Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
butter vs margarine
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
I get my Raw unpasteurized milk from a local farm that treats its animals humanely. My milk comes in glass, because BPA's, and I've taken to making my own butter which is stable at room temperature. But you know everything.
And just in case anyone wants to criticize my consumption of world dairy products, that is a personal decision and I don't need your input. My family can say is organic pasteurized milk so no worries there.
Funny that you'd bring up raw milk. Raw unpasteurized milk is pretty bad for you. About 150 times higher incidence rate of food related outbreaks because of it than treated milk.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
But "natural" is so much better for you mhmm.
In my n=5, we had raw unpasteurized goat's milk for 14 years without it making us sick.
(I'm not arguing against pasteurization in large scale dairy operations.)
I've known thousands of people that have never been attacked by tigers, and they all wore pants. Clearly tigers never attack those who wear pants. N=1000+.
I'm suddenly very nervous...
+1
It could also be knowing me, so you guys might be safe.
YouTube has videos of people in pants being attacked by tigers, so it could be you. I'm not sure if these forums = "knowing" so I'm just going to try and avoid tigers.
I'm going with knowing as in anyone that has enough contact with me that they could tell me if a tiger ever attacked them. To date, I've had 0 people tell they've been attacked by a tiger.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
I get my Raw unpasteurized milk from a local farm that treats its animals humanely. My milk comes in glass, because BPA's, and I've taken to making my own butter which is stable at room temperature. But you know everything.
And just in case anyone wants to criticize my consumption of world dairy products, that is a personal decision and I don't need your input. My family can say is organic pasteurized milk so no worries there.
Funny that you'd bring up raw milk. Raw unpasteurized milk is pretty bad for you. About 150 times higher incidence rate of food related outbreaks because of it than treated milk.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
But "natural" is so much better for you mhmm.
In my n=5, we had raw unpasteurized goat's milk for 14 years without it making us sick.
(I'm not arguing against pasteurization in large scale dairy operations.)
I've known thousands of people that have never been attacked by tigers, and they all wore pants. Clearly tigers never attack those who wear pants. N=1000+.
I'm suddenly very nervous...
+1
It could also be knowing me, so you guys might be safe.
YouTube has videos of people in pants being attacked by tigers, so it could be you. I'm not sure if these forums = "knowing" so I'm just going to try and avoid tigers.
I'm going with knowing as in anyone that has enough contact with me that they could tell me if a tiger ever attacked them. To date, I've had 0 people tell they've been attacked by a tiger.
Could tell you, or would tell you? If not asked, I wonder how many would volunteer the information.0 -
Actually I threaten anyone who hides tiger attack information from me with the threat of releasing tigers on them. So I believe so far they've been honest in their non-confession of tiger attacks.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
I get my Raw unpasteurized milk from a local farm that treats its animals humanely. My milk comes in glass, because BPA's, and I've taken to making my own butter which is stable at room temperature. But you know everything.
And just in case anyone wants to criticize my consumption of world dairy products, that is a personal decision and I don't need your input. My family can say is organic pasteurized milk so no worries there.
Funny that you'd bring up raw milk. Raw unpasteurized milk is pretty bad for you. About 150 times higher incidence rate of food related outbreaks because of it than treated milk.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
But "natural" is so much better for you mhmm.
In my n=5, we had raw unpasteurized goat's milk for 14 years without it making us sick.
(I'm not arguing against pasteurization in large scale dairy operations.)
I've known thousands of people that have never been attacked by tigers, and they all wore pants. Clearly tigers never attack those who wear pants. N=1000+.
I'm suddenly very nervous...
+1
It could also be knowing me, so you guys might be safe.
YouTube has videos of people in pants being attacked by tigers, so it could be you. I'm not sure if these forums = "knowing" so I'm just going to try and avoid tigers.
I'm going with knowing as in anyone that has enough contact with me that they could tell me if a tiger ever attacked them. To date, I've had 0 people tell they've been attacked by a tiger.
