[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
FlavaDave wrote:
I have no idea. What I quoted is all that the book has to say on the subject.
Does the book at least cite references?[/quote]
Citation for the second paragraph goes to a dead link.
[quote]Citation
What We Eat in America. http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/doc.htm?docid=7674, accessed 9/06
[/quote]
This is why, despite being interested in the subject, I decided against taking any nutrition-oriented classes at my school. Seems like a waste of time considering how all of the cutting-edge information is right here.
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
Kruiser wrote:
So, how do you plan on answering these types of questions on your test?
It’s actually really difficult for me to sit through the class because of things like that. The prof also talks as though there’s no difference between complex and simple carbs beyond the chemistry.
The thing that gets me about the rabbit fever and the supposed negative effects of high protein is that they’re really all just side effects of diets that are probably just extremely high fats.
And seriously, the part about dying after several weeks is just wow.[/quote]
I know this will sound bad, but bear with me. Your goal is to get that degree no matter what. It doesn’t matter what they say, but what YOU do with the degree once you graduate and go into the professional field. The knowledge is 1st level one and usually it is inconsistent with people who weight train, run, drink 1 gallon of water each day and do other strenuous activities…however on a different population the guidelines are correct. High fat diets are very bad in sedentary individuals, elderly and people who have propensity to renal, and liver problems.
Sometimes detachment is necessary until you are at the right time to act. Now you are in a disadvantageous position. Say what they want you to say and move on. When you are the one teaching or with your clients then you can say what you truly researched, and feel.
Get that degree ASAP
My mistake. It’s actually called “rabbit starvation syndrome”, not rabbit fever.
looks like ill have to cut down to 44%
[quote]FlavaDave wrote:
I’m studying for a nutrition test tomorrow and I thought I’d procrastinate by showing you guys this. This is straight out of the textbook Nutrition Now 5th Ed. by Judith Brown.
Textbook
Adults can consume a substantial amount of protein-approximately 35% of total calories-for months at a time without ill effects. This observation is based on studies of the diets of Eskimos, explorers, trappers, and hunters in northern America. The very high-protein diets would generally contain a good deal of fat in the form of whale blubber, lard, or fat added to dried meat. Consumption of 45% of calories from protein is considered too high. Consumption of this level of protein is related to nausea, weakness, and diarrhea. Diets very high in protein result in death after several weeks. (eh?) The disease resulting from excess protein intake was termed “rabbit fever” after it occurred in trappers attempting to exist on wild rabbit only.
High-protein diets have been implicated in the development of weak bones, kidney stones, cancer, heart disease, and obesity. The National Academy of Sciences has concluded that the risk of such disorders does not appear to be increased among individuals consuming 10 to 35% of total calories from protein, and on average adults consume 15%.
A Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for protein has not been established. Because information on the effects of high-protein intakes is limited, people are cautioned not to consume high levels of protein from foods or supplements.
Emphasis added by me.[/quote]
Dave, this is way 2/3 of the nutritionists at Clemson are fat asses.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Dave, this is way 2/3 of the nutritionists at Clemson are fat asses.[/quote]
I think that 2/3 is not confined to nutritionists at Clemson, rather that is an industry-wide statistic. I have a cousin who is a nutritionist (masters degree). She is soft and pudgy. I don’t listen to her when she gives nutritional advice.
DB
this is very frustrating to me… i just dont understand where the disconnect is?
why have i read several threads about nutrition classes teaching obviously bogus material… i dont get it
[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
This is why, despite being interested in the subject, I decided against taking any nutrition-oriented classes at my school. Seems like a waste of time considering how all of the cutting-edge information is right here. [/quote]
Uh, yeah. That’s the reason that I opted to get a degree (and soon to be masters) in biochemistry. Nutritionists know dick about the practical implications of chemistry, and are in general very poorly educated on the chemical basis for what is happening in the body. In other words, they lack the fundamentals of knowledge to truly understand what’s going on. Of course, most people don’t apply any knowledge they receive anyway, so it’s kind of a moot point.
Of course, there are actually some very good nutritionists. No really. I met one once…I think his name was John Berardi. Nope, wait, he’s a phd too.
[quote]HotCarl28 wrote:
this is very frustrating to me… i just dont understand where the disconnect is?
why have i read several threads about nutrition classes teaching obviously bogus material… i dont get it
[/quote]
lack of chemistry, lack of fundamental science courses, textbooks with 20 year old citations in them (not joking! I’ve seen them), and being taught by profs that haven’t read anything more recent than “Tale of Two Cities”. That about covers it.
Not to mention that the vast vast majority of people teaching nutrition have never had to put food on the table by applying what they’ve learned to an athlete or any performance-related goals in general.
Combine all that with the fact that nutritionist, if they work with anyone, work with obese, sedentary, ill, or hospitalized clinical patients, and you get a recipe for disaster.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Uh, yeah. That’s the reason that I opted to get a degree (and soon to be masters) in biochemistry. Nutritionists know dick about the practical implications of chemistry, and are in general very poorly educated on the chemical basis for what is happening in the body. In other words, they lack the fundamentals of knowledge to truly understand what’s going on. Of course, most people don’t apply any knowledge they receive anyway, so it’s kind of a moot point.
[/quote]
Good post. I didn’t take any classes in nutrition, but I did always wonder why students were being taught about things like the Krebs Cycle in kinesiology classes…after having a chemistry background consisting of chem 1 and…what else was it…chem 2? organic chem? biochem? Nope, just chem 1.
[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Dave, this is way 2/3 of the nutritionists at Clemson are fat asses.[/quote]
Ha. She is kind of a big girl.
That kind of misinformation disgusts me. At 188 as of this morning, I consume 320-340 grams of protein a day, taking in 3000+/- calories total. I’ve done this for about 7 months straight now…guess I should’ve been dead about half a year ago huh?
That is incredible. According to your textbook, most of us should be dead.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Uh, yeah. That’s the reason that I opted to get a degree (and soon to be masters) in biochemistry. Nutritionists know dick about the practical implications of chemistry, and are in general very poorly educated on the chemical basis for what is happening in the body. In other words, they lack the fundamentals of knowledge to truly understand what’s going on. Of course, most people don’t apply any knowledge they receive anyway, so it’s kind of a moot point.
Good post. I didn’t take any classes in nutrition, but I did always wonder why students were being taught about things like the Krebs Cycle in kinesiology classes…after having a chemistry background consisting of chem 1 and…what else was it…chem 2? organic chem? biochem? Nope, just chem 1.
[/quote]
haha! good one ted. Yeah, it gets scarier the more you think about it. 1 sorry semester of chemistry. I think you get through naming all the elements, maybe some “orbital theory”…ooooh, high tech. And the Krebs cycle is supposed to mean something to these people? The nutrition major is like science ‘lite’. It’s the “Muscle and Fiction” of the biochemical world. Doesn’t have to be that way, but it is for 99% of the students. Sad.
Of course I have nothing against working with hospitalized, elderly, or clinical patients–that’s good and necessary. But at least know what the bloody hell you’re talking about besides “my textbook/prof/advisor/tv/newspaper told me”.
When I was in A&P I went back in forth with the professor for quite a while on the dangers of too much protein.
Finally, she admitted that wasn’t able to keep up with all the current research, so in cases like this one she simple took the word of well-respected organizations like the American Heart Association. At least she was honest.
Do you know why the AHA warns against consuming too much protein? Heart disease.
High cholesterol. Too much saturated fat.
Most of their warnings don’t have anything to do with a high protein diet, they have simply failed to consider that it is possible to eat a diet high in protein and low in saturated fat.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
haha! good one ted. Yeah, it gets scarier the more you think about it. 1 sorry semester of chemistry. I think you get through naming all the elements, maybe some “orbital theory”…ooooh, high tech. And the Krebs cycle is supposed to mean something to these people? The nutrition major is like science ‘lite’. It’s the “Muscle and Fiction” of the biochemical world. Doesn’t have to be that way, but it is for 99% of the students. Sad.
[/quote]
I just about asked you what chem 1 you took. Then I remembered that we did learn orbital theory in chem 1.
Only to find out later in organic that everything we had learned was pretty much wrong.
[quote]HotCarl28 wrote:
this is very frustrating to me… i just dont understand where the disconnect is?
why have i read several threads about nutrition classes teaching obviously bogus material… i dont get it
[/quote]
I think the disconnect comes in when they originally started out as Biochem majors or pre-med and get so confused by the chemistry part that they switch to nutrition.
It’s the flag team theory. They aren’t talented enough to make the dance team, but not skinny enough to make the cheer leading team, so they get stuck in the marching band as flag line girls. Nutritionists are the flag line of the medical world, and funny enough they are fat like the flag girls.
I think there is a point that if you were to solely eat animals…you’d need to eat the organs and fat also to be sure to get all the vitamins and minerals that that animal ate.
I think if you only ate lean chicken breasts…and I mean only…you very well could die in a few weeks I’d think.