The definitive study on dietary fat and weight

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal), Jan 4, 2006.

  1. TC

    TC Guest

    jt wrote:
    > On 7 Jan 2006 06:37:39 -0800, "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >>Please remind us, other than B12, what essential nutrients can't we can
    > >>from veggies and fruit? The last time you came up with a list I think JT
    > >>pointed to plants that had them and that assumed the list you provided
    > >>were essential at all. I noticed you never replied after that. Put your
    > >>head back in the sand?
    > >>

    > >
    > >I believe TC said, in his post above, that plant food sources failed to
    > >provide these nutrients in "OPTIMUM" amounts,

    >
    > Is that the new spin, I wonder what he considers optimum. Only
    > confirms his ignorance in what a vegan can be.


    That has always been my "spin". I consider optimum the range of amounts
    (min and max) needed by the body for the *best* health. Both in terms
    of individual nutrients and combinations of nutrients.

    It is not enough to get *some* of the essential nutrients, but you must
    get at least the minimum the body *needs* and preferably not more than
    what the body can manage. And those needs will flunctuate with certain
    variables like the amount of stress on us, physical and mental,
    sickness and injuries, etc. It will also change with the sex of the
    person, the age, pregnancy, etc.

    >
    > >not that these nutrients weren't available, at all. I would, therefore, agree with his
    > >statement. Animal sources *do* provide optimum quantities of things
    > >such as taurine, iron, zinc, vitamin A, B12, etc, etc ...

    >
    > Without careful planning most "Americans" will far exceed the
    > "optimum" quantities of these nutrients.


    You mean "with careful planning", right? But I submit that most people
    who are stupid enough to buy into vegetarianism inherently are too
    stupid to know how to do this with no animal sourced foods in the diet.

    And if you are refferring to the govt RDAs, then you are truly a fool.
    They keep those RDAs so ridiclulously low that it is a joke. The lower
    theu keep them the more the food industry can pretend to actually
    produce nutritionally adequate foods.

    >
    > >
    > >They also provide these nutrients in a form that is best absorbed by
    > >humans, which is very important.

    >
    > More generalizations not based in reality


    Actually not. One example is the new genetically engineered "golden"
    rice that contains a type of vitamin A and which is supposed to be a
    food breakthrough that will save millions of lives in developing
    countries. Except that the amounts in it are ridiculously low and is
    biologically unavailable to us. Our bodies can't use it regardless as
    to how much we eat. The rice contains it, but it does us no good.

    Many plants contain small amounts of some nutrients that we can't use.
    Animal source foods contains a lot of nutrients, in large amounts and
    in forms that our bodies can easily use.

    >
    > > Vegetarian diets, in particular vegan diets, require careful planning, much more so than do omnivorous ones.
    > >

    > Based on how rampant obesity and being overweight has become in
    > society. I would dare to say most of who are not on a vegan diet
    > would seem to indicate that they might need to do a little more
    > careful planning as well. Their problem is not not with deficiency
    > but with excess which is the theme with most degenerative diseases.
    >
    > I would say the complications from eating a typical western diet such
    > diabetes, heart disease etc seem to be far more prevelant and serious
    > than the complications of eating a vegan diet.


    The complications and chronic diseases caused by the western diet are
    caused largely by a huge increase in consumption of refined
    carbohydrates and processed and fake foods. HFCS, sugar, refined white
    flour, soda, pasta, cake, candy, hydrogenated vegetable fats which
    contain elevated amounts trans fats, margarine and shortening, soy
    products, especially genetically engineered soy, etc. All plant based
    foods, btw.

    Good healthy fats and proteins from good healthy animals is not only
    good but very, very healthy. I've been eating copious amounts of animal
    proteins and fats for over 5 years now and my health has never been
    better. I eat beef, pork, chicken, butter, whole milk, bacon, cheese,
    etc every single day and I have never been healthier or thinner.
    Haven't had a cold in 5 years. My family went from dozens of
    prescriptions per year to NONE. No more irritable bowel, my allergies
    are greatly diminished. My back problems are completely gone. That is
    what happens when you get optimum amounts of animal sourced collagen in
    your diet. Joint and connective tissue problems heal and go away. No
    more anxiety. Nutrient deficiency leads to anxiety and depression.

    I could go on, but you get the idea. We started eating better and more
    animal sourced foods and my health and, more importantly, the health of
    my family, improved drastically.

    No vegetarian can claim and prove that they are in optimal health. It
    is an impossibility.

    TC
     


  2. Rob

    Rob Guest

    Yes, I agree that excess is the problem. Typical Westerners eat too
    much and exercise too little. There's your problem in a nutshell!

    BTW, I have known a few vegetarians that should have spent a little
    less time at the dinner table, if you know what I mean. Vegetarianism
    is not necessarily the panacea the Neal Barnards of this world would
    have us believe. I would much rather start with a diet I know provides
    all the nutrients I need and work from there which, in my case, is what
    I did. I haven't following anything close to a typical Western diet in
    over 20 years.

    Rob
     
  3. jt

    jt Guest

    On 8 Jan 2006 18:00:39 -0800, "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Yes, I agree that excess is the problem. Typical Westerners eat too
    >much and exercise too little. There's your problem in a nutshell!
    >

    You got that right

    >BTW, I have known a few vegetarians that should have spent a little
    >less time at the dinner table, if you know what I mean. Vegetarianism
    >is not necessarily the panacea the Neal Barnards of this world would
    >have us believe.


    I agree, any diet can be unhealthy if only poor food choices are made.

    >I would much rather start with a diet I know provides
    >all the nutrients I need and work from there which, in my case, is what
    >I did.


    Fair enough, you watch what you eat to avoid consuming too much while
    others choose to watch what they eat to avoid consuming too little.
     
  4. jt

    jt Guest

    On 8 Jan 2006 09:22:01 -0800, "TC" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >jt wrote:
    >> On 7 Jan 2006 06:37:39 -0800, "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >>Please remind us, other than B12, what essential nutrients can't we can
    >> >>from veggies and fruit? The last time you came up with a list I think JT
    >> >>pointed to plants that had them and that assumed the list you provided
    >> >>were essential at all. I noticed you never replied after that. Put your
    >> >>head back in the sand?
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >I believe TC said, in his post above, that plant food sources failed to
    >> >provide these nutrients in "OPTIMUM" amounts,

    >>
    >> Is that the new spin, I wonder what he considers optimum. Only
    >> confirms his ignorance in what a vegan can be.

    >
    >That has always been my "spin". I consider optimum the range of amounts
    >(min and max) needed by the body for the *best* health. Both in terms
    >of individual nutrients and combinations of nutrients.
    >

    Which is?

    >It is not enough to get *some* of the essential nutrients, but you must
    >get at least the minimum the body *needs* and preferably not more than
    >what the body can manage. And those needs will flunctuate with certain
    >variables like the amount of stress on us, physical and mental,
    >sickness and injuries, etc. It will also change with the sex of the
    >person, the age, pregnancy, etc.
    >

    Could you be any more vague and indecisive?
    >>
    >> >not that these nutrients weren't available, at all. I would, therefore, agree with his
    >> >statement. Animal sources *do* provide optimum quantities of things
    >> >such as taurine, iron, zinc, vitamin A, B12, etc, etc ...

    >>
    >> Without careful planning most "Americans" will far exceed the
    >> "optimum" quantities of these nutrients.

    >
    >You mean "with careful planning", right?


    No, there is plenty of manufactured fortified crap on the market that
    contains far more hydrogenated fat, refined sugar etc than anyone
    needs. RDAs are very conservative and higher than what the average
    person really needs.

    > But I submit that most people
    >who are stupid enough to buy into vegetarianism inherently are too
    >stupid to know how to do this with no animal sourced foods in the diet.


    and what of the people who eat nothing but refined hydrogenated crap?
    As I said before children were not being diagnosed with type 2
    diabetes and exhibiting early signs of coronary artery disease as they
    are today when they were eating whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and
    yes dairy and beef at least until adulthood.

    Vegetarians are not going to win the diet Darwin awards
    >
    >And if you are refferring to the govt RDAs, then you are truly a fool.


    They are vastly over inflated.

    >They keep those RDAs so ridiclulously low that it is a joke.


    Like the # portions of carbs?

    >The lower
    >theu keep them the more the food industry can pretend to actually
    >produce nutritionally adequate foods.
    >

    More like they keep them inflated so people will buy fortified refined
    processed RTE crap. Any diet consisting of *real* foods whole grains,
    fruits, vegetables, beef, dairy will have less of many nutrients that
    are founds in fortified RTE cereals, fortified soy milk, etc but these
    diets are far from healthy. But what else are they going to advertise
    other than 100% RDA? That your are eating 100% corn syrup?

    Let me guess B12 and a few amino acids are kept too low?

    >>
    >> >
    >> >They also provide these nutrients in a form that is best absorbed by
    >> >humans, which is very important.

    >>
    >> More generalizations not based in reality

    >
    >Actually not. One example is the new genetically engineered "golden"
    >rice that contains a type of vitamin A and which is supposed to be a
    >food breakthrough that will save millions of lives in developing
    >countries. Except that the amounts in it are ridiculously low and is
    >biologically unavailable to us. Our bodies can't use it regardless as
    >to how much we eat. The rice contains it, but it does us no good.


    Yeah vitamin A can't be found anywhere but animal products LOL! Do
    you think vegetarians can only eat rice? I suppose I could say
    non-vegetarians only eat bacon and butter if it helps me say that they
    are malnourish.
    >
    >Many plants contain small amounts of some nutrients


    Ok we have already gone over this before B12 is the only nutrient
    which can easily be overcome by taking a multi-vitamin.

    > that we can't use. Animal source foods contains a lot of nutrients,
    >in large amounts and in forms that our bodies can easily use.


    Protein requirements are small and can easily be met by a vegetarian
    diet. If you are a world class body builder probably not but then no
    natural diet contains enough protein only powders and of course
    steroids.
    >
    >>
    >> > Vegetarian diets, in particular vegan diets, require careful planning, much more so than do omnivorous ones.
    >> >

    >> Based on how rampant obesity and being overweight has become in
    >> society. I would dare to say most of who are not on a vegan diet
    >> would seem to indicate that they might need to do a little more
    >> careful planning as well. Their problem is not not with deficiency
    >> but with excess which is the theme with most degenerative diseases.
    >>
    >> I would say the complications from eating a typical western diet such
    >> diabetes, heart disease etc seem to be far more prevelant and serious
    >> than the complications of eating a vegan diet.

    >
    >The complications and chronic diseases caused by the western diet are
    >caused largely by a huge increase in consumption of refined
    >carbohydrates and processed and fake foods. HFCS, sugar, refined white
    >flour, soda, pasta, cake, candy, hydrogenated vegetable fats which
    >contain elevated amounts trans fats, margarine and shortening, soy
    >products, especially genetically engineered soy, etc.


    So you think a vegetarian not eating the above who is eating whole
    grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts/seeds and a b12 supplement is worse
    off than someone eating the above? Obviously not and just adding
    McDonalds genetically modified dairy and beef to either diet does not
    change anything.


    >All plant based foods, btw.


    Thanks I did not know highly refined and processed foods were
    unhealthy
    >
    > Good healthy fats and proteins from good healthy animals is not only
    >good but very, very healthy.


    Well better than hydrogenated vegetable oils but I prefer nuts/seeds
    coconut, olive oil etc.


    >I've been eating copious amounts of animal
    >proteins and fats for over 5 years now and my health has never been
    >better.


    Anyone who is not eating refined, processed, genetically modified crap
    is going to feel better. Whether its from fruits,vegetables, grains
    and un genetically modified animal products.

    > I eat beef, pork, chicken, butter, whole milk, bacon, cheese,
    >etc every single day and I have never been healthier or thinner.
    >Haven't had a cold in 5 years.


    Big deal, I can not remember the last cold I had because I am not
    keeping track but it has been years and I know I have not had the flu
    in over 10 years. I used to get sick more when I was eating processed
    junk.

    >My family went from dozens of
    >prescriptions per year to NONE. No more irritable bowel, my allergies
    >are greatly diminished. My back problems are completely gone. That is
    >what happens when you get optimum amounts of animal sourced collagen in
    >your diet. Joint and connective tissue problems heal and go away. No
    >more anxiety. Nutrient deficiency leads to anxiety and depression.


    Processed junk will do that to you.
    >
    >I could go on, but you get the idea. We started eating better and more
    >animal sourced foods and my health and, more importantly, the health of
    >my family, improved drastically.


    You can eat all the animal sourced foods you want but if you are
    eating processed junk it wont matter.
    >
    >No vegetarian can claim and prove that they are in optimal health. It
    >is an impossibility.
    >

    and how does anyone prove that genius?
     
  5. Allen Weiner

    Allen Weiner Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >From Juhana:

    >
    > >>Don't you think that there is any role for clinical markers or other

    > indicators that would show beforehand that a certain diet would
    > probably fit
    > to a particular person? Or is it so that the only method is by
    > individual
    > trial and error? <<
    >
    > I related (on an earlier thread) how I was told by a PhD nutrition
    > researcher how the world of nutrition science tends to be populated by
    > the lower end of the biomedical researcher food chain. The suggestion
    > above is precisely what researchers ought to be doing, rather than
    > spending decades and $tens of millions trying to define the lowest
    > common denominator diet which works best for the average person, in a
    > world where few of us are average.
    >
    > We need biomarkers (another word for "predictive tests") which would
    > result in an individualized prescription for the type of diet which
    > would be most likely to achieve the desired results in an individual.
    >
    > In the meantime, however, there isn't any reason not to go the "Plan
    > A," "Plan B," "Plan C", etc. approach.
    >


    An interesting article. Citation from the Proquest database.


    Your Genomic Diet
    Corby Kummer. Technology Review. Cambridge: Aug 2005.Vol.108, Iss. 8; pg.
    54, 6 pgs



    Abstract (Document Summary)
    Imagine a diet plan that saw through to the core of your being and beyond,
    that took into account not just the foibles and little secrets no one else
    knows about but even the secrets that you don't know - secrets that can help
    keep you alive longer and in better health. This is the promise - and the
    threat - of the latest scheme for dramatic health improvement to fall out
    from the big bang of the Human Genome Project. Nutritional genomics - or
    nutritional genetics, or nutrigenomics - examines your diet and your genes
    to determine how they interact. Proponents argue that nutrients in food
    alter gene expression or structure, acting differently on different people
    according to their genetic makeup. Once these interactions are understood,
    the story goes, people can make up for inherited weaknesses or genetic flaws
    by eating differently and, when necessary, taking dietary supplements.
    Understanding the links between genes, specific nutrients, and a range of
    diseases-from diabetes and heart disease to less obvious diseases like some
    cancers and neurodegenerative syndromes-will result in a diet plan tailored
    to your very own gene profile.
     
  6. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >Hey Jim, I just noticed something about that figure 5...
    >
    >http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg
    >
    >Look at the standard deviations:
    >
    >In the intervention (Low fat) group, the error bars are biggest in the
    >least fat consumption group (-11% change) and smallest in the greatest
    >fat consumption group (+3% increase). There appears to be a stepwise
    >reduction in the size of the error bars as you go from least fat
    >consumption to most fat consumption.
    >
    >OK, mildly interesting, you say.
    >
    >But note that the relationship is opposite for the control group. They
    >have the smallest error bars at the least fat consumption and the
    >largest error bars at the greatest fat consumption, and a nice
    >progressive step-wise increase in between.
    >
    >I'm trying to figure out some sort of logical reason for this, but in 5
    >minutes of thinking about it, I couldn't come up with anything. Can
    >you help me out on this?
    >
    >- Larry W


    Yeah, I think i can help...

    You have switched the intervention and control groups in your description
    above. :) The error bars seem to make perfect sense, once you identify
    them correctly.

    Depending on how the experimenters chose the intervals, the intervention
    should result in a shifted (and skewed) distribution to the left (lower fat
    consumption) and the control group would be relatively farther to the right.
    Assuming that each group has a somewhat gaussian distribution, that means
    the left tail ( -11% change or greater) of the treatment group is rather
    large, producing a small error bar on weight change. The highest levels have
    relatively few people in them and correspondingly large error bars.

    Similarly, I suspect the control distribution is relatively near the upper
    categories of fat consumption, meaning that there are lots of observations
    in the highest category and therefore a small error bracket. Etc...

    (Sorry for the delayed response. I've been travelling and off-line for the
    past week.)
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
Loading...