Could tell you, or would tell you? If not asked, I wonder how many would volunteer the information.0 -
Actually I threaten anyone who hides tiger attack information from me with the threat of releasing tigers on them. So I believe so far they've been honest in their non-confession of tiger attacks.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
I get my Raw unpasteurized milk from a local farm that treats its animals humanely. My milk comes in glass, because BPA's, and I've taken to making my own butter which is stable at room temperature. But you know everything.
And just in case anyone wants to criticize my consumption of world dairy products, that is a personal decision and I don't need your input. My family can say is organic pasteurized milk so no worries there.
Funny that you'd bring up raw milk. Raw unpasteurized milk is pretty bad for you. About 150 times higher incidence rate of food related outbreaks because of it than treated milk.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
But "natural" is so much better for you mhmm.
In my n=5, we had raw unpasteurized goat's milk for 14 years without it making us sick.
(I'm not arguing against pasteurization in large scale dairy operations.)
I've known thousands of people that have never been attacked by tigers, and they all wore pants. Clearly tigers never attack those who wear pants. N=1000+.
I'm suddenly very nervous...
+1
It could also be knowing me, so you guys might be safe.
YouTube has videos of people in pants being attacked by tigers, so it could be you. I'm not sure if these forums = "knowing" so I'm just going to try and avoid tigers.
I'm going with knowing as in anyone that has enough contact with me that they could tell me if a tiger ever attacked them. To date, I've had 0 people tell they've been attacked by a tiger.
Could tell you, or would tell you? If not asked, I wonder how many would volunteer the information.
I admit nothing! Is that the correct answer?
Also, margarine, because I can't spray butter on popcorn.0 -
Actually I threaten anyone who hides tiger attack information from me with the threat of releasing tigers on them. So I believe so far they've been honest in their non-confession of tiger attacks.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
I get my Raw unpasteurized milk from a local farm that treats its animals humanely. My milk comes in glass, because BPA's, and I've taken to making my own butter which is stable at room temperature. But you know everything.
And just in case anyone wants to criticize my consumption of world dairy products, that is a personal decision and I don't need your input. My family can say is organic pasteurized milk so no worries there.
Funny that you'd bring up raw milk. Raw unpasteurized milk is pretty bad for you. About 150 times higher incidence rate of food related outbreaks because of it than treated milk.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
But "natural" is so much better for you mhmm.
In my n=5, we had raw unpasteurized goat's milk for 14 years without it making us sick.
(I'm not arguing against pasteurization in large scale dairy operations.)
I've known thousands of people that have never been attacked by tigers, and they all wore pants. Clearly tigers never attack those who wear pants. N=1000+.
I'm suddenly very nervous...
+1
It could also be knowing me, so you guys might be safe.
YouTube has videos of people in pants being attacked by tigers, so it could be you. I'm not sure if these forums = "knowing" so I'm just going to try and avoid tigers.
I'm going with knowing as in anyone that has enough contact with me that they could tell me if a tiger ever attacked them. To date, I've had 0 people tell they've been attacked by a tiger.
Could tell you, or would tell you? If not asked, I wonder how many would volunteer the information.
Interesting tactic, though I would need to see some data on whether threats tend to skew answers. And it would be interesting to know how many were wearing pants at the time the question was asked.0 -
I hated margarine even before I started working at Cinnabon, but I think I hate it even more now that I have to look at bricks of it every time I have my shift.
I love the organic unsalted butter from Costco. I also love making my own.0 -
Personally I prefer butter. I have never had a margarine that tastes anything remotely like real butter. But I use butter very sparingly.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Actually I threaten anyone who hides tiger attack information from me with the threat of releasing tigers on them. So I believe so far they've been honest in their non-confession of tiger attacks.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »michelle172415 wrote: »You guys are really nitpicking here. What I think @melissa6771 is trying to get at is that butter is all natural; it's made from milk and sometimes salt. Whereas margarine was originally made in a lab and has lots of added ingredients, a lot of which some people prefer not to include in their diets, myself included.
