13 Nutrition Lies That Made The World Sick And Fat

BinaryPulsar

11. Yep sodium is usually not a issue unless one has high BP issues.

High BinaryPulsar issues?

AccioFitness

Bump to read later!

MstngSammy

I am trying to remember where I read that though. The same as that person up there ^^^ about it being dangerous.

In the article it talks about American wheat products and how they actually add extra gluten to it resulting in more people becoming sensitive or intolerant and not knowing it.

Probably on the internet.

Hmm....Idk...maybe.

Emlou93

Nothing wrong with gluten if you're not sensitive or don't have an allergy.

There are some studies showing too much gluten to be bad for you. Something about it building in the intestines and robbing our nutrients. It's not good to eat a lot of bread anyway. ((shrugs shoulders))

Do you have these studies?

It's not good to eat a lot of most foods (context relevant).

"It's not good to eat a lot of most foods (context relevant)."

True true...

This is my reply to you. How is this rude? I agreed with you.

Stating that "eating a lot of bread is bad for you anyway" is clearly only my opinion and should have been separated from the previous STATEMENT I agree.

I did not argue with the poster I simply made a comment about something I remembered reading.

I quoted the relevant post...assuming you are even directing this at me.

I have a feeling Sammy was referring to the damage caused by gluten in those who are Coeliac...

"When people with celiac disease eat foods or use products containing gluten, their immune system responds by damaging or destroying villi—the tiny, fingerlike protrusions lining the small intestine. Villi normally allow nutrients from food to be absorbed through the walls of the small intestine into the bloodstream. Without healthy villi, a person becomes malnourished, no matter how much food one eats."
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/celiac/

However, this is an autoimmune issue and not just caused by anyone eating gluten and demonising gluten is not the answer. Unless, like Sara said, you have a problem with it in the first place.

Carnivor0us

For a second there I thought the title of this thread pointed to a Cracked article....except if it was, it would be " 13 Mind-blowing Nutrition Lies That Made The World Sick And Fat"

MstngSammy

Nothing wrong with gluten if you're not sensitive or don't have an allergy.

There are some studies showing too much gluten to be bad for you. Something about it building in the intestines and robbing our nutrients. It's not good to eat a lot of bread anyway. ((shrugs shoulders))

Do you have these studies?

It's not good to eat a lot of most foods (context relevant).

"It's not good to eat a lot of most foods (context relevant)."

True true...

This is my reply to you. How is this rude? I agreed with you.

Stating that "eating a lot of bread is bad for you anyway" is clearly only my opinion and should have been separated from the previous STATEMENT I agree.

I did not argue with the poster I simply made a comment about something I remembered reading.

I quoted the relevant post...assuming you are even directing this at me.

I have a feeling Sammy was referring to the damage caused by gluten in those who are Coeliac...

"When people with celiac disease eat foods or use products containing gluten, their immune system responds by damaging or destroying villi—the tiny, fingerlike protrusions lining the small intestine. Villi normally allow nutrients from food to be absorbed through the walls of the small intestine into the bloodstream. Without healthy villi, a person becomes malnourished, no matter how much food one eats."
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/celiac/

However, this is an autoimmune issue and not just caused by anyone eating gluten and demonising gluten is not the answer. Unless, like Sara said, you have a problem with it in the first place.

Not celiac. I think you are born with celiac? More like a sensitivity...or intolerance that is developed over time.

Sarauk2sf

Nothing wrong with gluten if you're not sensitive or don't have an allergy.

There are some studies showing too much gluten to be bad for you. Something about it building in the intestines and robbing our nutrients. It's not good to eat a lot of bread anyway. ((shrugs shoulders))

Do you have these studies?

It's not good to eat a lot of most foods (context relevant).

"It's not good to eat a lot of most foods (context relevant)."

True true...

This is my reply to you. How is this rude? I agreed with you.

Stating that "eating a lot of bread is bad for you anyway" is clearly only my opinion and should have been separated from the previous STATEMENT I agree.

I did not argue with the poster I simply made a comment about something I remembered reading.

I quoted the relevant post...assuming you are even directing this at me.

I have a feeling Sammy was referring to the damage caused by gluten in those who are Coeliac...

"When people with celiac disease eat foods or use products containing gluten, their immune system responds by damaging or destroying villi—the tiny, fingerlike protrusions lining the small intestine. Villi normally allow nutrients from food to be absorbed through the walls of the small intestine into the bloodstream. Without healthy villi, a person becomes malnourished, no matter how much food one eats."
http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/celiac/

However, this is an autoimmune issue and not just caused by anyone eating gluten and demonising gluten is not the answer. Unless, like Sara said, you have a problem with it in the first place.

I actually was not aware of the specifics of the nutrient absorption issue - good to know and thanks for the link.

MstngSammy

This is an old article about a study that was done...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/379089

Mind you I am not touting this as gospel. I have read other articles like this and it does weigh on my mind me being from the south. People eat bread religiously down here. We even have annual festivals centered around battering/breading anything and everything then deep frying it.

Deep fried Snickers anyone?

So yes. I'm a little biased against it lol. Being fat is normal down here.

Emlou93

This is an old article about a study that was done...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/379089

Mind you I am not touting this as gospel. I have read other articles like this and it does weigh on my mind me being from the south. People eat bread religiously down here. We even have annual festivals centered around battering/breading anything and everything then deep frying it.

Deep fried Snickers anyone?

So yes. I'm a little biased against it lol. Being fat is normal down here.

Ahhhk - well, pretty much every study huffpost referenced refers to coeliac and undiagnosed coeliac disease, so that would be why you associated it. And for some of it, I think they've thrown the studies in via a basic word search as the study cited for the links of gluten to autism is about the fact there are no perceivable benefits of a gluten free diet for those with autism.

rgugs13

Any article that contains "It is pretty much a scientific fact at this point." immediately makes me think otherwise. That kind of phrasing is what people use for arguments when they don't have the actual data to back it up. If there are enough studies conclusively proving it a scientific fact, then you would call it a scientific fact and name all the fancy studies that did so. When you don't have that data, but might have some studies that lean in your direction, you would use the qualifier "pretty much" knowing that all people will focus on is the scientific fact part, and then if it all goes south later, you can say well you didn't actually claim it to be a fact, just that it was pretty much considered one.


There are some things I agree with. Many things, not so much.

EvgeniZyntx

This is an old article about a study that was done...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/379089

Mind you I am not touting this as gospel. I have read other articles like this and it does weigh on my mind me being from the south. People eat bread religiously down here. We even have annual festivals centered around battering/breading anything and everything then deep frying it.

Deep fried Snickers anyone?

So yes. I'm a little biased against it lol. Being fat is normal down here.

this is why one should always go to the source of articles.

Because if you read the Huff post you'l see this:

A review paper in The New England Journal of Medicine listed 55 "diseases" that can be caused by eating gluten. ...It has also been linked to autism.(ix)

Oh. really? When you go to the article linked by the so-called practicing physician what do you actually read?

... there is a lack of evidence to support the use of gluten and/or casein free diet as an effective intervention for persons with autism and also a lack of research on potential harms and disbenefits of such diets

So no. Damn bad journalism.
But great support for those suffering from confirmation bias.

I read it, it must be true!

FrankieBenjamin

bump to read later, thanks!

gelendestrasse

Two apples completely blows my "sugar allowance" for the day, so you can see how skewed this has become. If I was getting sugar from pop (soda) then yeah, I'd agree. But the whole thing of what you should or shouldn't do is so odd (and seemingly skewed toward supporting big pharma) that I take it with a grain of salt. For example, my doctor wants me to start taking fiber because, according to the recommendations, you "can't possibly get enough fiber from a normal diet." Uh, so why do I need all that extra fiber? Because the companies who make the stuff found one study (out of how many? They don't tell you) that supports filling yourself with their product. Same for changes in the ATPII.

All that graduate work in statistics has made me very skeptical (and downright cynical) about the modern "studies" and the licensed snake oil salesmen. All things in moderation. That's my motto. Eat less, and exercise. That's my diet. Well, I do try to moderate the carb intake down. But that's about it.

Am I doing something wrong?

texerus

I'm wondering if I can log 10 calories for reading that article?

neanderthin

Two apples completely blows my "sugar allowance" for the day, so you can see how skewed this has become. If I was getting sugar from pop (soda) then yeah, I'd agree. But the whole thing of what you should or shouldn't do is so odd (and seemingly skewed toward supporting big pharma) that I take it with a grain of salt. For example, my doctor wants me to start taking fiber because, according to the recommendations, you "can't possibly get enough fiber from a normal diet." Uh, so why do I need all that extra fiber? Because the companies who make the stuff found one study (out of how many? They don't tell you) that supports filling yourself with their product. Same for changes in the ATPII.

All that graduate work in statistics has made me very skeptical (and downright cynical) about the modern "studies" and the licensed snake oil salesmen. All things in moderation. That's my motto. Eat less, and exercise. That's my diet. Well, I do try to moderate the carb intake down. But that's about it.

Am I doing something wrong?

First of all, your giving the average Dr. too much credit and RDA or recommenced sugar is for added sugar, not sugar found in whole foods.

Pinkranger626

My two cents.... and no there isn't any scientific studies that I've read that prove or disprove anything. Just an idea that's been floating around in my head when it comes to food and food harvesting processes etc.

The article stated that there is nothing wrong with unprocessed red meat.... IMO it is impossible, unless you raise and butcher your own cows and pigs and chickens etc. to not consume meat that has not been at least slightly processed. Also, their argument is that humans have been consuming meat for millions of years and diabetes and issues like that are relatively new. millions of years ago.... and even hundreds of years... heck, even a couple centuries ago we weren't injecting our cows with antibiotics and feeding them genetically modified corn based diets. So you can't say definitively that meat is not a problem. I'm not saying that I don't eat meat, or that I think meat is a problem or anything, I LOVE steak and meat in general and I eat a good amount of it. It's just something to think about.

And the whole grain thing, what if it's not the wheat and corn and gluten that's causing the problem? I mean wheat and corn were a pretty good staple for native americans and such. What if it's that science is genetically modifying things to make better, bigger crops? We don't really know the aftermath of how altering things to seemingly make them "better" will affect everything. What if all these new diseases and health conditions are because we as a species just changed something in the DNA code of our foods that cause it to react differently when we consume it?

Just a thought that I've had when it comes down to the food argument.

Topsking2010

Bump

bcattoes

Gosh, I've never even heard most of those. Where did these "lies" come from?

Akimajuktuq

Great article but not worth wasting your time posting it here. Even faced with a mountain of evidence the majority MFPers are unable to make the connection that food MUST affect health, and that weight loss IS about health. A healthy body loses fat effortlessly. Calories in/calories out is an extreme over-simplification of a complex system that is our body. And IIFYM is bs. If I followed the macro settings as set by MFP, I would be a full blown diabetic right now, and still obese. But any personal experience that anyone shares in the general forums that challenges the "group think" is ridiculed relentlessly. Because there's no possible way that the government and the food/pharma industry would ever lie to us about what is "healthy". Yup, current dietary recommendations have nothing to do with maximizing corporate profits. (sarcasm)

AlyssasDiet

We need more Biologists and Chemists in nutrition and less...well...nutritionists.