Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
This decades “health woo”
Replies
-
Carnivore
Raw carnivore
Keto
Raw vegan
Gluten-free
Vegan for health (not saying it's unhealthy if done right, but there's no substantial evidence indicating it is inherently more healthy than a balanced diet comprised of mostly plant foods)
"Carbs are bad mmkay?" Yeah that's why almost every society in history (except for ones in areas where agriculture was difficult) ate foods high in carbs and obesity didn't become a problem until the past few decades...it couldn't possibly be our modern lifestyle!
Anti-GMO...I worked with many plant biologists back when I worked in labs and not a single one of them was concerned about GMOs.
Anti-soy...yeah soy is toxic, that's why Japanese people have the highest life expectancy in the world and a large proportion of the centenarians in the world and soy is a staple food for them (and they don't have man boobs either).Rickster1967 wrote: »sugar in itself is OK in small quantities is OK so those saying avoid it at all costs are woo
what is not woo is the clear link between the massive increase in the consumption of sugar, in the Standard Western/ American diet, over the last 60 years and the exponential rise in metabolic diseases
the graphs are virtually identical in their shape
It's really the massive increase in consumption of everything though. The average American eats 3600 cals/day (and the average American isn't doing hard labor or hard workouts either). The rise in obesity corresponded to food security and agricultural subsidies that made food very cheap and abundant. Pioneers ate a very similar diet to what we eat today with lots of sugar, refined grains, processed meat like bacon, and grease, and were not fat because they had to do a ton of manual labor for even basic tasks like laundry, and there were intermittent starvation periods.
10 -
Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.
They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.24 -
Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.
They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.
That isn't health related and you have never presented any peer-reviewed studies or other credible sources from qualified experts supporting your opinion. Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.15 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.
They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.
That isn't health related and you have never presented any peer-reviewed studies or other credible sources from qualified experts supporting your opinion. Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.
Because I want what to be so? I don't understand what you mean.
I see it as health related issue that EAT and the (Canadian) government are advising people to eat this way. If they have evidence to show that cutting back on meat and eggs is beneficial to health, which is arguably as good for people's health as possibly slightly improving the environment (rather than changing farming practices which may achieve many of the same environmental goals without depriving people of possible food sources and nutrition) I'd love to see it. The "planetary health diet" is a diet that is based on alarmist facts rather than nutrition. They focused on reducing meat intake rather than improving farming practices - seems odd.
The paper:
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4.pdf?utm_campaign=tleat19&utm_source=HubPage
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plant-focused-diet-would-transform-planets-future-say-scientists
"Globally, the diet requires red meat and sugar consumption to be cut by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. But in specific places the changes are stark. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines."
Advising me to eat more beans and lentils and nuts, and way less beef is ridiculous. I live in a semi arid grassland, near the Rockies in Canada, where those foods do not grow well but beef really does. So trucking in Brasil nuts or lentils makes more sense than changing how livestock is raised in some areas (ecologically perfect for grazers)? Flying in bananas and oranges, or even broccoli, in January is better for the environment than local milk? Nah.
Now reducing beef intake for more plant based foods in places like Brasil where grazers do not naturally exist, but the variety of plants they can grow is substantial, makes a lot more sense, IMO.
This diet is not focused on health. At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many. The 14% protein for the mid range that they recommend is lacking too.
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/14 -
Keto - Atkins yet again!
Paleo - Eat like an (affluent) caveman
Primal-The wimpy little brother of Paleo
Gluten sensitivity
Lectin sensitivity
Self-diagnosed Hashimoto's thyroiditis
Bone broth11 -
Not sure this fits but I am so over the smug good bodies on here (both boys and girls) who talk as if they only eat ice cream and pizza and as along as they do their "deads" they lose fat and add muscle. A great body is hard work and you do not get it by eating tons of junk food. Also the humble braggers on here make me want to vomit.
Agreed.18 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.
They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.
That isn't health related and you have never presented any peer-reviewed studies or other credible sources from qualified experts supporting your opinion. Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.
Because I want what to be so? I don't understand what you mean.
I see it as health related issue that EAT and the (Canadian) government are advising people to eat this way. If they have evidence to show that cutting back on meat and eggs is beneficial to health, which is arguably as good for people's health as possibly slightly improving the environment (rather than changing farming practices which may achieve many of the same environmental goals without depriving people of possible food sources and nutrition) I'd love to see it. The "planetary health diet" is a diet that is based on alarmist facts rather than nutrition. They focused on reducing meat intake rather than improving farming practices - seems odd.
The paper:
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4.pdf?utm_campaign=tleat19&utm_source=HubPage
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plant-focused-diet-would-transform-planets-future-say-scientists
"Globally, the diet requires red meat and sugar consumption to be cut by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. But in specific places the changes are stark. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines."
Advising me to eat more beans and lentils and nuts, and way less beef is ridiculous. I live in a semi arid grassland, near the Rockies in Canada, where those foods do not grow well but beef really does. So trucking in Brasil nuts or lentils makes more sense than changing how livestock is raised in some areas (ecologically perfect for grazers)? Flying in bananas and oranges, or even broccoli, in January is better for the environment than local milk? Nah.
Now reducing beef intake for more plant based foods in places like Brasil where grazers do not naturally exist, but the variety of plants they can grow is substantial, makes a lot more sense, IMO.
This diet is not focused on health. At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many. The 14% protein for the mid range that they recommend is lacking too.
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/
"Alarmist"...denier alert.
Once again where is the evidence that flying or shipping in produce has less of an impact than producing beef locally? Last time you made this argument I showed evidence refuting it which you ignored.
My husband and I eat a diet rich in plant foods and low in animal products (I'm pescetarian and was vegetarian and he has been vegetarian for 3.5 years). I have never been overweight in my life and I dont work out regularly. He used to be obese when he ate a meat heavy diet but has lost 50 pounds since switching to this diet. He is also training for a marathon, can run an under 5 minute mile, and can benchpress 200lbs, and he's almost 40. We also dont have any nutritional deficiencies or insulin resistance (I just got tested for it a few months ago).
Insulin resistance was not a major problem before the late 20th century or in countries without an overabundance of cheap food and a Western pattern diet even though most traditional cultures also ate diets high in carbs, in some cases even higher percentages than what we have in America. If a diet rich in carbs caused insulin resistance and obesity we would all be insulin resistant and obese throughout human history. Massively overeating, a society that encourages and sometimes mandates a sedentary lifestyle, and to a lesser extent eating too many refined carbs and sugars is the problem. Don't you think if we weren't meant to eat carbs it would not have taken us millions of years of evolution to figure it out?8 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.
They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.
That isn't health related and you have never presented any peer-reviewed studies or other credible sources from qualified experts supporting your opinion. Just because you want it to be so, doesn't make it so.
Because I want what to be so? I don't understand what you mean.
I see it as health related issue that EAT and the (Canadian) government are advising people to eat this way. If they have evidence to show that cutting back on meat and eggs is beneficial to health, which is arguably as good for people's health as possibly slightly improving the environment (rather than changing farming practices which may achieve many of the same environmental goals without depriving people of possible food sources and nutrition) I'd love to see it. The "planetary health diet" is a diet that is based on alarmist facts rather than nutrition. They focused on reducing meat intake rather than improving farming practices - seems odd.
The paper:
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4.pdf?utm_campaign=tleat19&utm_source=HubPage
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/16/new-plant-focused-diet-would-transform-planets-future-say-scientists
"Globally, the diet requires red meat and sugar consumption to be cut by half, while vegetables, fruit, pulses and nuts must double. But in specific places the changes are stark. North Americans need to eat 84% less red meat but six times more beans and lentils. For Europeans, eating 77% less red meat and 15 times more nuts and seeds meets the guidelines."
Advising me to eat more beans and lentils and nuts, and way less beef is ridiculous. I live in a semi arid grassland, near the Rockies in Canada, where those foods do not grow well but beef really does. So trucking in Brasil nuts or lentils makes more sense than changing how livestock is raised in some areas (ecologically perfect for grazers)? Flying in bananas and oranges, or even broccoli, in January is better for the environment than local milk? Nah.
Now reducing beef intake for more plant based foods in places like Brasil where grazers do not naturally exist, but the variety of plants they can grow is substantial, makes a lot more sense, IMO.
This diet is not focused on health. At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many. The 14% protein for the mid range that they recommend is lacking too.
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/01/the-eat-lancet-diet-is-nutritionally-deficient/
"Alarmist"...denier alert.
Once again where is the evidence that flying or shipping in produce has less of an impact than producing beef locally? Last time you made this argument I showed evidence refuting it which you ignored.
My husband and I eat a diet rich in plant foods and low in animal products (I'm pescetarian and was vegetarian and he has been vegetarian for 3.5 years). I have never been overweight in my life and I dont work out regularly. He used to be obese when he ate a meat heavy diet but has lost 50 pounds since switching to this diet. He is also training for a marathon, can run an under 5 minute mile, and can benchpress 200lbs, and he's almost 40. We also dont have any nutritional deficiencies or insulin resistance (I just got tested for it a few months ago).
Insulin resistance was not a major problem before the late 20th century or in countries without an overabundance of cheap food and a Western pattern diet even though most traditional cultures also ate diets high in carbs, in some cases even higher percentages than what we have in America. If a diet rich in carbs caused insulin resistance and obesity we would all be insulin resistant and obese throughout human history. Massively overeating, a society that encourages and sometimes mandates a sedentary lifestyle, and to a lesser extent eating too many refined carbs and sugars is the problem. Don't you think if we weren't meant to eat carbs it would not have taken us millions of years of evolution to figure it out?
Your arguments don't really address the issue. Flying and cars are huge sources of carbon emissions. Cows grazing on a pasture land (aka, carbon sink with no or little use of tractors) is a sound practice when compared to clear cutting forests in Brasil to raise cows in an area where they should not be. I looked at your evidence on our last debate. I did not ignore it. I dismissed it as weak and not relevant to what I was saying.
I also did not say vegetarianism is bad, nor that none should do it, or that it cannot be done healthfully. The fact that you and your husband do it and are healthy is awesome. My MIL and FIL are fat vegetarians of multiple years with health problems. When I was an undiagnosed celiac with developing IR (at a normal weight) I was running half marathons on the weekends, climbing mountains after work, and could bench press my weight. So what? n=1 means very little except that you found something that is working for you right now.
I agree that cheap, nutritionally lacking foods seem to correlate very strongly to poorer health. I agree that diets without (or at least restricting) highly refined grains and sugars is probably a healthier way to live for all. Do I agree that all should limit their meat to achieve that dietary restriction of avoiding refined and processed foods? No, and I'm not sure how that would even apply, TBH, unless you skip bacon and deli meat. Will all be healthier restricting animal products? No. My 14 year old son was prescribed more red meat by his doctor when his low iron levels would not improve - it worked. Realistically speaking, reducing animal products is not for all, or even most. I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better faring practices would either.
And I never said that humans in general are not meant to eat carbs. I have no idea where you got that. I think humans have evolved to eat appropriately to their environment, and eat almost anything. Some foods make more sense for some areas, especially for environmentally sound food production. Some foods make more sense for certain people too, like the Pima did poorly with western foods or that some do better with starches than sugars, and vice versa.
Another pro omnivore response
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/diagnosis-diet/201901/eat-lancets-plant-based-planet-10-things-you-need-know?utm_source=Diagnosis+Diet+Website+Subscribers&utm_campaign=83d4e3999b-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_19_07_44&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9c1de9d3bb-83d4e3999b-1118136819 -
Your arguments don't really address the issue. Flying and cars are huge sources of carbon emissions. Cows grazing on a pasture land (aka, carbon sink with no or little use of tractors) is a sound practice when compared to clear cutting forests in Brasil to raise cows in an area where they should not be. I looked at your evidence on our last debate. I did not ignore it. I dismissed it as weak and not relevant to what I was saying.