Nothing says natural like grabbing the nipples of another species and yanking for all its worth in hopes you'll a liquid that you'll be able to pound it into a amorpheous solid food stuff that can withstand shipping across the country in a vehicle that is filled with pressurized coolant to create a temperature cooler than ambient. That's my idea of natural for sure.
For productivity's sake, can we use the term synthetic chemicals to denote the lab concept or kemikillz? I'm cool with either, though the later will give me more of a chuckle.
I get my Raw unpasteurized milk from a local farm that treats its animals humanely. My milk comes in glass, because BPA's, and I've taken to making my own butter which is stable at room temperature. But you know everything.
And just in case anyone wants to criticize my consumption of world dairy products, that is a personal decision and I don't need your input. My family can say is organic pasteurized milk so no worries there.
Funny that you'd bring up raw milk. Raw unpasteurized milk is pretty bad for you. About 150 times higher incidence rate of food related outbreaks because of it than treated milk.
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
But "natural" is so much better for you mhmm.
In my n=5, we had raw unpasteurized goat's milk for 14 years without it making us sick.
(I'm not arguing against pasteurization in large scale dairy operations.)
I've known thousands of people that have never been attacked by tigers, and they all wore pants. Clearly tigers never attack those who wear pants. N=1000+.
I'm suddenly very nervous...
+1
It could also be knowing me, so you guys might be safe.
YouTube has videos of people in pants being attacked by tigers, so it could be you. I'm not sure if these forums = "knowing" so I'm just going to try and avoid tigers.
I'm going with knowing as in anyone that has enough contact with me that they could tell me if a tiger ever attacked them. To date, I've had 0 people tell they've been attacked by a tiger.
Could tell you, or would tell you? If not asked, I wonder how many would volunteer the information.
Interesting tactic, though I would need to see some data on whether threats tend to skew answers. And it would be interesting to know how many were wearing pants at the time the question was asked.
I don't know if this really helps, but when I heard of the threat of tiger attacks, I peed my pants and have been pantless since. So far, I have not been attacked by a tiger.
OP, I use margarine.0 -
Definitely butter. When I studied nutrition in college our professor told us that the body does not digest margarine efficiently because it is artificial. Butter bring an all natural food it is used and digested efficiently. The molecules and chains in margarine end up clogging arteries. Plus butter is good for the body. We need fat. With the reduction of eating fat in our country we are now seeing an alarming increase in obesity.
Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems. Recent studies have found concerns with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda. Fat is not the culprit. Eskimos eat tremendous amounts of saturated fats and have low heart disease. Personally, I believe the culprit is sugar and refined carbohydrates that are the cause of an alarming increase of obesity in our country. I have met many foreigners who all say that when they come to the United States they gain weight. Once they return to their former countries and go back to eating unrefined foods that include whole milk, butter, whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables and Fruits, they lose the weight they gained while they were here.0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »Definitely butter. When I studied nutrition in college our professor told us that the body does not digest margarine efficiently because it is artificial.
Funny. You were claiming your professor was anti dairy in the other thread (I responded to you there, btw). Different professor?Butter bring an all natural food it is used and digested efficiently. The molecules and chains in margarine end up clogging arteries.
Margarine is varied. How does olive oil plus butter (for one example) accomplish this feat more than either on its own?Plus butter is good for the body. We need fat. With the reduction of eating fat in our country we are now seeing an alarming increase in obesity.
There has been no reduction in fat, first, and, second, schools like the Harvard School of Public Health and other top nutrition experts continue to recommend that we limit (not eliminate) sat fat. Butter is sat fat. It's fine in moderate quantities, of course (as noted above I use it and not margarine because I prefer it, but use olive oil more than butter). But butter is not a food we NEED to eat or one that we ought to seek out because it's good to include it in our diets any more than other foods we include because they are tasty (see, e.g., other dairy products like high quality cheese or, for that matter, high quality chocolate).Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems.
