13 Nutrition Lies That Made The World Sick And Fat
Replies
-
My skinny husband is ALWAYS preaching to me this information and he doesn't even read about it. I like to think of eating a "low carb" diet as eating balanced. When you are eating properly, everything that is written in the article is true. People think eating balanced is hard to abide by, but it really is not. If you listen to your body, you're body will tell you what it wants and what it needs. After all, we are all constructed differently.
Thank you for sharing this article.
My body tells me to eat nothing but baked goods and chocolate. :laugh:0 -
There are a few good facts but a lot of it is just plain bull $h!t. Who wrote this? Obviously someone who got their degree from a cereal box.0
-
I don't think you know how to count calories then, check your measurements
Well since i weigh everything, i'm pretty sure that's pretty accurate.
I also have a body bug, so I know what I burn every day.
I don't care that you can eat the sugar and be ok. I can't. period. that's all i said. I gained 10 pounds last weekend after 1 day of way to much sugar. I mean it was epic sugar consumption, but I really doubt I ate 35,000 calories in one day and I still have a headache from no sugar today and my stomach hurt all day yesterday from it.
All I can do is go by what *my body tells me is good or not good for it* added sugar is bad. It's not for you. great carry on.
if you did not eat 35000 calories then you did not gain 10 pounds...
Tell that to my scale.
6 of them are gone already. because it's fake/water weight.Too bad you're not me then. On Halloween, I ate a pound of M&M's peanut with no adverse affect and no weight gain. While I do believe that sugar does affect some people differently, as I stated earlier sugar is fine in moderation. The body processes all sugars the same way (with the exception of alcohol).
I would be so sick if i ate a pound of M&Ms. I'm not jealous.
so you tried to say that you gained ten pounds because of sugar, and then turn around and say that it was "fake/water weight"...so obviously, sugar did not make you gain ten pounds, because you really did not gain ten pounds...but you still tried to demonize sugar..interesting...0 -
Pure true sugar is two glucose molecules linked together. Thats GLUCOSE - not fructose. The fake sugars are made with one glucose and one fructose linked together, or two fructose molecules. Fructose is very bad for you. Glucose is not. Your cells need glucose to make ATP (energy). Pure sugar in your foods is not a bad thing - its far healthier for you than high fructose corn syrup or fake sugars made from fructose.
With that being said it is still bad to eat too much sugar, but I wanted to make the correction. The kind of sugar you find in fruit and pure sugar cane sugar is the SAME THING. They are both just as good for you and bad for you. The only differene is the other benefits you get from the food you eat with those sugars, like a candy bar vs. an apple. But molecularly those are the same sugars.
The post was about fructose - totally different from real sugar.
Pardon? Fructose is a real sugar. It's a monosaccharide found in fruit.
Also two glucose molecules linked together is maltose. It's no more a true sugar than sucrose ie. table sugar, which is glucose and fructose linked together. Both are disaccharides. Neither are 'fake' sugars. Your chemistry is incorrect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22396/
High fructose corn syrup is also a glucose fructose disaccharide.
You may be interested in reading this article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which argues that HFCS is not obesity-promoting.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full0 -
need citations from proper medical journals to support each claim and example - journal titles such as "the American Journal of Medicine" and "The Lancet" etc. Most of this information goes against mainstream medical research, not sure one would find citations to support this stuff in proper academic medical journals.0
-
need citations from proper medical journals to support each claim and example - journal titles such as "the American Journal of Medicine" and "The Lancet" etc. Most of this information goes against mainstream medical research, not sure one would find citations to support this stuff in proper academic medical journals.
It actually does include citations from peer reviewed studies. The interpretation and presentation of some of them is iffy though.0 -
There are a few good facts but a lot of it is just plain bull $h!t. Who wrote this? Obviously someone who got their degree from a cereal box.
haha was thinking that0 -
That wasn't the point I was making. You claim sugar is evil because of what it does to you. That eating it had you gain 10lbs and that your experience is why people should heed your warning. If it were true, then I should have had the same reaction or worse. But apparently sugar isn't evil to me (or many many others for that matter).Too bad you're not me then. On Halloween, I ate a pound of M&M's peanut with no adverse affect and no weight gain. While I do believe that sugar does affect some people differently, as I stated earlier sugar is fine in moderation. The body processes all sugars the same way (with the exception of alcohol).
