If one wanted to test examples of high fat/protein compared to the e. asia diet which isn't high in those things, would not china and japan be excellent places to get data for the latter and the us and britian for the former? If you wanted to test that question which countries would you pick?
<[email hidden]> pí¹e v diskusním pøíspìvku news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
If one wanted to test examples of high fat/protein compared to the e. asia diet which isn't high in those things, would not china and japan be excellent places to get data for the latter and the us and britian for the former? If you wanted to test that question which countries would you pick?
[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
If one wanted to test examples of high fat/protein compared to the e. asia diet which isn't high in those things, would not china and japan be excellent places to get data for the latter and the us and britian for the former? If you wanted to test that question which countries would you pick?
Are you [censored] serious? You really do have no concept of what you are talking about do you. You prove that over and over especialy with this statement about the US and britian being good to test a high fat high protein diet. It is bad enough to do a study like this with intent to prove something pre concieved but with you its just pure ignorance or stupidity or something. I find it very hard to believe you could really believe what you are saying. For one thing it is absurd to "pick countries" in the first place because there are just too many factors involved ESPECIALY in modern western diets like that of the US and Briton. How many pounds of sugar per person does the US/briton eat compared to china/japan?? Refined flower?? Are these not huge variables between the two?? Are these things not partly responsible for poor health and weight gain?? And most importantly are these things NOT fat or protein which are supposedly the factors being isolated and blamed but as you can see there are many other factors. How about the type of fat? Is it not true that liquid and hydrogenated vegetable oil have largely replaced traditional healthy fats in western US/briton diets and are in fact make up the majority of fat consumed in these countries? How much of those fats are consumed in Japan/China? These fake dangerous fats are very different from traditional animal fats and coconut/olive oil which dominated the US diet 100 years ago when many modern health problems did not exist and probably make up a much smaller percentage of the fat eaten in japan/china compared to the US/briton. In fact the so called high fat modern US/british diet has probably less calories from fat than the diets of 100 years ago heavy in animal fats and where none of the fat was liquid or hydrogenated veggie oil. Now there is FAR more refined sugar/flower, IMENSLY more liquid/hydrogenated veggie oil, and FAR less animal/coconut fat in a diet that has probably LESS or at most the same total fat as 100 years ago. You really need to take a step back and try to look deeper and realize how flawed and limited your thinking is and how you and others like those doing this study and other studies fail to take anywhere near all the factors into account and therefor can not possibly come to accurate honest and real scientific conclusionis. Either you wrongly think all fat is the same and chose to lump it all together as do most researchers or you are just not bothering to consider the fact that these differences are there and have a huge impact. I know you seem to single out olive oil as being different so I fail to understand the reason you insist on disregarding the differences between saturated animal fats or coconut with liquid polyunsaturated fats or even saturated trans fats from hydrogenated oils. You display a huge bias when you constantly single out olive oil and monounsaturated fats but fail to do so between other fats. You CAN NOT do a study on "fat" without singling out all types of fat and annalysing them independantly of one another. That is not real science. It becomes even more complicated when you consider that all fats are made up of a percentage of SFAs MUFAs and PUFAs and some fats are classified as one or another that contain less than 40% of that fat. A real scientific study that is well controlled and considers and indeed focuses on these factors is what needs to be done. Yet in all these decades of dietary research nothing even remotely near this has even been attempted on a large scale when it could potentialy once and for all clear up all the rampant missinformation and confusion about fats if it was done well. If a simpleton like me can come up with this basic concept I find it hard to understand why it has not been done when it could definitively answer many questions. There is absolutely no reason for this exept willful avoidence of such issues.
[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
If one wanted to test examples of high fat/protein compared to the e. asia diet which isn't high in those things, would not china and japan be excellent places to get data for the latter and the us and britian for the former? If you wanted to test that question which countries would you pick?
Are you [censored] serious? You really do have no concept of what you are talking about do you. You prove that over and over especially with this statement about the US and Britain being good to test a high fat high protein diet. It is bad enough to do a study like this with intent to prove something pre conceived but with you its just pure ignorance or stupidity or something. I find it very hard to believe you could really believe what you are saying. For one thing it is absurd to "pick countries" in the first place because there are just too many factors involved ESPECIALLY in modern western diets like that of the US and Briton. How many pounds of sugar per person does the US/Briton eat compared to china/japan?? Refined flower?? Are these not huge variables between the two?? Are these things not partly responsible for poor health and weight gain?? And most importantly are these things NOT fat or protein which are supposedly the factors being isolated and blamed but as you can see there are many other factors. How about the type of fat? Is it not true that liquid and hydrogenated vegetable oil have largely replaced traditional healthy fats in western US/Briton diets and are in fact make up the majority of fat consumed in these countries? How much of those fats are consumed in Japan/China? These fake dangerous fats are very different from traditional animal fats and coconut/olive oil which dominated the US diet 100 years ago when many modern health problems did not exist and probably make up a much smaller percentage of the fat eaten in japan/china compared to the US/Briton. In fact the so called high fat modern US/British diet has probably less calories from fat than the diets of 100 years ago heavy in animal fats and where none of the fat was liquid or hydrogenated veggie oil. Now there is FAR more refined sugar/flower, IMMENSELY more liquid/hydrogenated veggie oil, and FAR less animal/coconut fat in a diet that has probably LESS or at most the same total fat as 100 years ago. You really need to take a step back and try to look deeper and realize how flawed and limited your thinking is and how you and others like those doing this study and other studies fail to take anywhere near all the factors into account and therefor can not possibly come to accurate honest and real scientific conclusions. Either you wrongly think all fat is the same and chose to lump it all together as do most researchers or you are just not bothering to consider the fact that these differences are there and have a huge impact. I know you seem to single out olive oil as being different so I fail to understand the reason you insist on disregarding the differences between saturated animal fats or coconut with liquid polyunsaturated fats or even saturated trans fats from hydrogenated oils. You display a huge bias when you constantly single out olive oil and monounsaturated fats but fail to do so between other fats. You CAN NOT do a study on "fat" without singling out all types of fat and annualizing them independently of one another. That is not real science. It becomes even more complicated when you consider that all fats are made up of a percentage of SFAs MUFAs and PUFAs and some fats are classified as one or another that contain less than 40% of that fat. A real scientific study that is well controlled and considers and indeed focuses on these factors is what needs to be done. Yet in all these decades of dietary research nothing even remotely near this has even been attempted on a large scale when it could potentially once and for all clear up all the rampant misinformation and confusion about fats if it was done well. If a simpleton like me can come up with this basic concept I find it hard to understand why it has not been done when it could definitively answer many questions. There is absolutely no reason for this except willful avoidance of such issues.
