At Hunter-Gatherer.
Who would eat such crap? That's what I'm asking. Look, I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to wreck your health being vegan, well fine. Go for it, but why would you eat something that is manufactured by some corporation and that doesn't even resemble food?
Veganism is one of THE stupidest things that exist, and the people who follow it like a religion are even stupider. I understand if you do it for "ethical" reasons (which I think is misguided but whatever), but it certainly ought not be for "health" reasons since it's one of the most unhealthful diets you can eat, right after the Standard American Diet. I blame the lack of saturated fat. Saturated fat is really important for developing and maintaining cognitive function. So is cholesterol, but I digress.
The thing that really burns my biscuits though, is that vegans act like theirs is the natural diet man is supposed to be eating. This couldn't be further from the truth. Do you think that paleolithic man had greens, bananas and other stuff that only grows for part of the year in most places, shipped to them from a tropical location? They ate meat and lots of it. Some archaeologists think that paleolithic people were partially responsible for the mass extinction of mega-fauna at the end of the paleolithic.
If one wanted to be "ethical" about the way we treat this planet, they would eat local. They'd eat what was in their back yard. Of course, that would require having a back yard. I despise living in a city. I've done it, and I really don't like it. The only place I despise living more is in the suburbs. The neighbors are always a bunch of wackos.
If you eat vegan bacon, I'd suggest finding some real food to eat instead. The ingredient list on this vegan bacon reads like any other crap-in-a-box you might find in the frozen food section. Hint: soybean oil is very bad for you
Showing posts with label saturated fat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saturated fat. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Pharma-topia
A report has come out on the most popular drugs that are taken. Nearly all of them could be avoided if people would just toss this whole "low-fat" crap, dump the excess carbohydrates (especially sugar and HFCS) and start eating more saturated animal fat.
At number two, with 94 million prescriptions is generic Zocor, or simvastatin, a cholesterol lowering medication. And if you've read Uffe you'll know that this is unnecessary drivel. We have a population a little over 300 million... so that's almost one prescription for every three people in the country!
Metformin (for diabetes) is on down the list at 48.3 million prescriptions. Type 2 diabetes is a completely avoidable disease in most cases, and yet we have how many people with diabetes?
What else is on the rise here? Anti-psychotics. I think that the ad they run on television for Abilify is designed to MAKE you depressed. Seriously. Anyway, I suggest you read Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker. Big pharma has pushed anti-depressants and other anti-psychotics as 'wonder drugs' and they are not. They're possibly worse than the statins. Most people would see their mood improve if they'd just eat more saturated fat, for example butter or coconut butter/manna.
If your doctor tries to prescribe something you should ask questions and research it before agreeing to take it. It is your health that is at stake after all.
The only pill you should be taking is the red one.
At number two, with 94 million prescriptions is generic Zocor, or simvastatin, a cholesterol lowering medication. And if you've read Uffe you'll know that this is unnecessary drivel. We have a population a little over 300 million... so that's almost one prescription for every three people in the country!
Metformin (for diabetes) is on down the list at 48.3 million prescriptions. Type 2 diabetes is a completely avoidable disease in most cases, and yet we have how many people with diabetes?
What else is on the rise here? Anti-psychotics. I think that the ad they run on television for Abilify is designed to MAKE you depressed. Seriously. Anyway, I suggest you read Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker. Big pharma has pushed anti-depressants and other anti-psychotics as 'wonder drugs' and they are not. They're possibly worse than the statins. Most people would see their mood improve if they'd just eat more saturated fat, for example butter or coconut butter/manna.
If your doctor tries to prescribe something you should ask questions and research it before agreeing to take it. It is your health that is at stake after all.
The only pill you should be taking is the red one.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Oh noes! Trans fats might make you depressed...
o_O
Articles are popping up today about how trans fats cause depression. Now, I'm not saying artificial trans fats are good, quite the opposite. It seems they cause damage on a cellular level as well. But you know what else isn't good? The quality of research that has been put into some of these articles. Like this one:
Where do these people get off? I'd really like to know. I'd like to know how you can have a survey of people and act like it's a clinical trial. I'd like to know how you can have confounding variables out the wazzoo and act like you've controlled for a single variable. I'd also like to know why these people don't understand that CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. It's so simple, and yet soooooo beyond the grasp of your basic nutrition "expert" or "journalist".
I don't need to point out that industrial cakes, biscuits and fast food are very high in carbohydrates. But did they decide that carbohydrates cause depression? No. Of course not.
But the thing that is really wrong with this article, and why I decided to write about it, is that it equates naturally occurring trans fats with the industrially manufactured ones. There are trans fats in nature, but they are not the same in chemical structure as the commercially developed ones. The most common one, Conjugated Linoleic Acid does indeed occur in dairy, eggs and meat. (Of course, those are all bad for you! Run away!) What's ironic, is CLA is known to be an anti-carcinogen. Yeah, how does that grab ya? Certain forms of CLA also reduce inflammation and thereby prevent cardiovascular disease. What was that about not eating eggs, whole milk and meat?
And even Time jumped on the band wagon, and failed to do any research on the difference between artificial and naturally occurring trans fatty acids:
Articles are popping up today about how trans fats cause depression. Now, I'm not saying artificial trans fats are good, quite the opposite. It seems they cause damage on a cellular level as well. But you know what else isn't good? The quality of research that has been put into some of these articles. Like this one:
"Of all these, the participants with a high level of consumption of trans-fats, artificially present in industrial cakes and biscuits and in fast food, and naturally in certain full-fat milk products, "showed an increase in risk of depression of up to 48% compared to those participants who did not consume these,"..."
Where do these people get off? I'd really like to know. I'd like to know how you can have a survey of people and act like it's a clinical trial. I'd like to know how you can have confounding variables out the wazzoo and act like you've controlled for a single variable. I'd also like to know why these people don't understand that CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. It's so simple, and yet soooooo beyond the grasp of your basic nutrition "expert" or "journalist".
I don't need to point out that industrial cakes, biscuits and fast food are very high in carbohydrates. But did they decide that carbohydrates cause depression? No. Of course not.
But the thing that is really wrong with this article, and why I decided to write about it, is that it equates naturally occurring trans fats with the industrially manufactured ones. There are trans fats in nature, but they are not the same in chemical structure as the commercially developed ones. The most common one, Conjugated Linoleic Acid does indeed occur in dairy, eggs and meat. (Of course, those are all bad for you! Run away!) What's ironic, is CLA is known to be an anti-carcinogen. Yeah, how does that grab ya? Certain forms of CLA also reduce inflammation and thereby prevent cardiovascular disease. What was that about not eating eggs, whole milk and meat?
And even Time jumped on the band wagon, and failed to do any research on the difference between artificial and naturally occurring trans fatty acids:
"The results of the study may be especially bad news for Americans. While the average Spaniard gets about 0.4% of his or her calories from trans fats — mostly from natural or whole-food sources like milk, butter, meat and cheese — Americans log an average of 2.5% of total calories from trans fats. Americans not only eat more overall, but also eat worse-quality food, getting many trans fats from sources like processed snack foods and fried or fast food."What do these "journalists" get paid to do? Copy and paste? It took me five minutes to find out about CLAs, and to realize they're not the same as artificial trans fats. But more than that, I realize that this "study" is flawed, and not even worth considering as evidence of anything, except that out of 12k people, a few got depressed.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
When the dietary guidelines don't fit your agenda, get litigious
When I saw the headline 'PCRM sues federal agencies over dietary guidelines', I chuckled, since I consider the dietary guidelines a crock, and really, what place does the government have telling us what to eat? And then I read the story, and it just about made my blood boil.
Their problem isn't that the government is telling us what to eat, their problem is the government isn't promoting a vegan diet.
It's not that I have a problem with people eating a vegan diet. Quite the contrary, if you want to wreck your health, that's your prerogative. It's a free country, eat whatever you want. In fact, if you want to go to McDonald's every day and eat 5000 calories like Spurlock did and gain a ton of weight, then by god, that's your god given right. If you want to eat tofu and sit in a drum circle all night, that too is your god given right as an American. If I want to eat venison I killed myself every night, it's none of your damned business and if you don't like it, you need to STFU. We do not need a nanny state telling us we need to eat one way or the other. THAT is what is wrong with the food guidelines.
What we need, is someone telling us the TRUTH about what medical research finds out, and then we as THE PEOPLE get to decide whether we want to act on that knowledge or not. Anything else is not worthy of a free people.
My mum-in-law just this morning was saying that as soon as more people start eating low carb and paleo that these militant vegans will petition the government to add a tax to everything that has animal fat in it, on the premise that it's bad for us like cigarettes. And indeed, on many forums I have seen the consumption of animal fat compared to smoking cigarettes, as if the two have anything in common. Unfortunately, my mum-in-law may be right.
Their problem isn't that the government is telling us what to eat, their problem is the government isn't promoting a vegan diet.
"'Yet Defendants intentionally use inconsistent language, ambiguous phrases, and biochemical terminology to avoid providing clear dietary information and guidance for the general public regarding the health benefits of reducing consumption of meat and dairy products. This is due to Defendants’ conflicts of interest.'...Of course the USDA has a conflict of interest, and so does PCRM! In other words, yes, they are attempting to use the dietary guidelines to promote their vegan diet. The evidence is NOT overwhelming that a plant-based diet is more healthful, in fact, if you've read Good Calories, Bad Calories, you'll know that it's the freaking OPPOSITE. It's like Orwell's 1984, War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, and bloody hell if Ignorance isn't Strength.
Asked if the PCRM's lawsuit were less a device to correct any problems with the dietary guidelines and more a tool to promote the group's vegan diet, Barnard said the question itself was focused on the wrong issue. He said the evidence is overwhelming that plant-based diets are more healthful and not reporting such information, in clear and unambiguous terms, in the dietary guidelines is misguided."
It's not that I have a problem with people eating a vegan diet. Quite the contrary, if you want to wreck your health, that's your prerogative. It's a free country, eat whatever you want. In fact, if you want to go to McDonald's every day and eat 5000 calories like Spurlock did and gain a ton of weight, then by god, that's your god given right. If you want to eat tofu and sit in a drum circle all night, that too is your god given right as an American. If I want to eat venison I killed myself every night, it's none of your damned business and if you don't like it, you need to STFU. We do not need a nanny state telling us we need to eat one way or the other. THAT is what is wrong with the food guidelines.
What we need, is someone telling us the TRUTH about what medical research finds out, and then we as THE PEOPLE get to decide whether we want to act on that knowledge or not. Anything else is not worthy of a free people.
My mum-in-law just this morning was saying that as soon as more people start eating low carb and paleo that these militant vegans will petition the government to add a tax to everything that has animal fat in it, on the premise that it's bad for us like cigarettes. And indeed, on many forums I have seen the consumption of animal fat compared to smoking cigarettes, as if the two have anything in common. Unfortunately, my mum-in-law may be right.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Health Writers
Who do they get to write these articles? Ninth grade high school drop-outs? I'd say so, except I believe that could be an insult to ninth grade high school drop outs.
The latest article I've come across that is as full of garbage as a neolithic midden, is one from the Miami Herald. I think that a monkey, yes just one monkey, in a room full of type writers could compose better literature than this crap.
First of all, I doubt seriously that trans fats act anything like saturated fat once in the body. I'm an artist, not a biochemist, but I ain't stupid. First of all, trans fat and saturated fat have different chemical bonds. Trans fats do have something in common with saturated fat, in that they have had hydrogen atoms added to their structure. However, their structure is not the same.
Also, whereas saturated fat is natural and your body has use for it, trans fat is man-made and it's "molecules have unnatural shapes that are not recognized by enzymes such as cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase." Those enzymes are used in the metabolism of fat. Your body cannot metabolize it and it does cellular damage. To imply that saturated fat, something we have been eating for millions of years, causes damage is to declare that evolution and mother nature are idiots. To paraphrase what Tom Naughton said in Fat Head, mother nature is not a dunce! The writers of these articles may be dunces, but evolution is not.
And they go on to malign red meat, and even coconut oil! It's absolute drivel, with nothing to back it up, masquerading as truth. And unwitting people believe it, because they read it in a major newspaper.
The latest article I've come across that is as full of garbage as a neolithic midden, is one from the Miami Herald. I think that a monkey, yes just one monkey, in a room full of type writers could compose better literature than this crap.
"[Trans-fats] act as saturated fat once inside the body...
This expert recommends limiting the consumption of these industry-made foods and to treat the trans fat in them as saturated, equivalent to that of red meat that is so harmful to cardiovascular health...
Researchers at the University of Colorado say that 'it is important to read the nutritional information on all products, including foods marked free of trans fat, since some manufacturers are replacing trans fat with tropical oils from sources such as coconuts and palms, which are also rich in saturated fat.'"
First of all, I doubt seriously that trans fats act anything like saturated fat once in the body. I'm an artist, not a biochemist, but I ain't stupid. First of all, trans fat and saturated fat have different chemical bonds. Trans fats do have something in common with saturated fat, in that they have had hydrogen atoms added to their structure. However, their structure is not the same.
Also, whereas saturated fat is natural and your body has use for it, trans fat is man-made and it's "molecules have unnatural shapes that are not recognized by enzymes such as cyclooxygenase and lipoxygenase." Those enzymes are used in the metabolism of fat. Your body cannot metabolize it and it does cellular damage. To imply that saturated fat, something we have been eating for millions of years, causes damage is to declare that evolution and mother nature are idiots. To paraphrase what Tom Naughton said in Fat Head, mother nature is not a dunce! The writers of these articles may be dunces, but evolution is not.
And they go on to malign red meat, and even coconut oil! It's absolute drivel, with nothing to back it up, masquerading as truth. And unwitting people believe it, because they read it in a major newspaper.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
There's No Fat in Sugar
We have an obesity epidemic in this country because our government, dietitians and doctors continue to give people the wrong information. Take for example an article on the Pima Indians from the NIH."Thirty years of research show that exercising and eating lower fat, fiber-rich foods can at least delay diabetes. "If you delay it long enough," adds Dr. Knowler, "It's almost as good as preventing it...
[NIH doctors] also discovered that high levels of insulin in the blood, or hyper-insulinemia, is another strong risk factor.
Studying this clue, researchers working with patients found that high levels of insulin were linked to insulin resistance. Normally, the pancreas releases insulin to regulate the amount of sugar or glucose in the blood. People who have non-insulin-dependent or Type II diabetes (hereafter referred to simply as "diabetes") produce insulin, but their bodies don't respond to it effectively. NIH researchers have made it clear that people with insulin resistance are those most likely to get diabetes...
The second strategy is to encourage those who are at high risk to change behaviors that can lead to diabetes, such as eating a high fat diet, being physically inactive, and being overweight.
The NIH has begun a major nation-wide program to prevent diabetes in people who increase exercise and eat lower fat foods." [emphasis mine]
Now let me explain something to you that even a five year old should be able to understand. We have three basic nutrients, fat, carbohydrates and protein. Carbohydrates break down in the blood into sugar. This causes you to secrete insulin, sometimes it makes people insulin resistant, some think quite possibly because of exposure to sugar and/or refined carbohydrates.
Once you are insulin resistant, simply cutting out the sugar and simple carbohydrates doesn't stop you from being insulin resistant. If you continue to eat carbohydrates, depending on genetics, you may become type 2 diabetic. If you don't eat carbohydrates, and restrict them severely, you will not. It's not possible (to my knowledge) to become diabetic if you are not eating carbs, because you don't have an increase in blood sugar if you're not consuming carbohydrates and therefore very little insulin is secreted. Some people can eat more carbs than others and be okay. Some have to cut out all carbohydrates, as in the case Taubes mentions in his book about the du Pont executive who couldn't even eat an apple. Some have said their insulin resistance improves after months of being on a low carb diet, and they can then have some carbs without having problems.
So you tell me why in the hell they are advocating that people who are already insulin resistant eat more carbohydrates? Because that's what they're doing. By lowering fat you raise carbohydrate consumption. Protein intake cannot increase very much, you can't tolerate too much of it (unless you're body building and breaking down muscle).
Why do they blame fat? I think it's because of the mistaken notion that since the Pima were agriculturalists that meant they didn't eat meat and that they only ate carbs. There isn't a single documented case of a native society being completely vegetarian, that I know of anyway. They usually tend to eat whatever they can get their hands on.
"A dietary change common to all these cases [of Native American cultures] has been the increased consumption of sugar and refined carbohydrates ... Since the key diagnostic feature of diabetes is high blood sugar, often accompanied by sugar in the urine, diabetes is frequently spoken of as "sugar diabetes" and "I've got sugar" or "I've got high sugar"... All carbohydrates cause a rise in blood glucose, and the glycemic index, a meaure of the impact of food or a meal on the rise in blood glucose, has a significant but transitory effect on both insulin production and glucose homeostasis." --from the Encyclopedia of medical anthropology by Carol R Ember, p 342
Since the Pima didn't grow sugar or refine grain to within an inch of it's life, I'm going to go with door number 1. And that is, the Pima are overweight or obese and diabetic because they consume carbohydrates typically found in the western diet. They may have consumed carbohydrates before contact with Europeans, but they were not the same kind of carbohydrates. Also, because they live in a rather inhospitable place, they may have not gotten enough calories, and this functions in much the same way as carbohydrate restriction if Ancel Key's studies on starvation are worth anything.
It's sad that all of the Native Americans' ancestors were screwed over by the Europeans. But what's even sadder, is that they are continuing to be screwed over even today, just like every other overweight or obese person in this country who has been told that they're fat because they eat too much. They will continue to get type 2 diabetes, will continue to have legs amputated and will continue to die prematurely as long as the lie that fat is the problem is perpetuated.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Expert and No-so Expert Journalism: Diet Myths
If you're going to be a journalist, I suggest that when an "expert" tells you something, that you get a second opinion on the matter from someone who disagrees with them. Or better yet, or in addition to, that you go and do some research yourself on the matter. Of course that requires having some critical thinking skills and being able to read on a post-baccalaureate level.
I'll give you an example of bad research, or just parroting whatever the nutrition "expert" tells you. In an article from yesterday in the Midland Daily News out of Michigan, they tell you that February is American Heart Month and talk to a Registered Dietitian from their local medical center to find out what you can do for a healthier heart.
I have yet to meet or read a Registered Dietitian that gives advice based on the latest metabolic research rather than the out-dated and plain wrong advice given by our government, the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association.
The first mistake that Registered Dietitian Sherry Elford makes is that we should avoid saturated fat. This is pretty typical, because since Ancel Keys decided that Saturated Fat was bad for us, it has become gospel to Dietitians and Doctors as much as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are gospel to the Christians in this world. Now, if you're read Taubes, you'll know that there's not a shred of scientific evidence that Saturated Fat or Cholesterol has anything to do with heart disease. Heart disease has to do with inflammation which is probably caused by excess consumption of carbohydrates.
The next mistake made is that she says that "sodium raises bad cholesterol and plaque buildup in arteries increases." I'm assuming she means that cholesterol causes plaques in artery walls, which is wrong (and not that sodium does, which would also be wrong). However, her first premise, that sodium raises bad cholesterol is wrong. It doesn't. However it can LOWER good cholesterol. A five minute search on Science Direct found a study of sixty five men whose HDL cholesterol (the supposed "good" cholesterol) decreased with sodium restriction and had no statistical effect on overall cholesterol. Why aren't these "journalists" and "registered dietitians" doing their job by doing research? I'm not even a scientist and I can find this stuff!
"Short term dietary sodium restriction decreases HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-I and high molecular weight adiponectin in healthy young men: Relationships with renal hemodynamics and RAAS activation" in Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases
On top of that, there is another study that showed that salt restriction may increase insulin resistance and lowers cholesterol as well.
"Salt restriction and increased insulin production in hypertensive patients" from the Scandanavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, 1994, Vol 54, No 5, pages 405-409
And another study that said pretty much the same thing. And another. In case you aren't paying attention, insulin resistance is very bad. It's a precursor to diabetes. It's associated with weight gain. And these "nutritionists" are advocating something that may cause it.
Also, let me say that lowering choleterol is bad, despite whatever dogma you may have been indoctrinated with. Cholesterol is a vital substance required for life. It's essential for the structural integrity of cellular membrane walls and your brain uses it in your neural synapses. Without it, you wouldn't be alive. Cholesterol is found in arteriosclerotic plaques probably because it's trying to repair the damage.
Lastly, Ms. Elford "recommends soy foods." Elford fails to mention that soy may inhibit thyroid function, which is a very important part of your metabolism. Soy also contains phytoestrogens, which mimic estrogen. Now, whether or not this is harmful remains to be seen. I don't think that some *unprocessed* soy in small quantities would be harmful. However, the American public is getting much more than a small quantity of unprocessed soy. They put soybean oil (sometimes soy flour) in bread (even "healthy" looking bread), in some cereal, in crackers, they put it in just about anything that it will go in. You don't have to look far to find something with soy in it. About the only way to avoid all this soy is to make your own food from scratch and/or eat low carb. The soybean manufacturers must do something with all the soybean they grow. After all most Americans don't eat very much tofu.
The thing is, these people recommend to you a course of action to take, and it could be at the expense of your health. The Buddha said, believe nothing, even if I have said it. That goes here too. It's up to everyone to investigate what they should be eating, what will be healthiest, because most of the journalists aren't going to do it, and the nutrition "experts" certainly aren't going to do it.
I'll give you an example of bad research, or just parroting whatever the nutrition "expert" tells you. In an article from yesterday in the Midland Daily News out of Michigan, they tell you that February is American Heart Month and talk to a Registered Dietitian from their local medical center to find out what you can do for a healthier heart.
I have yet to meet or read a Registered Dietitian that gives advice based on the latest metabolic research rather than the out-dated and plain wrong advice given by our government, the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association.
The first mistake that Registered Dietitian Sherry Elford makes is that we should avoid saturated fat. This is pretty typical, because since Ancel Keys decided that Saturated Fat was bad for us, it has become gospel to Dietitians and Doctors as much as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are gospel to the Christians in this world. Now, if you're read Taubes, you'll know that there's not a shred of scientific evidence that Saturated Fat or Cholesterol has anything to do with heart disease. Heart disease has to do with inflammation which is probably caused by excess consumption of carbohydrates.
The next mistake made is that she says that "sodium raises bad cholesterol and plaque buildup in arteries increases." I'm assuming she means that cholesterol causes plaques in artery walls, which is wrong (and not that sodium does, which would also be wrong). However, her first premise, that sodium raises bad cholesterol is wrong. It doesn't. However it can LOWER good cholesterol. A five minute search on Science Direct found a study of sixty five men whose HDL cholesterol (the supposed "good" cholesterol) decreased with sodium restriction and had no statistical effect on overall cholesterol. Why aren't these "journalists" and "registered dietitians" doing their job by doing research? I'm not even a scientist and I can find this stuff!
"Short term dietary sodium restriction decreases HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-I and high molecular weight adiponectin in healthy young men: Relationships with renal hemodynamics and RAAS activation" in Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases
On top of that, there is another study that showed that salt restriction may increase insulin resistance and lowers cholesterol as well.
"As a result, insulin C-peptide increased by 40% (p = 0.0001) whereas glucose rose by 6% (p = 0.02). Total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol concentration were reduced by 6% (p = 0.001), 12% (p = 0.008) and 11% (p = 0.004) respectively. HbAlc, serum triglycerides, total/HDL-cholesterol ratio, urine catecholamines and VMA were unchanged during the trial. It is concluded that salt restriction may increase insulin resistance in hypertensive patients."
"Salt restriction and increased insulin production in hypertensive patients" from the Scandanavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, 1994, Vol 54, No 5, pages 405-409
And another study that said pretty much the same thing. And another. In case you aren't paying attention, insulin resistance is very bad. It's a precursor to diabetes. It's associated with weight gain. And these "nutritionists" are advocating something that may cause it.
Also, let me say that lowering choleterol is bad, despite whatever dogma you may have been indoctrinated with. Cholesterol is a vital substance required for life. It's essential for the structural integrity of cellular membrane walls and your brain uses it in your neural synapses. Without it, you wouldn't be alive. Cholesterol is found in arteriosclerotic plaques probably because it's trying to repair the damage.
Lastly, Ms. Elford "recommends soy foods." Elford fails to mention that soy may inhibit thyroid function, which is a very important part of your metabolism. Soy also contains phytoestrogens, which mimic estrogen. Now, whether or not this is harmful remains to be seen. I don't think that some *unprocessed* soy in small quantities would be harmful. However, the American public is getting much more than a small quantity of unprocessed soy. They put soybean oil (sometimes soy flour) in bread (even "healthy" looking bread), in some cereal, in crackers, they put it in just about anything that it will go in. You don't have to look far to find something with soy in it. About the only way to avoid all this soy is to make your own food from scratch and/or eat low carb. The soybean manufacturers must do something with all the soybean they grow. After all most Americans don't eat very much tofu.
The thing is, these people recommend to you a course of action to take, and it could be at the expense of your health. The Buddha said, believe nothing, even if I have said it. That goes here too. It's up to everyone to investigate what they should be eating, what will be healthiest, because most of the journalists aren't going to do it, and the nutrition "experts" certainly aren't going to do it.
Californian Mom Sues Nutella
It doesn't take a genius to know that Nutella is not really a healthy food for you. But not because of the saturated fat content, but rather because the first ingredient is sugar. Either Athena Hohenberg is an idiot or she's after money. I'm leaning toward the latter personally. Why should she waste the courts time and money by suing, can't she use her brain and read a label? Maybe she hasn't had enough fat in her diet and her synapses are having problems communicating with each other.
If Athena wants healthy children she should be feeding them real, unprocessed foods like eggs and sausage for breakfast. But I digress. The real problem here, is that Athena Hohenberg has been told her whole life that saturated fat is bad for you. It's not, but sugar is, and at least sugar is included in the indictment. The great thing about living in a free country is that one should be able to eat whatever they want, whether it's good for them or not. The problem is, what is good for you? Now we're back to the lies.
So, when is she going to sue the breakfast cereal manufacturers? That's what I want to know.
Breakfast cereal manufacturers are no different than Nutella, advertising that their sugary, wheat infused mixture is a good thing to feed your kids in the morning. In my opinion, cereal is probably one of the worst thing you could feed your kids. Spreading Nutella on a piece of whole wheat bread would probably be about the same. Oh, except that cereal is "low in fat". I guess that makes it okay {/snark}. Even the ones touting to be "healthy", like Raisin Bran and Special K are hardly good for you, never mind the carbohydrate content. I've read the labels on those and they both have High Fructose Corn Syrup in them. Most of the breakfast cereal you'll find is also made with enriched flour, which is white flour with vitamins added back into it. When that hits your blood stream it's the same as if you'd eaten sugar.
*sigh*
If Athena wants healthy children she should be feeding them real, unprocessed foods like eggs and sausage for breakfast. But I digress. The real problem here, is that Athena Hohenberg has been told her whole life that saturated fat is bad for you. It's not, but sugar is, and at least sugar is included in the indictment. The great thing about living in a free country is that one should be able to eat whatever they want, whether it's good for them or not. The problem is, what is good for you? Now we're back to the lies.
So, when is she going to sue the breakfast cereal manufacturers? That's what I want to know.
Breakfast cereal manufacturers are no different than Nutella, advertising that their sugary, wheat infused mixture is a good thing to feed your kids in the morning. In my opinion, cereal is probably one of the worst thing you could feed your kids. Spreading Nutella on a piece of whole wheat bread would probably be about the same. Oh, except that cereal is "low in fat". I guess that makes it okay {/snark}. Even the ones touting to be "healthy", like Raisin Bran and Special K are hardly good for you, never mind the carbohydrate content. I've read the labels on those and they both have High Fructose Corn Syrup in them. Most of the breakfast cereal you'll find is also made with enriched flour, which is white flour with vitamins added back into it. When that hits your blood stream it's the same as if you'd eaten sugar.
*sigh*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)