I would be so sick if i ate a pound of M&Ms. I'm not jealous.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
"I also have a body bug, so I know what I burn every day. "
Any tracker device is just another estimating tool like the online calculators are, though the ones you wear are a bit less likely to overestimate your activity than self-reporting is. They ALL base your estimates on the averages for someone your size, gender and age. Though if you've tracked all your intake, BB estimates and losses for a long period and it all jibes, that might mean you indeed are fairly average and your BB is a good estimator for you.0 -
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.
From a lot of things that I read you are being spot on.
Eating grass fed beef, free range chickens that scavenge for food, free roaming pigs........raw dairy, farm raised eggs from those free range chickens.
The grain products have been genetically modified so much that they are way more potent in terms of sugar, gluten, etc.0 -
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)
You are exactly right and why I barely even post on this website any more.0 -
Pure true sugar is two glucose molecules linked together. Thats GLUCOSE - not fructose. The fake sugars are made with one glucose and one fructose linked together, or two fructose molecules. Fructose is very bad for you. Glucose is not. Your cells need glucose to make ATP (energy). Pure sugar in your foods is not a bad thing - its far healthier for you than high fructose corn syrup or fake sugars made from fructose.
With that being said it is still bad to eat too much sugar, but I wanted to make the correction. The kind of sugar you find in fruit and pure sugar cane sugar is the SAME THING. They are both just as good for you and bad for you. The only differene is the other benefits you get from the food you eat with those sugars, like a candy bar vs. an apple. But molecularly those are the same sugars.
The post was about fructose - totally different from real sugar.
Pardon? Fructose is a real sugar. It's a monosaccharide found in fruit.
Also two glucose molecules linked together is maltose. It's no more a true sugar than sucrose ie. table sugar, which is glucose and fructose linked together. Both are disaccharides. Neither are 'fake' sugars. Your chemistry is incorrect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22396/
High fructose corn syrup is also a glucose fructose disaccharide.
You may be interested in reading this article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which argues that HFCS is not obesity-promoting.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full
Yes, and those studies were paid for by the corn growers association or whatever it is.............Agribusiness to keep promoting their crap.0 -
obesity promoting is a broad and overly used term though.Pure true sugar is two glucose molecules linked together. Thats GLUCOSE - not fructose. The fake sugars are made with one glucose and one fructose linked together, or two fructose molecules. Fructose is very bad for you. Glucose is not. Your cells need glucose to make ATP (energy). Pure sugar in your foods is not a bad thing - its far healthier for you than high fructose corn syrup or fake sugars made from fructose.
With that being said it is still bad to eat too much sugar, but I wanted to make the correction. The kind of sugar you find in fruit and pure sugar cane sugar is the SAME THING. They are both just as good for you and bad for you. The only differene is the other benefits you get from the food you eat with those sugars, like a candy bar vs. an apple. But molecularly those are the same sugars.
The post was about fructose - totally different from real sugar.
Pardon? Fructose is a real sugar. It's a monosaccharide found in fruit.
Also two glucose molecules linked together is maltose. It's no more a true sugar than sucrose ie. table sugar, which is glucose and fructose linked together. Both are disaccharides. Neither are 'fake' sugars. Your chemistry is incorrect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22396/
High fructose corn syrup is also a glucose fructose disaccharide.
You may be interested in reading this article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which argues that HFCS is not obesity-promoting.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full
Yes, and those studies were paid for by the corn growers association or whatever it is.............Agribusiness to keep promoting their crap.0 -
What studies are you talking about? This article is not a research study. You're making generalisations that are incorrect.Pure true sugar is two glucose molecules linked together. Thats GLUCOSE - not fructose. The fake sugars are made with one glucose and one fructose linked together, or two fructose molecules. Fructose is very bad for you. Glucose is not. Your cells need glucose to make ATP (energy). Pure sugar in your foods is not a bad thing - its far healthier for you than high fructose corn syrup or fake sugars made from fructose.
With that being said it is still bad to eat too much sugar, but I wanted to make the correction. The kind of sugar you find in fruit and pure sugar cane sugar is the SAME THING. They are both just as good for you and bad for you. The only differene is the other benefits you get from the food you eat with those sugars, like a candy bar vs. an apple. But molecularly those are the same sugars.
The post was about fructose - totally different from real sugar.
Pardon? Fructose is a real sugar. It's a monosaccharide found in fruit.