Separate topic, as margarine isn't a "refined carb." (Neither too much sat fat nor too many refined carbs are advisable, IMO, and that's based on the advice of credible nutrition experts, Our mistake has been subbing one for the other when we ought to eat more vegetables, fruits, and less refined and fewer animal-based products, on average.)0 -
rankinsect wrote: »
I have the nervous feeling that the comic author observed me in the grocery store.
I nearly had a nervous breakdown when I purchased a bottle of "chemical free household cleaner." It was "all-natural" and "organic" too. I used it as a demo for freshmen chemistry classes.
0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems. Recent studies have found concerns with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda. Fat is not the culprit. Eskimos eat tremendous amounts of saturated fats and have low heart disease. Personally, I believe the culprit is sugar and refined carbohydrates that are the cause of an alarming increase of obesity in our country. I have met many foreigners who all say that when they come to the United States they gain weight. Once they return to their former countries and go back to eating unrefined foods that include whole milk, butter, whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables and Fruits, they lose the weight they gained while they were here.
Rather different topic and that's a real splattering of things.
First, you'd probably be better using the term Inuit instead of Eskimos, though preference for term will vary by tribe.
Second, there is a lot of issues with taking one piece of Inuit diet and a few study results and ignoring everything else in it. Inuit diet is also incredibly high in omega-3's, in fact studying them is what initially lead to the fish oil as a heart disease preventative idea. Inuit are also generally active, including living in a cold environment that forces high calorie use to maintain body temperature. There is also discussion of how accurate is the heart disease rate observed for them and does it simply reflect that the hazardous conditions they live in doesn't see many of them live into old age. There is also even some indications that the Inuit may have a choice few genes that alter fat metabolism, partially in relation to the already mentioned omega-3's.
Third, the Splenda study you mentioned also shows that moderate amounts of Splenda cause males rats to reduce their cancer rate, but most headlines don't say that, do they? The group that did that experiment has a history of releasing conclusions that artificial sweetners are unsafe that tends to defy the actual data they present.
Fourth, yes, foreigners come to America and move less, eat more (larger portions) resulting in weight gain. They eat more of everything, not just carbs.0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems. Recent studies have found concerns with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda. Fat is not the culprit. Eskimos eat tremendous amounts of saturated fats and have low heart disease. Personally, I believe the culprit is sugar and refined carbohydrates that are the cause of an alarming increase of obesity in our country. I have met many foreigners who all say that when they come to the United States they gain weight. Once they return to their former countries and go back to eating unrefined foods that include whole milk, butter, whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables and Fruits, they lose the weight they gained while they were here.
Rather different topic and that's a real splattering of things.
First, you'd probably be better using the term Inuit instead of Eskimos, though preference for term will vary by tribe.
Second, there is a lot of issues with taking one piece of Inuit diet and a few study results and ignoring everything else in it. Inuit diet is also incredibly high in omega-3's, in fact studying them is what initially lead to the fish oil as a heart disease preventative idea. Inuit are also generally active, including living in a cold environment that forces high calorie use to maintain body temperature. There is also discussion of how accurate is the heart disease rate observed for them and does it simply reflect that the hazardous conditions they live in doesn't see many of them live into old age. There is also even some indications that the Inuit may have a choice few genes that alter fat metabolism, partially in relation to the already mentioned omega-3's.
Third, the Splenda study you mentioned also shows that moderate amounts of Splenda cause males rats to reduce their cancer rate, but most headlines don't say that, do they? The group that did that experiment has a history of releasing conclusions that artificial sweetners are unsafe that tends to defy the actual data they present.
Fourth, yes, foreigners come to America and move less, eat more (larger portions) resulting in weight gain. They eat more of everything, not just carbs.
