Ain't So Bad! ... for Real?

Diet and Nutrition
21

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.[/quote]

�¢??Most people ask about moderation, and I say well how�¢??s that working for you?�¢?? �¢??Josh Whiton[/quote]

right on. Here’s my view on it. I eat what I want and don’t stress over it. I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that having a crap meal “in moderation” isn’t harmful to the body.

That’s ok, it’s harmful, I enjoy the meal and move on.[/quote]

OK, so then tell me how was I “harmed” by the two doughnuts I ate today for breakfast.

I ate “healthfully” all week – so how would you go about quantifying the “harm” done to my body by that one meal?

If you can’t answer that, then there’s no “harm”.

If you say that doing that every day will lead to problems, then that’s an issue of lifestyle just as much as it is the food, itself.

But then… that’s not moderation.

22

[quote]Beebers wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Really? then how did human evolve perfectly fine for eons without gluten containing foods[/quote]

Just telling everyone to avoid gluten might cause more problems than it solves.

[/quote]

This I seriously doubt. If someone avoids gluten containing foods, while being instructed to increase veggie and protein (meat) consumption, what ill effects do you see coming from this?

More vitamins/minerals will be consumed and to boot a higher absorption rate as anti-nutrients will not be blocking their absorption.

my thoughts anyways

In fact, I would go as far to say the following:
If America for the next 30 yrs eliminated or severly reduced:
1.Sugar
2.Veggie oils
3.Gluten
4.Trans Fats

that the rates of all modern disease would be near non-existent.
That said #'s 1 and 4 would go along way on their own, add on 2 and 4 and you have a recipe for vast improvements in the health of this country.

23

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.[/quote]

�?�¢??Most people ask about moderation, and I say well how�?�¢??s that working for you?�?�¢?? �?�¢??Josh Whiton[/quote]

right on. Here’s my view on it. I eat what I want and don’t stress over it. I don’t try to fool myself into thinking that having a crap meal “in moderation” isn’t harmful to the body.

That’s ok, it’s harmful, I enjoy the meal and move on.[/quote]

OK, so then tell me how was I “harmed” by the two doughnuts I ate today for breakfast.

I ate “healthfully” all week – so how would you go about quantifying the “harm” done to my body by that one meal?

If you can’t answer that, then there’s no “harm”.

If you say that doing that every day will lead to problems, then that’s an issue of lifestyle just as much as it is the food, itself.

But then… that’s not moderation.[/quote]

Do you think sending your blood sugar levels to 160 (hypothetical) isn’t a problem? Do you feel even once won’t do some sort of damage?

Do you think there is even a small safe amount of trans-fat?

Do you feel processed carbs do not cause gut inflammation?

These are questions that lead me to my answers. That said, I’m all for eating well the majority of the time and have some doughnuts and not stress over whatever damage will be done.

But again, what is moderation?

24

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]Meni69 wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
also, apparently it’s all about moderation nation, not even sure what this is.[/quote]

�?�¢??Most people ask about moderation, and I say well how�?�¢??s that working for you?�?�¢?? �?�¢??Josh Whiton[/quote]

But then… that’s not moderation.[/quote]

Says you :wink: if you’re eating 6k calories day, perhaps the 500 calories from them would be moderation?

Again, how does one define moderation?

25

“I’d go so far as saying that overly enthusiastic wheat consumption is the main cause of the obesity and diabetes crisis in the United States.”

  • Dr. Davis.

OK, then can someone explain why, in the graphs I posted, the United States eats about as much wheat as France does yet sees a significantly greater degree of obesity (approximately the same caloric intake)?

Same for Canada.

Same for Germany.

Italy eats MORE wheat, yet has LESS obese people.

Iran eats about double the wheat and has SIGNIFICANTLY less obese people (again, kcals are about equal).

Romania eats MORE wheat and calories yet has MUCH less obesity.

Etc, etc.

If there’s some sort of “magical” obesity-inducing effect from wheat, then Pakistan must be full of mutants… unless it’s about calories and exercise.

What gives???

26

Qeustion about those types of graphs. Aren’t they solely based upon food produced, not so much what is actually consumed vs what makes it way into the trash?

This question is also for my knowledge since I’ve seen them about fats, oils, etc as well

27

I’m about to eat a large pizza. If I eat a large one on a Sunday, but no junk the week is that moderation?

If I eat one slice pizza a day, is that moderation?

Both scenarios are the same amount over a week.

I would be more apt to say without thinking about it that the former is more in moderation, yet is it really?

28

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Again, how does one define moderation?[/quote]

I would personally define it as being able to eat the things I enjoy eating without compromising my health in the process. This would include both my physical health AND my mental health – I ain’t putting jumper cables on my nipples to punish myself for eating a slice of pizza (at least, not when I’m not on stage).

Again, if no one can tell me how to definitively DEMONSTRATE that eating a doughnut or drinking a root beer a few times a week negatively impacts my biochemistry even though I eat right and exercise waaaayyy more often than not… then why should I believe it’s “harming” me?

Because people who LIVE off of doughnuts and root beer get sick?

Because people who DON’T do what I do 90% of my week get sick?

29

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Do you think sending your blood sugar levels to 160 (hypothetical) isn’t a problem? Do you feel even once won’t do some sort of damage?[/quote]

I don’t. Prove me wrong. But, if by “damage” you mean you are gonna bust out some in vitro nonsense, then don’t bother. I don’t live in a test tube – I care about the tangible, demonstrable effects on my overall state of health.

Where are the people who eat right and exercise 90% of the time yet die of diseases that have been definitively pinned on that 10% “lapse” in dietary judgment?

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Do you think there is even a small safe amount of trans-fat? [/quote]

I think the dose makes the poison.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Do you feel processed carbs do not cause gut inflammation?[/quote]

I don’t feel like losing any sleep over my doughnuts when my diet is otherwise fairly immaculate.

30

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Says you :wink: if you’re eating 6k calories day, perhaps the 500 calories from them would be moderation?

Again, how does one define moderation?[/quote]

I don’t base my idea of ‘moderation’ around arbitrary caloric ratios/percentages.

I base it around how the choices I make impact my body.

But then, I was never a very good mathmologist… but I can’t see why any intelligent person would do it any differently.

31

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Qeustion about those types of graphs. Aren’t they solely based upon food produced, not so much what is actually consumed vs what makes it way into the trash?

This question is also for my knowledge since I’ve seen them about fats, oils, etc as well[/quote]

The caption specifically defines it as being “…in food consumption”.

But, I’ll double check for ya.

32

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Qeustion about those types of graphs. Aren’t they solely based upon food produced, not so much what is actually consumed vs what makes it way into the trash?

This question is also for my knowledge since I’ve seen them about fats, oils, etc as well[/quote]

The caption specifically defines it as being “…in food consumption”.

But, I’ll double check for ya.[/quote]

I guess I question how one can monitor an entire country (or at least accurately) based upon “consumption” rather than what is produced and available.

33

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I guess I question how one can monitor an entire country (or at least accurately) based upon “consumption” rather than what is produced and available.[/quote]

Naturally, there are gonna be inaccuracies with these sorts of things – I’m not suggesting those figures match the reality of food intake to the calorie/percentage point – but when conducted on a large enough scale (e.g., national surveys) over the course of years/decades, I would IMAGINE that these things all balance out so that it either a) reflects reality as well as can be expected or b) does not reflect reality but can be associated with some sort of bias (or degree of bias) that allows the researchers to still draw fairly sound conclusions from the data.

Otherwise, what’s the point in doing any of this year in/year out if it’s all completely bunk? What would that do to the argument that increased carbohydrate consumption (or wheat, or sucrose, or HFCS) dovetails almost flawlessly with the rise in obesity?

Do you doubt this particular set of information because you are uncertain of the methodology (as opposed to all the other nutrition surveys trotted out by Taubes, Lustig, et al), or do you doubt this particular set of information because you don’t know how to reconcile the conclusion it throws in our face with the theories put forth in Wheat Belly?

34

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
I guess I question how one can monitor an entire country (or at least accurately) based upon “consumption” rather than what is produced and available.[/quote]

Naturally, there are gonna be inaccuracies with these sorts of things – I’m not suggesting those figures match the reality of food intake to the calorie/percentage point – but when conducted on a large enough scale (e.g., national surveys) over the course of years/decades, I would IMAGINE that these things all balance out so that it either a) reflects reality as well as can be expected or b) does not reflect reality but can be associated with some sort of bias (or degree of bias) that allows the researchers to still draw fairly sound conclusions from the data.

Otherwise, what’s the point in doing any of this year in/year out if it’s all completely bunk? What would that do to the argument that increased carbohydrate consumption (or wheat, or sucrose, or HFCS) dovetails almost flawlessly with the rise in obesity?

Do you doubt this particular set of information because you are uncertain of the methodology (as opposed to all the other nutrition surveys trotted out by Taubes, Lustig, et al), or do you doubt this particular set of information because you don’t know how to reconcile the conclusion it throws in our face with the theories put forth in Wheat Belly?[/quote]

It’s not about doubting since it may not fit my preconceived notions of a healthy diet. It’s more curiosity since I’ve seen similar graphs on all sorts of dietary intake patterns.

I guess in the end, one either feels that the high intake of wheat/gluten is a problem for the millions of Americans that are suffering from obesity, arthritis, HD, cancer, T2 diabetes, etc, or they think that it’s just a very minor issue with bigger problems at play.

I’m with the former, along with other dietary issues as well.

35

What’s HD?

36

[quote]anonym wrote:
What’s HD?[/quote]

I assume it would stand for heart disease.

Not to speak for JF. I’m just interested in the discussion.

37

[quote]Jontan wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
What’s HD?[/quote]

I assume it would stand for heart disease.[/quote]

lol I was just clicking on this thread to say nvm, I got it.

When I see HD, I think Huntington’s disease.

38

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Jontan wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
What’s HD?[/quote]

I assume it would stand for heart disease.[/quote]

lol I was just clicking on this thread to say nvm, I got it.

When I see HD, I think Huntington’s disease.[/quote]

sorry, should have said CAD or CVD… not high-def :wink:

39

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Jontan wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
What’s HD?[/quote]

I assume it would stand for heart disease.[/quote]

lol I was just clicking on this thread to say nvm, I got it.

When I see HD, I think Huntington’s disease.[/quote]

sorry, should have said CAD or CVD… not high-def ;)[/quote]

lol you’d think it would have clicked after a second or two based on the entire discussion we were having… but once that initial connection was made, all I could think about was how the fuck Dr. Davis managed to find a way to blame Huntington’s disease on wheat.

That’s gotta be my cue to step down for the evening…

40

Though, FTR, I am preparing to give the MD diet a run for the next few months to see how it goes. Got the exotic oils on the way and everything.

So, ya never know… this sorta stuff won’t make me any prettier, but maybe I’ll feel a little healthier.