Also two glucose molecules linked together is maltose. It's no more a true sugar than sucrose ie. table sugar, which is glucose and fructose linked together. Both are disaccharides. Neither are 'fake' sugars. Your chemistry is incorrect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22396/
High fructose corn syrup is also a glucose fructose disaccharide.
You may be interested in reading this article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which argues that HFCS is not obesity-promoting.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full
Yes, and those studies were paid for by the corn growers association or whatever it is.............Agribusiness to keep promoting their crap.
The manuscript was supported by the American Society for Nutrition.0 -
1. It's correct stating eggs aren't bad.
2. A calorie is a calorie. Whether you eat 100 calories of protein or 100 calories of carbs, the ENERGY value is the same.What they should say instead is value of macronutrients in calories differ.
3.While saturated fats are essential for optimal health, a balancing of polyunsaturated fats with it provides more benefit than just saturated fat alone.
There's a fine line in saying this because lots of "unhealthy" foods contain saturated fats, so if the interpretation is to believe that saturated fats are fine to eat in excess, there may be a lot of weight gain.
4. Agree.
5. It's not for everyone, but like anything else, moderation of it is fine.
6. Coffee is fine. But when getting the "Designer" coffees there are usually filled with a ton of calories. And if one is an avid coffee drinker with all the excess calories, they'll get overweight just like anyone else who over consumes food.
7. Meat is just fine.
8. The healthiest diet is one that meets someone's daily macro/micro nutrients and fuels what ever output they do. An Olympic swimmer uses much more carb energy than someone that does yoga.
9. Correct about oils containing too much in Omega 6 and not enough in Omega 3's.
10. Low carb definitely works, but for about 90% of the people who diet on it, it's not sustainable.
11. Yep sodium is usually not a issue unless one has high BP issues.
12. Sugar is FINE in moderation. Demonizing it happens because too many people attribute it to the obesity epidemic. Truth is over consumption is the problem with obesity.
13. Fat can make you fat if you over consume it. Again, let's not look past actual calories in and out.
All in all there is some good take away from the article, but picking out information to support ones stance isn't any different than what the fitness industry states are the correct methods and diets. Peer reviewed studies should be looked and compared and the individual works out what they think will be best for them.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
^^ Mostly agree...I do eat a lot of fat but a lot of the fat in my eating plan is mono- and polyunsaturated fats and I'm at 18% body fat at 41 yrs old and I'm not complaining! lol0 -
Really? Would you have any credible evidence to support your claim of the 'potency' in terms of sugar, gluten etc. of GM grain products (whatever that means). This sounds like the standard GM hysteria to me.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.
From a lot of things that I read you are being spot on.
Eating grass fed beef, free range chickens that scavenge for food, free roaming pigs........raw dairy, farm raised eggs from those free range chickens.
The grain products have been genetically modified so much that they are way more potent in terms of sugar, gluten, etc.0 -
I am in no way an expert but was reading this today and thought it would be interesting to see what others say!!
13 Nutrition Lies That Made The World Sick And Fat
Nutrition is full of all kinds of nonsense.
The worst examples are listed here, but unfortunately this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Here are the top 13 nutrition lies that have made the world both sick and fat.
1. Eggs Are Bad For Your Health
Eggs are so incredibly nutritious that they’re often called “nature’s multivitamin.”
The nutrients in them are enough to turn a single cell into an entire baby chicken.
However, eggs have been demonized in the past because they contain a large amount of cholesterol, which was believed to increase the risk of heart disease.
But the truth is that despite being high in cholesterol, eggs don’t really raise the bad cholesterol in the blood. In fact, eggs primarily raise the “good” cholesterol.
Despite all the warnings about eggs in the past few decades, studies show that they are NOT associated with heart disease.
If anything, eggs are pretty much a perfect food for humans. They’re loaded with protein, healthy fats, vitamins, minerals and unique antioxidants that protect the eyes.
They are also an excellent source of Choline, a nutrient that is very important for the health of the brain and about 90% of people aren’t getting enough of.
Despite being a “high fat” food, eating eggs for breakfast is proven to cause significant weight loss compared to a breakfast of bagels.
Bottom Line: Eggs are among the most nutritious foods on the planet and do not raise your risk of heart disease. Eggs for breakfast can help you lose weight.
2. A Calorie is a Calorie
It is often said that the only thing that matters for weight loss is “calories in, calories out.”
The truth is that calories matter… but the types of foods we eat are just as important.
That is because different foods go through different metabolic pathways in the body.
Additionally, the foods we eat can directly impact the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat, as well as the amount of calories we burn.
Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
Fructose vs glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Even though calories are important, saying that they are all that matters when it comes to weight (or health for that matter) is completely wrong.
Bottom Line: All calories are not created equal. Different foods go through different metabolic pathways and have varying effects on hunger, hormones and health.
3. Saturated Fat is Unhealthy
For many decades, people have believed that eating saturated fat can increase the risk of heart disease.
In fact, this idea has been the cornerstone of mainstream nutrition recommendations.
However, studies published in the past few decades prove that saturated fat is completely harmless.
A massive study published in 2010 looked at data from a total of 21 studies that included 347,747 individuals. They found absolutely no association between saturated fat consumption and the risk of heart disease.
Multiple other studies confirm these findings… saturated fat really has nothing to do with heart disease. The “war” on fat was based on an unproven theory that somehow became common knowledge.
The truth is that saturated fat raises HDL (the “good”) cholesterol. It also changes the LDL cholesterol from small, dense LDL (very, very bad) to Large LDL, which is benign
There is literally no reason to fear butter, meat or coconut oil… these foods are perfectly healthy!
Bottom Line: New studies show that saturated fat does not increase your risk of cardiovascular disease. It raises the good cholesterol and changes the “bad” cholesterol to a benign subtype.
4. Eating a Lot of Protein is Bad For Your Health
Many people believe that eating a lot of protein can damage your bones.
While it is true that increased protein can increase calcium excretion from the bones in the short term, the long term studies show the exact opposite effect.
In fact, eating more protein is consistently associated with improved bone density and a lower risk of fracture in old age
This is one example of where blindly following conventional nutrition advice will lead to the exact opposite result.
Another myth is that protein increases strain on the kidneys and contributes to kidney failure.
The reality is a bit more complicated than that. Although it is true that people with established kidney disease should reduce protein intake, studies in healthy individuals show that protein is perfectly safe.
In healthy individuals, protein actually reduces two of the main risk factors for kidney disease… which are diabetes and high blood pressure.
Eating a high protein diet has many other benefits, including increased muscle mass, reduced body fat and a lower risk of diseases like cardiovascular disease.
Bottom Line: Studies show that protein has positive effects on bone health in the long run and does not raise the risk of kidney disease in healthy individuals. Eating a high protein diet has many important health benefits.
5. Everyone Should be Eating “Heart-Healthy” Whole Wheat
Commonly mistaken as a health food, evidence is mounting that wheat can contribute to various health problems.
Yes… this includes “heart-healthy” whole wheat.
Wheat is the biggest source of gluten in the diet. New studies are showing that a significant percentage of the population may be sensitive to it.
In sensitive individuals, gluten can contribute to various symptoms like digestive issues, pain, bloating, stool inconsistency, fatigue and may damage the lining of the intestine.
There are also some controlled trials associating wheat gluten with various disorders of the brain, including schizophrenia, autism and cerebellar ataxia.
Not only that… but a controlled trial in humans showed that whole wheat increased various risk factors for cardiovascular disease in as little as 12 weeks.
Even though whole wheat is “less unhealthy” than refined wheat, the best choice would be to skip the wheat altogether.
Bottom Line: Wheat is the biggest source of gluten in the diet. Many studies are showing that wheat, including whole wheat, can contribute to various health problems.
6. Coffee is Bad for You
Coffee has gotten a bad reputation in the past.
It is true that coffee can mildly elevate blood pressure in the short term.
However, long term studies show that coffee may actually reduce your risk of some serious diseases.
Coffee drinkers:
Have up to a 67% lower risk of Type II diabetes (50, 51).
Are at a much lower risk of getting Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
Have up to an 80% lower risk of liver diseases like cirrhosis (54, 55).
Caffeine also helps to mobilize fatty acids from the fat tissues, boost metabolism and increase exercise performance by an average of 11-12%.
Many studies have examined the effects of caffeine on the brain, showing that it can improve mood, memory, reaction time, vigilance and overall brain function.
You may be surprised to hear that coffee is also loaded with antioxidants. In fact, it is the biggest source of antioxidants in the modern diet, outranking both fruits and vegetables, combined.
If you’re sensitive to caffeine or it tends to disrupt your sleep, then green tea has many of the same health benefits but a smaller amount of caffeine.