All great points.
Also worth noting that of the many things wrong with the US diet, on average, carb percentage isn't one of them. We have a pretty unremarkable carb percentage and if anything are remarkable for having relatively high protein consumption. Lots of traditional and healthy diets are higher in carb percentage. (Different make up of carbs? Sure. Fewer calories for the amount of activity? No doubt.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »bellabonbons wrote: »Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems. Recent studies have found concerns with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda. Fat is not the culprit. Eskimos eat tremendous amounts of saturated fats and have low heart disease. Personally, I believe the culprit is sugar and refined carbohydrates that are the cause of an alarming increase of obesity in our country. I have met many foreigners who all say that when they come to the United States they gain weight. Once they return to their former countries and go back to eating unrefined foods that include whole milk, butter, whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables and Fruits, they lose the weight they gained while they were here.
Rather different topic and that's a real splattering of things.
First, you'd probably be better using the term Inuit instead of Eskimos, though preference for term will vary by tribe.
Second, there is a lot of issues with taking one piece of Inuit diet and a few study results and ignoring everything else in it. Inuit diet is also incredibly high in omega-3's, in fact studying them is what initially lead to the fish oil as a heart disease preventative idea. Inuit are also generally active, including living in a cold environment that forces high calorie use to maintain body temperature. There is also discussion of how accurate is the heart disease rate observed for them and does it simply reflect that the hazardous conditions they live in doesn't see many of them live into old age. There is also even some indications that the Inuit may have a choice few genes that alter fat metabolism, partially in relation to the already mentioned omega-3's.
Third, the Splenda study you mentioned also shows that moderate amounts of Splenda cause males rats to reduce their cancer rate, but most headlines don't say that, do they? The group that did that experiment has a history of releasing conclusions that artificial sweetners are unsafe that tends to defy the actual data they present.
Fourth, yes, foreigners come to America and move less, eat more (larger portions) resulting in weight gain. They eat more of everything, not just carbs.
All great points.
Also worth noting that of the many things wrong with the US diet, on average, carb percentage isn't one of them. We have a pretty unremarkable carb percentage and if anything are remarkable for having relatively high protein consumption. Lots of traditional and healthy diets are higher in carb percentage. (Different make up of carbs? Sure. Fewer calories for the amount of activity? No doubt.)
The carb percentage of the average US diet seems to be very low in comparison to the rest of the world from this data:
http://chartsbin.com/view/1154
We get plenty of fat and protein:
http://chartsbin.com/view/1156
http://chartsbin.com/view/1155
and plenty of calories...
http://chartsbin.com/view/1160
(Also has a summary of macro percentage for each country if you hover over it)
and the calorie count seems to have a high correlation to the obesity rate...
http://chartsbin.com/view/29078
0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems. Recent studies have found concerns with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda. Fat is not the culprit. Eskimos eat tremendous amounts of saturated fats and have low heart disease. Personally, I believe the culprit is sugar and refined carbohydrates that are the cause of an alarming increase of obesity in our country. I have met many foreigners who all say that when they come to the United States they gain weight. Once they return to their former countries and go back to eating unrefined foods that include whole milk, butter, whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables and Fruits, they lose the weight they gained while they were here.
Rather different topic and that's a real splattering of things.
First, you'd probably be better using the term Inuit instead of Eskimos, though preference for term will vary by tribe.
Second, there is a lot of issues with taking one piece of Inuit diet and a few study results and ignoring everything else in it. Inuit diet is also incredibly high in omega-3's, in fact studying them is what initially lead to the fish oil as a heart disease preventative idea. Inuit are also generally active, including living in a cold environment that forces high calorie use to maintain body temperature. There is also discussion of how accurate is the heart disease rate observed for them and does it simply reflect that the hazardous conditions they live in doesn't see many of them live into old age. There is also even some indications that the Inuit may have a choice few genes that alter fat metabolism, partially in relation to the already mentioned omega-3's.
