Hi, my paleo diet people!!!!! Quick question:

Options
2»

Replies

  • Emma1903
    Emma1903 Posts: 195
    Options
    Because they are government funded and the results come out to be what is going to favor the bigger agenda.
    Even the studies done in Japan, Saudi Arabia, European countries, etc.?

    That's not a rational argument to defy the dozens of studies performed that show the benefits of grain.

    Governments say grains are good because of there fibber content but it's better to get your fibre from vegetables. The government also recommend eating fortified breakfast cereals, it's only because there fortified that they have any nutritional value!
    Grains are a big industry, they are often recommended because they are cheap, start looking into the studies of not having grains and you will see the benefits.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Governments say grains are good because of there fibber content but it's better to get your fibre from vegetables. The government also recommend eating fortified breakfast cereals, it's only because there fortified that they have any nutritional value!
    Grains are a big industry, they are often recommended because they are cheap, start looking into the studies of not having grains and you will see the benefits.
    I have seen the studies, and there are no benefits that I have come across.

    Feel free to present those studies, though, and I'll take a look at them.
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    Options
    Here is a study that was over 2 years with the conclusion:

    But Hold On If You Are Female, the Low Carb DOES Beat the Others for Weight Loss

    Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women.The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. Christopher D. Gardner et al. JAMA. 2007;297:969-977.

    This study was a "twelve-month randomized trial conducted in the United States from February 2003 to October 2005 among 311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic, premenopausal women."

    The conclusion:
    In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets. While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    Options
    Because they are government funded and the results come out to be what is going to favor the bigger agenda.
    Even the studies done in Japan, Saudi Arabia, European countries, etc.?

    That's not a rational argument to defy the dozens of studies performed that show the benefits of grain.

    It is a very rational argument to make. Especially when you have the government ignoring millions of people that are wanting GMO's out and the government keeps backing up companies like Monsanto to further their subsidies and big business.

    The government knows grains are unhealthy, but they are cheap and they just add back in synthetic nutrients so the companies can tout that they are healthy when in fact they are not.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    Here is a study that was over 2 years with the conclusion:

    But Hold On If You Are Female, the Low Carb DOES Beat the Others for Weight Loss

    Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women.The A TO Z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. Christopher D. Gardner et al. JAMA. 2007;297:969-977.

    This study was a "twelve-month randomized trial conducted in the United States from February 2003 to October 2005 among 311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic, premenopausal women."

    The conclusion:
    In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight and experienced more favorable overall metabolic effects at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets. While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.
    Obese, sedentary women - what bearing does that have on non-obese women, or men of all types, or people who are active?

    Also protein was not controlled in this study, which is a major design flaw.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    It is a very rational argument to make. Especially when you have the government ignoring millions of people that are wanting GMO's out and the government keeps backing up companies like Monsanto to further their subsidies and big business.

    The government knows grains are unhealthy, but they are cheap and they just add back in synthetic nutrients so the companies can tout that they are healthy when in fact they are not.
    So is it one giant global conspiracy that all governments are in on?
  • HunterCML
    Options
    It is a very rational argument to make. Especially when you have the government ignoring millions of people that are wanting GMO's out and the government keeps backing up companies like Monsanto to further their subsidies and big business.

    The government knows grains are unhealthy, but they are cheap and they just add back in synthetic nutrients so the companies can tout that they are healthy when in fact they are not.

    Sir, I will be very honest with you.. that is the silliest thing I have ever read.
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    Options
    It is a very rational argument to make. Especially when you have the government ignoring millions of people that are wanting GMO's out and the government keeps backing up companies like Monsanto to further their subsidies and big business.

    The government knows grains are unhealthy, but they are cheap and they just add back in synthetic nutrients so the companies can tout that they are healthy when in fact they are not.

    Sir, I will be very honest with you.. that is the silliest thing I have ever read.

    First of all I am not a Sir...............and you can think it is silly all you want. I know the truth and I have lost friends due to my beliefs in regards to the government and the likes of Monsanto.
  • Grokette
    Grokette Posts: 3,330 Member
    Options
    It is a very rational argument to make. Especially when you have the government ignoring millions of people that are wanting GMO's out and the government keeps backing up companies like Monsanto to further their subsidies and big business.

    The government knows grains are unhealthy, but they are cheap and they just add back in synthetic nutrients so the companies can tout that they are healthy when in fact they are not.
    So is it one giant global conspiracy that all governments are in on?

    It is not a conspiracy - it is the truth.
  • mynameisuntz
    mynameisuntz Posts: 582 Member
    Options
    It is not a conspiracy - it is the truth.
    No, it's a conspiracy. You are now saying that EVERY country with research supporting the efficacy of grains is part of some global conspiracy to conceal the truth.

    Do you find it odd that EVERY blue zone on earth (blue zone = populations that are considered the healthiest, longest living people) don't adhere to what you're saying? That is, they eat grains. The anecdotal evidence alone proves that grains are, at very least, NOT dangerous.

    Okinawans, Sardinians, etc.