Saturated fat and cholesterol vital to health
Replies
-
Do either of you two gentlemen have any connection to the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry? As I said in my most recent post, it really is NOT a conspiracy. People tend to believe what they want to believe---and you both are welcome to believe anything you like. But how about you tone down the swearing and blustering, Robyn?
She wasn't swearing or blustering. And I think her tone is very appropriate to this discussion in her viewpoint.
I don't know about you---but a reference to "hell" qualifies as swearing. Her tone is NOT appropriate.
One word...no need to get all up in arms over. And I'm not the only one, it seems, that thinks her tone was good
ETA - I also don't think saying something like, "Oh hell" is cursing. So each their own. Just as you said...quit nitpicking and look at what she is saying.0 -
Do either of you two gentlemen have any connection to the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry? As I said in my most recent post, it really is NOT a conspiracy. People tend to believe what they want to believe---and you both are welcome to believe anything you like. But how about you tone down the swearing and blustering, Robyn?
Look, none of what I write on these forums is designed to be personal attacks. I point out misinformation where I find it.
In response to your specific comments 1. Not a gentleman. 2. I am indeed a scientist, so yes I am quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Having found all of my colleagues to be hard-working, honest people dedicated to advancing understanding of science, I will most certainly defend my and their reputation against misinformation and histrionic misinterpretations such as that which I find in the original post. 3. Unless we are using rather different definitions, there is no swearing in my reply.0 -
cholesterol is made by your own body. it's why it's in animal fats. you do NOT need to consume extra cholesterol. a little bit won't hurt you but you definitely do not require it. but sat fat is not bad as you're lead to believe, that part is correct.0
-
Do either of you two gentlemen have any connection to the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry? As I said in my most recent post, it really is NOT a conspiracy. People tend to believe what they want to believe---and you both are welcome to believe anything you like. But how about you tone down the swearing and blustering, Robyn?
Look, none of what I write on these forums is designed to be personal attacks. I point out misinformation where I find it.
In response to your specific comments 1. Not a gentleman. 2. I am indeed a scientist, so yes I am quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Having found all of my colleagues to be hard-working, honest people dedicated to advancing understanding of science, I will most certainly defend my and their reputation against misinformation and histrionic misinterpretations such as that which I find in the original post. 3. Unless we are using rather different definitions, there is no swearing in my reply.
Our opinions on what constitutes swearing apparently differ. In any case, there is no reason to be so testy. Since you are "indeed a scientist...quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry..." perhaps you would like to explain this (and believe me, this is just the tip of the ice berg) article on Aricept 23? http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2011/07210/Medical_Watchdog_Groups_Asks_FDA_to_Withdraw.3.aspx
I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone in the pharmaceutical industry is high-minded and principled. Otherwise, the companies wouldn't be so often fined for outrageous breaches of the best interests of the public.0 -
I never said it was a conspiracy--rather that, as is natural to human beings, people (and this includes people in the pharmaceutical establishment) tend to want to believe that which has the most direct bearing on their own profitability. Investigate a bit for yourself to see how Big Pharma has again, and again, gotten slapped on the wrist for some pretty shady dealings. Look up the whole "Aricept 23" fiasco as a starter.
Might be natural to the human beings you know in the industries you have worked in but that is not a universal truth. Plenty of people work in research/ medicine/ allied subjects/ academia because they are total geeks, because they love to help or enjoy working with people. The UK National Health Service is the biggest employer in Europe, plenty of other researchers work in universities, in general public service employees are not that well paid in the UK (a few top managers/ consultant doctors excluded).
I trained in hospital pharmacy training alongside pre reg students from industry and meeting drug reps and whatnot. I later worked in pharmacology research labs so met plenty of academics and post docs; far more were clearly driven to achieve, to discover, to get their name known and to publish than make £££.0 -
you lost me at Mercola...
