87 replies to this topic

[misterE]

It is interesting to note the changes that have taken place during the past 100 years in terms of diet. 100 years ago our diet was much different (yet far from ideal). I think it is fair to say that Americans were much healthier back then, than currently. So what happened in the past 100 years to cause such an epidemic of obesity, heart-disease, diabetes, cancer and premature aging?

A study published in 2010 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, investigated the changes that have taken place since 1909 to 2007 [1]. Note, I have omitted foods that are known to promote longevity (fruits and vegetables), here are the results...

Total Meat:
1909: 124 lbs
2007: 201 lbs

Difference: 62% increase.

Total Cheese:
1909: 4 lbs
2007: 33 lbs

Difference: 725% increase.

Total Ice Cream:
1909: 1.5 lbs
2007: 25 lbs

Difference: 1567% increase.

Total Fats/Oils:
1909: 35 lbs
2007: 87 lbs

Difference: 149% increase.

Total Sugar:
1970: 119 lbs
2007: 137 lbs

Difference: 15% increase.


Total Grains:
1909: 301 lbs
2007: 197 lbs

Difference: 35% decrease.


The largest conclusion one can make from the data is that from 1909 to 2007 Americans ate more meat, dairy, fat, sugar and less grain. This is the exact same trend that is happening in Asia. The traditional Asian diet was rich in rice, vegetables, soybeans, and seafood. But after WWII western-foods started becoming the norm, and from that dietary-shift (away from rice and vegetables and towards meat, dairy, fat and sugar) came a huge epidemic of diseases [2-6].




[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1530S-1536S. Trends in food availability, 1909-2007. Barnard ND.

[2] Gan No Rinsho. 1986 May;32(6):561-6. Changes in food/nutrient intake and cancer mortality in Japan. Kato I, Tominaga S.

[3] Med Hypotheses. 2003 Feb;60(2):268-75. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of breast and ovarian cancers: relationship between death from both malignancies and dietary practices. Li XM, Ganmaa D, Sato A.

[4] Med Hypotheses. 2003 May;60(5):724-30. The experience of Japan as a clue to the etiology of testicular and prostatic cancers. Ganmaa D, Li XM, Qin LQ.

[5] Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2004 Jan-Mar;5(1):28-35. Association between type II diabetes and colon cancer among Japanese with reference to changes in food intake. Kuriki K, Tokudome S, Tajima K.

[6] Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1998 Feb;37(2):111-5. Increased incidence of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus among Japanese schoolchildren correlates with an increased intake of animal protein and fat. Kitagawa T, Owada M, Urakami T.

Edited by misterE, 03 August 2012 - 03:21 AM.

[niner]

Total Ice Cream:
1909: 1.5 lbs
2007: 25 lbs

Difference: 1567% increase.

Total Fats/Oils:
1909: 35 lbs
2007: 87 lbs

Difference: 149% increase.

Total Sugar:
1970: 119 lbs
2007: 137 lbs

Difference: 15% increase.

Here's a good place to look for causes of the diseases of the modern American diet. That ice cream jump is indicative of what the sugar increase would be if it were taken from 1909 instead of 1970, which I guess is the only data you had. I suspect that sugars, particularly fructose, have come up a huge amount in the last century. The increase in fats and oils is only a small part of the story. The real news is the composition of those fats. In 1909, it would have been mostly healthy animal fats, while today there is a lot of omega 6 PUFAs from industrial seed oils, and a lack of omega 3 fats in modern grain-fed meats. Add to the mix more trans fats from partial hydrogenation of seed oils, and you have a mess on your hands. The trans fat problem has improved, but only recently. We're probably still seeing a lot of disease that it caused over years of consumption.

[misterE]

That ice cream jump is indicative of what the sugar increase would be if it were taken from 1909 instead of 1970, which I guess is the only data you had.

The consumption of sugar was of added sugars (not sugars in foods), so ice cream would have been excluded from the sugar category. The data (on added sugars) in this study only dated back to 1970, but 137 pounds of sugar per year is outrageous.