Bottom Line: Coffee contains very large amounts of antioxidants. Studies show that coffee drinkers are at a much lower risk of developing many serious diseases.
7. Meat is Bad For You
Blaming new health problems on old foods has never made sense to me.
One example of that is meat… which humans have been eating throughout evolution, for millions of years.
For some very strange reason, many people are now blaming meat for diseases like heart disease and type II diabetes, which are relatively new.
This doesn’t make much sense at all and the studies don’t support it.
While it is true that processed meat is associated with all sorts of diseases, the same is not true for unprocessed red meat.
A massive review from 2010 that looked at data from 20 studies with a total of 1,218,380 individuals revealed that unprocessed red meat had no significant association with either cardiovascular disease or type II diabetes .
Other studies that included hundreds of thousands of people agree with this… processed meat is bad, but unprocessed red meat is harmless .
Even though some observational studies have found a link between meat consumption and cancer, review studies that look at the data as a whole show that the effect is weak and inconsistent .
If there really is an association between red meat and cancer (which has NOT been proven) then it is most likely caused by excessive cooking, not the meat itself. For this reason, it may be important to avoid burning your meat (66).
Also, let’s not forget that meat is incredibly nutritious. It is loaded with vitamins, minerals, quality proteins, healthy fats and various lesser known nutrients that are important for the body and brain
Bottom Line: Studies show that unprocessed red meat does not raise your risk of cardiovascular disease or diabetes. There is a very weak association with cancer, but most likely caused by excessive cooking and not the meat itself.
8. The Healthiest Diet is a Low-Fat, High-Carb Diet
Since the year 1977, the health authorities have told everyone to eat a low-fat, high-carb diet.
This was originally based on political decisions and low quality studies that have since been thoroughly debunked.
Interestingly, the obesity epidemic started at almost the exact same time the low-fat guidelines first came out.
Since then, several massive studies have examined the health effects of the low-fat diet.
In the Women’s Health Initiative, the biggest study on diet ever conducted, 48,835 women were randomized to either a low-fat diet or continued to eat the standard western diet.
After a study period of 7.5 years, the low-fat group weighed only 0.4 kg (1 lb) less and there was no decrease in cardiovascular disease or cancer.
Other studies agree with these findings… this diet is notoriously ineffective.
Even though it may work for healthy and active individuals… for people with obesity, metabolic syndrome or diabetes, the low-fat diet can be downright harmful.
Bottom Line: The low-fat, high-carb diet recommended by the mainstream nutrition organizations is a miserable failure and has been repeatedly proven to be ineffective.
9. Refined Seed- and Vegetable Oils Are Healthy
Some studies show that polyunsaturated fats lower your risk of heart disease.
For this reason, many have recommended that we increase our consumption of vegetable oils like soybean oil, sunflower oil and corn oil.
However, it is important to realize that there are different types of polyunsaturated fats, mainly Omega-3s and Omega-6s.
While we get Omega-3s from fish and grass-fed animals, the main sources of Omega-6 fatty acids are processed seed- and vegetable oils.
The thing is… we need to get Omega-3s and Omega-6s in a certain balance. Most people are eating too little Omega-3 and way too much Omega-6.
Studies show that excess Omega-6 fatty acids can increase inflammation in the body, which is known to play a causal role in many serious diseases.
Most importantly, seed- and vegetable oils are associated with a significantly increased risk of heart disease… the biggest killer in the world.
If you want to lower your risk of disease, eat your Omega-3s but avoid the refined seed- and vegetable oils.
It’s important to keep in mind that this does NOT apply to other plant oils like coconut oil and olive oil, which are low in Omega-6 and extremely healthy.
Bottom Line: Excess consumption of refined seed- and vegetable oils can increase inflammation in the body and dramatically raise your risk of cardiovascular disease.
10. Low-Carb Diets Are Ineffective and Downright Harmful
Low-carb diets have been popular for several decades.
Because they are high in fat, they have been demonized by nutritionists and the media.
They repeatedly claim that such diets are “unproven” or downright dangerous.
However, since the year 2002, over 20 randomized controlled trials have examined the effects of low-carb diets on various aspects of health.
Almost every one of those studies agrees that:
Low-carb diets lead to significant decreases in blood pressure.
Low-carb diets where people are allowed to eat as much as they want cause more weight loss than low-fat diets that are calorie restricted.
Low-carb diets increase HDL (the good) cholesterol and decrease triglycerides much more than low-fat diets.
