High cholesterol

[me&thegals]

I get sick and tired of everyone throwing the "eat this way or die" situation down everyone's throat on this board all the time.

eat healthier, sure
are we stupid not to know what healthier is...nope
do most overweight people lie about what they eat---yup (been there)

are there a millions people with exceptions to the above, yup

I totally agree. I sense frustration in this thread for 2 reasons:

1. One diet being pushed as THE only one.
2. Science being misunderstood.

I think "native" diets work. When I say diet, I don't mean a short-term eating plan. I mean the way a population eats. In Alaska, super high-fat seal blubber diets worked great for them. In Italy, lots of olive oil, pasta, etc. works for them. Other places, other diets.

Personally, I try to stay away from processed foods, eat lots of whole fruits, veggies, grains, and pastured eggs/meat. As for grains, I have had whole grains as a sizable part of my diet my entire life. You will never convince me it is killing me. I have ALWAYS had a healthy weight, I can push my body harder than anyone of my age that I know, I rarely get sick, I can work 18-hour days, my skin is healthy, my hair is healthy, I produced 2 healthy children, etc. If it works, it works. Obviously, I may be an absolute petri dish for cancer, heart disease or other chronic diseases, but I kinda doubt it. I think a person's visible health, energy level and lack of illness are indicators that their lifestyle is serving them well.

I find it quite annoying when people constantly push their version of life. If it works for you, I am happy for you. I'm even happy to hear you tell about it the first 5 times. Once we hit 100+, not so much.

 

[me&thegals]

Are Americans getting healthier as a whole or unhealthier?
Are they relying more on prescription medication or not?
Is weight going up or down?
Are children getting obese at a higher rate and at a younger age?
What about cases of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, something that was once almost unheard of in kids?
Where is the trend headed and what drives the trends?

Ask yourself these questions. Then look for the answers.

Great ?s. And probably have many, many factors. Diet is one factor in a life filled with 1000s of other possibilities. I would guess it is a rather large factor, and I personally (without any solid evidence) would attribute it to processed foods with little-to-no vitamin-mineral-other nutrient value.

As for trends, I have 10 CSA families in my small business. They are healthy people, healthy weight. I notice that they are active, eat lots of fruits, veggies, whole grains and often pastured meat. They probably have many other variables in there that I don't know about.

Regarding meds, is that a greater need or a greater marketing ploy?

Regarding kids, diet is only one factor. When I was growing up, we played all.the.time. Kids these days do a significant amount of sitting on their butts. Parents are worried about leaving kids outside alone, or working, recesses get cut, gym gets cut, etc. How about environmental toxins/hormone disruptors? Air quality? Industrial/ag chemical exposure?

 

[abifae]

That's not science. That's *fact*, and we are never ever going to know it 100% (and at present know a vastly smaller percentage and doubtless every single person has SOME errors in what they take to be "the facts")

I still consider it science. Science can contain facts. Besides... no one is really sure on anything enough to be fact.

 

[patandchickens]

I still consider it science. Science can contain facts.

Oh, one would HOPE it does However there is just no way to be accurately-certain which ones they ARE.

An awful lot of things have been self-evident "facts" for a long time before it turns out "no wait, it looks like that's not actually correct". Sun goes around earth, elements can be transmuted into each other, elements can't be transmuted into each other P), atoms are indivisible, electrons are wee particles in little planet-like orbit around atomic nuclei, Newtonian physics... just to name the most glaringly obvious off the top of my head. Given that all those things now seem to be in part, or totally, wrong... what does that say about our ability to discern which things we "know" nowadays may in fact work rather differently?

Besides... no one is really sure on anything enough to be fact.

Absolutely.

Except people on this forum, about nutrition and physiology/biochemistry "facts" LOL


Pat

 

[Boogity]

My response to the OP would be to eat a little less meat, a lot more veggies, and burn the TV and couch. Strict diets do not work - never have - never will.

 

[MsPony]

Science? Oh you mean the science that told my grandfather to eat more margarine and veggie oil to reduce heart attacks? I stopped counting at heart attack number 5, I lost count how many he had SINCE I WAS BORN, thats not including the ones before I was born.

Science? The doctors who couldnt figure out why my grandfather lost 50lbs in 2 months, couldnt eat, couldnt get off the couch, had horrible stomach pains and told him if he was still ill in two weeks come back in? He went into Lassens in a last ditch effort, they gave him acidophilus and the next day was able to walk and take a shower on his own again. Wow. Its amazing.

Oh, and two years later they finally did a stomach camera pill, and found small intestine ulcers.

Science? When my dog went from walking to completely peripherally paralyzed in TWO days...no one questioned us on his food. Tests, more steroids, more tests and the steroids killed him.

No belief in science here, NONE, N O N E. Failed my family and my animals. I go by evidence, evidence of what x does to this person and this person and how y affects them.

I have to go to vet school to legally work, but I can not wait to treat horses, and LISTEN to their bodies, and not the text books. I am learning so many new things that go against the grain (IE dentistry, shoeing, nutrition) but see the GOOD results. I cant look at other peoples horses now without feeling sad for them. I cant wait to properly fix horses.

Dont stop eating your pasture, organic meat, EAT MORE!! Eat organ meats, eat nutrient dense food!

 

[Denim Deb]

Hey MsPony, what would you recommend for a pony that has heaves to both control it and help him put on some weight?

 

[MsPony]

Hey MsPony, what would you recommend for a pony that has heaves to both control it and help him put on some weight?

Ill message you!

 

[Denim Deb]

Hey MsPony, what would you recommend for a pony that has heaves to both control it and help him put on some weight?

Ill message you!

Thanks!

 

[Wifezilla]

"Who decides what we should eat? Usually Government departments advised by scientists and researchers. Here in the UK, that job was entrusted to the Food Standards Agency until recently. And what a mess this body made of giving us science-based information and advice. See here, here, here and here for some examples of the sort of dunder-headed advice the FSA has given the UK public over the years. And just see how the Chief Scientist of the FSA has his assertions about diet exposed as being a largely science-free area here.

In the US, dietary guidelines are set every few years in the form of Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). A set was published earlier this year, and gave pretty much the same advice Americans (and many other nations) have had over the last few decades which is to keep the diet rich in carbohydrate, increase fibre and reduce fat (particularly saturated fat), salt and animal protein.

Anyone who knows anything about my views on diet will know that I wouldnt sign up to these recommendations (unless, of course, weight gain and impaired health was the goal). And Im not the only person to feel this way. Recently, a critique of the DGA was published in the journal Nutrition [1]. You can read a full test version of this critique here. The critique is an in-depth and, crucially, science-based take-down of the DGA and much nutritional nonsense spouted by health professionals.

I thought Id summarise some of its main findings here. The authors of the critique make five broad criticisms of the DGA. Namely that:

1. Research questions are formulated in a way that precludes a thorough investigation of the scientific and medical literature.

2. Answers to research questions are based on an incomplete body of relevant science; relevant science is frequently excluded due to the nature of the question.

3. Science is inaccurately represented, interpreted, and/or summarized.

4. Conclusions do not reflect the quantity and/or quality of relevant science.

5. Recommendations do not reflect the limitations, controversies, and uncertainties existing in the science.

The authors go into plenty of specifics though, with the authors skewering the reports take on a wide variety of issues including the relevance of saturated fat and carbohydrate in the diet. The DGA recommendations, as expected, demonise saturated fat and exalt the value of a high-carb diet. In fact, the authors of the DGA are down on low-carb diets, and put forward the notion that such diets are likely to be hazardous to our health. The authors of the critique, however, point to the quite-voluminous evidence from intervention studies (studies where the effects of diets are tested in real people) that show that low-carb diets generally out-perform higher-carb, perhaps lower fat diets in terms of their effects on weight and disease markers.

The authors of the critique also draw our attention to the following facts:

1. Standard nutritional recommendations, including those of the DGA, have consistently over the last 30 years urged us to increase our carbohydrate consumption while reducing intake of fat (especially saturated fat and cholesterol).

2. Official statistics show that, over the last 30 years, consumption of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol has decreased to around or below recommended levels.

3. Carbohydrate intake has increased during this time period, and appears to account for most if not all of the calorie intake increase seen in the US over the last 30 years.

4. Over the last 30 years, rates of overweight and obesity, as well as the rates of type 2 diabetes, have increased dramatically

Perhaps the explanation for all this is to be found in our exercise habits. But the data suggest otherwise: levels of activity have actually increased over the last 30 years too.

So, in summary, heres what we know:

There is an association between following conventional nutritional wisdom, specifically the low-fat, high-carb paradigm, and much-enhanced rates of chronic disease including obesity and type 2 diabetes.

The low-fat, high-carb paradigm was never based on any good evidence. 30 years later, though, we have a stack of epidemiological evidence and many intervention studies that this approach does not work, and is likely to be detrimental to health. This recent review reveals conventional nutritional recommendations for what they are: unscientific and ineffective. This critique should be, in my opinion, required reading by all those interested in giving individuals science-based, trustworthy information advice about what to eat."

http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/11/22/...flaws-in-conventional-nutritional-guidelines/