Except science says you are wrong and I posted research last time showing that even the most sustainably raised beef is worse for the environment than most other foods. You provided no evidence against it besides telling me to read a book by a beef farmer with no environmental science credentials.I also did not say vegetarianism is bad, nor that none should do it, or that it cannot be done healthfully. The fact that you and your husband do it and are healthy is awesome. My MIL and FIL are fat vegetarians of multiple years with health problems. When I was an undiagnosed celiac with developing IR (at a normal weight) I was running half marathons on the weekends, climbing mountains after work, and could bench press my weight. So what? n=1 means very little except that you found something that is working for you right now.
Of course you can be fat as a vegetarian if you eat too many calories. Of course you can develop insulin resistance if you eat a crappy diet (or even if you don't and have unlucky genes). It was just an example. I posted studies last time on the health of balanced diets that include healthy carbs. But you implied in your last post that eating carbs of any kind in significant quantity causes insulin resistance for a significant percentage of people and looking at the historical data that is simply not true. How do you explain the carb-heavy traditional diets of most of the world?My 14 year old son was prescribed more red meat by his doctor when his low iron levels would not improve - it worked.
That doesnt mean eat a diet comprised primarily of red meat which is what you advocate.Realistically speaking, reducing animal products is not for all, or even most.
Citation needed.I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better faring practices would either.
Citation needed.And I never said that humans in general are not meant to eat carbs. I have no idea where you got that.
You said eating diets with significant carbs does not work for people with insulin resistance.I think humans have evolved to eat appropriately to their environment, and eat almost anything.
Which is why you advocate a highly restricted diet of a few foods.
Also you can be an omnivore and not eat beef and still cut your food emissions by a huge amount just by giving up beef (and lamb) and still eating other meats. Even more so if you give up dairy also or even just the high impact dairy like cheese and Greek yogurt.
7 -
Anything that any MLM company/pyramid scheme tries to sell me. Yeah, I'm looking at you magical vitamin stickers, saran wrap and overpriced protein shakes. Seeing the people reach out for help with weight loss only to be met with pushy sales (wo)men who sense their vulnerability makes my blood boil.10
-
laurenq1991 wrote: »Your arguments don't really address the issue. Flying and cars are huge sources of carbon emissions. Cows grazing on a pasture land (aka, carbon sink with no or little use of tractors) is a sound practice when compared to clear cutting forests in Brasil to raise cows in an area where they should not be. I looked at your evidence on our last debate. I did not ignore it. I dismissed it as weak and not relevant to what I was saying.
Except science says you are wrong and I posted research last time showing that even the most sustainably raised beef is worse for the environment than most other foods. You provided no evidence against it besides telling me to read a book by a beef farmer with no environmental science credentials.I also did not say vegetarianism is bad, nor that none should do it, or that it cannot be done healthfully. The fact that you and your husband do it and are healthy is awesome. My MIL and FIL are fat vegetarians of multiple years with health problems. When I was an undiagnosed celiac with developing IR (at a normal weight) I was running half marathons on the weekends, climbing mountains after work, and could bench press my weight. So what? n=1 means very little except that you found something that is working for you right now.
Of course you can be fat as a vegetarian if you eat too many calories. Of course you can develop insulin resistance if you eat a crappy diet (or even if you don't and have unlucky genes). It was just an example. I posted studies last time on the health of balanced diets that include healthy carbs. But you implied in your last post that eating carbs of any kind in significant quantity causes insulin resistance for a significant percentage of people and looking at the historical data that is simply not true. How do you explain the carb-heavy traditional diets of most of the world?My 14 year old son was prescribed more red meat by his doctor when his low iron levels would not improve - it worked.
That doesnt mean eat a diet comprised primarily of red meat which is what you advocate.Realistically speaking, reducing animal products is not for all, or even most.
Citation needed.I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better faring practices would either.
Citation needed.And I never said that humans in general are not meant to eat carbs. I have no idea where you got that.
At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.I think humans have evolved to eat appropriately to their environment, and eat almost anything.
Which is why you advocate a highly restricted diet of a few foods.
Also you can be an omnivore and not eat beef and still cut your food emissions by a huge amount just by giving up beef (and lamb) and still eating other meats. Even more so if you give up dairy also or even just the high impact dairy like cheese and Greek yogurt.
You are misquoting me. badly. For the last time, I did not say that eating carbs of any kind in large quantities causes insulin resistance. Look at Ornish.
I did not say:You said eating diets with significant carbs does not work for people with insulin resistance.
I did say
And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them. I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda. Woo.
This is what EAT recommends:
More sugar than beef. LOL11 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »"Nutritional ketosis"
Paleo
Bulletproof coffee
Coconut oil
@bpetrosky since your posted your opinion here back in 2017 have you seen these trends increase or decrease?
Since Oct 2014 I have been been in Nutritional Ketosis most of the time and consumed many gallons of coconut oil only to see long term weight loss, better health and health markers at the age of 68 than decades ago. I have yet to find the medical facts that supports your personal opinion stated here. Do you have the number of deaths in the past decade reported in the world related to these four factors you mentioned back in 2017?
He didn't say they cause death, this thread is about health woo. Meaning, things that are attributed magical powers by the diet industry/media. Congrats on losing weight in the last year and reaping the benefits that typically come with successful weight loss :drinker:
@kimny72 I know nothing was about death but I took it that the thought was there was something unhealthy about the four things named. It is good to now know that was not the case.
Why do you think I lost weight last year? I have not lost any weight since July 2015 but I do continue to eat 3000+ calories daily as I started back in Oct 2014 when I got serious about the Keto WOE but a very slow reversal of the Ankylosing Spondylitis continues year by year along with improving health markers.
Woo's to me seem to be non medical public opinions for the most part unless backed up with science links and the experience and education of the poster so the validity of woo statements can be better ascertained.
To the bolded:
Ankylosing Spondylitis is a degenerative and progressive arthritic disease usually targeting the spine, and for which there is currently no cure. NSAIDS, biologics and exercise have been proven to slow the progression of A.S. as well as helping to manage the symptoms which include chronic, escalating pain and decrease in range of motion.
For you to state that keto is actually reversing your A.S. is disingenuous and misinformed. The best you can hope for is that your symptoms are being somewhat alleviated, but the disease itself is certainly not being reversed in your case.
Or mine.22 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »"Nutritional ketosis"
Paleo
Bulletproof coffee
Coconut oil
@bpetrosky since your posted your opinion here back in 2017 have you seen these trends increase or decrease?
Since Oct 2014 I have been been in Nutritional Ketosis most of the time and consumed many gallons of coconut oil only to see long term weight loss, better health and health markers at the age of 68 than decades ago. I have yet to find the medical facts that supports your personal opinion stated here. Do you have the number of deaths in the past decade reported in the world related to these four factors you mentioned back in 2017?
He didn't say they cause death, this thread is about health woo. Meaning, things that are attributed magical powers by the diet industry/media. Congrats on losing weight in the last year and reaping the benefits that typically come with successful weight loss :drinker:
@kimny72 I know nothing was about death but I took it that the thought was there was something unhealthy about the four things named. It is good to now know that was not the case.
Why do you think I lost weight last year? I have not lost any weight since July 2015 but I do continue to eat 3000+ calories daily as I started back in Oct 2014 when I got serious about the Keto WOE but a very slow reversal of the Ankylosing Spondylitis continues year by year along with improving health markers.
Woo's to me seem to be non medical public opinions for the most part unless backed up with science links and the experience and education of the poster so the validity of woo statements can be better ascertained.
To the bolded:
Ankylosing Spondylitis is a degenerative and progressive arthritic disease usually targeting the spine, and for which there is currently no cure. NSAIDS, biologics and exercise have been proven to slow the progression of A.S. as well as helping to manage the symptoms which include chronic, escalating pain and decrease in range of motion.
For you to state that keto is actually reversing your A.S. is disingenuous and misinformed. The best you can hope for is that your symptoms are being somewhat Italleviated, but the disease itself is certainly not being reversed in your case.
Or mine.
Thankfully you are incorrect at least in my case. You need to read up on mind over matter.27 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »"Nutritional ketosis"
Paleo
Bulletproof coffee
Coconut oil
@bpetrosky since your posted your opinion here back in 2017 have you seen these trends increase or decrease?
Since Oct 2014 I have been been in Nutritional Ketosis most of the time and consumed many gallons of coconut oil only to see long term weight loss, better health and health markers at the age of 68 than decades ago. I have yet to find the medical facts that supports your personal opinion stated here. Do you have the number of deaths in the past decade reported in the world related to these four factors you mentioned back in 2017?
He didn't say they cause death, this thread is about health woo. Meaning, things that are attributed magical powers by the diet industry/media. Congrats on losing weight in the last year and reaping the benefits that typically come with successful weight loss :drinker:
@kimny72 I know nothing was about death but I took it that the thought was there was something unhealthy about the four things named. It is good to now know that was not the case.
Why do you think I lost weight last year? I have not lost any weight since July 2015 but I do continue to eat 3000+ calories daily as I started back in Oct 2014 when I got serious about the Keto WOE but a very slow reversal of the Ankylosing Spondylitis continues year by year along with improving health markers.
Woo's to me seem to be non medical public opinions for the most part unless backed up with science links and the experience and education of the poster so the validity of woo statements can be better ascertained.
To the bolded:
Ankylosing Spondylitis is a degenerative and progressive arthritic disease usually targeting the spine, and for which there is currently no cure. NSAIDS, biologics and exercise have been proven to slow the progression of A.S. as well as helping to manage the symptoms which include chronic, escalating pain and decrease in range of motion.
For you to state that keto is actually reversing your A.S. is disingenuous and misinformed. The best you can hope for is that your symptoms are being somewhat Italleviated, but the disease itself is certainly not being reversed in your case.
Or mine.
Thankfully you are incorrect at least in my case. You need to read up on mind over matter.
What does my avatar have to do with your claim that keto is reversing/curing your Ankylosing Spondylitis? Or is this one of those the-mind-can-cure-all-illness things? If so, then keto has nothing to do with it?14 -
How do I pick?
Bullet-proof coffee and raw veganism. I say this as a vegan of 30+ years. I just see no ethical or nutritional reason to forswear cooking.3 -
I use to think it was just anything that Dr. OZ was hawking. But actually to me it is anything that Shark Tank is hawking. And they seem to be huge on KETO, but not like doing an actual lifestyle or way of eating. More like take 2 pills, or tablets and the Fat will just melt away.
Raspberry Ketone pills, more magic do nothing pills
Leaky Gut
And really my all time favorite, SLOW METABOLISM, with no health reason to back it. Meaning no tests have been done, often times person claiming has not seen a Dr. So it is just their sad excuse. Owning up is tough.
Thyroid conditions are real, but again you need to see a Dr. and often times get a bunch of pesky blood tests, and have the medication changed a bunch of times. And oh yeah, there is more than one test done for it.9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »"Nutritional ketosis"
Paleo
Bulletproof coffee
Coconut oil
@bpetrosky since your posted your opinion here back in 2017 have you seen these trends increase or decrease?
Since Oct 2014 I have been been in Nutritional Ketosis most of the time and consumed many gallons of coconut oil only to see long term weight loss, better health and health markers at the age of 68 than decades ago. I have yet to find the medical facts that supports your personal opinion stated here. Do you have the number of deaths in the past decade reported in the world related to these four factors you mentioned back in 2017?
He didn't say they cause death, this thread is about health woo. Meaning, things that are attributed magical powers by the diet industry/media. Congrats on losing weight in the last year and reaping the benefits that typically come with successful weight loss :drinker:
@kimny72 I know nothing was about death but I took it that the thought was there was something unhealthy about the four things named. It is good to now know that was not the case.
Why do you think I lost weight last year? I have not lost any weight since July 2015 but I do continue to eat 3000+ calories daily as I started back in Oct 2014 when I got serious about the Keto WOE but a very slow reversal of the Ankylosing Spondylitis continues year by year along with improving health markers.
Woo's to me seem to be non medical public opinions for the most part unless backed up with science links and the experience and education of the poster so the validity of woo statements can be better ascertained.
To the bolded:
Ankylosing Spondylitis is a degenerative and progressive arthritic disease usually targeting the spine, and for which there is currently no cure. NSAIDS, biologics and exercise have been proven to slow the progression of A.S. as well as helping to manage the symptoms which include chronic, escalating pain and decrease in range of motion.
For you to state that keto is actually reversing your A.S. is disingenuous and misinformed. The best you can hope for is that your symptoms are being somewhat Italleviated, but the disease itself is certainly not being reversed in your case.
Or mine.
Thankfully you are incorrect at least in my case. You need to read up on mind over matter.
9 -
johnslater461 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »"Nutritional ketosis"
Paleo
Bulletproof coffee
Coconut oil
@bpetrosky since your posted your opinion here back in 2017 have you seen these trends increase or decrease?
Since Oct 2014 I have been been in Nutritional Ketosis most of the time and consumed many gallons of coconut oil only to see long term weight loss, better health and health markers at the age of 68 than decades ago. I have yet to find the medical facts that supports your personal opinion stated here. Do you have the number of deaths in the past decade reported in the world related to these four factors you mentioned back in 2017?
He didn't say they cause death, this thread is about health woo. Meaning, things that are attributed magical powers by the diet industry/media. Congrats on losing weight in the last year and reaping the benefits that typically come with successful weight loss :drinker:
@kimny72 I know nothing was about death but I took it that the thought was there was something unhealthy about the four things named. It is good to now know that was not the case.
Why do you think I lost weight last year? I have not lost any weight since July 2015 but I do continue to eat 3000+ calories daily as I started back in Oct 2014 when I got serious about the Keto WOE but a very slow reversal of the Ankylosing Spondylitis continues year by year along with improving health markers.
Woo's to me seem to be non medical public opinions for the most part unless backed up with science links and the experience and education of the poster so the validity of woo statements can be better ascertained.
To the bolded:
Ankylosing Spondylitis is a degenerative and progressive arthritic disease usually targeting the spine, and for which there is currently no cure. NSAIDS, biologics and exercise have been proven to slow the progression of A.S. as well as helping to manage the symptoms which include chronic, escalating pain and decrease in range of motion.
For you to state that keto is actually reversing your A.S. is disingenuous and misinformed. The best you can hope for is that your symptoms are being somewhat Italleviated, but the disease itself is certainly not being reversed in your case.
Or mine.
Thankfully you are incorrect at least in my case. You need to read up on mind over matter.
Isn't that just a river in Egypt?7 -
) I did say
And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
Citation needed.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
11 -
@nvmomketo Where is that pie chart from? It has a spelling mistake in the title, which makes me doubt its reliability.
Also, in regards to the issue of environmentally sustainable livestock rearing, what do the grass-fed cows eat in January?7 -
Silage is fed to grass fed cows in the winter when the fields are unproductive. Hay too.4
-
Yep. And then the kind of silage becomes important.Silage is fed to grass fed cows in the winter when the fields are unproductive. Hay too.
Of course, the main issue I'm raising this is because I find it personally amusing how many people out there would respond to my question with, "grass, duh".
0 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@nvmomketo Where is that pie chart from? It has a spelling mistake in the title, which makes me doubt its reliability.
Also, in regards to the issue of environmentally sustainable livestock rearing, what do the grass-fed cows eat in January?
The pie chart is in this article where the spelling is correct. I cannot imagine why it was changed on another site
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2019/01/20/should-you-eat-lancet/
0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: ») I did say
And I stand by that. A diet of 50+% carbs is not going to work for many with IR.At the very least a large minority of North America is dealing with insulin resistance. That many carbs is not going to work for many.
Citation needed.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
Nvketomom is thinking there is a larg majority have IR based on projective statistics. 8% of the population have been diagnosed with IR or diabetes. But they project that 32% are "undiagnosed" which means they might get IR sometime in their lifetime if they don't take actions.
Having said that, if you need a citation that those with actual IR benefit from a low carb or keto diet, than you haven't done much research. Its pretty well established that those with IR benefit from lowering carbs.2 -
prehistoricmoongoddess wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@nvmomketo Where is that pie chart from? It has a spelling mistake in the title, which makes me doubt its reliability.
Also, in regards to the issue of environmentally sustainable livestock rearing, what do the grass-fed cows eat in January?
The pie chart is in this article where the spelling is correct. I cannot imagine why it was changed on another site
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2019/01/20/should-you-eat-lancet/
Thank you for linking.
1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@nvmomketo Where is that pie chart from? It has a spelling mistake in the title, which makes me doubt its reliability.
Also, in regards to the issue of environmentally sustainable livestock rearing, what do the grass-fed cows eat in January?
Around here, mainly hay. The might be supplemented with barley.0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...10 -
Plant-based diets as important to saving the environment. Apparenntly animals products are bad rather than the poor farming practices that goes into modern meat and egg production.
They are attacking the wrong thing, imo.
I don't know how we have people eating the same quantity of meat, eggs, and dairy that they're currently eating without using modern farming practices. So focusing on the consumption, if one is concerned about the environmental impact, is likely the right call.10 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »
This is now common knowledge.And where in the world did I advocate that everyone should eat all meat? I have argued that some are healthier eating almost all meat and that they should not be pressured to cut back, and worsen their health by really weak claims that cow gas is destroying the environment. The amount of people eating that way is miniscule. The argument is ridiculous.
It was implied that you think people with IR should eat this diet (a lot of the population) and you have been vocal in your support for carnivory in other threads.
I think low carb is an excellent option for those with IR (PCOS, T2D, NAFLD, prediabetes, and some forms of Alzheimer's). Some can improve their condition with just weight loss but IR is a lifestyle disease where not all are overweight.You want a citation for why I don't believe that restricting meat intake would make a greater impact on the environment that better farming practices would? For my belief? Because I have seen no evidence to prove otherwise? That makes no sense.
Uh...yeah? You're making a (supposedly) scientific claim. Scientific claims are backed up by evidence. They aren't "beliefs," they're "findings." There's plenty of studies out there on the environmental impact of certain foods and those studies do not on the whole support your claim.
I am not agreeing with your claims. I think it is on you to bring in the evidence.I advocate for the right for people to eat the best diet for their best health without lame environmental claims being made in an effort to stop them.
Oh so it sounds like you believe in the ol' "environmentalists are lying to force everyone to be vegan" conspiracy. Well again, where is the evidence of that?
Strawman.
I disagree with you therefore I am irrational and must be in an extremist group?I'm all for helping the environment, but I think advocating a diet for the world based on weak evidence that less meat will help the environment, and no evidence that less meat is healthier for people, is a bad idea put together by a powerful few who are pushing a misinformed agenda.
Citation needed. Also you may be old and not have that many years left and so you don't care if the deluge comes after you, but the rest of us have to live here and the effects of climate change are going to be way worse for the collective health of humanity than some carbs.
You want citation that the creators have an agenda? Again, not sure what you want here.
EAT was set up through billionaire vegans who are animal activists. Walter Willet, long known to be pro vegan and vegetarian, was in the lead.
I am 44.More sugar than beef. LOL
That's way less refined sugar than what the average Westerner eats, 25g if it's a 2000 calorie diet which is the recommended limit. They're probably basing it on that to be realistic (like if they said don't eat refined sugar on top of all the other changes people would be less likely to agree).
But regardless of any one organization's example recommendations you have no support for your claims on the environment and never have. If you did you would post that evidence.
I did not say cutting back on sugar is bad. I laugh at the fact that they recommend more sugars than beef, pork, and poultry combined. Awesome...
Walter Willet doesn't appear to be a billionaire *or* a vegan. What billionaire vegans are you referring to and what does Walter Willet have to do with either category?12 -
Here's what EAT says:
https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-funding/
In doing a quick googling, I could only find background on one of the eight board of trustee members being an animal rights activist, and that was in regards to the fur industry. One of the other board members has been involved in sustainable aquaculture for salmon, so hardly vegan.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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