Again---these are not Mercola's opinions being expressed in this interview---but rather those of a credentialed medical researcher--a Ph.D. in nutrition science. You people need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and instead focus on what is actually being said.
^ Our refusal to give Mercola or his associates any credence aren't knee jerk reactions. We have decided to stop listening to people who consistently post nonsense though.0 -
I agree, the big companies are a major source of my concern.... Also the whole food pyramid? Why do people follow such an unhealthy biased model? I mean don't people look into what causes health and further performance for themselves?
You are a tad out of date: yanks haven't had the Food Pyramid since 2005, the next incarnation MyPyramid was superceded a couple of years ago by MyPlate. Your healthy eating guidelines are not intended to represent optimal nutrition any more than ours are, they are supposed to reduce risk factors, get intake of all nutrients up to minimum levels and be realistic/ achievable considering what the average citizen is eating.
Have you seen the stats for obesity, lifestyle disease, fruit and veg intake, oily fish consumption? No the general public don't look into health and performance for themselves - at least here in the UK most new clients I see don't even know what all our healthy eating guidelines are despite them being dumbed down. Since you didn't even know you now have MyPlate you are not really in a position to be critical.
You aren't 100% correct. Since you don't live in the U.S. don't assume what is and isn't on the T.V. They still show commercials of the Food Pyramid on the T.V. here in the U.S. While yes they are showing MyPlate in some doctor office waiting rooms, the fact is that the Food Pyramid is still being shown on Nick Jr., during Saturday morning T.V. and sometimes during normal adult programming.0 -
Do either of you two gentlemen have any connection to the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry? As I said in my most recent post, it really is NOT a conspiracy. People tend to believe what they want to believe---and you both are welcome to believe anything you like. But how about you tone down the swearing and blustering, Robyn?
Look, none of what I write on these forums is designed to be personal attacks. I point out misinformation where I find it.
In response to your specific comments 1. Not a gentleman. 2. I am indeed a scientist, so yes I am quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Having found all of my colleagues to be hard-working, honest people dedicated to advancing understanding of science, I will most certainly defend my and their reputation against misinformation and histrionic misinterpretations such as that which I find in the original post. 3. Unless we are using rather different definitions, there is no swearing in my reply.
Our opinions on what constitutes swearing apparently differ. In any case, there is no reason to be so testy. Since you are "indeed a scientist...quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry..." perhaps you would like to explain this (and believe me, this is just the tip of the ice berg) article on Aricept 23? http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2011/07210/Medical_Watchdog_Groups_Asks_FDA_to_Withdraw.3.aspx
I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone in the pharmaceutical industry is high-minded and principled. Otherwise, the companies wouldn't be so often fined for outrageous breaches of the best interests of the public.
What does an article on an Alzheimer's drug have to do with cholesterol and saturated fat?
Also looking for part of article where Drug was pulled and accusations against scientists were proven....Here's a quote from the article.
“I would argue that the hypothesis has been proven. There clearly is a treatment signal, particularly in the US population, where significant treatment effects were seen for both the cognitive and global measures. The effect is modest, but this study would suggest that additional drug does provide additional benefit for some patients.”
Quoting an independent fact-finder, a neurology professor in Indiana.
Did you read the article?
But thank you for the information. It might come in handy when talking to friends and colleagues who have parents facing this dreaded disease who may benefit from the higher dose of Aricept. :flowerforyou:0 -
From what I have read about saturated fat--in the studies that the American Heart Association adopted the research didn't separate the effects of trans fats and saturated fats. Later research showed that trans fats were the cuprit in heart disease but a lot of the medical community still hasn't changed their stance.0
-
you lost me at Mercola...
Again---these are not Mercola's opinions being expressed in this interview---but rather those of a credentialed medical researcher--a Ph.D. in nutrition science. You people need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and instead focus on what is actually being said.
^ Our refusal to give Mercola or his associates any credence aren't knee jerk reactions. We have decided to stop listening to people who consistently post nonsense though.
I think the researcher in the interview put his finger on part of the problem of resistance to change in the medical community. It often is not about money among scientists, for example. People who have spent a great deal of their career responding to what they believe is a certain truth, are resistant to change their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts that position. The pharmaceutical executives, on the other hand, likely operate much more from a profit-motive than the scientists. The bottom line of the corporation is their responsibility and sometimes rules and moral principles get bent in the pursuit of that fat bottom line. Thus the fines that they pay on a regular basis. Now, try to tell me that this is not true.0 -
You aren't 100% correct. Since you don't live in the U.S. don't assume what is and isn't on the T.V. They still show commercials of the Food Pyramid on the T.V. here in the U.S. While yes they are showing MyPlate in some doctor office waiting rooms, the fact is that the Food Pyramid is still being shown on Nick Jr., during Saturday morning T.V. and sometimes during normal adult programming.
Where has commercial television come into the discussion?? Since when is Nick Jr a more reliable source of information on what the US government's current healthy eating guidelines are than ... the US government? Your official guidelines HAVE changed to MyPlate and haven't had the old Food Pyramid since 2005. A quick Google suggests Nick Jr heavily invested in the Food Pyramid by linking in with its programming maybe that is why they are reluctant to move on.0 -
Couldn't you just stop eating cholesterol in order to reduce it?0
-
Couldn't you just stop eating cholesterol in order to reduce it?
No.0 -
Do either of you two gentlemen have any connection to the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry? As I said in my most recent post, it really is NOT a conspiracy. People tend to believe what they want to believe---and you both are welcome to believe anything you like. But how about you tone down the swearing and blustering, Robyn?
Look, none of what I write on these forums is designed to be personal attacks. I point out misinformation where I find it.
In response to your specific comments 1. Not a gentleman. 2. I am indeed a scientist, so yes I am quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Having found all of my colleagues to be hard-working, honest people dedicated to advancing understanding of science, I will most certainly defend my and their reputation against misinformation and histrionic misinterpretations such as that which I find in the original post. 3. Unless we are using rather different definitions, there is no swearing in my reply.
Our opinions on what constitutes swearing apparently differ. In any case, there is no reason to be so testy. Since you are "indeed a scientist...quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry..." perhaps you would like to explain this (and believe me, this is just the tip of the ice berg) article on Aricept 23? http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2011/07210/Medical_Watchdog_Groups_Asks_FDA_to_Withdraw.3.aspx
I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone in the pharmaceutical industry is high-minded and principled. Otherwise, the companies wouldn't be so often fined for outrageous breaches of the best interests of the public.
What does an article on an Alzheimer's drug have to do with cholesterol and saturated fat?
Also looking for part of article where Drug was pulled and accusations against scientists were proven....Here's a quote from the article.
“I would argue that the hypothesis has been proven. There clearly is a treatment signal, particularly in the US population, where significant treatment effects were seen for both the cognitive and global measures. The effect is modest, but this study would suggest that additional drug does provide additional benefit for some patients.”
Quoting an independent fact-finder, a neurology professor in Indiana.
Did you read the article?
But thank you for the information. It might come in handy when talking to friends and colleagues who have parents facing this dreaded disease who may benefit from the higher dose of Aricept. :flowerforyou:
The negative effects significantly outweigh any possible positive effects. Apparently, the internet has been scrubbed of anything negative on Aricept 23 except for this article. Why would a drug "watchdog group" be urging the FDA to take the drug off the market if there was much of a benefit? At the very least, a warning should have been sent out to prescribing physicians. Patients have bled to death on the drug. That was already a problem with the lower doses (10 mg. and 15 mg.). Critics in the medical community have surmised the dosage of 23 mg. was specifically formulated in order to avoid the prescribing of 10 and 15 mg. generic dosages (Aricept 10 mg. and 15 mg patents were expiring). $$$ Ka-ching!0 -
I wish people wouldn't post as if what happens in the US is what happens in the rest of the world, Big Pharma and lobbyists might control things in your country but not mine. We have NICE, the national health service and local panels deciding what drugs go onto formulary at our hospitals and GP practices based on the research. You had the opportunity for sea change if 'Obama Care' had gone through in its original form, instead of being blocked and diluted to nothing.
Part of the reason statins are so widely used is because doctors are lazy at pushing lifestyle modification and patients are completely resistant to taking responsibility for their own wellbeing. You only have to look at this forum to see how few people meet all the healthy living guidelines of their own country, the stats on obesity, smoking and lifestyle disease, numbers of servings of fruit and veggies and oily fish consumed in western nations. The information on nutrition and physical activity for general and cardiovascular health is freely available online, perhaps we need to be laying the blame and seeking solutions a little closer to home?
Here we go... my country is better than yours.....:)0 -
Our opinions on what constitutes swearing apparently differ. In any case, there is no reason to be so testy. Since you are "indeed a scientist...quite closely connected to the medical and pharmaceutical industry..." perhaps you would like to explain this (and believe me, this is just the tip of the ice berg) article on Aricept 23? http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2011/07210/Medical_Watchdog_Groups_Asks_FDA_to_Withdraw.3.aspx
I hate to burst your bubble but not everyone in the pharmaceutical industry is high-minded and principled. Otherwise, the companies wouldn't be so often fined for outrageous breaches of the best interests of the public.
I am happy to.
The article you link to is a report of a dispute between a drug maker, the FDA and a public advocacy group. A pharmaceutical company that brings a drug to market can patent that formulation for a number of years. This monopoly is to reward the large expense of research, testing and clinical trials that are largely borne by the company prior to any profit being made by them.
After some years, the patent expires and any other manufactures can make that same formulation. It is standard practice for companies to try to extend the patent by reformulating or redosing the drug, and re-patenting it (which is ethically pretty dubious but an unfortunate reality of the economics involved) . In order to do this, they need to show at least that the new formulation is as effective as the old one. The company here attempted instead to show that their increased dosage is not only AS effective, it is more effective.
Now, that is more than they are minimally required to do, and they managed to show this in only a very weak way. Their assertions rest on fairly weak statistical support (I also work as a biostatistician, and I probably wouldn't have gone with what they say!). However, had they aimed lower, they would have succeeded.
The FDA approved the new drug (quite acceptably, based on their guidelines), but there was later a protest by a consumer group suggesting this was incorrect. I am not privy to the details of the approval process for this drug, nor can I access the clinical trial results (I could do, if I had a genuine scientific cause or need, but I will not do so for the sake of a forum post). So I'm not sure which party is correct. This correcting process is pretty standard in drug approval proceedings though, it is common for drugs to be approved and then later shown to be ineffective - approval is biased somewhat toward the goal of getting effective drugs to patients as fast as possible. Long-term, follow-up studies done approval are often more rigorous and use large samples, because testing approved drugs for efficacy is easier.
About the ethical issues - I think it's no secret that the company is seeking to maximise profit, and for scientists who work in their employ, this is often a difficult conflict of interest. Scientists generally contend that they will pursue their studies with no regard to the company's interests, and the companies are supposed to accept that.
It's far from perfect, but the reality is that developing drugs is extremely expensive and beyond the investment justifiable by government agencies (who support basic research but usually not projects explicitly aimed at drug-discovery or patenting).
So yes, there are unscrupulous companies, and certainly there are also unscrupulous scientists, but on the whole most of us are pretty decent people who get annoyed at seeing their hard work and efforts dismissed by people who assume we're all out to harm people.0 -
I've just bought some ghee, organic butter, lard and duck fat so I hope saturated fat doesn't raise cholesterol.0
-
Robyn, you said: "So yes, there are unscrupulous companies, and certainly there are also unscrupulous scientists, but on the whole most of us are pretty decent people who get annoyed at seeing their hard work and efforts dismissed by people who assume we're all out to harm people."
I would agree that most scientists are "decent people" and I can understand their annoyance with those who accuse them of being out to harm people. However, what the researcher has cited as bias to change definitely operates in the scientific community---as well it should. Not everything "new" is correct. The history of science is replete with many "blind alleys". What bothers me most (and I suspect that it bothers you as well) is that the profit-motive frequently blocks the progress of science.0 -
The negative effects significantly outweigh any possible positive effects. Apparently, the internet has been scrubbed of anything negative on Aricept 23 except for this article. Why would a drug "watchdog group" be urging the FDA to take the drug off the market if there was much of a benefit. At the very least, a warning should have been sent out to prescribing physicians. Patients have bled to death on the drug.
No offense but you don't seem to know much about how the pharmaceutical industry works, why drugs are licensed or withdrawn. Every prescription only drug on the market has potentially serious or fatal side effects, every drug has patients who died whilst on it. Plenty of people have died accidentally or deliberately overdosing on acetaminophen (paracetamol), the therapeutic window is small and many healthcare professionals hold that it would never be licensed as a new drug today.
Where necessary doctors, pharmacists and patients ARE warned by articles in medical/ pharmaceutical journals, leaflets in the drug packaging, entries in pharmacopeias and other reference texts. Here in the UK we have the British National Formulary of which a new print edition is released by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society twice a year and the online edition revised monthly, I don't know what your US equivalent is but I'd take a bet you have one.0 -
I wish people wouldn't post as if what happens in the US is what happens in the rest of the world, Big Pharma and lobbyists might control things in your country but not mine. We have NICE, the national health service and local panels deciding what drugs go onto formulary at our hospitals and GP practices based on the research. You had the opportunity for sea change if 'Obama Care' had gone through in its original form, instead of being blocked and diluted to nothing.
Part of the reason statins are so widely used is because doctors are lazy at pushing lifestyle modification and patients are completely resistant to taking responsibility for their own wellbeing. You only have to look at this forum to see how few people meet all the healthy living guidelines of their own country, the stats on obesity, smoking and lifestyle disease, numbers of servings of fruit and veggies and oily fish consumed in western nations. The information on nutrition and physical activity for general and cardiovascular health is freely available online, perhaps we need to be laying the blame and seeking solutions a little closer to home?
As an American, and as a doctor, I couldn't have stated it better.....0 -
I wish people wouldn't post as if what happens in the US is what happens in the rest of the world, Big Pharma and lobbyists might control things in your country but not mine. We have NICE, the national health service and local panels deciding what drugs go onto formulary at our hospitals and GP practices based on the research. You had the opportunity for sea change if 'Obama Care' had gone through in its original form, instead of being blocked and diluted to nothing.
Part of the reason statins are so widely used is because doctors are lazy at pushing lifestyle modification and patients are completely resistant to taking responsibility for their own wellbeing. You only have to look at this forum to see how few people meet all the healthy living guidelines of their own country, the stats on obesity, smoking and lifestyle disease, numbers of servings of fruit and veggies and oily fish consumed in western nations. The information on nutrition and physical activity for general and cardiovascular health is freely available online, perhaps we need to be laying the blame and seeking solutions a little closer to home?
As an American, and as a doctor, I couldn't have stated it better.....
Yes---this is no doubt true, but there is SO much conflicting information that it is difficult to sift out the truth. My FP just tells everyone to "...avoid sugar, eat lots of vegetables and lean protein and some fruit and a tiny amount of non-wheat grain" on the dietary end and to "...find a vigorous activity that you like to do and stick with it a couple of times a week" on the exercise end. He assures that "Hey, no one lives forever but at least the time you have here will be healthier." I think that is probably wise counsel. 0 -
you lost me at Mercola...
Again---these are not Mercola's opinions being expressed in this interview---but rather those of a credentialed medical researcher--a Ph.D. in nutrition science. You people need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and instead focus on what is actually being said.
^ Our refusal to give Mercola or his associates any credence aren't knee jerk reactions. We have decided to stop listening to people who consistently post nonsense though.
I think the researcher in the interview put his finger on part of the problem of resistance to change in the medical community. It often is not about money among scientists, for example. People who have spent a great deal of their career responding to what they believe is a certain truth, are resistant to change their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts that position. The pharmaceutical executives, on the other hand, likely operate much more from a profit-motive than the scientists. The bottom line of the corporation is their responsibility and sometimes rules and moral principles get bent in the pursuit of that fat bottom line. Thus the fines that they pay on a regular basis. Now, try to tell me that this is not true.
Please read my answer directly above this nonsense. It still holds true.0 -
Yes---this is no doubt true, but there is SO much conflicting information that it is difficult to sift out the truth. My FP just tells everyone to "...avoid sugar, eat lots of vegetables and lean protein and some fruit and a tiny amount of non-wheat grain" on the dietary end and to "...find a vigorous activity that you like to do and stick with it a couple of times a week" on the exercise end. He assures that "Hey, no one lives forever but at least the time you have here will be healthier." I think that is probably wise counsel.
All you need to do is learn to distinguish between a reasonable source and a biased or dodgy one. Good sources on nutrition and dietetics could include university lecture notes, health charity websites, vegetarian and vegan societies, PubMed, Google Scholar, many government sites, UK national health service, textbooks that would be acceptable at degree level/ decent publishing house. Less trustworthy are anything that is selling a book or product, commercial diet books especially those written by journalists and 'alternative' health practitioners, random blogs especially those with adverts, any system that tells you to cut out multiple food groups especially if it doesn't clearly specify the alternative real foods that you will need to eat more of, any diet that needs supplements. Stuff like Wikipedia, Livestrong and Marks Daily Apple are patchy on quality to say the least.
The official healthy eating and lifestyle guidelines are not perfect, but they do give you a balance of all the nutrients you need for health. If you have to or choose to cut out one group - you want to be vegetarian or are diagnosed intolerant to dairy or wheat - then research exactly what nutrients you will be losing and what other foods they are found in. So if you cut back hard on grains you MUST eat a lot more beans, lentils, nuts or seeds for the minerals and fibre. Many people imagine they will get all the nutrients they need from meat and veggies but that is simply not the case.
Physical activity wise get your 10,000 steps every day, then add in more intense stuff a couple of times a week if you can make time. Research suggests the steps are more important for health: the human body evolved to move on a daily basis, it needs to move for optimum function and that reduces your risk of a raft of diseases, it doesn't actually need to be fit or to formally exercise to be healthy.0 -
In your mind the only thing in the world that is inflammatory is gluten, is that what your saying?
I'm pretty sure there's not a lot of depth of knowledge here and basically just repeating the comfort of the status quo.Well not in those big amounts....
It also has ben medically proven as to the reason we need heart bypass surgery....
Yes, your body NEEDS both of those... but like the saying goes, too much of a good thing can kill you!
While the research paper is good, the medical field has done extensive research into the cause of certain ailments and high levels have increased risk.
Your study is like the cigarette company trying to promote tobacco....
It needs time, research and multiple studies to be conclusive. Also needs to have a sterile and controlled test environment eliminating outside factors.
It has never been proven that Cholesterol and Saturated fat causes Heart Disease.
It has been proven that inflammation is what causes us to have the need for bypass surgery.
So then if inflammation is the cause we should eliminate gluten based products entirely?
As in every study gluten has shown to increase inflammatory response in humans even if minute, it can produce a severe reaction..
So is that what your saying? Essentially eliminate gluten and you wont have CVD at all?
No not at all, but the most immediate change anyone can make is eliminating gluten. Very simple and has proven benefits including reduced inflammation.
Reaching a bit, aren't we.0 -
you lost me at Mercola...
Again---these are not Mercola's opinions being expressed in this interview---but rather those of a credentialed medical researcher--a Ph.D. in nutrition science. You people need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and instead focus on what is actually being said.
^ Our refusal to give Mercola or his associates any credence aren't knee jerk reactions. We have decided to stop listening to people who consistently post nonsense though.
I think the researcher in the interview put his finger on part of the problem of resistance to change in the medical community. It often is not about money among scientists, for example. People who have spent a great deal of their career responding to what they believe is a certain truth, are resistant to change their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts that position. The pharmaceutical executives, on the other hand, likely operate much more from a profit-motive than the scientists. The bottom line of the corporation is their responsibility and sometimes rules and moral principles get bent in the pursuit of that fat bottom line. Thus the fines that they pay on a regular basis. Now, try to tell me that this is not true.
Please read my answer directly above this nonsense. It still holds true.
No, it does not. Many scientists have cited exactly the same thing as Dr. Masterjohn and the history of science illustrates the prejudice of prevailing opinion against anything new (see, as an example, the resistance of Hungarian surgeons to Joseph Lister's proposition that surgeons should wash their hands between patients). But hey--you are welcome to believe anything you want.0 -
Yes---this is no doubt true, but there is SO much conflicting information that it is difficult to sift out the truth. My FP just tells everyone to "...avoid sugar, eat lots of vegetables and lean protein and some fruit and a tiny amount of non-wheat grain" on the dietary end and to "...find a vigorous activity that you like to do and stick with it a couple of times a week" on the exercise end. He assures that "Hey, no one lives forever but at least the time you have here will be healthier." I think that is probably wise counsel.
All you need to do is learn to distinguish between a reasonable source and a biased or dodgy one. Good sources on nutrition and dietetics could include university lecture notes, health charity websites, vegetarian and vegan societies, PubMed, Google Scholar, many government sites, UK national health service, textbooks that would be acceptable at degree level/ decent publishing house. Less trustworthy are anything that is selling a book or product, commercial diet books especially those written by journalists and 'alternative' health practitioners, random blogs especially those with adverts, any system that tells you to cut out multiple food groups especially if it doesn't clearly specify the alternative real foods that you will need to eat more of, any diet that needs supplements. Stuff like Wikipedia, Livestrong and Marks Daily Apple are patchy on quality to say the least.
The official healthy eating and lifestyle guidelines are not perfect, but they do give you a balance of all the nutrients you need for health. If you have to or choose to cut out one group - you want to be vegetarian or are diagnosed intolerant to dairy or wheat - then research exactly what nutrients you will be losing and what other foods they are found in. So if you cut back hard on grains you MUST eat a lot more beans, lentils, nuts or seeds for the minerals and fibre. Many people imagine they will get all the nutrients they need from meat and veggies but that is simply not the case.
Physical activity wise get your 10,000 steps every day, then add in more intense stuff a couple of times a week if you can make time. Research suggests the steps are more important for health: the human body evolved to move on a daily basis, it needs to move for optimum function and that reduces your risk of a raft of diseases, it doesn't actually need to be fit or to formally exercise to be healthy.
I agree that popular commercial websites are not always the best of sources for truth. But I also think that everyone is different. A diet that is very beneficial to me may not be so great for someone else. Walking is problematic for me as I have osteoarthritis--but pool exercise is ideal and has helped me a great deal. Life, in all its complexities, resists a "one-size fits all recipe" and it behooves all of us to take responsibility for researching and finding our own health truths. So far, I have found only one thing that seems to be a universal health no-no and that is sugar consumption. Fat or thin, sugar represents empty calories and no one needs that.0 -
I agree that popular commercial websites are not always the best of sources for truth. But I also think that everyone is different. A diet that is very beneficial to me may not be so great for someone else. Walking is problematic for me as I have osteoarthritis--but pool exercise is ideal and has helped me a great deal. Life, in all its complexities, resists a "one-size fits all recipe" and it behooves all of us to take responsibility for researching and finding our own health truths. So far, I have found only one thing that seems to be a universal health no-no and that is sugar consumption. Fat or thin, sugar represents empty calories and no one needs that.
Once you have a basic understanding of nutrition and dietetics from trustworthy and unbiased sources you can, if you so choose, critique commercial diets which you may note that I merely described as 'less trustworthy' rather than dismissing them all out of hand. There is a lot more flexibility within the full healthy eating guidelines than many people imagine, and its not at all difficult to adapt them whilst remaining within the spirit - I do it regularly for nutrition clients who are vegetarian, want to avoid grains, have a health condition like type 2 diabetes and so on. I don't see them as being one size fits all at all - many of the guidelines are ranges, minimums and maximums not absolutes and there are many different foods to choose from within each group.0 -
I agree that popular commercial websites are not always the best of sources for truth. But I also think that everyone is different. A diet that is very beneficial to me may not be so great for someone else. Walking is problematic for me as I have osteoarthritis--but pool exercise is ideal and has helped me a great deal. Life, in all its complexities, resists a "one-size fits all recipe" and it behooves all of us to take responsibility for researching and finding our own health truths. So far, I have found only one thing that seems to be a universal health no-no and that is sugar consumption. Fat or thin, sugar represents empty calories and no one needs that.
Once you have a basic understanding of nutrition and dietetics from trustworthy and unbiased sources you can, if you so choose, critique commercial diets which you may note that I merely described as 'less trustworthy' rather than dismissing them all out of hand. There is a lot more flexibility within the full healthy eating guidelines than many people imagine, and its not at all difficult to adapt them whilst remaining within the spirit - I do it regularly for nutrition clients who are vegetarian, want to avoid grains, have a health condition like type 2 diabetes and so on. I don't see them as being one size fits all at all - many of the guidelines are ranges, minimums and maximums not absolutes and there are many different foods to choose from within each group.
We are agreed. One problem that I have with eating a lot of grain is its phytic acid content and its role in blocking mineral absorption. I must limit my consumption of nuts for the same reason (also they are very high in calories, but I do eat some just about every day). I apparently have a high need for both calcium and magnesium. Calcium is not as difficult to get as is magnesium but I deal with my magnesium deficiency (I have had it tested) by taking Epsom salts baths and using magnesium oil rubs after a workout and a shower.0 -
you lost me at Mercola...
Again---these are not Mercola's opinions being expressed in this interview---but rather those of a credentialed medical researcher--a Ph.D. in nutrition science. You people need to stop with the knee-jerk reactions and instead focus on what is actually being said.
^ Our refusal to give Mercola or his associates any credence aren't knee jerk reactions. We have decided to stop listening to people who consistently post nonsense though.
I think the researcher in the interview put his finger on part of the problem of resistance to change in the medical community. It often is not about money among scientists, for example. People who have spent a great deal of their career responding to what they believe is a certain truth, are resistant to change their minds when confronted with evidence that contradicts that position. The pharmaceutical executives, on the other hand, likely operate much more from a profit-motive than the scientists. The bottom line of the corporation is their responsibility and sometimes rules and moral principles get bent in the pursuit of that fat bottom line. Thus the fines that they pay on a regular basis. Now, try to tell me that this is not true.
Please read my answer directly above this nonsense. It still holds true.
No, it does not. Many scientists have cited exactly the same thing as Dr. Masterjohn and the history of science illustrates the prejudice of prevailing opinion against anything new (see, as an example, the resistance of Hungarian surgeons to Joseph Lister's proposition that surgeons should wash their hands between patients). But hey--you are welcome to believe anything you want.
We aren't studying the history of science here. You have some very general notions and are applying them to some very broad conclusions. I have a limited amount of time to spend studying and debating nutrition so I avoid anything having to do with Mercola. Sorry, but reputation matters and his frankly is that he's a whack job.0 -
http://www.thincs.org/news.htm
Not everyone on the medical industry agree that cholesterol is related to increased risk of heart attack. Also see Framington Study.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions