Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Nutritional myths masquerading as fact.
Comments
-
My pet hate is people who read an article out of the US, say, and assume it applies in an Irish context, when the reality is that the food industry over there, from farm to plate, is *extremely* different to here, for both meat and fruit & veg.0
-
My pet hate is people who read an article out of the US, say, and assume it applies in an Irish context, when the reality is that the food industry over there, from farm to plate, is *extremely* different to here, for both meat and fruit & veg.
This! GTFO with your hormones in milk and grass-fed beef bollocks :mad:0 -
Do you chew your fruit to smoothie consistency?? :pac:
The fibre hasnt gone anywhere, its still there and still needs to be broken down to be absorbed into your blood. A smoothie isnt like drinking a juice, it still has everything that the raw ingredients had, unlike a juice.
In any case, the difference between chewing a banana versus "Drinking" a blended one is minimal from an absorption point of view.
Telling everyone that its not is just another nutritional myth, so you are contributing to the problem by spreading it.0 -
The fibre hasnt gone anywhere, its still there and still needs to be broken down to be absorbed into your blood. A smoothie isnt like drinking a juice, it still has everything that the raw ingredients had, unlike a juice.
In any case, the difference between chewing a banana versus "Drinking" a blended one is minimal from an absorption point of view.
Telling everyone that its not is just another nutritional myth, so you are contributing to the problem by spreading it.
The problem is that the fructose is no longer bound between the fibre structures and is more bio-available and thus enters the blood stream almost as quickly as with juice or other sugary drinks.0 -
jam_mac_jam wrote: »A smoothie is not a meal. Its much more similar to a desert or treat and should be treated like that, as in eating it very rarely. I find it hard to believe an adult would eat no fruit whatsoever.
Why is it not a meal exactly?
What nutritional aspect is it missing that would make it a meal in your eyes?
Can I assume that MRE's and the food that we ship over to Africa and is consumed by astronauts are also not a meal in your eyes, since they are not in solid form?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Why is it not a meal exactly?
What nutritional aspect is it missing that would make it a meal in your eyes?
I think they just mean that your average smoothie doesn't provide a broad range of nutrients. I.e.. they're all sugar, fibre (and a good few vitamins etc.) But don't provide much in the way of complex carbs, protein or fat.
Of course, it all depend on what you're juicing.0 -
Why is it not a meal exactly?
What nutritional aspect is it missing that would make it a meal in your eyes?
Can I assume that MRE's and the food that we ship over to Africa and is consumed by astronauts are also not a meal in your eyes, since they are not in solid form?
Sorry I don't know what MRE's are. The main factor that would make it not a meal is that it's liquid with no fibre and not very likely to fill you up in the same way normal solid food does. I don't really see a reason for liquidising your food, it seems pointless to me.
That's not really the point though, the main point is that they are not really that great to eat on a regular basis and certainly should not be considered very healthy due to the amount of sugar and that liquid does not act in the same way food does to fill you up and you are likely to eat more calories.0 -
jam_mac_jam wrote: »Sorry I don't know what MRE's are. The main factor that would make it not a meal is that it's liquid with no fibre and not very likely to fill you up in the same way normal solid food does. I don't really see a reason for liquidising your food, it seems pointless to me.
That's not really the point though, the main point is that they are not really that great to eat on a regular basis and certainly should not be considered very healthy due to the amount of sugar and that liquid does not act in the same way food does to fill you up and you are likely to eat more calories.
They are food rations typically used by soldiers and they are often blended and dried.
A smoothie is NOT a juice.
Where do you think all the fibre is going? Just becuase its blended its still fibre. My smoothies are full of fibre!
A smoothie will fill you up, if you make it properly.
If its very liquid then obviously it wont, but then you are not making it properly.
a well made smoothie is VERY healthy and a perfectly filling and nutritious meal. A smoothie doesnt create sugar, you have the same amount of fructose in raw fruit as you do from that same fruit added to a smoothie.
"liquid does not act in the same way as food"?
There is food in the bloody smoothie!
Like I said in my earlier post, its a meal, if you treat it like a dessert then expect dessert like results.
You are perpetuating more myths with this nonsense argument.I think they just mean that your average smoothie doesn't provide a broad range of nutrients. I.e.. they're all sugar, fibre (and a good few vitamins etc.) But don't provide much in the way of complex carbs, protein or fat.
Of course, it all depend on what you're juicing.
You cant use shop bought smoothies to dismiss the merits of a home made smoothie.
My daily smoothie has more nutrients than I could get from any other meal for the same effort.
Bananas, Strawberries, Blueberries, Blackberries, Raspberries, Milk, Water, various nut butters, flax seeds, kale, wheatgrass, oats, honey and various other bits and pieces. Its thick and very filling.
Its about 450 calories and can keep me going until 2pm if I need it to.
It takes 5 mins to make and less to clear up and can be eaten on the go.
And its NOT juicing! Juicing to TOTALLY different from making a smoothie.0 -
My daily smoothie has more nutrients than I could get from any other meal for the same effort.
Bananas, Strawberries, Blueberries, Blackberries, Raspberries, Milk, Water, various nut butters, flax seeds, kale, wheatgrass, oats, honey and various other bits and pieces. Its thick and very filling.
.
Sounds tasty, I can see why you drink it. '
'0 -
Advertisement
-
El_Dangeroso wrote: »And like I said, what do you want from it? It's food, it gives you energy, it doesn't harm you in the process, isn't that what a food is supposed to do?
So pretty ordinary in nutritional terms but if you like it then fair enough. Prefer a Bounty myself (in moderation).0 -
My smoothie every morning is as follows
350ml milk
1 banana
Handful frozen raspberries
1 scoop Vanilla protein
2 spoons of granola
Consumed at 7:30 and satisfied until 12:30.
It is a meal as it replaces breakfast0 -
It's all about calories for weight loss or gain but the type of food you consume to get those calories is also important
Eat nothing but rashers and see how you feel
Well, technically, it *is* all about calories when talking purely in terms of weight gain/loss. The side effects (or straight up health devastation) caused by the foods you use to obtain those calories will actually have no impact on your weight gain. If you did as you suggested, and ate a lot of rashers to gain weight, you would feel horrible and have terrible problems health-wise, but you'd still gain just as much *weight* as someone eating the equivalent calorie portion of celery.
Practically, you are right that it's best to watch what you eat, basing it on more than the calorie density or whatever, but scientifically weight gain is caused by a surplus of energy from calories over what your body used up (and nothing else, bar hormones and minor exceptions).0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »The idea that all calories are the same is one of the stranger ones that is still widely believed for some mad reason.
??? Can you explain? A calorie is a way of measuring energy. So yes all calories are the same....
Do you mean that people forget to think about the nutritional value of the food their calories come from?0 -
-
Monsanto genetically engineered foods are dangerous
Bees have been filmed dropping dead on contact with modified crops
We are being poisoned
This 3 minute interview is excellent
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM
Yes, Monsanto decided that the best way to grow their thriving GE business was to poison its customers. Seriously, do people even bother thinking about these things for a few seconds? And the youtube link as a source just compounds the whole post. My word.0 -
My smoothie is bigger then yours.0
-
??? Can you explain? A calorie is a way of measuring energy. So yes all calories are the same....
Do you mean that people forget to think about the nutritional value of the food their calories come from?
If you consume 500 calories in the form of a soft drink it hits your blood stream quickly,you get an insulin surge, some of it is used to restore glycogen levels and the rest gets proceed as by your liver and stored as fat in muscles or in fat deposits under skin.
If you you eat fruits for the same calories only a fraction of it hits the blood stream quickly, the rest is bound in fibre structures and gets released a lot slower so you get a steady supply of fructose to the blood system, you don't get a sudden insulin surge telling your body to store it all as fat, and quite a lot of it never gets digested at all and passes out your pooper with the fibre it's bundled in.
Both are 500 calories, mostly from simple sugars, but the bio-availablity is massively different between the two.0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »If you consume 500 calories in the form of a soft drink it hits your blood stream quickly,you get an insulin surge, some of it is used to restore glycogen levels and the rest gets proceed as by your liver and stored as fat in muscles or in fat deposits under skin.
If you you eat fruits for the same calories only a fraction of it hits the blood stream quickly, the rest is bound in fibre structures and gets released a lot slower so you get a steady supply of fructose to the blood system, you don't get a sudden insulin surge telling your body to store it all as fat, and quite a lot of it never gets digested at all and passes out your pooper with the fibre it's bundled in.
Both are 500 calories, mostly from simple sugars, but the bio-availablity is massively different between the two.
Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper backing this up? I've never heard of this phenomenon.0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote:If you consume 500 calories in the form of a soft drink it hits your blood stream quickly,you get an insulin surge, some of it is used to restore glycogen levels and the rest gets proceed as by your liver and stored as fat in muscles or in fat deposits under skin.Subcomandante Marcos wrote:If you you eat fruits for the same calories only a fraction of it hits the blood stream quickly, the rest is bound in fibre structures and gets released a lot slower so you get a steady supply of fructose to the blood system, you don't get a sudden insulin surge telling your body to store it all as fat, and quite a lot of it never gets digested at all and passes out your pooper with the fibre it's bundled in.
Yeah it will be stored as fat. Then later when you need calories that the food ingested can't meet because it stored fat your body will burn it off because it still needs energy. Eating high GI food doesn't change how much you you're body needs to function.0 -
Advertisement
-
malnurtured wrote:Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper backing this up? I've never heard of this phenomenon.