Third, the Splenda study you mentioned also shows that moderate amounts of Splenda cause males rats to reduce their cancer rate, but most headlines don't say that, do they? The group that did that experiment has a history of releasing conclusions that artificial sweetners are unsafe that tends to defy the actual data they present.
Fourth, yes, foreigners come to America and move less, eat more (larger portions) resulting in weight gain. They eat more of everything, not just carbs.
Thank you for posting this. I have often heard of the Inuits as an example of super high fat diets that "work", but never thought about all the specific details you mentioned.0 -
bellabonbons wrote: »Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems. Recent studies have found concerns with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda. Fat is not the culprit. Eskimos eat tremendous amounts of saturated fats and have low heart disease. Personally, I believe the culprit is sugar and refined carbohydrates that are the cause of an alarming increase of obesity in our country. I have met many foreigners who all say that when they come to the United States they gain weight. Once they return to their former countries and go back to eating unrefined foods that include whole milk, butter, whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables and Fruits, they lose the weight they gained while they were here.
Rather different topic and that's a real splattering of things.
First, you'd probably be better using the term Inuit instead of Eskimos, though preference for term will vary by tribe.
Second, there is a lot of issues with taking one piece of Inuit diet and a few study results and ignoring everything else in it. Inuit diet is also incredibly high in omega-3's, in fact studying them is what initially lead to the fish oil as a heart disease preventative idea. Inuit are also generally active, including living in a cold environment that forces high calorie use to maintain body temperature. There is also discussion of how accurate is the heart disease rate observed for them and does it simply reflect that the hazardous conditions they live in doesn't see many of them live into old age. There is also even some indications that the Inuit may have a choice few genes that alter fat metabolism, partially in relation to the already mentioned omega-3's.
Third, the Splenda study you mentioned also shows that moderate amounts of Splenda cause males rats to reduce their cancer rate, but most headlines don't say that, do they? The group that did that experiment has a history of releasing conclusions that artificial sweetners are unsafe that tends to defy the actual data they present.
Fourth, yes, foreigners come to America and move less, eat more (larger portions) resulting in weight gain. They eat more of everything, not just carbs.
Thank you for posting this. I have often heard of the Inuits as an example of super high fat diets that "work", but never thought about all the specific details you mentioned.
People often list them as a culture where everyone lives a ketogenic (not just low carb, constantly in ketosis) diet, but they aren't. Even in winter without access to vegetation, they get enough carbohydrates from the glycogen in mammal blubber to stay out of ketosis.0 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »bellabonbons wrote: »Refined carbohydrates plays havoc with our systems. Recent studies have found concerns with artificial sweeteners such as Splenda. Fat is not the culprit. Eskimos eat tremendous amounts of saturated fats and have low heart disease. Personally, I believe the culprit is sugar and refined carbohydrates that are the cause of an alarming increase of obesity in our country. I have met many foreigners who all say that when they come to the United States they gain weight. Once they return to their former countries and go back to eating unrefined foods that include whole milk, butter, whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables and Fruits, they lose the weight they gained while they were here.
Rather different topic and that's a real splattering of things.
First, you'd probably be better using the term Inuit instead of Eskimos, though preference for term will vary by tribe.
Second, there is a lot of issues with taking one piece of Inuit diet and a few study results and ignoring everything else in it. Inuit diet is also incredibly high in omega-3's, in fact studying them is what initially lead to the fish oil as a heart disease preventative idea. Inuit are also generally active, including living in a cold environment that forces high calorie use to maintain body temperature. There is also discussion of how accurate is the heart disease rate observed for them and does it simply reflect that the hazardous conditions they live in doesn't see many of them live into old age. There is also even some indications that the Inuit may have a choice few genes that alter fat metabolism, partially in relation to the already mentioned omega-3's.
