Healthy Fats and Oils.......IMO!

[Wifezilla]

The dried stevia leaf is pretty good too. Not very helpful for desserts, but awesome for tea, meat dishes that need a touch of sweetness, or sauces.

 

[Lovechooks]

I do like skim over full fat though

When you pull out the fat, what do you have left? (pssst....it's sugar )

Actually no, that's incorrect too. I'm comparing them as I type here in front of me is still exactly the same amount of calcium (the sole reason I drink milk) and in fact there is LESS sugar than your full fat milk so yeah not sure where you got that info from but it's also wrong.

 

[FarmerChick]

But we all have different genetic make-ups, and your diet could be ideal for you.

Just playing off this one quote, Free. This is exactly my point. Different genetics, different diets work for different people - and I don't need a forty paragraph cut and paste again to try to change my mind. I understand passionate beliefs, but I really think the insistence that there's only one way to eat is misguided, at best.

 

[Wifezilla]

'm comparing them as I type here in front of me is still exactly the same amount of calcium (the sole reason I drink milk) and in fact there is LESS sugar than your full fat milk

Sorry...wrong

1 cup of skim milk has 12.2 g of carbohydrates
1 cup of whole milk has 11 g of carbohydrates
1 cup of heavy cream (which is what I use) has .8g of carbohydrates

Source: Fitday

That's still pretty debatable, as majority of studies prove that high fat diet will kill you eventually.

This statement is exactly the problem. WHERE did that information come from? The whole "saturated fat is bad" hypothesis came from a study carried out by Ancel Keyes in the 1950's.

Here is a quick video that explains it in a rather humorous way...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4

Of course, if you want to get in to the science, you have to study the study.

"The first scientific indictment of saturated fat came in 1953. That's the year a physiologist named Ancel Keys, published a highly influential paper titled Atherosclerosis, a Problem in Newer Public Health. Keys wrote that while the total death rate in the United States was declining, the number of deaths due to heart disease was steadily climbing. And to explain why, he presented a comparison of fat intake and heart disease mortality in six countries: the United States, Canada, Australia, England, Italy and Japan.

The Americans ate the most fat and had the greatest number of deaths from heart disease; the Japanese ate the least fat and had the fewest deaths from heart disease. The other countries fell neatly in between.

The higher the fat intake, according to national diet surveys, the higher the rate of heart disease. And vice versa. Keys called this correlation a "remarkable relationship" and began to publicly hypothesise that consumption of fat causes heart disease. This became known as the diet-heart hypothesis.

At the time, plenty of scientists were skeptical of Keys' assertions. One such critic was Dr Jacob Yerushalmy, founder of the biostatistics graduate program at the University of California at Berkeley.

In a 1957 paper, Yerushalmy pointed out that while data from the six countries Keys examined seemed to support the diet-heart hypothesis, statistics were actually available for 22 countries. And when all 22 were analysed, the apparent link between fat consumption and heart disease disappeared. For example, the death rate from heart disease in Finland was 24 times that of Mexico, even though fat-consumption rates in the two nations were similar.

The other salient criticism of Keys' study was that he had observed only a correlation between two phenomena, not a clear causative link. So this left open the possibility that something else, unmeasured or unimagined, was leading to heart disease. After all, Americans did eat more fat than the Japanese, but perhaps they also consumed more sugar and white bread and watched more television."
http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/mens-health/3299/what-if-bad-fat-is-actually-good-for-you/

This whole article outlines some of the recent studies that show show no harm from saturated fat as they were trying to prove it was harmful. It also explains LDL fractions, which is something that most people do not understand.

"Perhaps the apparent bias against saturated fat is most evident in studies on low-carbohydrate diets. Many versions of this approach are controversial because they place no limitations on saturated-fat intake. As a result, supporters of the diet-heart hypothesis have argued that low-carb diets will increase the risk of heart disease. But published research doesn't show this to be the case.

When people on low-carb diets have been compared head-to-head with those on low-fat diets, the low-carb dieters typically scored significantly better on markers of heart disease, including small, dense LDL cholesterol, HDL/LDL ratio and triglycerides, which are a measure of the amount of fat circulating in your blood.

For example, in a new 12-week study, US research at the University of Connecticut placed overweight men and women on either a low-carb or low-fat diet. Those who followed the low-carb diet consumed 36 grams of saturated fat per day (22 per cent of total kilojoules), which represented more than three times the amount in the low-fat diet.

Yet despite this considerably greater intake of saturated fat, the low-carb dieters reduced both their number of small, dense LDL cholesterol and their HDL/LDL ratio to a greater degree than those who ate a low-fat diet. In addition, triglycerides decreased by 51 per cent in the low-carb group compared with 19 per cent in the low-fat group.

This finding is worth noting, because even though cholesterol is the most commonly cited risk factor for heart disease, triglyceride levels may be equally relevant. In a 40-year study at the University of Hawaii, scientists found that low triglyceride levels at middle age best predicted "exceptional survival" defined as living until age 85 without suffering from a major disease.

According to lead study author Dr Jeff Volek, a registered dietitian, two factors influence the amount of fat coursing through your veins.

The first, of course, is the amount of fat you eat. But the more important factor is less obvious. Turns out, your body makes fat from carbohydrates. It works like this: the carbs you eat (particularly starches and sugar) are absorbed into your bloodstream as sugar. As your carb intake rises, so does your blood sugar. This causes your body to release the hormone insulin. Insulin's job is to return your blood sugar to normal, but it also signals your body to store fat. As a result, your liver starts converting excess blood sugar to triglycerides, or fat.

All of which helps explain why the low-carb dieters in Volek's study had a greater loss of fat in their blood. Restricting carbs keeps insulin levels low, which lowers your internal production of fat and allows more of the fat you do eat to be burned for energy. "

Many do not realize that the source of body fat is not ingested fat, but ingested carbohydrates.

 

[Mackay]

Coming into this thread late I haven't read the whole thing but I wanted to make sure that that Grape Seed Oil is mentioned.

http://www.deerfieldranch.com/GSO.Fact.sheet2.html
http://www.josephsnaturalproducts.com/health-benefits.php

I have stopped using olive oil for the most part, except for a few recipes that just have to have it and use grape seed oil for all other preparations and especially cooking. It has a higher burn point than olive oil and it lasts longer, it doesn't go rancid as easily.

Watch out for Whole Foods olive oil. I have had to take back several bottles as it was rancid when I opened them.

 

[Wifezilla]

Yikes! (on getting rancid olive oil)

I have been using more ghee than anything lately, but still use olive oil for salads. The thing about grape seed oil is its high omega 6 fatty acid content.

 

[Lovechooks]

'm comparing them as I type here in front of me is still exactly the same amount of calcium (the sole reason I drink milk) and in fact there is LESS sugar than your full fat milk

Sorry...wrong

1 cup of skim milk has 12.2 g of carbohydrates
1 cup of whole milk has 11 g of carbohydrates
1 cup of heavy cream (which is what I use) has .8g of carbohydrates

Source: Fitday

That's still pretty debatable, as majority of studies prove that high fat diet will kill you eventually.

This statement is exactly the problem. WHERE did that information come from? The whole "saturated fat is bad" hypothesis came from a study carried out by Ancel Keyes in the 1950's..[/b]

I got my information of the cartons of milk in the fridge, we have both and I didn't even look at carbs, quiet frankly I didn't really care about them, I was asnswering your commnet that skim milk is all sugar when that is NOT the case. All they do is skim the fat off.

But just as a side note on this milk the carbs are 12.0 g for the skim and 12.8g for the full fat, so your theory is true for this milk pretty hard to believe it's that American milk is hugely different to ours :/.

Where did the high fat is not good for you come from? Well try googling you will find HUNDREDS of studies proving this is the case, my god the whole medical system can't be wrong. All Dieticians as well, I checked with mine Monday and yes it's still the correct information.

It's not a big conspiracy again fat it's just the truth. :/ I just don't get why it's so difficult for you to come to terms with what so many have known for years.

 

[freemotion]

Actually no, that's incorrect too. I'm comparing them as I type here in front of me is still exactly the same amount of calcium (the sole reason I drink milk) and in fact there is LESS sugar than your full fat milk so yeah not sure where you got that info from but it's also wrong.

Here is some frightening info, just one more reason why I now milk a goat twice a day:

In the USA, most milk is now overly pasteurized, which destroys the calcium.....it is still in the milk, but not in a form your body recognizes.

I got a cheesemaking newsletter that said that if you are using storebought milk to make cheese, you now have to add calcium to it or it won't work. They don't have to label the pasteurization method, so there is no way to tell. But in this country, you cannot get your calcium from storebought milk. Barely got it before, as pasteurization damages calcium, but now the calcium is destroyed beyond recognition.

We have one of the world's highest consumption levels of dairy products, and one of the highest levels of osteoporosis.

A client and research librarian is bringing me an article I asked for tonight...the one sited in the recent MEN article on the dramatic decrease in nutrient content of today's plant foods. Calcium was one of the nutrients that has dropped significantly from green veggies.

So unless you eat sustainably raised veggies (not talking big organic here) and raw milk products, you need to supplement calcium.....with a bioavailable formula, not what is cheapest on the shelf.

I'm not sure what the situation is in Australia, but the food situation here is ridiculous. Well-stocked shelves and bulging waistlines, and it is very difficult to get proper nutrition for vibrant health.

 

[reinbeau]

Where did the high fat is not good for you come from? Well try googling you will find HUNDREDS of studies proving this is the case, my god the whole medical system can't be wrong. All Dieticians as well, I checked with mine Monday and yes it's still the correct information.

It's not a big conspiracy again fat it's just the truth. :/ I just don't get why it's so difficult for you to come to terms with what so many have known for years.

LC, research is changing, and people are starting to really question what 'the experts' have been telling us. I do believe there's not as much wrong with animal fats as they told us, and I do believe there's still more to learn about what causes coronary heart disease. I believe it is a lack of movement, mainly, no matter what you put in your mouth, if you don't move, you will get sick.

As for dairy, that isn't the boogeyman, either, what is the boogeyman is not drinking real, raw dairy. The pasteurization process kills the beneficial enzymes we need to properly digest and utilize dairy.

When people make these discoveries the news doesn't come out because it doesn't help someone's wallet. As soon as it'll help someone's wallet it'll be everywhere. They don't want us drinking raw dairy because it'll kill the milk industry (yes, there is the disease factor, but that's overblown - again by big business).

It's a complicated business, our diets, yet it shouldn't be. Eat food. Mostly Plants. Not a lot. It's really that simple.

 

[Javamama]

OK, I'm not sure what all the arguing is about because I think if you each find something that makes you feel good and you are healthy, then go with it. To throw another twig on the fire, I also believe that ancestry, blood type and probably lots of other factors play into what makes each one of us feel and look great. Then there is the vast processing of our food supply - that's where a good amount of the damage is done. Find your own balance, get the obvious crap out of your regular diet, throw in some healthy unprocessed fats, and you should be good to go. I try to think about how God intended me to eat, and I think humans are supposed to be able to adapt to their locale. Some of us have an abundance of fresh fish and it works, some of us have fresh fruits and veggies year round and it works, some of us eat lots of meat - and it works.
I love learning about these things, there is so much good info all around.