Just Google it. You shouldn't even have to, though. I would have assumed it was common sense to anyone with even Junior Cert Biology.0 -
Just Google it. You shouldn't even have to, though. I would have assumed it was common sense to anyone with even Junior Cert Biology.
No need to be like that. If someone makes a claim, it's on them to back it up if they want people to take the claim seriously. 'Just google it' is also what conspiracy theorists and the like say when you question what they say, so that they don't have to go to the effort of finding a source (if it even exists). Surely you've seen the evidence that convinced you of your position, so why is it hard to share that knowledge?0 -
Dial Hard wrote:Just Google it. You shouldn't even have to, though. I would have assumed it was common sense to anyone with even Junior Cert Biology.
Insulin causes you to store more fat. Which will be burned off later when you require those calories that you didn't get from the carbohydrates you aye.0 -
Whole fruits seem betterConclusion Our findings suggest the presence of heterogeneity in the associations between individual fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes. Greater consumption of specific whole fruits, particularly blueberries, grapes, and apples, is significantly associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, whereas greater consumption of fruit juice is associated with a higher risk
http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f50010 -
malnurtured wrote:No need to be like that. If someone makes a claim, it's on them to back it up if they want people to take the claim seriously. 'Just google it' is also what conspiracy theorists and the like say when you question what they say, so that they don't have to go to the effort of finding a source (if it even exists). Surely you've seen the evidence that convinced you of your position, so why is it hard to share that knowledge?
It's not a claim or a conspiracy theory, though; it's common knowledge that the bio-availability of various macros are affected by differing delivery systems.
If he was making some very obscure claim then, yes, I'd expect sources to back it up. But this is a bit like asking someone for peer-reviewed studies to prove that gravity exists.0 -
It's not a claim or a conspiracy theory, though; it's common knowledge that the bio-availability of various macros are affected by differing delivery systems.
If he was making some very obscure claim then, yes, I'd expect sources to back it up. But this is a bit like asking someone for peer-reviewed studies to prove that gravity exists.
Maybe I should be more specific. I'd like the detail of the mechansim by which this process occurs. The reason I am skeptical is that it seems like a very inefficient body process to simply pass out (according to the other poster) much of the energy in a food source in our waste. Seeing as humans ate a lot of fibrous foods years ago, it would seem to be a tremendous waste of vital energy.
And if it isn't enough of an amount of energy being passed out to make a difference to our energy needs, then it won't make a difference to our weight in any significant way, either. You see where I'm coming from? Dietary mechanisms are well covered by the literature and it isn't an outrageous suggestion that there should be some empirical evidence to back up these assertions.0 -
strelok wrote:well you can overdose on certain vitamins and minerals, not easy to do but possible.
Hypervitaminosis, (vitamins a and d, I think) from consuming excess amounts of fish liver oil - especially halibut liver oil.
You wont get it from eating veg...
Although kids went orange from sunni delight ,beta-caroteneSlava ukraini 🇺🇦
0 -
malnurtured wrote: »Maybe I should be more specific. I'd like the detail of the mechansim by which this process occurs. The reason I am skeptical is that it seems like a very inefficient body process to simply pass out (according to the other poster) much of the energy in a food source in our waste. Seeing as humans ate a lot of fibrous foods years ago, it would seem to be a tremendous waste of vital energy.
And if it isn't enough of an amount of energy being passed out to make a difference to our energy needs, then it won't make a difference to our weight in any significant way, either. You see where I'm coming from? Dietary mechanisms are well covered by the literature and it isn't an outrageous suggestion that there should be some empirical evidence to back up these assertions.
How about this.
We'll do a controlled study of two.
For 14 days we eat the same diet, tailored to our calorific needs but the same foods at the same times. But every day you consume 250 extra calories of just cola (little over half a litre per day) and I'll consume the extra 250 calories in whole fruits.
After the 2 weeks what do you think the outcomes will be?
As for studies, There's a massvie body of work from people like David S. Ludwig, Robert Lustig, Qi Sun and other experts in the area but I don't feel like logging into academic databases to search for them right now, maybe at work on monday if I remember, in the meantime here's Ludwig and Lustig's take on it in mainstream media.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/?_r=00 -
They are food rations typically used by soldiers and they are often blended and dried.
A smoothie is NOT a juice.
Where do you think all the fibre is going? Just becuase its blended its still fibre. My smoothies are full of fibre!
A smoothie will fill you up, if you make it properly.
If its very liquid then obviously it wont, but then you are not making it properly.
a well made smoothie is VERY healthy and a perfectly filling and nutritious meal. A smoothie doesnt create sugar, you have the same amount of fructose in raw fruit as you do from that same fruit added to a smoothie.
"liquid does not act in the same way as food"?
There is food in the bloody smoothie!
Like I said in my earlier post, its a meal, if you treat it like a dessert then expect dessert like results.
You are perpetuating more myths with this nonsense argument.
You cant use shop bought smoothies to dismiss the merits of a home made smoothie.
My daily smoothie has more nutrients than I could get from any other meal for the same effort.
Bananas, Strawberries, Blueberries, Blackberries, Raspberries, Milk, Water, various nut butters, flax seeds, kale, wheatgrass, oats, honey and various other bits and pieces. Its thick and very filling.
Its about 450 calories and can keep me going until 2pm if I need it to.
It takes 5 mins to make and less to clear up and can be eaten on the go.
And its NOT juicing! Juicing to TOTALLY different from making a smoothie.
I am sorry I don't agree with you at all. I would much rather have the whole food and no honey with all that broken down fruit, I think fibre acts differently when blended. But if you like it,that's great.
Its a different opinion from you which does not make it nonsense. No need to be so rude because somebody thinks differently then you.0 -
Advertisement
-
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »How about this.
We'll do a controlled study of two.
For 14 days we eat the same diet, tailored to our calorific needs but the same foods at the same times. But every day you consume 250 extra calories of just cola (little over half a litre per day) and I'll consume the extra 250 calories in whole fruits.
After the 2 weeks what do you think the outcomes will be?
As for studies, There's a massvie body of work from people like David S. Ludwig, Robert Lustig, Qi Sun and other experts in the area but I don't feel like logging into academic databases to search for them right now, maybe at work on monday if I remember, in the meantime here's Ludwig and Lustig's take on it in mainstream media.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/?_r=0
You've created a false dichotomy.
If it was just 250kcals extra each from carbohydrates and you controlled ALL other variables, you'd end up with the same outcome.
But in the real world, you'll struggle to JUST consume 250kcals of cola without there being a knock on effect from overconsumption (I'll just have another mouthful) or more unplanned calories (woah I've the taste of sweetness now, I'll have something else).
Only way this works is if you do it in a metabolic ward.
The primary reason why nutrient dense foods are better than highly processed foods when it comes to weight loss is that the overconsumption of the former is REALLY hard, as outlined by someone already using carrots and broccoli as an example.
It's great looking at the science behind it, and how it effects things in isolation, but we live in a complex environment where science meets behavioural psychology, and you simply cannot look at one and discount the other.
The "best" fat loss diet is the one that is easiest for someone to stick to. I don't give a **** if you figure out the perfect macro and micronutrient ratios, and optimal food sources for that. If you can't give it to a group of 100 people and a large proportion of them see success, it doesn't mean ****.0 -
Hanley wrote:The primary reason why nutrient dense foods are better than highly processed foods when it comes to weight loss is that the overconsumption of the former is REALLY hard, as outlined by someone already using carrots and broccoli as an example.
That's actually the point he and I were making.0 -
You've created a false dichotomy.
If it was just 250kcals extra each from carbohydrates and you controlled ALL other variables, you'd end up with the same outcome.
But in the real world, you'll struggle to JUST consume 250kcals of cola without there being a knock on effect from overconsumption (I'll just have another mouthful) or more unplanned calories (woah I've the taste of sweetness now, I'll have something else).
Only way this works is if you do it in a metabolic ward.
The primary reason why nutrient dense foods are better than highly processed foods when it comes to weight loss is that the overconsumption of the former is REALLY hard, as outlined by someone already using carrots and broccoli as an example.
It's great looking at the science behind it, and how it effects things in isolation, but we live in a complex environment where science meets behavioural psychology, and you simply cannot look at one and discount the other.
The "best" fat loss diet is the one that is easiest for someone to stick to. I don't give a **** if you figure out the perfect macro and micronutrient ratios, and optimal food sources for that. If you can't give it to a group of 100 people and a large proportion of them see success, it doesn't mean ****.
It was me who did the carrot/broccoli math earlier, but this is a different issue altogether, that was and illustration of how it's near impossible to over consume most vegetables, this is about the reality that even though in theory a calorie is a calorie, in reality the delivery mechanism is of massive importance.
If it's a controlled study, you (participants) wouldn't have the option to have "one more sip". You'll only be able to consume the calories you're given.
Regardless of the fact they we are both getting the extra 250 over our calorific requirements from simple sugars, the outcomes will be very different as the bio-availability of the two sources is vastly different.0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »How about this.
We'll do a controlled study of two.
For 14 days we eat the same diet, tailored to our calorific needs but the same foods at the same times. But every day you consume 250 extra calories of just cola (little over half a litre per day) and I'll consume the extra 250 calories in whole fruits.
After the 2 weeks what do you think the outcomes will be?
As for studies, There's a massvie body of work from people like David S. Ludwig, Robert Lustig, Qi Sun and other experts in the area but I don't feel like logging into academic databases to search for them right now, maybe at work on monday if I remember, in the meantime here's Ludwig and Lustig's take on it in mainstream media.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/?_r=0
Though it's a cute idea, a sample size of two is probably the most unscientific idea I've heard in a while. What you or I 'think' will happen is irrelevant - I'm looking for what the literature has to say.
With regards to your article, the authors state the obvious as far as I can see. I don't disagree that fruits promote the slow release of the energy from glucose as opposed to spikes - a good thing for sure.
My dispute is with your claim that we can simply 'pass out' lots of calories in our waste because some of the sugar is 'trapped in the fibre' or something like that, correct me if I'm misinterpreting. The authors here mention nothing like that. The calories consumed are the calories consumed, and I haven't seen anything that supports this mechanism you are suggesting exists.
This is the specific part of your claim I'd like to see evidence for. Where did you read about it? Is it anecdotal? I've done a (brief) search, and I wouldn't even know where to begin (key words in Google Scholar, etc.). That's why I thought you might have some info. Doesn't matter, don't go out of your way if you don't want to!0 -
The term 'superfood'0
-
That's actually the point he and I were making.
The point of contention was not the practical side of eating different foods though, it was digestion mechanism. It was claimed earlier that if you eat the same amount of theoretical calories of some, let's say, broccoli, as calories of lucozade, the broccoli would actually end up meaning less weight gain because, apparently, there is a significant amount of energy lost via waste in 'fibrous' structures in plant based foods.
The idea that it's easier to eat more kilos of sugary foods than kilos of carrots was never disputed.0 -
Advertisement
-
malnurtured wrote: »The point of contention was not the practical side of eating different foods though, it was digestion mechanism. It was claimed earlier that if you eat the same amount of theoretical calories of some, let's say, broccoli, as calories of lucozade, the broccoli would actually end up meaning less weight gain because, apparently, there is a significant amount of energy lost via waste in 'fibrous' structures in plant based foods.
The idea that it's easier to eat more kilos of sugary foods than kilos of carrots was never disputed.
I encountered it when working on policy submissions on public health a few years ago for a large non-profit. We were contesting the departments plans to continue to use the food pyramid as the guideline for a "healthy" diet in their upcoming education programmes and also petitioning for programmes to educate young people on the dangers of overconsumption of refined sugars and other simple carbohydrates, using cost benefit arguments about the potential savings in healthcare over the coming 10 years by decreased instances of type 2 diabetes and so on to justify the spending on the programme itself.
During our research we talked to several researchers, endocrinologists, food scientists, etc to ask them for input for our argument. It was some of them who, often, spoke of the benefits of eating whole fruits because of the fact that the sugars were less bio-available as a result of the fibre structures them are contained in being indigestible.
One explained that when sugar in a drink hits the stomach it's very quickly absorbed into the blood stream and all consumed within the first two or threefeet of the digestive system (hence why professional cyclists often drink a can of coke mid-race to prevent "bonking"). With fruit some gets absorbed in the same initial few feet but the rest is gradually extracted over the course of the digestive tract, and some of is passed before the body can breakdown the food fully.
Some used examples such as how you often see pieces of vegetables or seeds or grains such as corn stool because the body just can't break all of the fibre down fully while it passes through the digestive system. Most of the nutrients are absorbed but some of it passes through and is disposed of with the rest of the food waste.
If you eat a single banana or a handful of berries your body would easily break it down and digest almost everything before passing the waste, but if you eat a lot of whole fruits all at once, the body just won't have time to process it.
While it's not true that the digestive system is like a conveyor belt with a first in - first out process, it does have to move stuff along to make room for the next load of food.
I had about 5 studies outlining the processes but this was probably around 2010 so I can't remember for the life of me the names and I'm not looking for login details for academic databases to go hunting for them at half past midnight on a Friday night. I'll email an old colleague in the morning and see if (a) the submission was published/they have a copy and (b) for a list of sources and studies we cited in the submission. I can't really offer you more than that right now and I find that searching for academic journal articles with broad terms through Google is about as useful as trying to wash a window with a bucket of cow ****e.
Edit: I can remember that the department almost completely ignored our own and everyone else's submissions and continued to use the food pyramid in their literature and educational programmes. Le sigh.0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »I encountered it when working on policy submissions on public health a few years ago for a large non-profit. We were contesting the departments plans to continue to use the food pyramid as the guideline for a "healthy" diet in their upcoming education programmes and also petitioning for programmes to educate young people on the dangers of overconsumption of refined sugars and other simple carbohydrates, using cost benefit arguments about the potential savings in healthcare over the coming 10 years by decreased instances of type 2 diabetes and so on to justify the spending on the programme itself.
During our research we talked to several researchers, endocrinologists, food scientists, etc to ask them for input for our argument. It was some of them who, often, spoke of the benefits of eating whole fruits because of the fact that the sugars were less bio-available as a result of the fibre structures them are contained in being indigestible.
One explained that when sugar in a drink hits the stomach it's very quickly absorbed into the blood stream and all consumed within the first two or threefeet of the digestive system (hence why professional cyclists often drink a can of coke mid-race to prevent "bonking"). With fruit some gets absorbed in the same initial few feet but the rest is gradually extracted over the course of the digestive tract, and some of is passed before the body can breakdown the food fully.
Some used examples such as how you often see pieces of vegetables or seeds or grains such as corn stool because the body just can't break all of the fibre down fully while it passes through the digestive system. Most of the nutrients are absorbed but some of it passes through and is disposed of with the rest of the food waste.
If you eat a single banana or a handful of berries your body would easily break it down and digest almost everything before passing the waste, but if you eat a lot of whole fruits all at once, the body just won't have time to process it.
While it's not true that the digestive system is like a conveyor belt with a first in - first out process, it does have to move stuff along to make room for the next load of food.
I had about 5 studies outlining the processes but this was probably around 2010 so I can't remember for the life of me the names and I'm not looking for login details for academic databases to go hunting for them at half past midnight on a Friday night. I'll email an old colleague in the morning and see if (a) the submission was published/they have a copy and (b) for a list of sources and studies we cited in the submission. I can't really offer you more than that right now and I find that searching for academic journal articles with broad terms through Google is about as useful as trying to wash a window with a bucket of cow ****e.
Edit: I can remember that the department almost completely ignored our own and everyone else's submissions and continued to use the food pyramid in their literature and educational programmes. Le sigh.
Don't worry about it, whenever it suits you. Anyway, what was your objection against the conventional food pyramid? More plant based foods vs. carbs? No sugary foods as opposed to the 'in moderation' idea?0 -
malnurtured wrote: »Don't worry about it, whenever it suits you. Anyway, what was your objection against the conventional food pyramid? More plant based foods vs. carbs? No sugary foods as opposed to the 'in moderation' idea?
I think it's fairly well established and accepted in this day and age that the food pyramid is a steaming pile of crap that was developed for political reasons and has very little footing in reality.
I don't think "no sugary foods" is reasonable, I quite like a bit of chocolate or a glass of coke now and then, but it should be limited and infrequent, yes.
And yeah, basically we should get a lot less of out calorific needs from carbohydrates, especially simple carbs like breads and pastas, than the pyramid suggests and a lot more from veg, fruit and healthy fats.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/mypyramid-problems/0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »I think it's fairly well established and accepted in this day and age that the food pyramid is a steaming pile of crap that was developed for political reasons and has very little footing in reality.
I don't think "no sugary foods" is reasonable, I quite like a bit of chocolate or a glass of coke now and then, but it should be limited and infrequent, yes.
And yeah, basically we should get a lot less of out calorific needs from carbohydrates, especially simple carbs like breads and pastas, than the pyramid suggests and a lot more from veg, fruit and healthy fats.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/mypyramid-problems/
Have to agree that it has its problems, that link points out probably the biggest one - grouping so called 'good' oils/fats with meats which should be eaten in much smaller quantities. And yeah plant based is the way to go (according to the research, anyway).
Not too sure about the 'political' reasons behind this pyramid though. I'm assuming that it was first established across the Atlantic where the food industry has massive influence over policy with lobbying being legal and all, lol.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »Not too sure about the 'political' reasons behind this pyramid though. I'm assuming that it was first established across the Atlantic where the food industry has massive influence over policy with lobbying being legal and all, lol.
Bingo, justification for subsidies for the grain industry which all dates back to the early 70's.
There's nothing wrong with bread or pasta or white rice or whatever in my opinion I love both so very, very much. I just think we need emphasise unprocessed foods a lot more and encourage people to eat a LOT of whole fruits and vegetables and stop demonising fat. Fat is brilliant!0 -
Advertisement
-
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »Bingo, justification for subsidies for the grain industry which all dates back to the early 70's.
There's nothing wrong with bread or pasta or white rice or whatever in my opinion I love both so very, very much. I just think we need emphasise unprocessed foods a lot more and encourage people to eat a LOT of whole fruits and vegetables and stop demonising fat. Fat is brilliant!
Fat is brilliant, but you have to admit that the research flying in the face of trans/saturated fats is damning. Have to be pretty careful with that stuff in fairness.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »Fat is brilliant, but you have to admit that the research flying in the face of trans/saturated fats is damning. Have to be pretty careful with that stuff in fairness.
What exactly do we have to be careful about in relation to meats? In suggesting so called healthy oils etc should be separated from meats, you yourself are perpetuating a horsesh1t nutritional myth from a bygone era.0 -
Darkest Horse wrote: »What exactly do we have to be careful about in relation to meats? In suggesting so called healthy oils etc should be separated from meats, you yourself are perpetuating a horsesh1t nutritional myth from a bygone era.
No, I'm not. Meats are pretty well studied and there's a fairly unanimous consensus across the research about their health effects.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/61/6/1416S.short
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9828481&fileId=S1368980015002062
These are just two papers (unfortunately most are pay-walled, but I'll attempt to find free view papers in a while) across a considerable time period that are an example of the scientific community's stance on red/processed meat.
