Useful Links

imoldernu · 02-11-2015, 01:34 PM

Comes a time when the body has leveled off, all systems working well, weight stabilized, the nourishment regimen comfortable, and the blood testing the same for many years... that eating becomes a matter of taste and choice... less so counting calories, balancing food class intake and recommended daily requirements.

So far, so good except for idiopathic hand neuropathy and mild arthritis, and moderate obesity. (hasn't changed a single pound since the day I retired 26 years ago).

And so, moderately high cholesterol and triglycerides on same medication for 20 years... year to year results the same. BP 120 over 75 and holding.

Yup... won't live to 100, but so far so good. Expect AD long before that, but plan to enjoy every minute between now and then.

clifp · 02-11-2015, 02:43 PM

I friend of mine gave me a DVD Fed Up, which basically calls for eliminating all process sugar and most process food from your diet. The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in. The DVD claims that sugar triggers the body to make fat cells, and the all the sugar tricks the brain into thinking we are still hungry.

I am thinking of doing the their 2 weeks with no sugar challenge next month when I return from the mainland. Now I doubt that cutting sugar from my diet will hurt, but will it help? I'd be interested in the opinion of doctors/nutritionist others is there some validity to this approach or is sugar just this years, fat, cholesterol fad ?

donheff · 02-11-2015, 02:49 PM

I don't think there is any disagreement that large amounts of sugar are bad just disagreement about how much you can have without harm. There would also be no disagreement on the fact that cutting sugar out entirely will be good - just questions as to whether it is better than small amounts

ls99 · 02-11-2015, 03:00 PM

Eh, just another data point in the"settled science" rubrik.

eytonxav · 02-11-2015, 03:17 PM

Will this lead to the medical community easing up on blood cholesterol levels?

donheff · 02-11-2015, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5

Will this lead to the medical community easing up on blood cholesterol levels?

No. This applies to dietary cholesterol - eggs and shrimp. They are still hell bent on reducing LDL in the blood.

RonBoyd · 02-11-2015, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

I friend of mine gave me a DVD Fed Up, which basically calls for eliminating all process sugar and most process food from your diet. The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in. The DVD claims that sugar triggers the body to make fat cells, and the all the sugar tricks the brain into thinking we are still hungry.

I am thinking of doing the their 2 weeks with no sugar challenge next month when I return from the mainland. Now I doubt that cutting sugar from my diet will hurt, but will it help? I'd be interested in the opinion of doctors/nutritionist others is there some validity to this approach or is sugar just this years, fat, cholesterol fad ?

(It seems like I have been preaching for six years now and nobody is listening, O woe is me. <chuckle>)

Calories don't count. Yes, that is counterintuitive but if rephrased as "It is the type of calories in that count," it becomes more meaningful.

Sugar is a "name" that has no meaning. You need to know the real name(s). You can start with everything that ends in "ose" -- glucose, lactose, fructose, etc. -- and I do mean everything. Only then can you discover there are few 'sugars" that are "friendly" -- raw honey, class B maple syrup, for example, are a couple of the very few.

And, yes, it does take a minimum of two weeks for your (everyone's) body to make the adjustment to a diet change -- good change or bad.

Letj · 02-11-2015, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena53

Remember the movie "Sleeper" with Woody Allen? The main character, who was owner of the Happy Carrot Health Food Store, wakes up after many years in a coma and is told that the things people used to believe were healthy are not, and vice versa. I remember when nuts were bad. Now I have a snack of 1 oz. of mixed nuts (no peanuts) every day.

A coworker in her 20s has familial high cholesterol; she's active and thin as a rail and watched her diet but it's just high. She told me she once tried to eat a cholesterol-free diet. She was miserable, of course, and it lowered her levels by a lousy 10 points.

Moderation in all things.

Your coworker is the classic case for cholesterol lowering drugs. Those with untreated familial high cholesterol that's not controlled in their youth are very likely to develop heart disease in their 50s and 60s and sometimes earlier.

Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

Totoro · 02-11-2015, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp

I friend of mine gave me a DVD Fed Up, which basically calls for eliminating all process sugar and most process food from your diet. The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in. The DVD claims that sugar triggers the body to make fat cells, and the all the sugar tricks the brain into thinking we are still hungry.

I am thinking of doing the their 2 weeks with no sugar challenge next month when I return from the mainland. Now I doubt that cutting sugar from my diet will hurt, but will it help? I'd be interested in the opinion of doctors/nutritionist others is there some validity to this approach or is sugar just this years, fat, cholesterol fad ?

Fructose is the bad guy here. It basically doesn't trigger satiety in your system one tends to overeat more easily. Not sure about making fat cells thing though - first time I heard about that and frankly biologically speaking doesn't make sense to me.

Watch this lecture :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

It's long but well worth watching in my opinion.

I've cut sugar almost completely and feel much healthier. Takes a week to adjust though, you'll get cravings. After that: more energy, less dips, weight loss. Don't really miss it now, unless I start eating it again.

Recently went to go low on carbs as well (so high fat, mid protein and fiber). Gave me another boost, and have to watch myself to make sure I eat enough even though I am trying to lose weight (!)

**sengsational** · 02-11-2015, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5

Will this lead to the medical community easing up on blood cholesterol levels?

This is the second part of the diet heart hypothesis is, unfortunately still alive and kicking.

Finally they admit that dietary cholesterol doesn't cause atherosclerosis. Big deal. They still advise that lowering LDL is paramount. That's wrong. If you are older, higher blood lipids are protective of longevity! All the big money going to the studies sponsored by statin makers and still that fact emerges. Why is mortality data not reported? Because people don't live longer on a statin. Yes, there are exceptions, like people that already have heart disease and familial hypercholesterolemia. But if one removes those populations, statins do not aid people to live longer. Women would be nuts to take a statin if they got the facts straight. Older men too. Younger men, it's not as obvious since it appears they don't die of heart disease quite as often, but their mortality risk is not enhanced through statin use. And the fact that the mechanism of action of a statin, in the rare case they reduce cardiovascular events, is to reduce inflamation (not through lowering concentrations of any lipids in the blood) one must wonder why thought leaders have not come forth. I'll tell ya why. They get money and enhanced careers for doing what the drug pushers want!

I found a book called The Great Cholesterol Con (www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Kendrick.pdf) and read it a few days ago. Using a bunch of references to studies, it lays out why both parts of the diet heart hypothesis are wrong, explains why they persist, and suggests an alternate idea surrounding cortisol. Not that I buy into the cortisol idea, but it's better than the debunked lipid theory.

TromboneAl · 02-11-2015, 06:37 PM

I find it so encouraging that the government is finally getting the message, at least in part. I think the other errors will fall in the next ten years. Here's the order I see:

Past
All fats are bad, all grains are good, cholesterol is bad.
Don't worry too much about sugar.

A Little Later
No wait, unsaturated fats are good, saturated fats are bad.

Present
Cholesterol is not bad, but saturated fat is bad.
Refined grains are bad, but whole grains are good.
Sugar is a little bad.

Future (in this order)
2017? Sugar is really, really bad
2021? All grains are bad
2022? Saturated fat is not bad
2025? Saturated fat is good.

And here's TromboneAl's MyPlate:

jimbee · 02-11-2015, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonBoyd

Calories don't count. Yes, that is counterintuitive but if rephrased as "It is the type of calories in that count," it becomes more meaningful.

Really? I expect these links to be dismissed here, but check out the Twinkie diet and the McDonald's diet.

Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds - CNN.com
Man loses 56 pounds after eating only McDonald's for six months - Health - TODAY.com

TromboneAl · 02-11-2015, 07:33 PM

Quote:

The one thing that it claims that conventional wisdom that a calorie in = calorie out and if you want to lose weight make sure the calories out > calories in.

Here's my standard response to the calories in/out thing:

You say that it's just "calories in/calories out," and you're 100% right. But I'm going to give you an example that I think will make you realize, that while true, that law is actually irrelevant to weight loss, and that all calories are not equivalent.

Let's say I gave you a pill to eat every morning. This pill contained only four calories. However, this pill affects your hormonal balance, and it makes you ravenously hungry all the time, and also quite lethargic. Perhaps it's related to your thyroid, but that doesn't matter for this example. What matters is that it makes you hungry and sedentary.

As a result, you are going to gain weight. The pill is only a few calories, but you have gained weight because it has made you to eat a lot more food and move around less.

Has your "calories in/calories out" thermodynamic law been violated? No, because, as a result of your extra eating, you have taken in a lot more calories, and expended fewer. But because of the nature of these calories that you've eaten, namely those four calories in the pill that affects your metabolism, you have gained weight. If you were to stop taking that four-calorie pill, you'd lose weight.

In other words, calories in/calories out is true, but not helpful in understanding weight gain or loss.

By the way, in a similar way, eating lots of carbohydrates can force your body to store energy in fat cells, which in turn forces you to eat more and expend less.

----------------------

Another simpler argument is this: If it's just as simple as calories in/calories out, why not just stop eating entirely until you reach your goal weight?

**sengsational** · 02-11-2015, 08:08 PM

Quote:

And here's TromboneAl's MyPlate:

No high glycemic index crap, oops, I mean "crop" grains? How will the grain producers stay in business? All the world must be addicted to the insulin roller coaster and so consume more calories than they expend!

Elbata · 02-11-2015, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodi

Glad to hear I have something to discuss with DH about. He's held fast to the "too many eggs will raise your cholesteral" meme... I eat eggs 4-5 days a week - and have low cholesteral.

Would it be too personal to ask what is your low cholesterol? The actual number. I'm curious because another article I read today along with the comments someone said they had low cholesterol but provided no numbers.

In fact I'd be curious, what defines low cholesterol? What reason do we give to call it "low cholesterol" and what do we compare it with to call it low cholesterol?

razztazz · 02-11-2015, 08:54 PM

Quote:

In fact I'd be curious, what defines low cholesterol?

Profit margins

**sengsational** · 02-11-2015, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz

Profit margins

Sad, but true!

Chuckanut · 02-11-2015, 09:32 PM

Calories-in/calories-out reminds me of a guy who walks into a restaurant that is packed with people and has a 90 minute wait for a table. "Why are there so many people in here?",he asks. The answer is "because more people have entered than left in the last hour."

Well...... Duh!!!!!!! True, but not very useful.

What we really need to know is why so many people are seeking out this restaurant. A more meaningful answer might be, "it's their 10 year anniversary and every item on the menu is half price." Now you have some useful information.