" is based on long term studies
thanx,
bill
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Exactly, which is what's so maddening
--

Drew
New Ain't it da truff !? Thou Sayest
And the massive influx of webvertainment opinion pieces adds more gluten to the mix

-- Oh Wait:
Was/is gluten a Baddie or a Goodie?
This week.
(And is that via ADM, AMA, NIH or PDQ)
And.. and..




Stay Away from hospitals as long as you possibly can ...

[START]
These are where the Super-bugs start, thrive and generate $1000/cc temp-Superdrugs to 'control'.
Followed by indefinite racks of Super-Superdrugs to try to treat the Super-drugs' know and undocumented side-effects
Which-all might end you up in a ...
Hospital
[JUMP Indirect to START]


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers!
-- via RC
     One cookie a day... - (Another Scott) - (8)
         I never heard of this one - (crazy) - (2)
             Haven't read the original yet, but ... - (drook) - (1)
                 Or, as I say in the intro to my "Oils and Health" page . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
         Taubes, Good Calories/Bad Calories - (mhuber) - (4)
             That's a pithier way of saying what I said above -NT - (drook)
             nothing new - (boxley) - (2)
                 Exactly, which is what's so maddening -NT - (drook) - (1)
                     Ain't it da truff !? Thou Sayest - (Ashton)

Your Spork God[tm] was HERE!
154 ms