The WHO IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) panel's work is telling and this article is available free of charge; http://www.meatpoultry.com/~/media/Files/MP/IARC-summary.ashx
The IARC monograph (volume 114) should be coming soon giving a very detailed view of the science that goes behind these assertions, and it will have even more data to back up the claim that red/processed meats are human carcinogens.0 -
Fats are OK in the diet
But fatty fats are to be avoided
Unless you occupation rhymes with fat
Like if you are a diplomat, they can eat as much fat as they like
I'm an expert on nutrition0 -
malnurtured wrote: »No, I'm not. Meats are pretty well studied and there's a fairly unanimous consensus across the research about their health effects.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/61/6/1416S.short
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9828481&fileId=S1368980015002062
These are just two papers (unfortunately most are pay-walled, but I'll attempt to find free view papers in a while) across a considerable time period that are an example of the scientific community's stance on red/processed meat.
The WHO IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) panel's work is telling and this article is available free of charge; http://www.meatpoultry.com/~/media/Files/MP/IARC-summary.ashx
The IARC monograph (volume 114) should be coming soon giving a very detailed view of the science that goes behind these assertions, and it will have even more data to back up the claim that red/processed meats are human carcinogens.
The research you've cited is a crock of sh1t and is not at all in line what you are claiming about meat (which you've since localised to red meat). Let me pick it off, piece by piece:
The first study you've cited, which is now 21 years old(!), is very much outdated by current consensus. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and I can't believe you'd hang your hat on a single correlation study that merely speculated (does not prove or even try to prove) about potential mechanisms that have since been heavily questioned. All it says is that high red meat intake has been associated with coronary heart disease. It's probably associated with a million other things like increased happiness, greater propensity to go on country walks, higher likelihood of enjoying knitting and increased intake of junk foods. I'll let you figure out which of those may or may not share an actual causative relationship. In a sentence, the study means nothing.
The second study you cite is a meta analysis but don't even get me started on the problems with the conclusions that they can come to: on to the task at hand. By design, it shares the same problems as your 1995 effort in that intake of red meat cannot be disentangled from other factors that could cause heart disease or cancer. For example, if I eat 10 Big Macs a day, I will have consumed a lot of red meat. I will also have consumed lots of tomato ketchup (sugar), burger buns (pretty much sugar), processed cheese, lettuce, salt, that tangy sauce they use and maybe even some large fries and Coke if I fancied them. If I get heart disease or cancer, which was the offending food? All are positively correlated with my condition, even the lettuce! Your meta analysis is more focused on processed meats and says red meat wasn't even associated with negative outcomes in a European population.
If you're going to cite research, at least don't insult people's intelligence by claiming it concludes something that it doesn't and make it up to date. Lastly, the WHO say this about red meat:
"Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out".
Now with that in mind can you tell me what the actual mechanism is that drives the development of illness via red meat consumption. It may well be there, I actually don't know for sure but do not present any more links like those you have already provided (correlations not causations).0 -
Darkest Horse wrote: »The research you've cited is a crock of sh1t and is not at all in line what you are claiming about meat (which you've since localised to red meat). Let me pick it off, piece by piece:
The first study you've cited, which is now 21 years old(!), is very much outdated by current consensus. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and I can't believe you'd hang your hat on a single correlation study that merely speculated (does not prove or even try to prove) about potential mechanisms that have since been heavily questioned. All it says is that high red meat intake has been associated with coronary heart disease. It's probably associated with a million other things like increased happiness, greater propensity to go on country walks, higher likelihood of enjoying knitting and increased intake of junk foods. I'll let you figure out which of those may or may not share an actual causative relationship. In a sentence, the study means nothing.
The second study you cite is a meta analysis but don't even get me started on the problems with the conclusions that they can come to: on to the task at hand. By design, it shares the same problems as your 1995 effort in that intake of red meat cannot be disentangled from other factors that could cause heart disease or cancer. For example, if I eat 10 Big Macs a day, I will have consumed a lot of red meat. I will also have consumed lots of tomato ketchup (sugar), burger buns (pretty much sugar), processed cheese, lettuce, salt, that tangy sauce they use and maybe even some large fries and Coke if I fancied them. If I get heart disease or cancer, which was the offending food? All are positively correlated with my condition, even the lettuce! Your meta analysis is more focused on processed meats and says red meat wasn't even associated with negative outcomes in a European population.
If you're going to cite research, at least don't insult people's intelligence by claiming it concludes something that it doesn't and make it up to date. Lastly, the WHO say this about red meat:
"Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out".
Now with that in mind can you tell me what the actual mechanism is that drives the development of illness via red meat consumption. It may well be there, I actually don't know for sure but do not present any more links like those you have already provided (correlations not causations).
The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.
Exhibit 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380943
Meta-analysis, based on g of red meat/day consumption, statistically significant correlation, conclusion states that "results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat".