Third, the Splenda study you mentioned also shows that moderate amounts of Splenda cause males rats to reduce their cancer rate, but most headlines don't say that, do they? The group that did that experiment has a history of releasing conclusions that artificial sweetners are unsafe that tends to defy the actual data they present.
Fourth, yes, foreigners come to America and move less, eat more (larger portions) resulting in weight gain. They eat more of everything, not just carbs.
All great points.
Also worth noting that of the many things wrong with the US diet, on average, carb percentage isn't one of them. We have a pretty unremarkable carb percentage and if anything are remarkable for having relatively high protein consumption. Lots of traditional and healthy diets are higher in carb percentage. (Different make up of carbs? Sure. Fewer calories for the amount of activity? No doubt.)
The carb percentage of the average US diet seems to be very low in comparison to the rest of the world from this data:
http://chartsbin.com/view/1154
We get plenty of fat and protein:
http://chartsbin.com/view/1156
http://chartsbin.com/view/1155
and plenty of calories...
http://chartsbin.com/view/1160
(Also has a summary of macro percentage for each country if you hover over it)
and the calorie count seems to have a high correlation to the obesity rate...
http://chartsbin.com/view/29078
Cool. Thanks for adding all this.0 -
Use whipped butter......you tend to use much less than taking a chunk off a stick of butter.0
-
Weirdly, I don't like butter on vegetables, and have olive oil out of preference. It saves me a lot of money I could be spending on Kerrygold.0
-
lithezebra wrote: »Weirdly, I don't like butter on vegetables, and have olive oil out of preference. It saves me a lot of money I could be spending on Kerrygold.
That doesn't seem weird to me at all. I like butter on various things (such as fish in a brown butter sauce), but have always preferred olive oil on vegetables. Using too much of it was part of why I gained weight, so learning it is tasty and works just as well in smaller amounts was helpful.0 -
Butter. Real food only.0
-
-
I quit using both. because i had high cholesteral. didn't need the calories.0
-
butter !0
-
Never trust anything that bugs won't even eat.....0
-
dulcitonia wrote: »Never trust anything that bugs won't even eat.....
Bugs will eat things that'll kill them.0 -
So I have to leave all my food on the porch and wait to see what the bugs go for before I can decide what to eat? This is getting complicated...0
-
Alluminati wrote: »To answer the OP, the "better" one is one that you like the taste of and the one that fits your overall calorie goals.
And fits your wallet. We eat margarine (Blue Bonnet lactose free), and I can get 1 box/4 sticks for .59 on sale. It works great in baking recipes, tastes fine and my lactose intolerant daughter can use it. In the scheme of things, my margarine consumption is pretty low on the list of things I worry about.0 -
melissa6771 wrote: »It amazes me how in a community where people are supposed to support each other and help each other get to their goals, how many people want to be defensive and argue. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are yours. Anyone can give the OP their opinion, then the OP and anyone who reads it, can do with it what they want. But to turn it into a debate and an argument, it's not necessary. I'm sure you could find research to support almost any opinion. You can't force anyone to agree with yours. Anyone in this thread is free to eat all the margarine they want.
Anvilhead... From the POF forums?
You do realize this post is in the Health and Fitness Debate section right?0 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »melissa6771 wrote: »It amazes me how in a community where people are supposed to support each other and help each other get to their goals, how many people want to be defensive and argue. I'm allowed my opinion, as you are yours. Anyone can give the OP their opinion, then the OP and anyone who reads it, can do with it what they want. But to turn it into a debate and an argument, it's not necessary. I'm sure you could find research to support almost any opinion. You can't force anyone to agree with yours. Anyone in this thread is free to eat all the margarine they want.
Anvilhead... From the POF forums?
You do realize this post is in the Health and Fitness Debate section right?
Being so smart, you surely realize that it was MOVED to the debate section because it became a debate, and that the original post was just a question. I mean, you did read from the beginning, right? It didn't start off in the debate section or even being a debate. But thanks for that...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions