A holistic approach to nutrition

2»

Replies

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • ClubSilencio
    ClubSilencio Posts: 2,983 Member
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    cushman5279 wrote: »
    Of course I make my own determination based on the information presented to me and I keep in mind the source e.g., anything backed by a profitable organization, big pharma or any conglomerate that has ties to government, media or lobbyists I only take with a grain of salt.

    I hope you're taking everything else with a grain of salt as well. Some of the most-cited (by non-academics) studies are terrible. The China Study, for example, is some of the worst "science" available related to plant-based diets, and the data in the "study" actually shows exactly the opposite of what the authors claim.

    It's entirely possible to be healthy on a plant-based diet. It's entirely possible to be healthy on an omnivorous diet. If health is your goal, then everything you're doing is pointless. If the ethics involved in using animals for food is what's driving you, then you're doing everything right.

    Also, if epigeneticist Dr. Rhonda Patrick isn't among your sources, she should be.

    Good luck.

    The gal who debunked The China Study, Denise Minger, changed her stance and now agrees with all those doctors that a low-fat, high-carb diet can reverse heart disease. Check that blog you linked... the entry was from late last year.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    ClubSilencio wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    cushman5279 wrote: »
    Of course I make my own determination based on the information presented to me and I keep in mind the source e.g., anything backed by a profitable organization, big pharma or any conglomerate that has ties to government, media or lobbyists I only take with a grain of salt.

    I hope you're taking everything else with a grain of salt as well. Some of the most-cited (by non-academics) studies are terrible. The China Study, for example, is some of the worst "science" available related to plant-based diets, and the data in the "study" actually shows exactly the opposite of what the authors claim.

    It's entirely possible to be healthy on a plant-based diet. It's entirely possible to be healthy on an omnivorous diet. If health is your goal, then everything you're doing is pointless. If the ethics involved in using animals for food is what's driving you, then you're doing everything right.

    Also, if epigeneticist Dr. Rhonda Patrick isn't among your sources, she should be.

    Good luck.

    The gal who debunked The China Study, Denise Minger, changed her stance and now agrees with all those doctors that a low-fat, high-carb diet can reverse heart disease. Check that blog you linked... the entry was from late last year.

    We have low carbers saying carbs are bad for your heart, we have high carbers saying fat is bad for your heart. At least one of them has to be wrong.

    My take is both are wrong, as it's your whole overall diet that's important and not just broad "Fat bad" or "carbs bad" swings.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    ClubSilencio wrote: »
    xmichaelyx wrote: »
    cushman5279 wrote: »
    Of course I make my own determination based on the information presented to me and I keep in mind the source e.g., anything backed by a profitable organization, big pharma or any conglomerate that has ties to government, media or lobbyists I only take with a grain of salt.

    I hope you're taking everything else with a grain of salt as well. Some of the most-cited (by non-academics) studies are terrible. The China Study, for example, is some of the worst "science" available related to plant-based diets, and the data in the "study" actually shows exactly the opposite of what the authors claim.

    It's entirely possible to be healthy on a plant-based diet. It's entirely possible to be healthy on an omnivorous diet. If health is your goal, then everything you're doing is pointless. If the ethics involved in using animals for food is what's driving you, then you're doing everything right.

    Also, if epigeneticist Dr. Rhonda Patrick isn't among your sources, she should be.

    Good luck.

    The gal who debunked The China Study, Denise Minger, changed her stance and now agrees with all those doctors that a low-fat, high-carb diet can reverse heart disease. Check that blog you linked... the entry was from late last year.

    We have low carbers saying carbs are bad for your heart, we have high carbers saying fat is bad for your heart. At least one of them has to be wrong.

    My take is both are wrong, as it's your whole overall diet that's important and not just broad "Fat bad" or "carbs bad" swings.

    I tend to agree with this, but it's also possible that both are right and our individual genetics and physiology results in something being bad for one person while being ideal for another.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • zoeysasha37
    zoeysasha37 Posts: 7,088 Member
    Op can you go a little more in depth about your actual credentials ? There's online courses that anyone can take to earn this type of certification so I would like to know more about your credentials
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited April 2016
    This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • zoeysasha37
    zoeysasha37 Posts: 7,088 Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    Op can you go a little more in depth about your actual credentials ? There's online courses that anyone can take to earn this type of certification so I would like to know more about your credentials

    I don't know that OP's credentials, but for sure. I see groupon deals for a certification in nutrition all the day. It is usually a downloadable book and then I pay 35 bucks.

    It is always why I encourage anyone who wants guidance and advice from a professional to go to a dietitian and not a nutritionalist.

    Yep ! That's why I was asking. They have all types of online classes and IRL seminars that would earn someone a "certificate" and each of them are as meaningless as the next.

    Its just another way for a business to make money. The truly sad thing is that these people really believe what they have been taught and go around spreading lots of misinformation.

    You and I @shell1005 can easily spot it but I do feel feel terrible for newcomers that may not be able to. People come on here not knowing much about fitness or nutrition and are grasping onto any bit of info they read. Its a shame when that info is wrong .

  • tincanonastring
    tincanonastring Posts: 3,944 Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    BecomingBane wrote: »
    cushman5279 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Back when you were tracking your macros at the beginning, what were they?

    Carbs @ 40% (110g)
    Fat @ 30% (20g)
    Protein @ 30% (31g)

    Wait... can I not math? That's only 744 kcal

    I am gonna hope and pray that those calorie counts are inaccurate.

    They have been historically accurate, IIRC.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    edited April 2016
    stevencloser wrote: »
    We have low carbers saying carbs are bad for your heart, we have high carbers saying fat is bad for your heart. At least one of them has to be wrong.

    I thought Denise Minger was proposing that either end works well but the middle is where you don't want to be.

    the_magical_graph-800x469.jpg
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Sounds dumb. Like a poison that stops being dangerous when you chug 5 times the dangerous amount.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    edited April 2016
    Also, it would be more accurate like this:

    e8zHaqG.png

    And then you realize that far more likely than there being juuuust the right window at very low amounts and very high amounts, would be there being no "swampland" and it actually being totally fine being anywhere within the region as long as you don't get deficient in something because of it.

    And I was being generous with the red zones here. 5% fat would be 11 grams at a 2000 kcal diet.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Sounds dumb. Like a poison that stops being dangerous when you chug 5 times the dangerous amount.

    not really, that's only considering one element of the diet when others respond to the change. A level of fat intake is accompanied by a level of carbohydrate intake, so changing fat changes carbs and the outcome may depend on either factor or both, not just the one you set out to change. If you were considering a toxic substance like say arsenic then adding that wouldn't change the amount of other things, so you would see a simple dose response.

    As an example, the saturated fat content of the bloodstream isn't strongly related to the saturated fat content of the diet. So if the latter is going to affect "health" what's the mechanism. If a very low fat diet results in more DNL to store the carb intake, does the body actually see a difference in circulating lipids compared to a higher fat diet ?

    The diagram wasn't about deficiency it was about heart health.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    I don't think a consistent protein deficiency would be good for heart (a muscle) health.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    65% fat doesn't require a protein deficiency, 85% might
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    That's why I didn't put my line at 65% but somewhere on 90%.
    Personally, I still think 65% is too much, and
    http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/in-depth/heart-healthy-diet/art-20047702
    lists lots of things that are beneficial to heart health that get increasingly harder to achieve the higher your fat percentage is.
  • RWClary
    RWClary Posts: 192 Member
    edited April 2016
    cushman5279 wrote: »
    I am not saying it works for everyone. It just worked for me and I wanted to share in hopes that maybe it would help someone else.
    Sometimes we need to try things and just see.
    :)
    Meatless never really did anything for me.
    I just accept that nature is designed a certain way, and for us to live, things must die, including animals.
    That's nature. You don't get around that. We're all killers of either plants or animals. Most of us kill both.

    I did cut out most grains and processed foods, and that made a huge difference in how I felt moving forward.
    To each his own, and good luck to you!
  • BoxerBrawler
    BoxerBrawler Posts: 2,032 Member
    Anyway... I've been away for a few days so please forgive my delay in responding. I am not sure I will go back and respond to every single comment here. Thanks to those who are genuinely interested in learning about new paths to health and wellness. Again, I stress that I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, to each their own, it just worked out wonderfully for me and I enjoy sharing personal experience.

    As for my credentials, I am currently enrolled in a legitimate state run educational program for nutrition counseling. It is not an on-line program, it's not a Beach Body coaching program. Like with everything I did careful and thoughtful research before choosing a program that was not only legitimate but thorough and explored all aspects of nutrition from general biology to psychology to weight management to food science to sports and athletic nutrition to holistic nutrition to adolescent and elderly (and everyone in between) nutrition to death and dying. I have earned my nutrition counseling license after a lot of hard work and am currently at the end of holistic nutrition counseling module. Moving on to sports nutrition after that and so on. I earn a license after each module and once all of the modules are complete I take a state exam to earn my Master License.
  • BoxerBrawler
    BoxerBrawler Posts: 2,032 Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    thorsmom01 wrote: »
    Op can you go a little more in depth about your actual credentials ? There's online courses that anyone can take to earn this type of certification so I would like to know more about your credentials

    I don't know that OP's credentials, but for sure. I see groupon deals for a certification in nutrition all the day. It is usually a downloadable book and then I pay 35 bucks.

    It is always why I encourage anyone who wants guidance and advice from a professional to go to a dietitian and not a nutritionalist.

    I totally agree with that. I chose the path of nutritionist over dietitian simply because I enjoy working with people who are open to trying new and different things. I prefer the whole mind, body, activity, nutrition approach Vs. some of the strict dietician guidelines. Dieticians are critically important especially for those dealing with underlying disease or health issues :smile: Thanks for the comment and great point!

  • BoxerBrawler
    BoxerBrawler Posts: 2,032 Member
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    BecomingBane wrote: »
    cushman5279 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Back when you were tracking your macros at the beginning, what were they?

    Carbs @ 40% (110g)
    Fat @ 30% (20g)
    Protein @ 30% (31g)

    Wait... can I not math? That's only 744 kcal

    The ratios are all kittened up too

    Yes! My numbers are off... so sorry for the confusion there. It's difficult from an iPhone sometimes :smiley:

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories