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.
afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?
Replies
-
aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all.
If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth
because I used to be that person.
Well one area I certainly agree with you on is not being afraid of saturated fat. That said, I have no desire to make it the bulk of my calories. 30% is enough IMO.
Humans are multi variant creatures living in a multi variant environment. To that point, I think we have the capacity to thrive on many diets, some high carb and some high fat. Which is best? I guess we really won't know until the end.
I do appreciate your passion on this topic (albeit a little one sided) as I am passionate on the topic as well. My take: eat mostly whole real nutrient dense food, get adequate protein, fat and fiber and fill in the rest with carbs. Get plenty of exercise and sleep. Try to live in the moment and keep stress at bay. I think stressing about eating a perfect diet is probably worse then eating a not so perfect diet and not stressing about it.
As I tell all my friends and clients, "train hard, eat well, get plenty of rest and go live your life..."
I believe the rest will take care of itself.
What's funny is, it sounds like we are basically in agreement.
I also think humans do well eating mostly whole real nutrient dense food. I never once said, nor do I think everyone needs to eat a ketogenic diet. I do, however, believe it is a highly effective treatment for IR and obesity, among other things--and also excellent for disease prevention.
The state of ketosis is very beneficial to the human body, but even just going in and out of it can still provide substantial benefits. I imagine our ancestors went in and out of it depending on the time of day or the season of the year (whether or not starchy foods were available). In fact, most normal, healthy people go into a mild ketosis during the prolonged fast of sleeping (after 14 hrs or so). I'm sure I often go out of ketosis after meals, but quickly get back into it. Eating nutrient dense, whole foods probably does just as much for me as regular ketosis does when it comes to the newfound ease (did not have at all on a low fat plant-focused diet--no butter, no eggs, only lean meats and fish) I have with skipping meals or fasting.1 -
Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As I've come to expect, you're having such a hard time absorbing information that conflicts with your beliefs, that once again, you've resorted to misquoting studies. Are you that desperate or do you think we're gullible?
This is the study I referenced, that @stevencloser posted - http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
Fats and Fatty Acid Requirements for Adults
And here's what they said in the last section (which I quoted before but you clearly didn't read)
"Moderate dietary fat intake can increase the risk of heart diseases in a population with a low fat intake
( 20%E) [Suh et al., 2001]. Therefore, promoting an acceptable macronutrient range of dietary fat between 20
and 35%E may not be advisable for all population groups and should be done with caution, especially when no
signs of deficiency are obvious."
The Suh et al study (Korean) in that reference was - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/4/722.long#sec-7
In case you're still not comprehending this, the study that found Koreans eat on average less than 20% fat which falls within the recommendations of the Korean Nutrition Society. So, not only is there NO warning against eating under 20% fat, they're saying for certain populations, more fat, even moderate levels, ARE a risk factor for heart disease.
Why don't you go tell Koreans that their diet is as you say "unpalatable for the average person, unlikely to provide EFAs and affecting their brain function, mood and hormones".
Or you could open your mind...just a little bit?
And as far as how long I've been doing this, I grew up eating a traditional non-western diet low in fat, low in meat, high in starches for 24 yrs, never got fat, moved to the US after college, ate more fat, got fat, cholesterol went up and after several years fumbling about, I've finally started connecting the dots, and figured out that I'm better off going back to a similar diet as the one I grew up eating, high carb, low fat. It's how my parents still eat and they're well into their 70s, normal weight, no diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Long enough of a history for ya?
I think you are probably doing the right thing for you, because it is wise to eat like our immediate ancestors, since we are somewhat adapted to it.
For the very same reason, most of us westeners probably can do better on a diet that is moderate in the macro breakdown (yes, HFLC and HCLF are not the only options we have).0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »For your reading pleasure...
July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short
April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995
March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long
July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638
Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long
February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full
Ah how nice.
I took the liberty of choosing one of them at random and checking if what you say is true.
Imagine how SHOCKED I was to find what you said about the study was not at all what the study said.
You said this:
"April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995"
Whereas that exact study (The full text of it that is), says the following:
"A wealth of epidemiologic studies have evaluated associations between dietary exposures and CHD. The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial.21- 23 This is reflected in the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 from the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture.24 However, little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations. In some cases, RCTs have not been conducted, and RCTs that have been conducted have generally not been adequately powered or have evaluated surrogate end points rather than clinical outcomes. Despite this lack of information, evidence-based recommendations derived from cohort studies have been advocated."
Sounds a bit different from what picture you were trying to paint, doesn't it?
@Stevencloser
Firstly, why not try reading all of them?
Secondly, this analysis looked at all RCTs to date and found no causal link. That's exactly what was stated by me and your excerpt.
You're trying to tell me what you said is not what you said? Let me quote you. Again.
"There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease."
The study:
"The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial."
"little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations."
So not only was there NOT "no evidence in RCTs", neither did you say causal but you said link, and neither did they check all RCTs to date, in fact they dismissed over 95% from the getgo as you can see if you read the actual full text. Out of 5705 potential studies they ended up using 146 cohort studies and 43 RCTs.
Oh and they weren't looking for just fat but actually ANY dietary factors, diluting the amount of studies even looking at fats at all further.
AND they're admitting the evidence base there is drives the recommendations without saying it's wrong or not warranted.
And the reason I'm not reading all of them is that apparently you can't even represent one of them truthfully and adequately.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »For your reading pleasure...
July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short
April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995
March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long
July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1
March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638
Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long
February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full
Ah how nice.
I took the liberty of choosing one of them at random and checking if what you say is true.
Imagine how SHOCKED I was to find what you said about the study was not at all what the study said.
You said this:
"April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995"
Whereas that exact study (The full text of it that is), says the following:
"A wealth of epidemiologic studies have evaluated associations between dietary exposures and CHD. The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial.21- 23 This is reflected in the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 from the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture.24 However, little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations. In some cases, RCTs have not been conducted, and RCTs that have been conducted have generally not been adequately powered or have evaluated surrogate end points rather than clinical outcomes. Despite this lack of information, evidence-based recommendations derived from cohort studies have been advocated."
Sounds a bit different from what picture you were trying to paint, doesn't it?
@Stevencloser
Firstly, why not try reading all of them?
Secondly, this analysis looked at all RCTs to date and found no causal link. That's exactly what was stated by me and your excerpt.
You're trying to tell me what you said is not what you said? Let me quote you. Again.
"There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease."
The study:
"The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial."
"little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations."
So not only was there NOT "no evidence in RCTs", neither did you say causal but you said link, and neither did they check all RCTs to date, in fact they dismissed over 95% from the getgo as you can see if you read the actual full text. Out of 5705 potential studies they ended up using 146 cohort studies and 43 RCTs.
Oh and they weren't looking for just fat but actually ANY dietary factors, diluting the amount of studies even looking at fats at all further.
AND they're admitting the evidence base there is drives the recommendations without saying it's wrong or not warranted.
And the reason I'm not reading all of them is that apparently you can't even represent one of them truthfully and adequately.
Let's look at your first sentence in context of the first quote your shared.
A wealth of epidemiologic studies have evaluated associations between dietary exposures and CHD. The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial.21- 23 This is reflected in the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 from the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture.24 However, little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations. In some cases, RCTs have not been conducted, and RCTs that have been conducted have generally not been adequately powered or have evaluated surrogate end points rather than clinical outcomes. Despite this lack of information, evidence-based recommendations derived from cohort studies have been advocated.
As you can see, the general consensus you are talking about was previously based on epidemiologic studies, which we know are of are lower evidence value than RCTs; and secondly, they looked at all the highest quality data (excluding the poorer quality RCTs, as they should) and did not find enough data to support a link. If you read the study, the foods most associated with harmful effects were trans fats and high glycemic index foods--whaddaya know? It's processed foods! **Shocker**
Seriously, Steven, if animals fats caused heart disease, why isn't the evidence there? Go back and check out all the links. The analysis from OpenHeart from 2 months ago says the exact same thing! There is no high quality evidence to support our current dietary guidelines restricting natural fats.
Here are the study results:
Strong evidence supports valid associations (4 criteria satisfied) of protective factors, including intake of vegetables, nuts, and “Mediterranean” and high-quality dietary patterns with CHD, and associations of harmful factors, including intake of trans–fatty acids and foods with a high glycemic index or load. Among studies of higher methodologic quality, there was also strong evidence for monounsaturated fatty acids and “prudent” and “western” dietary patterns. Moderate evidence (3 criteria) of associations exists for intake of fish,marine-3 fatty acids, folate, whole grains, dietary vitamins E and C, beta carotene, alcohol, fruit, and fiber. Insufficient evidence (2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat;-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk. Among the dietary exposures with strong evidence of causation from cohort studies, only a Mediterranean dietary pattern is related to CHD in randomized trials.
So a strong link suggesting trans fats and high glycemic load is harmful... and insufficient evidence for meat, eggs, and milk. Interesting...
IMO, there's a lot more to why you won't read the other studies.1 -
triciagrey1955 wrote: »After several months on LCHF my cholesterol was 278, LDL 177. Very scary.
@triciagrey1955 your numbers after several months are normal for some of us. My total cholesterol shot up over 400 at first then started back down. 80% of our cholesterol level is produced in the body and only 20% comes from diet. This means in some of us (not all) it takes the body a while to lower cholestrol production hence the over shoot some of experience. After 24 months if you cholesterol is still elevated you need to find out why for sure.
webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20100802/low-carb-diets-improve-cholesterol-long-term
This a good WebMD article about why High Fat is superior to Low Fat way of eating.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
This topic of debate never gets old, I guess.
Re: your description of "an inaccurate sweeping generalization," I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)."
And the way I reconcile a ketogenic diet with an avoidance of processed foods is very simple: I eat a ketogenic diet while avoiding processed foods--that is, foods which have been processed to the point of becoming toxic.
If you also choose to avoid processed foods, it requires just a little bit of critical thinking and research on your part. If you are a very concrete thinker or tend to go to extremes, you may think, "well, this seems impossible. I'm going to have to hunt and gather all my own food and eat it without washing it, heating it, seasoning it, or cutting it up." No, it's not so drastic. Or you may go to the other extreme of "well, all commercially available food has been processed in some way, so it must all be perfectly fine to eat!" Again, don't be so hasty
When food has been processed to the point of being stripped of its nutrients and fiber, providing very little nourishment while additionally causing a rapid increase in blood glucose (think sugar and refined carbohydrates, for example), quickly digested and non-sustaining to the appetite, altered chemically in a way that is directly harmful to the human body (think trans fats or extreme excesses of omega 6, for example), or manufactured intentionally to be hyperpalatable and easy to over-consume, I start to see major problems with it.
There is huge difference between a cup of whole fruit and a cup of Juicy Juice, between a serving of edamame and a few tablespoons of soybean oil (heated and solvent-extracted with toxic hexanes), between a piece of real cheese and a bag of Cheetos, between sprouted whole grains and pulverized/bleached white flour, between scrambled eggs and a powerbar, between a cup of coffee with some heavy cream and a mocha frappacino... does this make any sense to you?
I do try make my dietary choices based on evidence, not dogma, which appears to be in opposition to the basis of your first statement.
No I'm an advocate of moderation which is the opposite of extreme viewpoints and dietary restrictions. Of course there are differences in the foods you list above, between whole fruit and a juice box, between a piece of cheese and Cheetohs. No one ever said they are the same, nor that they provide the same nutritional benefits. What I am saying is, what is harmful to me if I eat a serving of Cheetohs in the context of a balanced diet? I don't normally drink juice boxes but I had some orange juice along with my spinach, ham and cheese omelet, coffee with cream and Splenda. Does the orange juice or the Splenda negate the benefit of the "real foods" that you also eat?
Also, which processed foods are processed to the point of toxicity? Do you have a list?
I try to make my dietary choices using logic, understanding that moderation means that it is possible to eat whole foods AND processed foods. Does that make any sense to you?
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
This topic of debate never gets old, I guess.
Re: your description of "an inaccurate sweeping generalization," I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)."
And the way I reconcile a ketogenic diet with an avoidance of processed foods is very simple: I eat a ketogenic diet while avoiding processed foods--that is, foods which have been processed to the point of becoming toxic.
If you also choose to avoid processed foods, it requires just a little bit of critical thinking and research on your part. If you are a very concrete thinker or tend to go to extremes, you may think, "well, this seems impossible. I'm going to have to hunt and gather all my own food and eat it without washing it, heating it, seasoning it, or cutting it up." No, it's not so drastic. Or you may go to the other extreme of "well, all commercially available food has been processed in some way, so it must all be perfectly fine to eat!" Again, don't be so hasty
When food has been processed to the point of being stripped of its nutrients and fiber, providing very little nourishment while additionally causing a rapid increase in blood glucose (think sugar and refined carbohydrates, for example), quickly digested and non-sustaining to the appetite, altered chemically in a way that is directly harmful to the human body (think trans fats or extreme excesses of omega 6, for example), or manufactured intentionally to be hyperpalatable and easy to over-consume, I start to see major problems with it.
There is huge difference between a cup of whole fruit and a cup of Juicy Juice, between a serving of edamame and a few tablespoons of soybean oil (heated and solvent-extracted with toxic hexanes), between a piece of real cheese and a bag of Cheetos, between sprouted whole grains and pulverized/bleached white flour, between scrambled eggs and a powerbar, between a cup of coffee with some heavy cream and a mocha frappacino... does this make any sense to you?
I do try make my dietary choices based on evidence, not dogma, which appears to be in opposition to the basis of your first statement.
No I'm an advocate of moderation which is the opposite of extreme viewpoints and dietary restrictions. Of course there are differences in the foods you list above, between whole fruit and a juice box, between a piece of cheese and Cheetohs. No one ever said they are the same, nor that they provide the same nutritional benefits. What I am saying is, what is harmful to me if I eat a serving of Cheetohs in the context of a balanced diet? I don't normally drink juice boxes but I had some orange juice along with my spinach, ham and cheese omelet, coffee with cream and Splenda. Does the orange juice or the Splenda negate the benefit of the "real foods" that you also eat?
Also, which processed foods are processed to the point of toxicity? Do you have a list?
I try to make my dietary choices using logic, understanding that moderation means that it is possible to eat whole foods AND processed foods. Does that make any sense to you?
Interesting, first it seemed like you were saying processed foods were not harmful. Now is seems you're saying they actually are harmful if you eat too much of them--great! So what's the big deal with me choosing to avoid the ones I think are harmful?
You want a list of what processed foods you should avoid? really? Your tone reeks of pretense and insincerity. Why don't you just do you own research and decide what's right for you? Since now all of sudden it seems you actually do have an idea of the difference between whole and processed foods.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »
And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.
Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!
I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue
No, she, @aqsylvester, was just responding without bothering to read what I'd already written and decided to make up her own numbers. She just can't figure out how people are perfectly healthy, lose and maintain weight on high carbs and have healthy labs, no diabetes etc, without eating high fat ketogenic diets.
I already explained that 60g (1.13g/kg) of protein for a 117 lb (53kg) woman is more (~35% more) than what the World Health Org. deems adequate (0.83g/kg). And 10-15% fat on an 1800-2100 calorie diet is sufficient for important functions like vitamin absorption (see the study I posted). It's also appropriate for a person whose cholesterol reaches abnormal levels when on even moderate levels (see study I posted), let alone high fat ketogenic levels.
I would be an idiot if I ignored my own body's reaction to higher fat and allowed my cholesterol to stay above normal limits simply because a study somewhere said cholesterol doesn't lead to cardiovascular disease, while there're numerous others saying the opposite. Interestingly, @aqsylvester made sure to point out that her lipid panel was normal, inferring that it was a positive thing. I wonder why she cared to mention it if cholesterol levels are so irrelevant.
@Traveler120
I shared my lipid numbers because someone asked.
And I calculated your macros almost identical to what you posted (missed reading your post, my bad). Your fat percentage is extremely low and unpalatable for the average person (even the summary Steven posted warned against < 20%). It's unlikely you get enough essential fatty acids without supplements... in which case, yes, it would affect your brain function, mood, and hormones. And you never answered when I asked how many years you'd being doing this.
As I've come to expect, you're having such a hard time absorbing information that conflicts with your beliefs, that once again, you've resorted to misquoting studies. Are you that desperate or do you think we're gullible?
This is the study I referenced, that @stevencloser posted - http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
Fats and Fatty Acid Requirements for Adults
And here's what they said in the last section (which I quoted before but you clearly didn't read)
"Moderate dietary fat intake can increase the risk of heart diseases in a population with a low fat intake
( 20%E) [Suh et al., 2001]. Therefore, promoting an acceptable macronutrient range of dietary fat between 20
and 35%E may not be advisable for all population groups and should be done with caution, especially when no
signs of deficiency are obvious."
The Suh et al study (Korean) in that reference was - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/4/722.long#sec-7
In case you're still not comprehending this, the study that found Koreans eat on average less than 20% fat which falls within the recommendations of the Korean Nutrition Society. So, not only is there NO warning against eating under 20% fat, they're saying for certain populations, more fat, even moderate levels, ARE a risk factor for heart disease.
Why don't you go tell Koreans that their diet is as you say "unpalatable for the average person, unlikely to provide EFAs and affecting their brain function, mood and hormones".
Or you could open your mind...just a little bit?
And as far as how long I've been doing this, I grew up eating a traditional non-western diet low in fat, low in meat, high in starches for 24 yrs, never got fat, moved to the US after college, ate more fat, got fat, cholesterol went up and after several years fumbling about, I've finally started connecting the dots, and figured out that I'm better off going back to a similar diet as the one I grew up eating, high carb, low fat. It's how my parents still eat and they're well into their 70s, normal weight, no diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Long enough of a history for ya?
I think you are probably doing the right thing for you, because it is wise to eat like our immediate ancestors, since we are somewhat adapted to it.
For the very same reason, most of us westeners probably can do better on a diet that is moderate in the macro breakdown (yes, HFLC and HCLF are not the only options we have).
Agreed, 100%. People should do what works for them. There's NO one size fits ALL diet.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
This topic of debate never gets old, I guess.
Re: your description of "an inaccurate sweeping generalization," I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)."
And the way I reconcile a ketogenic diet with an avoidance of processed foods is very simple: I eat a ketogenic diet while avoiding processed foods--that is, foods which have been processed to the point of becoming toxic.
If you also choose to avoid processed foods, it requires just a little bit of critical thinking and research on your part. If you are a very concrete thinker or tend to go to extremes, you may think, "well, this seems impossible. I'm going to have to hunt and gather all my own food and eat it without washing it, heating it, seasoning it, or cutting it up." No, it's not so drastic. Or you may go to the other extreme of "well, all commercially available food has been processed in some way, so it must all be perfectly fine to eat!" Again, don't be so hasty
When food has been processed to the point of being stripped of its nutrients and fiber, providing very little nourishment while additionally causing a rapid increase in blood glucose (think sugar and refined carbohydrates, for example), quickly digested and non-sustaining to the appetite, altered chemically in a way that is directly harmful to the human body (think trans fats or extreme excesses of omega 6, for example), or manufactured intentionally to be hyperpalatable and easy to over-consume, I start to see major problems with it.
There is huge difference between a cup of whole fruit and a cup of Juicy Juice, between a serving of edamame and a few tablespoons of soybean oil (heated and solvent-extracted with toxic hexanes), between a piece of real cheese and a bag of Cheetos, between sprouted whole grains and pulverized/bleached white flour, between scrambled eggs and a powerbar, between a cup of coffee with some heavy cream and a mocha frappacino... does this make any sense to you?
I do try make my dietary choices based on evidence, not dogma, which appears to be in opposition to the basis of your first statement.
No I'm an advocate of moderation which is the opposite of extreme viewpoints and dietary restrictions. Of course there are differences in the foods you list above, between whole fruit and a juice box, between a piece of cheese and Cheetohs. No one ever said they are the same, nor that they provide the same nutritional benefits. What I am saying is, what is harmful to me if I eat a serving of Cheetohs in the context of a balanced diet? I don't normally drink juice boxes but I had some orange juice along with my spinach, ham and cheese omelet, coffee with cream and Splenda. Does the orange juice or the Splenda negate the benefit of the "real foods" that you also eat?
Also, which processed foods are processed to the point of toxicity? Do you have a list?
I try to make my dietary choices using logic, understanding that moderation means that it is possible to eat whole foods AND processed foods. Does that make any sense to you?
Interesting, first it seemed like you were saying processed foods were not harmful. Now is seems you're saying they actually are harmful if you eat too much of them--great! So what's the big deal with me choosing to avoid the ones I think are harmful?
You want a list of what processed foods you should avoid? really? Your tone reeks of pretense and insincerity. Why don't you just do you own research and decide what's right for you? Since now all of sudden it seems you actually do have an idea of the difference between whole and processed foods.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, anything can be harmful if consumed in excess. This includes sugar, fat, water, etc.
You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
I have no issue whatsoever with the foods you choose to eat and the diet you choose to follow. You started this thread clearly with an agenda to persuade others to follow your way of eating and have said many times that if just one person changes their ways, that will be a success in your mind.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be your one person, but if you start a thread like this and make such bold claims then you should be able to have a rational discussion with someone like me who is questioning your statements and asking for clarification and not tell me to go away and do my own research because you find my tone insincere.
17 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
This topic of debate never gets old, I guess.
Re: your description of "an inaccurate sweeping generalization," I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)."
And the way I reconcile a ketogenic diet with an avoidance of processed foods is very simple: I eat a ketogenic diet while avoiding processed foods--that is, foods which have been processed to the point of becoming toxic.
If you also choose to avoid processed foods, it requires just a little bit of critical thinking and research on your part. If you are a very concrete thinker or tend to go to extremes, you may think, "well, this seems impossible. I'm going to have to hunt and gather all my own food and eat it without washing it, heating it, seasoning it, or cutting it up." No, it's not so drastic. Or you may go to the other extreme of "well, all commercially available food has been processed in some way, so it must all be perfectly fine to eat!" Again, don't be so hasty
When food has been processed to the point of being stripped of its nutrients and fiber, providing very little nourishment while additionally causing a rapid increase in blood glucose (think sugar and refined carbohydrates, for example), quickly digested and non-sustaining to the appetite, altered chemically in a way that is directly harmful to the human body (think trans fats or extreme excesses of omega 6, for example), or manufactured intentionally to be hyperpalatable and easy to over-consume, I start to see major problems with it.
There is huge difference between a cup of whole fruit and a cup of Juicy Juice, between a serving of edamame and a few tablespoons of soybean oil (heated and solvent-extracted with toxic hexanes), between a piece of real cheese and a bag of Cheetos, between sprouted whole grains and pulverized/bleached white flour, between scrambled eggs and a powerbar, between a cup of coffee with some heavy cream and a mocha frappacino... does this make any sense to you?
I do try make my dietary choices based on evidence, not dogma, which appears to be in opposition to the basis of your first statement.
No I'm an advocate of moderation which is the opposite of extreme viewpoints and dietary restrictions. Of course there are differences in the foods you list above, between whole fruit and a juice box, between a piece of cheese and Cheetohs. No one ever said they are the same, nor that they provide the same nutritional benefits. What I am saying is, what is harmful to me if I eat a serving of Cheetohs in the context of a balanced diet? I don't normally drink juice boxes but I had some orange juice along with my spinach, ham and cheese omelet, coffee with cream and Splenda. Does the orange juice or the Splenda negate the benefit of the "real foods" that you also eat?
Also, which processed foods are processed to the point of toxicity? Do you have a list?
I try to make my dietary choices using logic, understanding that moderation means that it is possible to eat whole foods AND processed foods. Does that make any sense to you?
Interesting, first it seemed like you were saying processed foods were not harmful. Now is seems you're saying they actually are harmful if you eat too much of them--great! So what's the big deal with me choosing to avoid the ones I think are harmful?
You want a list of what processed foods you should avoid? really? Your tone reeks of pretense and insincerity. Why don't you just do you own research and decide what's right for you? Since now all of sudden it seems you actually do have an idea of the difference between whole and processed foods.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, anything can be harmful if consumed in excess. This includes sugar, fat, water, etc.
You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
I have no issue whatsoever with the foods you choose to eat and the diet you choose to follow. You started this thread clearly with an agenda to persuade others to follow your way of eating and have said many times that if just one person changes their ways, that will be a success in your mind.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be your one person, but if you start a thread like this and make such bold claims then you should be able to have a rational discussion with someone like me who is questioning your statements and asking for clarification and not tell me to go away and do my own research because you find my tone insincere.
@winogelato
I started this thread to share evidence that natural fats from animals are not harmful.
You feigned ignorance about the harmful effects of processed foods in order to bate me into an argument (fits the definition of trolling)... Your affected tone is obvious to me, and you clearly don't have any real "questions."
Why don't you look at the last analysis Steven was quibbling over with me?
The results state:
Strong evidence supports valid associations (4 criteria satisfied) of protective factors, including intake of vegetables, nuts, and “Mediterranean” and high-quality dietary patterns with CHD, and associations of harmful factors, including intake of trans–fatty acids and foods with a high glycemic index or load. Among studies of higher methodologic quality, there was also strong evidence for monounsaturated fatty acids and “prudent” and “western” dietary patterns. Moderate evidence (3 criteria) of associations exists for intake of fish,marine-3 fatty acids, folate, whole grains, dietary vitamins E and C, beta carotene, alcohol, fruit, and fiber. Insufficient evidence (2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat;-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk. Among the dietary exposures with strong evidence of causation from cohort studies, only a Mediterranean dietary pattern is related to CHD in randomized trials.
So a strong link suggesting trans fats and high glycemic load is harmful... what would be THE major contributing sources of those two things? Processed foods.
So, there's a good starting list for you: trans fat and foods with a high glycemic load.
Will that help you get started?0 -
Beef and butter from grass-fed organic cows contain trans fats, just so you know.3
-
Perhaps it would help if we could switch out the term "processed" food for "manufactured" food. Slaughtering a cow, butchering, packaging and all that which leads to us having a nicely wrapped steak in the meat cooler is processing. All the steps and processes involved in harvesting grains and blueberries, turning the grains into flour, the berries into a paste, assorted other things added, baking, etc until we finally have a box of 'fruit and grain' bars is also processing. But there are clearly major differences between them. One version uses mechanical means to isolate and refine a grown thing into desired usable portions. The other involves turning natural things into derivative substances, and combining said derivatives into a completely new product... hence manufacturing. The major difficulty in manufactured foods is that they are generally high in calories and low in micronutrient value. In a calorie uncontrolled diet they lead to overeating due to a lack of satiety as the body continues to crave nutrients in spite of an excess of calories. In a calorie controlled diet, manufactured foods can lead to nutrition deficiency and/or falling off the diet for those same reasons.
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Beef and butter from grass-fed organic cows contain trans fats, just so you know.
Trace amounts. You'd have to eat a couple pounds or more of butter to get the same amount of trans-fats as are contained in a tablespoon of partially hydrogenated soybean oil.0 -
Since the recommendations call for less than 1% of your diet to be transfats, even the 2 grams in 100g of ground beef are scraping at the limit.1
-
My total cholesterol went up on a low carb diet, mostly due to an increase in HDL, which is now almost as high as my LDL, 132 and 137, respectively. Both are high. My A1C was beautiful though.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »Beef and butter from grass-fed organic cows contain trans fats, just so you know.
1. if naturally occurring trans fats were a problem (evidence show they are actually heart healthy) the analysis (which you haven't addressed yet) should have also correlated harm with meat and milk.
2. natural and man made trans fats are not the same.
3. as a population, we are not overdosing on trans fats from meat anyway... it's the man made trans fats.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
This topic of debate never gets old, I guess.
Re: your description of "an inaccurate sweeping generalization," I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)."
And the way I reconcile a ketogenic diet with an avoidance of processed foods is very simple: I eat a ketogenic diet while avoiding processed foods--that is, foods which have been processed to the point of becoming toxic.
If you also choose to avoid processed foods, it requires just a little bit of critical thinking and research on your part. If you are a very concrete thinker or tend to go to extremes, you may think, "well, this seems impossible. I'm going to have to hunt and gather all my own food and eat it without washing it, heating it, seasoning it, or cutting it up." No, it's not so drastic. Or you may go to the other extreme of "well, all commercially available food has been processed in some way, so it must all be perfectly fine to eat!" Again, don't be so hasty
When food has been processed to the point of being stripped of its nutrients and fiber, providing very little nourishment while additionally causing a rapid increase in blood glucose (think sugar and refined carbohydrates, for example), quickly digested and non-sustaining to the appetite, altered chemically in a way that is directly harmful to the human body (think trans fats or extreme excesses of omega 6, for example), or manufactured intentionally to be hyperpalatable and easy to over-consume, I start to see major problems with it.
There is huge difference between a cup of whole fruit and a cup of Juicy Juice, between a serving of edamame and a few tablespoons of soybean oil (heated and solvent-extracted with toxic hexanes), between a piece of real cheese and a bag of Cheetos, between sprouted whole grains and pulverized/bleached white flour, between scrambled eggs and a powerbar, between a cup of coffee with some heavy cream and a mocha frappacino... does this make any sense to you?
I do try make my dietary choices based on evidence, not dogma, which appears to be in opposition to the basis of your first statement.
No I'm an advocate of moderation which is the opposite of extreme viewpoints and dietary restrictions. Of course there are differences in the foods you list above, between whole fruit and a juice box, between a piece of cheese and Cheetohs. No one ever said they are the same, nor that they provide the same nutritional benefits. What I am saying is, what is harmful to me if I eat a serving of Cheetohs in the context of a balanced diet? I don't normally drink juice boxes but I had some orange juice along with my spinach, ham and cheese omelet, coffee with cream and Splenda. Does the orange juice or the Splenda negate the benefit of the "real foods" that you also eat?
Also, which processed foods are processed to the point of toxicity? Do you have a list?
I try to make my dietary choices using logic, understanding that moderation means that it is possible to eat whole foods AND processed foods. Does that make any sense to you?
Interesting, first it seemed like you were saying processed foods were not harmful. Now is seems you're saying they actually are harmful if you eat too much of them--great! So what's the big deal with me choosing to avoid the ones I think are harmful?
You want a list of what processed foods you should avoid? really? Your tone reeks of pretense and insincerity. Why don't you just do you own research and decide what's right for you? Since now all of sudden it seems you actually do have an idea of the difference between whole and processed foods.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, anything can be harmful if consumed in excess. This includes sugar, fat, water, etc.
You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
I have no issue whatsoever with the foods you choose to eat and the diet you choose to follow. You started this thread clearly with an agenda to persuade others to follow your way of eating and have said many times that if just one person changes their ways, that will be a success in your mind.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be your one person, but if you start a thread like this and make such bold claims then you should be able to have a rational discussion with someone like me who is questioning your statements and asking for clarification and not tell me to go away and do my own research because you find my tone insincere.
@winogelato
I started this thread to share evidence that natural fats from animals are not harmful.
You feigned ignorance about the harmful effects of processed foods in order to bate me into an argument (fits the definition of trolling)... Your affected tone is obvious to me, and you clearly don't have any real "questions."
Why don't you look at the last analysis Steven was quibbling over with me?
The results state:
Strong evidence supports valid associations (4 criteria satisfied) of protective factors, including intake of vegetables, nuts, and “Mediterranean” and high-quality dietary patterns with CHD, and associations of harmful factors, including intake of trans–fatty acids and foods with a high glycemic index or load. Among studies of higher methodologic quality, there was also strong evidence for monounsaturated fatty acids and “prudent” and “western” dietary patterns. Moderate evidence (3 criteria) of associations exists for intake of fish,marine-3 fatty acids, folate, whole grains, dietary vitamins E and C, beta carotene, alcohol, fruit, and fiber. Insufficient evidence (2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat;-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk. Among the dietary exposures with strong evidence of causation from cohort studies, only a Mediterranean dietary pattern is related to CHD in randomized trials.
So a strong link suggesting trans fats and high glycemic load is harmful... what would be THE major contributing sources of those two things? Processed foods.
So, there's a good starting list for you: trans fat and foods with a high glycemic load.
Will that help you get started?
Asking you to back up your claims that processed foods are harmful and should be feared is not feigning ignorance. As you mentioned earlier, "Processed" is such a broad term as it applies to foods, so I'm not sure how continuing to make the statement that processed foods are the main contributing source of trans fats and high glycemic loads is specific enough to be helpful to anyone.
I also am still unclear as to how oils like soybean are dangerous because they are extracted with toxic solvents yet coconut oil which is also extracted and processed with solvents prior to consumption is ok.
9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Can you elaborate about the dangers of processed foods and why we need to fear them? I'm also curious about the conflicts that must arise eating a ketogenic diet while believing that processed foods are scary and dangerous. Aren't many of the cornerstones of a ketogenic diet "processed"?
@winogelato
Re processed foods: maybe it's better if we start with you telling me what if anything is not a concern and also what is? This topic is so broad.
Re ketogenic diet: I'm not sure where you got that idea. Do you have a source? I don't eat low carb/Adkins shakes, bars, candies, or anything with artificial sweeteners. I would say the "cornerstone" of a ketogenic diet is counting carbs--to that end, I used mfp and gained a good understanding of the carbohydrate load of the foods in my diet. I live on meat, eggs, fish, nuts, nut butters, vegetables, berries, butter, cream, cheese, coconut oil... occasional higher carb real foods for me are whole milk, full fat greek yogurt, sweeter fruits, and dark chocolate.
You said one of your goals is that people understand the dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them. If your goal is to convince people of this I would assume you would have some data or compelling evidence to back up what is scary about processed foods or why they would be harmful to consume.
Some of the most vocal keto proponents on these boards have shared their diaries filled with things like coconut oil in coffee, bacon,hot dogs, and pork rinds for snacks. Those are all processed foods, and I think not uncommon for the LCHF WOE which is why I called them cornerstones and am curious about this potential conflict.
Ok, I'm confused now. From your earlier comment, you made it sound like you don't see any problems with processed foods. Now you're saying a lot of LCHF people eat too many processed foods. What exactly are you trying to get at?
I personally don't see a problem with processed foods as I believe that almost everything commercially available is processed in some way, so to say that they are harmful seems like an inaccurate sweeping generalization. I was curious how you reconcile your exuberance for a ketogenic diet with your comments that processed foods are dangerous, since things you described that you eat, including things like coconut oil, yogurt, etc are actually processed.
This topic of debate never gets old, I guess.
Re: your description of "an inaccurate sweeping generalization," I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)."
And the way I reconcile a ketogenic diet with an avoidance of processed foods is very simple: I eat a ketogenic diet while avoiding processed foods--that is, foods which have been processed to the point of becoming toxic.
If you also choose to avoid processed foods, it requires just a little bit of critical thinking and research on your part. If you are a very concrete thinker or tend to go to extremes, you may think, "well, this seems impossible. I'm going to have to hunt and gather all my own food and eat it without washing it, heating it, seasoning it, or cutting it up." No, it's not so drastic. Or you may go to the other extreme of "well, all commercially available food has been processed in some way, so it must all be perfectly fine to eat!" Again, don't be so hasty
When food has been processed to the point of being stripped of its nutrients and fiber, providing very little nourishment while additionally causing a rapid increase in blood glucose (think sugar and refined carbohydrates, for example), quickly digested and non-sustaining to the appetite, altered chemically in a way that is directly harmful to the human body (think trans fats or extreme excesses of omega 6, for example), or manufactured intentionally to be hyperpalatable and easy to over-consume, I start to see major problems with it.
There is huge difference between a cup of whole fruit and a cup of Juicy Juice, between a serving of edamame and a few tablespoons of soybean oil (heated and solvent-extracted with toxic hexanes), between a piece of real cheese and a bag of Cheetos, between sprouted whole grains and pulverized/bleached white flour, between scrambled eggs and a powerbar, between a cup of coffee with some heavy cream and a mocha frappacino... does this make any sense to you?
I do try make my dietary choices based on evidence, not dogma, which appears to be in opposition to the basis of your first statement.
No I'm an advocate of moderation which is the opposite of extreme viewpoints and dietary restrictions. Of course there are differences in the foods you list above, between whole fruit and a juice box, between a piece of cheese and Cheetohs. No one ever said they are the same, nor that they provide the same nutritional benefits. What I am saying is, what is harmful to me if I eat a serving of Cheetohs in the context of a balanced diet? I don't normally drink juice boxes but I had some orange juice along with my spinach, ham and cheese omelet, coffee with cream and Splenda. Does the orange juice or the Splenda negate the benefit of the "real foods" that you also eat?
Also, which processed foods are processed to the point of toxicity? Do you have a list?
I try to make my dietary choices using logic, understanding that moderation means that it is possible to eat whole foods AND processed foods. Does that make any sense to you?
Interesting, first it seemed like you were saying processed foods were not harmful. Now is seems you're saying they actually are harmful if you eat too much of them--great! So what's the big deal with me choosing to avoid the ones I think are harmful?
You want a list of what processed foods you should avoid? really? Your tone reeks of pretense and insincerity. Why don't you just do you own research and decide what's right for you? Since now all of sudden it seems you actually do have an idea of the difference between whole and processed foods.
As has been pointed out many times in this thread, anything can be harmful if consumed in excess. This includes sugar, fat, water, etc.
You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
I have no issue whatsoever with the foods you choose to eat and the diet you choose to follow. You started this thread clearly with an agenda to persuade others to follow your way of eating and have said many times that if just one person changes their ways, that will be a success in your mind.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be your one person, but if you start a thread like this and make such bold claims then you should be able to have a rational discussion with someone like me who is questioning your statements and asking for clarification and not tell me to go away and do my own research because you find my tone insincere.
@winogelato
I started this thread to share evidence that natural fats from animals are not harmful.
You feigned ignorance about the harmful effects of processed foods in order to bate me into an argument (fits the definition of trolling)... Your affected tone is obvious to me, and you clearly don't have any real "questions."
Why don't you look at the last analysis Steven was quibbling over with me?
The results state:
Strong evidence supports valid associations (4 criteria satisfied) of protective factors, including intake of vegetables, nuts, and “Mediterranean” and high-quality dietary patterns with CHD, and associations of harmful factors, including intake of trans–fatty acids and foods with a high glycemic index or load. Among studies of higher methodologic quality, there was also strong evidence for monounsaturated fatty acids and “prudent” and “western” dietary patterns. Moderate evidence (3 criteria) of associations exists for intake of fish,marine-3 fatty acids, folate, whole grains, dietary vitamins E and C, beta carotene, alcohol, fruit, and fiber. Insufficient evidence (2 criteria) of association is present for intake of supplementary vitamin E and ascorbic acid (vitamin C); saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat;-linolenic acid; meat; eggs; and milk. Among the dietary exposures with strong evidence of causation from cohort studies, only a Mediterranean dietary pattern is related to CHD in randomized trials.
So a strong link suggesting trans fats and high glycemic load is harmful... what would be THE major contributing sources of those two things? Processed foods.
So, there's a good starting list for you: trans fat and foods with a high glycemic load.
Will that help you get started?
Asking you to back up your claims that processed foods are harmful and should be feared is not feigning ignorance. As you mentioned earlier, "Processed" is such a broad term as it applies to foods, so I'm not sure how continuing to make the statement that processed foods are the main contributing source of trans fats and high glycemic loads is specific enough to be helpful to anyone.
I also am still unclear as to how oils like soybean are dangerous because they are extracted with toxic solvents yet coconut oil which is also extracted and processed with solvents prior to consumption is ok.
If you are unclear, do a little research!
Yes, there is a difference between refined or hydrogenated coconut oil and the unrefined, organic, virgin coconut oil. http://coconutoil.com/what-type-of-coconut-oil-is-best-how-to-choose-a-coconut-oil/
There also a difference between buying a mass produced bottle of regular olive oil and getting extra virgin oil from a trusted source. http://www.salon.com/2010/07/16/us_olive_oil_standards_study/
And excuse me, but if avoiding refined fat and refined carbohydrates is not clearly tied to "avoiding processed foods," I'm not sure what is.0 -
Do you know the difference between "absence of evidence for an effect" and "evidence of the absence of an effect" ?
Because that study looking at RCTs you keep mentioning found the first but not the second, due to there just not being many if any RCTs looking at it in the first place, and the ones there were often didn't carry enough statistical power.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Do you know the difference between "absence of evidence for an effect" and "evidence of the absence of an effect" ?
Because that study looking at RCTs you keep mentioning found the first but not the second, due to there just not being many if any RCTs looking at it in the first place, and the ones there were often didn't carry enough statistical power.
You are really grasping now...
Hey, Steven will a Cochrane Review make you feel better about having some cream in your coffee?
This systematic review includes 15 RCTS, over 59,000 participants. The RCTs reduced saturated fat or replaced it with other types of fat for at least 24 months.
Result? No statistically significant effects of reducing saturated fat, in regard to heart attacks, strokes or all-cause deaths.
Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/260689591 -
Another thing I just found.
The Bradford Hill guidelines may not be the best choice for determining more complex causations:
http://ete-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1742-7622-2-111 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know the difference between "absence of evidence for an effect" and "evidence of the absence of an effect" ?
Because that study looking at RCTs you keep mentioning found the first but not the second, due to there just not being many if any RCTs looking at it in the first place, and the ones there were often didn't carry enough statistical power.
Hey, Steven will a Cochrane Review make you feel better about having some cream in your coffee?
This systematic review includes 15 RCTS, over 59,000 participants. The RCTs reduced saturated fat or replaced it with other types of fat for at least 24 months.
Result? No statistically significant effects of reducing saturated fat, in regard to heart attacks, strokes or all-cause deaths.
Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26068959
"The findings of this updated review are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on reduction of saturated fat intake."
???
Why can I literally do a 15 second skim of the studies you provide and find where it doesn't say what you claim it does?7 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know the difference between "absence of evidence for an effect" and "evidence of the absence of an effect" ?
Because that study looking at RCTs you keep mentioning found the first but not the second, due to there just not being many if any RCTs looking at it in the first place, and the ones there were often didn't carry enough statistical power.
Hey, Steven will a Cochrane Review make you feel better about having some cream in your coffee?
This systematic review includes 15 RCTS, over 59,000 participants. The RCTs reduced saturated fat or replaced it with other types of fat for at least 24 months.
Result? No statistically significant effects of reducing saturated fat, in regard to heart attacks, strokes or all-cause deaths.
Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26068959
"The findings of this updated review are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on reduction of saturated fat intake."
???
Why can I literally do a 15 second skim of the studies you provide and find where it doesn't say what you claim it does?
Risk reduction was noted, but no effect on hard end points, honey
(Aka it says what I said it says
) 1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »And excuse me, but if avoiding refined fat and refined carbohydrates is not clearly tied to "avoiding processed foods," I'm not sure what is.
How about avoiding refined fats and highly refined carbs? That seems much more tied to avoiding those things than claiming to avoid all processed foods, when processed foods include smoked salmon, kimchi, plain greek yogurt, even the pickled vegetables and cheese I buy at my green market, as well as, yes, EEVO (I have previously linked that slate article as well as others on the topic, so I know there is mislabeling and fraud), and of course bacon and sausage and jerky (along with cheese, among the most common foods referenced by advocates of the keto diet). And, sure, it includes pasta, whether I use white or whole grains, whether I make it at home or not, and ice cream, also whether homemade or not.
I believe that's the point winogelato was making.
If you don't actually mean processed foods, why use the term. If the point is that it's generally good to avoid transfats (not inherent in meat) and limit highly refined carbs and so you choose to avoid them entirely (which I think is a valid choice, sure, although not essential to having a healthy diet nor a reason to act superior), why confuse the issue by claiming the best way to do that is to avoid processed foods? The best way to avoid something is to avoid the things you want to avoid, period. I don't really care for most premade meals or packaged foods (with some exceptions), because I prefer to cook from whole foods and have the ability to do that and am a bit of a food snob (neither proud nor ashamed of this, just a personal thing). I don't pretend this means I never eat processed food or that there's some huge virtue to not doing so if one has a good balanced and nutrient dense diet already.
And for the record, I don't think it's harmful to eat a low fat diet like Traveler and others do and I don't think it's harmful to eat a high fat diet, even though neither is how I choose to eat (I like moderate fat, moderate carbs, protein based on LBM). What determines the healthfulness of all these diets is overall food choices and IMO combining them with a healthy lifestyle and ideally an active one. I tend to think the debate about fat and carbs and all that (and the evangelization of low carb and insistence that carbs are less healthy than fat or whatever) tends to be wrongheaded in large part because it obscures the really important things (and also is wrong on its face for most people). That's, again, not an anti LCHF view at all.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »And excuse me, but if avoiding refined fat and refined carbohydrates is not clearly tied to "avoiding processed foods," I'm not sure what is.
How about avoiding refined fats and highly refined carbs? That seems much more tied to avoiding those things than claiming to avoid all processed foods, when processed foods include smoked salmon, kimchi, plain greek yogurt, even the pickled vegetables and cheese I buy at my green market, as well as, yes, EEVO (I have previously linked that slate article as well as others on the topic, so I know there is mislabeling and fraud), and of course bacon and sausage and jerky (along with cheese, among the most common foods referenced by advocates of the keto diet). And, sure, it includes pasta, whether I use white or whole grains, whether I make it at home or not, and ice cream, also whether homemade or not.
I believe that's the point winogelato was making.
If you don't actually mean processed foods, why use the term. If the point is that it's generally good to avoid transfats (not inherent in meat) and limit highly refined carbs and so you choose to avoid them entirely (which I think is a valid choice, sure, although not essential to having a healthy diet nor a reason to act superior), why confuse the issue by claiming the best way to do that is to avoid processed foods? The best way to avoid something is to avoid the things you want to avoid, period. I don't really care for most premade meals or packaged foods (with some exceptions), because I prefer to cook from whole foods and have the ability to do that and am a bit of a food snob (neither proud nor ashamed of this, just a personal thing). I don't pretend this means I never eat processed food or that there's some huge virtue to not doing so if one has a good balanced and nutrient dense diet already.
And for the record, I don't think it's harmful to eat a low fat diet like Traveler and others do and I don't think it's harmful to eat a high fat diet, even though neither is how I choose to eat (I like moderate fat, moderate carbs, protein based on LBM). What determines the healthfulness of all these diets is overall food choices and IMO combining them with a healthy lifestyle and ideally an active one. I tend to think the debate about fat and carbs and all that (and the evangelization of low carb and insistence that carbs are less healthy than fat or whatever) tends to be wrongheaded in large part because it obscures the really important things (and also is wrong on its face for most people). That's, again, not an anti LCHF view at all.
But that's the curious thing about refined fats and refined carbohydrates: they don't exist in nature. They are only found in processed food.
This demonization of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, this laser focus for decades, has allowed refined, unnatural fats with seemingly healthy fatty acid profiles (from margarine to canola oil) and refined carbohydrates like sugar, soft drinks, and other "fat free" products get a complete pass (the foods that are actually killing us), while encouraging people avoid a plethora of nutrient dense, healthy foods.
Let me reiterate: I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)." However, when it comes to health and disease prevention, that big picture is 1. don't fear real food and 2. avoid processed foods.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »And excuse me, but if avoiding refined fat and refined carbohydrates is not clearly tied to "avoiding processed foods," I'm not sure what is.
How about avoiding refined fats and highly refined carbs? That seems much more tied to avoiding those things than claiming to avoid all processed foods, when processed foods include smoked salmon, kimchi, plain greek yogurt, even the pickled vegetables and cheese I buy at my green market, as well as, yes, EEVO (I have previously linked that slate article as well as others on the topic, so I know there is mislabeling and fraud), and of course bacon and sausage and jerky (along with cheese, among the most common foods referenced by advocates of the keto diet). And, sure, it includes pasta, whether I use white or whole grains, whether I make it at home or not, and ice cream, also whether homemade or not.
I believe that's the point winogelato was making.
If you don't actually mean processed foods, why use the term. If the point is that it's generally good to avoid transfats (not inherent in meat) and limit highly refined carbs and so you choose to avoid them entirely (which I think is a valid choice, sure, although not essential to having a healthy diet nor a reason to act superior), why confuse the issue by claiming the best way to do that is to avoid processed foods? The best way to avoid something is to avoid the things you want to avoid, period. I don't really care for most premade meals or packaged foods (with some exceptions), because I prefer to cook from whole foods and have the ability to do that and am a bit of a food snob (neither proud nor ashamed of this, just a personal thing). I don't pretend this means I never eat processed food or that there's some huge virtue to not doing so if one has a good balanced and nutrient dense diet already.
And for the record, I don't think it's harmful to eat a low fat diet like Traveler and others do and I don't think it's harmful to eat a high fat diet, even though neither is how I choose to eat (I like moderate fat, moderate carbs, protein based on LBM). What determines the healthfulness of all these diets is overall food choices and IMO combining them with a healthy lifestyle and ideally an active one. I tend to think the debate about fat and carbs and all that (and the evangelization of low carb and insistence that carbs are less healthy than fat or whatever) tends to be wrongheaded in large part because it obscures the really important things (and also is wrong on its face for most people). That's, again, not an anti LCHF view at all.
But that's the curious thing about refined fats and refined carbohydrates: they don't exist in nature. They are only found in processed food.
This demonization of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, this laser focus for decades, has allowed refined, unnatural fats with seemingly healthy fatty acid profiles (from margarine to canola oil) and refined carbohydrates like sugar, soft drinks, and other "fat free" products get a complete pass (the foods that are actually killing us), while encouraging people avoid a plethora of nutrient dense, healthy foods.
Let me reiterate: I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)." However, when it comes to health and disease prevention, that big picture is 1. don't fear real food and 2. avoid processed foods.
Did you bother to consider any of what lemurcat mentioned in her post? That being more specific in articulating which specific "processed" foods you take issue with would likely get far less push back?
Also, you might want to lay off the extremes like "the foods that are actually killing us". I get that you are very passionate about this topic but these scaremongering tactics which you think are so convincing are actually... Not.
11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »And excuse me, but if avoiding refined fat and refined carbohydrates is not clearly tied to "avoiding processed foods," I'm not sure what is.
How about avoiding refined fats and highly refined carbs? That seems much more tied to avoiding those things than claiming to avoid all processed foods, when processed foods include smoked salmon, kimchi, plain greek yogurt, even the pickled vegetables and cheese I buy at my green market, as well as, yes, EEVO (I have previously linked that slate article as well as others on the topic, so I know there is mislabeling and fraud), and of course bacon and sausage and jerky (along with cheese, among the most common foods referenced by advocates of the keto diet). And, sure, it includes pasta, whether I use white or whole grains, whether I make it at home or not, and ice cream, also whether homemade or not.
I believe that's the point winogelato was making.
If you don't actually mean processed foods, why use the term. If the point is that it's generally good to avoid transfats (not inherent in meat) and limit highly refined carbs and so you choose to avoid them entirely (which I think is a valid choice, sure, although not essential to having a healthy diet nor a reason to act superior), why confuse the issue by claiming the best way to do that is to avoid processed foods? The best way to avoid something is to avoid the things you want to avoid, period. I don't really care for most premade meals or packaged foods (with some exceptions), because I prefer to cook from whole foods and have the ability to do that and am a bit of a food snob (neither proud nor ashamed of this, just a personal thing). I don't pretend this means I never eat processed food or that there's some huge virtue to not doing so if one has a good balanced and nutrient dense diet already.
And for the record, I don't think it's harmful to eat a low fat diet like Traveler and others do and I don't think it's harmful to eat a high fat diet, even though neither is how I choose to eat (I like moderate fat, moderate carbs, protein based on LBM). What determines the healthfulness of all these diets is overall food choices and IMO combining them with a healthy lifestyle and ideally an active one. I tend to think the debate about fat and carbs and all that (and the evangelization of low carb and insistence that carbs are less healthy than fat or whatever) tends to be wrongheaded in large part because it obscures the really important things (and also is wrong on its face for most people). That's, again, not an anti LCHF view at all.
But that's the curious thing about refined fats and refined carbohydrates: they don't exist in nature. They are only found in processed food.
This demonization of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, this laser focus for decades, has allowed refined, unnatural fats with seemingly healthy fatty acid profiles (from margarine to canola oil) and refined carbohydrates like sugar, soft drinks, and other "fat free" products get a complete pass (the foods that are actually killing us), while encouraging people avoid a plethora of nutrient dense, healthy foods.
Let me reiterate: I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)." However, when it comes to health and disease prevention, that big picture is 1. don't fear real food and 2. avoid processed foods.
Did you bother to consider any of what lemurcat mentioned in her post? That being more specific in articulating which specific "processed" foods you take issue with would likely get far less push back?
Also, you might want to lay off the extremes like "the foods that are actually killing us". I get that you are very passionate about this topic but these scaremongering tactics which you think are so convincing are actually... Not.
Ah, I get it @winogelato You're protective of the words "processed foods" because you don't want people getting confused and avoiding kimchi, pickles, and cheese--valid concerns there. You clearly have a passion for accurate language! You think I'm overzealous, but I think you're overzealous... and your motives appear a bit more questionable. In my opinion, no one will be harmed in the least if they attempt to follow the advice to eat real food and avoid processed food--well, almost no one. It might hurt certain industries.
You worry about protecting the words "processed foods," and I'll worry about sharing evidence-based nutrition... how about that? Next time maybe we can argue about how there is really no such thing as "real food" because all food is real (I mean, seriously, because it's only already happened on this forum about 1000 times).3 -
Seriously? I think you may be a more effective communicator if you said what you meant and stopped the not-so-subtle insults towards those who disagree with you.17
-
i see1
-
Seriously? I think you may be a more effective communicator if you said what you meant and stopped the not-so-subtle insults towards those who disagree with you.
It's not uncommon when people have had the flaws in their logic pointed out to go on the defensive and resort to condescension and other distraction techniques.
9
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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