The increase in fats and oils is only a small part of the story. The real news is the composition of those fats. In 1909, it would have been mostly healthy animal fats, while today there is a lot of omega 6 PUFAs from industrial seed oils

The total consumption of added fats and oils has increased. Animals-fats in cooking (butter, lard, tallow, etc.) have indeed decreased, but this is most likely offset by the huge consumption of meat, cheese and ice-cream (all of which are very high in saturated-fat). So even thou Americans used less butter and more vegetable-oil for cooking, doesn't mean that they ate less saturated-fat in general, because the saturated-fat was now being consumed in the form of meat and cheese instead of butter or tallow. The reality is we are eating more saturated-fat and omega-6 than ever before.

Edited by misterE, 03 August 2012 - 03:22 AM.

[buckwheats]

calories from fat has actually decreased in comparison to calories from carbs in American's diets since the 1970's. http://upload.wikime...Food_trends.gif

Edited by buckwheats, 03 August 2012 - 05:58 AM.

[rwac]

Lots of other things have been added to the diet, between 1909 and 2007. Like for example HFCS, carrageenan, guar gum etc. Even vegetables and fruits are different, breeds are picked unripe and made to be easily transportable.

[misterE]

calories from fat has actually decreased in comparison to calories from carbs in American's diets since the 1970's. http://upload.wikime...Food_trends.gif

The percentage has, but not the total amount. For instance, if I had a plastic-cup with 14 grams of olive-oil inside. The calories in the cup would be 100% fat. Now if I added sugar to the cup (of olive-oil) the percentage of fat would decrease, because of the increased percentage of carbohydrate now in the cup, but the total amount of fat in the cup (14 grams) stays the same.

Overall, Americans are eating less starch (grains, beans, potatoes) and more fat (meat, cheese, oil) and sugar.

Edited by misterE, 04 August 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[niner]

Overall, Americans are eating less starch (grains, beans, potatoes) and more fat (meat, cheese, oil) and sugar.

Instead of looking at data from 1909, I think it would make more sense to look from about 1970 to the present, because that's the time frame in which our obesity, metabolic syndrome and diabetes epidemics have developed. You seem to want to indict animal fat as the bad guy, but I don't think the evidence will really support that. Thanks to the demonization of fat and the "low fat" craze, there has been a shift from fat consumption to sugar consumption in that time period.

[misterE]

You seem to want to indict animal fat as the bad guy, but I don't think the evidence will really support that. Thanks to the demonization of fat and the "low fat" craze, there has been a shift from fat consumption to sugar consumption in that time period.

Animal-fat (saturated-fat) has been consistently shown (in the scientific-literature) to induce insulin-resistance, hypercholesterolemia, inflammation, hyperestrogenemia, and many types of cancers (especially breast and prostate), plus animal-fat is the main source of dioxins and pesticides. There was never really a "shift" as you said. The percentage of fat has gone down (because of the higher consumption of sugar; a carbohydrate), but the total amount of fat has actually increased substantially.

The dietary-recommendations in the late 1970's and early 1980's: to decrease fat intake and increase consumption of carbohydrate, was done with good intention (in my opinion). The recommendations suggested eating less total fat and more complex-carbohydrates (whole-grains, beans, potatoes). But what did Americans do? They ate low-fat cookies, low-fat ice-cream, low-fat dairy… low-fat junk-foods pretty much. Americans never went from a high-fat diet to a diet based on whole-grains. The solution isn't to go from sugar to grease. The solution is to go towards a starch based diet.

Starch was the fuel that allowed for civilization. Starchy foods are what allowed the human race to thrive and conquer the globe. What type of foods do you think the majority of people ate before refrigerators? Grains of course! Look at the Asian diet. Asians have gone from having the greatest longevity, to an epidemic of metabolic-syndrome within one generation! The cause of which was a switch from their typical dietary-staple of rice, to high-fat western-foods.

Recall the opening-post? Grains (starch) decreased while both fat and sugar increased. Sugar, although a carbohydrate is actually metabolized much like fat. So for folks saying that saturated-fat is good, but fructose is bad... really don't know what they're talking about because fructose is actually converted into saturated-fat (palmitic-acid) in the liver.

Edited by misterE, 05 August 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[rwac]

Sugar, although a carbohydrate is actually metabolized much like fat. So for folks saying that saturated-fat is good, but fructose is bad... really don't know what they're talking about because fructose is actually converted into saturated-fat (palmitic-acid) in the liver.

Sugar doesn't turn into fat per se, liver glycogen stores are refilled first and that takes quite a bit of sugar to do. Look at the fruitarians (30BAD), most of their calories come from sugar! They may have problems, but gaining fat isn't one.

[misterE]

Sugar doesn't turn into fat per se, liver glycogen stores are refilled first and that takes quite a bit of sugar to do. Look at the fruitarians (30BAD), most of their calories come from sugar! They may have problems, but gaining fat isn't one.

To be more exact, glucose doesn't convert into fat, but fructose does. Fruitarians don't become obese because they are constantly undergoing lipolysis (which is the break down of triglycerides into free-fatty-acids and oxidation of the free-fatty-acids). Glucose stimulates insulin-secretion, which then pushes protein and glucose into the muscles and pushes fat into adipose-tissue, insulin also is the main inhibitor of lipolysis. Since fructose doesn't stimulate insulin-secretion, the triglycerides (from the fructose) are mobilized and oxidized. This is why low-carb/high-fat diets are slimming. Without insulin signaling, the body undergoes lipolysis and weight-loss. However chronic-lipolysis is (in my opinion) the underlying cause of metabolic-syndrome, secondary to insulin-resistance within the adipocytes.

Edited by misterE, 05 August 2012 - 07:12 AM.

[misterE]

I also think it is worth mentioning that fructose isn't stored as glycogen. Only glucose can be stored as glycogen. Fructose is stored as triglycerides.

[rwac]

Since fructose doesn't stimulate insulin-secretion, the triglycerides (from the fructose) are mobilized and oxidized.
...
However chronic-lipolysis is (in my opinion) the underlying cause of metabolic-syndrome, secondary to insulin-resistance within the adipocytes.

There's an inconsistency there, high fructose(fruit) diets don't actually cause metabolic syndrome, which is what you would expect if fructose was metabolized via triglycerides.

Plus: An insulinogenic effect of oral fructose in humans during postprandial hyperglycemia.

[Hebbeh]

I also think it is worth mentioning that fructose isn't stored as glycogen. Only glucose can be stored as glycogen. Fructose is stored as triglycerides.

This is not entirely correct. Fructose will be preferentially stored as liver glycogen. Unlike glucose which can be stored as either liver or muscle glycogen. However, glucose will preferentially enter general circulation to maintain blood sugar levels and be used for energy (either in the brain or muscles) or stored as muscle glycogen if needed. Only when blood sugar is high (coach potato) will glucose be stored in liver. So fructose will be used preferentially to top off liver glycogen...and ONLY when liver glycogen is full will fructose be converted to triglyceride for storage...which shouldn't be a problem if you are eating intelligently and controlling for calories and using fruit as a snack to maintain blood sugar while being active (not a couch potato). So it's not that simple...but I do recommend avoiding liquid calories and HFCS...but no problem with fruit as snack.

[misterE]

There's an inconsistency there, high fructose(fruit) diets don't actually cause metabolic syndrome, which is what you would expect if fructose was metabolized via triglycerides.

In my opinion, the reason why high fruit diets don't cause metabolic-syndrome is because of the dietary-fiber and phytonutrients in fruit that negates the negative effects of fructose. Same could be said for nuts or avocadoes; certain phytonutrients in nuts or avocadoes (like beta-sitosterol for example) negates the negative effects of the fat.

Fructose will cause hyperinsulinemia when combined with glucose. Since glucose increases insulin, and since fructose converts into fat, which then causes insulin-resistance, insulin will stay in the blood for extended periods of time, instead of being metabolized. Sucrose is extremely fattening because it is a 50-50 ratio of glucose to fructose.

Edited by misterE, 05 August 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[niner]

Recall the opening-post? Grains (starch) decreased while both fat and sugar increased. Sugar, although a carbohydrate is actually metabolized much like fat. So for folks saying that saturated-fat is good, but fructose is bad... really don't know what they're talking about because fructose is actually converted into saturated-fat (palmitic-acid) in the liver.

I do recall the initial post, I'm just not swayed by it, because it is looking at the wrong time period, and the increase in sugar consumption is conveniently missing. I'd also not that it doesn't address the shift from healthy fats to high omega 6 industrial seed oils and hydrogenated oils, all of which happened post-1909.

There is a huge difference between eating palmitic acid and palmitic acid being synthesized as an energy storage form. I guess you aren't familiar with the work of Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist at UCSF, but he has some very good arguments against fructose. Fructose in excess is a metabolic poison. I don't recommend hyperlipid diets for the average person, but hyperlipid and ketogenic dieters show that fat is a pretty good nutrient.

[DukeNukem]

I'm sure that the rise in total fats is mostly from unhealthy vegetable oils, which now proliferate all restaurants, and all processed foods.

Likewise, the type of sugar used has swung more towards fructose in the last 40 years, thanks to HFCS usage. Fructose eis metabolically more harmful than glucose. Plus, HFCS has unbound fructose, which appears to make matters worse, versus the fructose in sucrose, for example.

Finally, I find it difficult to believe grain usage has gone down, given how grains are used in all processed foods, especially in the last 40-50 years.

[misterE]

increase in sugar consumption is conveniently missing.

It doesn't really matter that it's missing, just look at the end result. Americans are eating 136 pounds of added sugar per year (up 15% from 1970). We both agree that is a serious health hazard. Can you image the health benefits of reducing added sugar consumption to 0 pounds per year?

I'd also not that it doesn't address the shift from healthy fats to high omega 6 industrial seed oils and hydrogenated oils, all of which happened post-1909.

Animal-fats in cooking (butter and tallow) have indeed decreased. But the total-amount of animal-fat has increased because of the huge increase in meat, cheese and ice-cream consumption. We are eating much more omega-6 and saturated-fat since 1909. Trans-fats are unsaturated-fats that have been converted into saturated-fats by adding hydrogen molecules to the chain of fatty-acids.

There is a huge difference between eating palmitic acid and palmitic acid being synthesized as an energy storage form. I guess you aren't familiar with the work of Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist at UCSF, but he has some very good arguments against fructose. Fructose in excess is a metabolic poison. I don't recommend hyperlipid diets for the average person, but hyperlipid and ketogenic dieters show that fat is a pretty good nutrient.

And what difference would that be? Palmitic-acid comes from one of two places. You can either eat it directly (from animal-fat) or you can synthesize it from fructose. Metabolically, a high-fructose diet is the same as a high-fat diet. Both diets are lipogenic. There have been no large cultures living on a ketogenic-diet. Most cultures around the globe have mainly eaten starch-based diets: potatoes in South America, corn in North America, wheat in Europe, millet in Africa, barley in the Middle East and rice in Asia. The majority of people who ever walked the planet have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch, save for a few small cultures living on the extremes of the environment (Eskimos for example).

I don't agree with Dr. Lustig on everything. But if you recall during his presentation (Sugar: The Bitter Truth), when he shows the metabolic-fate of either glucose and fructose... they are clearly different. The majority of glucose ends up as glycogen, while fructose ends up as fat. Dr. Lustig fails to make the connection that we need to change our diets from sugar (and fat) to starch. And makes the false statement:” it’s not the fat”. Perhaps that is why Lustig is a bit chubby.

The truth is: It’s both fat and sugar, reducing one, but leaving the other, like the Atkins-diet or ketogenic-diets, are not going to give you the longevity we are all searching for. The solution is reducing both fat and sugar and replacing it with fiber and starch.

Edited by misterE, 05 August 2012 - 05:44 PM.

[misterE]

I find it difficult to believe grain usage has gone down, given how grains are used in all processed foods, especially in the last 40-50 years.

Grain consumption drastically decreased in the 20th century, but partially rebounded with the advent of processed-foods in the 1970's [1]. Think: enriched bleached flour used in pop tarts, oreo-cookies, hot-pockets, hamburger buns, hotdog-buns, etc.

The researcher (Barnard) even says in the study: "In the late 1960s, the availability of these products began a partial rebound as commercial baking replaced home baking and the rapidly expanding fast-food market emphasized the use of flour products in sandwiches, breaded coatings, pizza crust, and bagels." He also states:" Although flour and cereal product availability increased in the latter half of the 20th century, it remained far below the levels of the early 1900s. Historically, grain intake falls as meat intake rises, but, given the role of grain products in hamburger buns, sandwiches, and breading for fried products, grain availability has paralleled the rise in meat and cheese availability".




[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1530S-1536S. Trends in food availability, 1909-2007. Barnard ND.

Edited by misterE, 05 August 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[Hebbeh]

And what difference would that be? Palmitic-acid comes from one of two places. You can either eat it directly (from animal-fat) or you can synthesize it from fructose. Metabolically, a high-fructose diet is the same as a high-fat diet. Both diets are lipogenic. There have been no large cultures living on a ketogenic-diet. Most cultures around the globe have mainly eaten starch-based diets: potatoes in South America, corn in North America, wheat in Europe, millet in Africa, barley in the Middle East and rice in Asia. The majority of people who ever walked the planet have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch, save for a few small cultures living on the extremes of the environment (Eskimos for example).

Although I believe we all agree that excessive fructose consumption is not ideal, the claim that fructose automatically gets converted to palmitic-acid is only true if you are eating excessive calories. If eating at maintenance levels...or below (as we all should be...excessive calories are the real culprit), then fruit fructose will preferentially be used to top off liver glycogen. And liver glycogen will have room providing you aren't eating excessive calories and constantly filling your body with excessive carbs it can't use or burn in a reasonable time frame. The body will preferentially store fructose as liver glycogen if possible as a survival mechanism....to maintain blood sugar levels later while in the fasted state between meals when liver glycogen will be drawn from to support blood sugar levels and maintain healthy brain function.

If constantly eating a high carb diet and liver and muscle glycogen are full or unable to keep up with the high blood sugar of all those carbs entering circulation....where are those carbs going to go? Clue...all excessive carbs will be converted to fat. I've found a moderate carb diet better as I don't want glycogen to be constantly topped off...I want to leave some room in the tank...to accommodate any additional carbs so that they don't have to be converted to fat. All things in moderation....including calories.

And ask Native Americans about their rates of diabetes after adapting the Western high carb diet of flour after being confined to the reservation and no longer allowed to hunt buffalo...subsisting off buffalo and wild game exclusively, they were extremely healthy and diabetes was unheard of....being forced to eat cheap government subsidies of mainly flour (bread) and beans and diabetes quickly became and is rampant.

[misterE]

Hebbeh-- Fructose will convert to palmititc-acid no matter what. Whether it makes you obese or causes health-problems depends on the amount you consume. The traditional-diet or dietary-staple of the native-Americans were the “three-sisters”; corn, beans and squash. While they did hunt buffalo, that was not their dietary-staple. In order for a society to be successful, they must get more calories than they expend getting those calories. Hunting requires a lot of energy (calories) and is an unreliable way of obtaining calories.

[Hebbeh]

Hebbeh-- Fructose will convert to palmititc-acid no matter what.

I don't know where you're getting your info but simply not true.

http://en.wikipedia....yde_3_phosphate

It appears that fructose is a better substrate for glycogen synthesis than glucose and that glycogen replenishment takes precedence over triglyceride formation. Once liver glycogen is replenished, the intermediates of fructose metabolism are primarily directed toward triglyceride synthesis

Also see (and any number of other references) http://www.livestron...ver-metabolism/

As with the other simple sugars, fructose metabolism results in the formation of energy in the form of ATP.

The result is that fructose can be converted to energy at a more rapid rate than glucose.

As with any calorie, too much fructose is converted by the liver and stored as fat

But as I said, Too much fructose is less than ideal...here is some recent interesting research:

http://www.scienceda...81209221742.htm

Fructose Metabolism More Complicated Than Was Thought


enlarge

Chances are you consume quite a bit of fructose. Most Americans do --- in refined sugars such as sucrose or table sugar and in high-fructose corn syrup, used in products as diverse as soft drinks, protein bars, and fruit juice. (Credit: iStockphoto)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2008) — A new University of Illinois study suggests that we may pay a price for ingesting too much fructose. According to lead author Manabu Nakamura, dietary fructose affects a wide range of genes in the liver that had not previously been identified.

Chances are you consume quite a bit of fructose. Most Americans do—in refined sugars such as sucrose or table sugar (which is half fructose) and in high-fructose corn syrup, used in products as diverse as soft drinks, protein bars, and fruit juice.
But many scientists believe that high dietary fructose contributes to the development of metabolic syndrome, a group of risk factors that predict heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.
"For this reason, it's important for scientists to understand exactly how consuming high amounts of fructose affects human health," said Nakamura, a U of I associate professor of food science and human nutrition.
Nakamura's lab is continuing to study the metabolism of fructose with an eye to making recommendations about its dietary use.
His study shows that the metabolism of fructose is more complex than the data had indicated. "Our gene-expression analysis showed that both insulin-responsive and insulin-repressive genes are induced during this process. Our bodies can do this, but it's complicated, and we may pay a price for it," he said.
According to the scientist, most carbohydrates are handled fairly simply by our bodies. They are converted quickly to glucose and used for energy or stored as fat. "When we are eating, blood sugar--and insulin production--goes up. When we sleep or fast, it goes down," he said.
The process is not so simple with fructose, he noted. "In order for fructose to be metabolized, the body has to create both fasted and fed conditions. The liver is really busy when you eat a lot of fructose."
Because, unlike glucose, fructose metabolism occurs mainly in the liver, Nakamura wanted to gain a complete picture of gene expression in the liver during fructose metabolism.
In Nakamura's study, 24 rats were fed either a 63 percent glucose or fructose diet four hours a day for two weeks; at the end of this period, half the animals fasted for 24 hours before the scientists performed a gene expression analysis; the other half were examined at the end of a four-hour feeding.
Fructose feeding not only induced a broader range of genes than had previously been identified, there were simultaneous increases in glycogen (stored glucose) and triglycerides in the liver.
"To our surprise, a key regulatory enzyme involved in the breakdown of glucose was about two times higher in the fructose-fed group than in the glucose-fed group," Nakamura said.
The study also suggests that a protein called carbohydrate response element binding protein is responsible for the fructose effect on certain genes that trigger the production of fat, he said.
"We're continuing to assess the risk of fructose insulin resistance and the consequent risk for development of diabetes," he said.
Co-authors of the study, published in a recent issue of Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, are Hyun-Young Koo, Matthew A. Wallig, Takayuki Y. Nara, and B. H. Simon Cho of the University of Illinois and Byung Hong Chung of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

[Hebbeh]

The traditional-diet or dietary-staple of the native-Americans were the “three-sisters”; corn, beans and squash. While they did hunt buffalo, that was not their dietary-staple. In order for a society to be successful, they must get more calories than they expend getting those calories. Hunting requires a lot of energy (calories) and is an unreliable way of obtaining calories.

While it may be true that some Native American cultures were agricultural, not all were and none were when North America was settled some 20,000 years ago. They were traditionally nomadic and by definition, nomadic tribes were unable to farm.

I grew up around the Lakota (Sioux). Had many Lakota friends. They are considered one of the fiercest warrior societies that lived. After all, they wiped out Custer and his 7th Calvary. But I digress. The Lakota were nomadic...lived in portable buffalo hide tepees....and quickly moved camp to follow the buffalo. Before White Men, the Lakota lived almost exclusively on the buffalo. No buffalo...no eat. They supplemented the buffalo with meager quantities of wild berries when available (only few months out of the year). They were constantly on the move...camps seldom lasted more than a few weeks. And as such, there was literally no farming or agriculture. The fierce and proud Lakota were one of the last to be subjugated by the White Man....which was only accomplished when the White Man took their food and subsistence away through the virtual extermination of the buffalo. That was the whole reason for exterminating the buffalo (so quickly). It was genocide anyway you look at it. After subjugating the Lakota through the extermination of the buffalo, they had their hunting rifles confiscated and were exiled to reservations...arid and parched worthless pieces of real estate that even the White Man didn't want. They were kept alive (to cover up the genocide aspect) through high carb government rations of flour and beans. The only source of protein was the weevils in the flour. It didn't take long for the Lakota to go from a healthy, proud and fierce warrior hunter society to being very unhealthy with epidemic rates of diabetes. This is all documented. We studied it extensively in grade school even 50 years ago because it was where I grew up and it was our heritage. Ask any Lakota now how that high carb government diet (which they still get) is working out for them.

[misterE]

Ask any Lakota now how that high carb government diet (which they still get) is working out for them.

When you say: "high-carb" does that mean whole-grains or sugary junk food?

[Hebbeh]

Ask any Lakota now how that high carb government diet (which they still get) is working out for them.

When you say: "high-carb" does that mean whole-grains or sugary junk food?

The government subsidies are things like flour and beans and typical commodities.

But sure....the current generation is eating all the junk garbage that the rest of obese Americia seems to love.

But the diabetes has been going on for generations as long as I can remember. Their health decline begin on the reservation with government commodities.

[niner]

misterE, you're a vegan, right? That wouldn't impact your take on nutrition science, would it?

[Hebbeh]

In really trying to understand your dietary philosophy, misterE, you seem to be trying to distinguish between complex carbs (grains (bread, pasta), potatoes, rice, beans) and simple sugars (fructose may be an exception in certain circumstances but we've agreed on that).....but at the end of the day, all those complex carbs and starches are just broken down to a simple sugar...glucose. The body can't distinguish between glucose from bread (or rice or potatoes, etc) from a metabolic view point and candy made from simple sugars....glucose is glucose no matter where it started from...and all that glucose from all that pasta and/or potatoes, rice, beans, etc is going to be dumped into the blood stream circulation....and in a few hours at the next meal, same thing all over again. Now unless you are riding the tour de france or running a marathon...or some equally demanding physical activity every single day, where is all that blood sugar going? And starches like bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, etc aren't even a good source of healthy phytochemicals...unlike veggies and fruits at least. And I agree, you need some carbs to maintain blood sugar levels for optimum brain function....but higher blood sugar levels are not going to make you smarter....more is not better. As usual, the opposite is the case. You can argue all you want but unless you are either a world class athlete training for hours every day or a manual laborer digging ditches every day....you will have difficulty burning that much carb. High carb foods like bread, rice, beans, and potatoes are cheap poor quality nutrients and thus the staple of poor third world countries...and government commodities on the reservation.

[misterE]

misterE, you're a vegan, right? That wouldn't impact your take on nutrition science, would it?

Yes... but I refer to myself as a "starchatarian". "Vegan" can mean many things, after all potato-chips and cola is vegan!

After developing metabolic-syndrome in high-school, I did extensive research into the intimate relationship between diet and health. After convincing myself that diet is the most important aspect influencing heath and longevity, I began looking for the optimal-diet for humans. After reading much of the scientific-literature, I came to the conclusion that a diet based on starch and vegetables was optimal, and that high intakes of processed-foods and animal-products as well as high intakes of both fat and sugar, were detrimental. I was even more surprised to learn that I wasn't the only person who made this observation as well. Many doctors have also came to this same conclusion, such as: Mark Mccarty, Dean Ornish, Neal Barnard, John McDougall, Caldwell Esselstyn, Nathan Pritikin, Walter Kempner and others.

There are indeed "vegan" foods I avoid, for instance I try to avoid nuts, avocadoes, and olives. When I do eat these foods, it is a delicacy. The foods I eat on a daily basis are whole-grains, beans, potatoes, and vegetables.

In regards to the scientific-literature, it is very hard to find studies condemning whole-grains and vegetables for causing health problems. But it's very easy to find studies condemning animal-foods and processed-foods for causing health problems.

[misterE]

In really trying to understand your dietary philosophy, misterE, you seem to be trying to distinguish between complex carbs (grains (bread, pasta), potatoes, rice, beans) and simple sugars (fructose may be an exception in certain circumstances but we've agreed on that).....but at the end of the day, all those complex carbs and starches are just broken down to a simple sugar...glucose.

I know. Glucose is the body's primary fuel. When you deprive the body of glucose, like on a ketogenic diet, the body breaks down muscle tissue and converts amino-acids into glucose (gluconeogenesis), which is not good. Starch is long complex chains of glucose. Sugar is glucose combined with fructose. Too much sugar can increase triglycerides because of the fructose fraction, but starch doesn't increase triglycerides. So even thou starch breaks down into glucose (a simple sugar), doesn't mean that it is the same as eating table-sugar. Table-sugar contains fructose, starch doesn't. The best source of glucose is grains, beans and potatoes.

Putting the wrong “fuel” in the body causes metabolic-syndrome. When you put the wrong "fuel" in the body, it creates an environment that causes disease. Since the human body is desired to run off glucose, putting in other sources of calories other than glucose will cause problems. Look what Americans fuel their body with: fructose, fat, and protein. Is it any wonder why "energy" drinks are so popular? Without the glucose, the human body becomes sluggish, the metabolism slows, you can't think clearly, you're fatigued, etc.

Edited by misterE, 07 August 2012 - 03:13 AM.

[buckwheats]

there's actually this rather well known study from 1930 where these two professors went on exclusively meat diets for a year and ended up perfectly fine.

http://www.jbc.org/c.../3/651.full.pdf

The meat used included beef, Iamb, veal, pork, and chicken.

The parts used were muscle, liver, kidney, brain, bone marrow,

bacon, and fat.

At the end of the year, the subjects were mentally alert,
physically active, and showed no specific physical changes in any
system of the body

There were no subjective or objective
evidences of any loss of physical or mental vigor.

In these trained subjects, the clinical observations and
laboratory studies gave no evidence that any ill effects had
occurred from the prolonged use of the exclusive meat diet.

[buckwheats]

The traditional-diet or dietary-staple of the native-Americans were the “three-sisters”; corn, beans and squash. While they did hunt buffalo, that was not their dietary-staple. In order for a society to be successful, they must get more calories than they expend getting those calories. Hunting requires a lot of energy (calories) and is an unreliable way of obtaining calories.

before widespread agriculture these indigenous people presumable ate diets similar to modern hunter and gatherers, so 2/3 animal calories and 1/3 plant calories.

http://en.wikipedia....to-animal_ratio

The mean diet among modern hunter-gatherer societies is estimated to consist of 64–68% of animal calories and 32–36% of plant calories[/

but you think their diet was more optimal after they successfully domesticated those starchy vegetables?

Edited by buckwheats, 07 August 2012 - 04:17 AM.