Low-carb diets change the pattern of LDL (the “bad”) cholesterol from small, dense LDL (very bad) to Large LDL – which is benign.
Low-carb diets have powerful positive effects on type II diabetes, significantly lowering blood sugar and reducing the need for medication.
If anything, low-carb diets appear to be easier to stick to than low-fat diets, probably because people don’t have to restrict calories and be hungry all the time.
Even though low-carb diets are unnecessary for people who are healthy and active, studies show that they are extremely useful against obesity, metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes… which are some of the biggest health problems in the world.
Despite these powerful results, many of the “experts” that are supposed to have our best interests in mind have the audacity to call low-carb diets dangerous and continue to peddle the failed low-fat diet that is hurting more people than it helps.
Bottom Line: Low-carb diets are the easiest, healthiest and most effective way to lose weight and reverse metabolic disease. It is pretty much a scientific fact at this point.
11. Everyone Should be Cutting Back on Sodium
The health authorities constantly tell us to reduce sodium in the diet in order to reduce blood pressure.
Whereas most people are eating about 3400 mg of sodium per day, we are usually advised to cut back to 1500-2300 mg per day (about 3/4 to 1 teaspoon of salt).
It is true that reducing sodium can cause mild reductions in blood pressure, especially in individuals who have elevated blood pressure to begin with.
But it’s important to keep in mind that elevated blood pressure itself doesn’t kill anyone directly. It is a risk factor, not necessarily a cause of disease.
Interestingly, many studies have examined whether sodium restriction has any effect on cardiovascular disease or the risk of death. These studies consistently found no effect… even in individuals with high blood pressure.
Other studies show that too little sodium can also be harmful, leading to adverse effects such as insulin resistance, elevated LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as an increased risk of death in type II diabetics.
Overall, there is no evidence that healthy people need to cut back on sodium.
Bottom Line: Despite sodium restriction being able to mildly reduce blood pressure, this does not lead to improved health outcomes.
12. Sugar is Bad Because it Contains “Empty” Calories
Many think that sugar is unhealthy just because it contains “empty” calories.
This is true… sugar contains a lot of calories, with no essential nutrients.
But this is really just the tip of the iceberg.
Sugar, mainly due to its high content of fructose, can have severe adverse effects on metabolism and set us up for rapid weight gain and metabolic disease (102).
When we eat large amounts of fructose, it gets turned into fat in the liver and is either shipped out as VLDL particles, or lodges in the liver to cause non-alcoholic fatty liver disease .
Studies in humans show that excess fructose can lead to insulin resistance, elevated blood sugars, elevated triglycerides, increased small, dense LDL and increased abdominal obesity in as little as 10 weeks.
Fructose also doesn’t lower the hunger hormone ghrelin and doesn’t affect satiety in the brain in the same way as glucose. This way, sugar causes a biochemical drive in the brain to eat more and get fat .
This applies to fructose from added sugars, NOT the natural sugars found in fruits.
When consumed in excess, added sugar is associated with multiple diseases, including obesity, heart disease, type II diabetes and even cancer.
Sugar is probably the single worst ingredient in the modern diet.
Bottom Line: The harmful effects of excess sugar go way beyond empty calories. Sugar can have severe adverse effects on metabolism, leading to weight gain and many serious diseases.
13. Fat Makes You Fat
It seems to make sense that eating fat would make you fat.
After all, the stuff that is making people soft and puffy is fat.
For this reason, eating more fat should give us more of it.
However, it turns out that it isn’t that simple. Despite fat having more calories per gram than protein or carbohydrates, diets that are high in fat do not make people fat.
This depends completely on the context. A diet that is high in carbs AND fat will make you fat, but it’s NOT because of the fat.
In fact, the studies consistently show that diets that are high in fat (but low in carbs) lead to much more weight loss than diets that are low in fat.
Read more: http://authoritynutrition.com/top-13-nutrition-lies-that-made-the-world-sick-and-fat/#ixzz2i2vBwGNK0 -
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0
-
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)
You are exactly right and why I barely even post on this website any more.
That is funny since she has no clue and is exactly WRONG about IIFYM...0 -
What studies are you talking about? This article is not a research study. You're making generalisations that are incorrect.Pure true sugar is two glucose molecules linked together. Thats GLUCOSE - not fructose. The fake sugars are made with one glucose and one fructose linked together, or two fructose molecules. Fructose is very bad for you. Glucose is not. Your cells need glucose to make ATP (energy). Pure sugar in your foods is not a bad thing - its far healthier for you than high fructose corn syrup or fake sugars made from fructose.
With that being said it is still bad to eat too much sugar, but I wanted to make the correction. The kind of sugar you find in fruit and pure sugar cane sugar is the SAME THING. They are both just as good for you and bad for you. The only differene is the other benefits you get from the food you eat with those sugars, like a candy bar vs. an apple. But molecularly those are the same sugars.
The post was about fructose - totally different from real sugar.
Pardon? Fructose is a real sugar. It's a monosaccharide found in fruit.
Also two glucose molecules linked together is maltose. It's no more a true sugar than sucrose ie. table sugar, which is glucose and fructose linked together. Both are disaccharides. Neither are 'fake' sugars. Your chemistry is incorrect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22396/
High fructose corn syrup is also a glucose fructose disaccharide.
You may be interested in reading this article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which argues that HFCS is not obesity-promoting.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full
Yes, and those studies were paid for by the corn growers association or whatever it is.............Agribusiness to keep promoting their crap.
The manuscript was supported by the American Society for Nutrition.
The American Society of Nutrition is funded and backed by the likes of those types of Corporations..............they state this themselves on their website............
Don't think that the data isn't skewed and their research outcomes aren't enticed by these Corporations. I have put in a letter asking them for specific names of Corporations that are backing them so I don't contribute to their skewed research
A tremendous variety of companies - including food, biosciences and biotechnology, pharmaceutical, feed and agriculture, personal and health care and nutritional products companies - view ASN as the key for access to the nutrition marketplace.0 -
Don't think that the data isn't skewed and their research outcomes aren't enticed by these Corporations. I have put in a letter asking them for specific names of Corporations that are backing them so I don't contribute to their skewed research
0 -
Did you read the article I linked? Again, it's not a research article so there is no data to skew. The same journal also published an earlier article with a different view on HFCS, so to suggest that the ASN would support only publications with a certain (industry driven) viewpoint is incorrect.
What studies are you talking about? This article is not a research study. You're making generalisations that are incorrect.Pure true sugar is two glucose molecules linked together. Thats GLUCOSE - not fructose. The fake sugars are made with one glucose and one fructose linked together, or two fructose molecules. Fructose is very bad for you. Glucose is not. Your cells need glucose to make ATP (energy). Pure sugar in your foods is not a bad thing - its far healthier for you than high fructose corn syrup or fake sugars made from fructose.
With that being said it is still bad to eat too much sugar, but I wanted to make the correction. The kind of sugar you find in fruit and pure sugar cane sugar is the SAME THING. They are both just as good for you and bad for you. The only differene is the other benefits you get from the food you eat with those sugars, like a candy bar vs. an apple. But molecularly those are the same sugars.
The post was about fructose - totally different from real sugar.
Pardon? Fructose is a real sugar. It's a monosaccharide found in fruit.
Also two glucose molecules linked together is maltose. It's no more a true sugar than sucrose ie. table sugar, which is glucose and fructose linked together. Both are disaccharides. Neither are 'fake' sugars. Your chemistry is incorrect.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22396/
High fructose corn syrup is also a glucose fructose disaccharide.
You may be interested in reading this article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which argues that HFCS is not obesity-promoting.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full
Yes, and those studies were paid for by the corn growers association or whatever it is.............Agribusiness to keep promoting their crap.
The manuscript was supported by the American Society for Nutrition.
The American Society of Nutrition is funded and backed by the likes of those types of Corporations..............they state this themselves on their website............
Don't think that the data isn't skewed and their research outcomes aren't enticed by these Corporations. I have put in a letter asking them for specific names of Corporations that are backing them so I don't contribute to their skewed research
A tremendous variety of companies - including food, biosciences and biotechnology, pharmaceutical, feed and agriculture, personal and health care and nutritional products companies - view ASN as the key for access to the nutrition marketplace.
ASN are very transparent with their conflict of interest policy and their corporate memberships. No need for letters. It's all there on their website.0 -
My body agrees with your body. :flowerforyou:My skinny husband is ALWAYS preaching to me this information and he doesn't even read about it. I like to think of eating a "low carb" diet as eating balanced. When you are eating properly, everything that is written in the article is true. People think eating balanced is hard to abide by, but it really is not. If you listen to your body, you're body will tell you what it wants and what it needs. After all, we are all constructed differently.
Thank you for sharing this article.
My body tells me to eat nothing but baked goods and chocolate. :laugh:0 -
My skinny husband is ALWAYS preaching to me this information and he doesn't even read about it. I like to think of eating a "low carb" diet as eating balanced. When you are eating properly, everything that is written in the article is true. People think eating balanced is hard to abide by, but it really is not. If you listen to your body, you're body will tell you what it wants and what it needs. After all, we are all constructed differently.
Thank you for sharing this article.
My body tells me to eat nothing but baked goods and chocolate. :laugh:
Mine seems to want whiskey an awful lot - the really really expensive kind.0 -
I'm convinced. The only thing we know about eating is we get hungry, and we eat. Sometimes I eat even when I'm not hungry.
Everyone is different, when it comes to metabolic rates, blood sugars, lipids, and all that stuff, we are all different.
The fads we get fed by nutritionists change with the breeze....what's good today is bad tomorrow and vice versa.
My advice, and I know almost nothing, is be prepared to do some self experimentation, and try to remember what you learn.
Keep in mind the diet food, wellness, and self help industry is worth billions and billions of dollars a year....follow the money.0 -
I'm convinced. The only thing we know about eating is we get hungry, and we eat. Sometimes I eat even when I'm not hungry.
Everyone is different, when it comes to metabolic rates, blood sugars, lipids, and all that stuff, we are all different.
The fads we get fed by nutritionists change with the breeze....what's good today is bad tomorrow and vice versa.
My advice, and I know almost nothing, is be prepared to do some self experimentation, and try to remember what you learn.
Keep in mind the diet food, wellness, and self help industry is worth billions and billions of dollars a year....follow the money.
While I agree that you need to experiment to see what works best for you, there are also proven factors that will work for everyone.0 -
I'm convinced. The only thing we know about eating is we get hungry, and we eat. Sometimes I eat even when I'm not hungry.
Everyone is different, when it comes to metabolic rates, blood sugars, lipids, and all that stuff, we are all different.
The fads we get fed by nutritionists change with the breeze....what's good today is bad tomorrow and vice versa.
My advice, and I know almost nothing, is be prepared to do some self experimentation, and try to remember what you learn.
Keep in mind the diet food, wellness, and self help industry is worth billions and billions of dollars a year....follow the money.
While I agree that you need to experiment to see what works best for you, there are also proven factors that will work for everyone.
Yes. Exercise is usually good for you. A diet high in food is best. Get rest and drink water.0 -
I'm convinced. The only thing we know about eating is we get hungry, and we eat. Sometimes I eat even when I'm not hungry.
Everyone is different, when it comes to metabolic rates, blood sugars, lipids, and all that stuff, we are all different.
The fads we get fed by nutritionists change with the breeze....what's good today is bad tomorrow and vice versa.
My advice, and I know almost nothing, is be prepared to do some self experimentation, and try to remember what you learn.
Keep in mind the diet food, wellness, and self help industry is worth billions and billions of dollars a year....follow the money.
While I agree that you need to experiment to see what works best for you, there are also proven factors that will work for everyone.
Yes. Exercise is usually good for you. A diet high in food is best. Get rest and drink water.
I like the sound of that diet, where do I sign up?0 -
wat?I'm convinced. The only thing we know about eating is we get hungry, and we eat. Sometimes I eat even when I'm not hungry.
Everyone is different, when it comes to metabolic rates, blood sugars, lipids, and all that stuff, we are all different.
The fads we get fed by nutritionists change with the breeze....what's good today is bad tomorrow and vice versa.
My advice, and I know almost nothing, is be prepared to do some self experimentation, and try to remember what you learn.
Keep in mind the diet food, wellness, and self help industry is worth billions and billions of dollars a year....follow the money.
While I agree that you need to experiment to see what works best for you, there are also proven factors that will work for everyone.
Yes. Exercise is usually good for you. A diet high in food is best. Get rest and drink water.
I like the sound of that diet, where do I sign up?0 -
10. Low carb definitely works, but for about 90% of the people who diet on it, it's not sustainable.
Which is very close in percentages to just about every single other way of eating designed to lose or maintain weight.
And that's the biggest, saddest lie of them all. That "diets don't work". Well yes, just about any diet works.'
It's people who fail. And people fail, in an extraordinary amount, regardless of what program or method they choose.
The statistics are abysmal across the board.0
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
- 96.4K 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