Exhibit 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842864
Meta-analysis, based on Japanese population this time, similar conclusion as before, "possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer or colon cancer among the Japanese population".
Exhibit 3: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2013.873886?journalCode=bfsn20
Study on the mechanism of cancer incidence caused by red/processed meat. Pay-walled but feel free to buy it or read it by... other means.
Exhibit 4: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/12/906.full
Very well respected study cited hundreds of times. Not pay-walled, great data with a large sample size.
Snippet from their conclusion:
"The results reported here are from one of the largest cohorts of men and women that has been developed specifically to examine the relationship between diet and cancer. We found a consistent positive association between high intake of red and processed meat and colorectal cancer".
Exhibit 5: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200150
From the same time period as the Norat et. al study, this study concludes that, "[Their] results demonstrate the potential value of examining long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine".
That is just a fraction of the work done on specifically red/processed meats, and there has been a growing suspicion, now backed up with evidence in recent years that health problems (being narrowed down by every new study) can arise from the intake of red/processed meats.
As for your concerns with other variables not being accounted for, when you're talking about the sample sizes being studied here, those variables become irrelevant. Most people aren't getting most of their red meat from a single red meat type loaded with additives. The only constant here in a combined sample size (over all the studies) of hundreds of thousands of people is red meat consumption, which is having a statistically observable effect on the incidence of different cancers in humans.
You've got the consensus of epidemiological studies against you, and you've got work to do if you want to convince anyone who has looked at these studies that they're all coming to the same 'crock of sh1t' conclusion.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.
Exhibit 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380943
Meta-analysis, based on g of red meat/day consumption, statistically significant correlation, conclusion states that "results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat".
Exhibit 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842864
Meta-analysis, based on Japanese population this time, similar conclusion as before, "possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer or colon cancer among the Japanese population".
Exhibit 3: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2013.873886?journalCode=bfsn20
Study on the mechanism of cancer incidence caused by red/processed meat. Pay-walled but feel free to buy it or read it by... other means.
Exhibit 4: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/12/906.full
Very well respected study cited hundreds of times. Not pay-walled, great data with a large sample size.
Snippet from their conclusion:
"The results reported here are from one of the largest cohorts of men and women that has been developed specifically to examine the relationship between diet and cancer. We found a consistent positive association between high intake of red and processed meat and colorectal cancer".
Exhibit 5: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200150
From the same time period as the Norat et. al study, this study concludes that, "[Their] results demonstrate the potential value of examining long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine".
That is just a fraction of the work done on specifically red/processed meats, and there has been a growing suspicion, now backed up with evidence in recent years that health problems (being narrowed down by every new study) can arise from the intake of red/processed meats.
As for your concerns with other variables not being accounted for, when you're talking about the sample sizes being studied here, those variables become irrelevant. Most people aren't getting most of their red meat from a single red meat type loaded with additives. The only constant here in a combined sample size (over all the studies) of hundreds of thousands of people is red meat consumption, which is having a statistically observable effect on the incidence of different cancers in humans.
You've got the consensus of epidemiological studies against you, and you've got work to do if you want to convince anyone who has looked at these studies that they're all coming to the same 'crock of sh1t' conclusion.
I didn't read the studies but are you saying that red meat is as dangerous as processed meat?0 -
-
malnurtured wrote: »It's not me saying anything, it's the studies, and as far as I can tell, most studies find a higher correlation between processed meats and cancers than red meats and cancers.
You would admit epidemiological studies aren't exactly the gold standard? This are primarily self reporting studies/questionnaires etc?
It's be shown in plenty studies that meat eaters in general engage in behaviours such as smoking/ excess alcohol etc which are known to increase cancer risk. Which of your studies have controlled for this?
What is cancer risk for someone who eats meat with a high veg intake?
http://www.zoeharcombe...isation-meat-cancer/
Anthony Colpo has a good article about it to.0 -
You would admit epidemiological studies aren't exactly the gold standard? This are primarily self reporting studies/questionnaires etc?
It's be shown in plenty studies that meat eaters in general engage in behaviours such as smoking/ excess alcohol etc which are known to increase cancer risk. Which of your studies have controlled for this?
What is cancer risk for someone who eats meat with a high veg intake?
http://www.zoeharcombe...isation-meat-cancer/
Anthony Colpo has a good article about it to.
Epidemiological studies don't hold a candle to the real gold-standard, but it's impossible to do randomised double-blind tests when you're talking about long-term risk factors in populations. It's the best we have, and it's all about eliminating variables by design and by sheer sample size reducing the percentage error.
As for meat eaters being more likely to be subject to other carcinogens, could you cite one of these many studies? If you read the abstracts/a little further down, you will see that nearly all of the studies control for common sources of error such as smoking/alcohol intake via questionnaires etc.
The link you gave didn't work for me.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement