Sanitarium "One Square Meal"

[photohiker]

Thanks for the background information OneStepMore.

The reason I was querying wayno was because of the blanket statements.

You don't have to look far to find Olive oil spreads that do not fit the 'all margarine is bad' label. At our place we use both butter and olive oil spreads depending on the situation and taste preferences. Unsalted butter gets the nod for a lot of cooking but it's low smoke point limits it's usefulness in some dishes.

We need some fats in our diet for sure, but I question whether the extra fat delivered by a few grams of butter and/or olive oil per day is going to make much of a difference. Personally, I wouldn't eat anywhere near a tablespoon of added fats in spreads per day.

Choice did an article on spreads including butter and margarines not so long back (2005), with useful analyses of their content, they may have done an update but the original is on the web, and any update is probably paywalled.

0501Spreads.pdf

(330.43 KiB) Downloaded 474 times

[wayno]

doesnt help that in dietician schools no distinction is made between how fats are prcessed, margarine is considered a legitimate source o poluyunsaturated fats
artificial sweeteners are also interesting "sucralose" or "splenda" is widespread in use as an artificial sweetener, its in the same family as pesticides and about as toxic in the long term, i'm highly reactive to it and have thrown up on it before

http://www.rense.com/general65/splend.htm

[GPSGuided]

There are margarines and margarines out there. I get the sense that the community has again taken an extreme knee-jerk view on this.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/butter ... ne/AN00835

[wayno]

yes there possibly are good margarines out there but, you have to be pretty sure how they've been processed or you're likely to be getting the standard chemical concoction...

[Onestepmore]

Just don't eat anything that your grandparents (or great grandparents nowadays) wouldn't recognise - always good advice

Cardiovascular disease was virtually unheard of before WW2 (before sugar started to be added to everything, and food became 'fake')
People then had a diet with much higher amounts of saturated fat than what we do now, ate far more calories, were much more active, and type II diabetes and heart attacks were virtually unknown.
(Of course far more people died of infectious diseases, trauma, medical neglect and starvation too!)

[wayno]

a cure foor poor circulation or heart congestion used to be to eat reasonable amounts of butter, that was pre pasteurisation,, unpasteurised butter is full of lipase a fat digesting enzyme that would clean out the arteries.... despite the fact that butter is pure fat,, it made no adverse affect on arteries...

[GPSGuided]

Just don't eat anything that your grandparents (or great grandparents nowadays) wouldn't recognise - always good advice

Going to starve a bit on that. Might further reduce my cardiovascular risks though.

Cardiovascular disease was virtually unheard of before WW2 (before sugar started to be added to everything, and food became 'fake')
People then had a diet with much higher amounts of saturated fat than what we do now, ate far more calories, were much more active, and type II diabetes and heart attacks were virtually unknown.
(Of course far more people died of infectious diseases, trauma, medical neglect and starvation too!)

Yes, life got "better"! Possibly too good.

It's not true that CV diseases and adult onset diabetes were "virtually unheard of before WW2" but is true that they were less dominating amongst all causes of death. A major factor that must not be missed here is life expectancy. Back in 1922 Australia, male life expectancy at birth was 59.2 years. In 2006, it's 78.7, a differential that sits right in the CV death zone. Whilst I don't discount the effect of diet and lifestyle on present day prevalence, it's not a sole factor phenomenon. Similarly, didn't see a significant number of Alzheimers sufferers back then when most have died well before their brains have had a chance to degenerate significantly.

[LandSailor]

Just don't eat anything that your grandparents (or great grandparents nowadays) wouldn't recognise - always good advice

Agree osm..very hard to make sense of all the conflicting nutritional advice so best to keep it simple. Have also heard the a similar idea expressed in other ways...avoid the center aisles of the supermarket and dont eat anything with more than a few ingredients.

13 Nutrition Lies That Made The World Sick And Fat

6 Graphs That Show Why The “War” on Fat Was a Huge Mistake

[photohiker]

Just don't eat anything that your grandparents (or great grandparents nowadays) wouldn't recognise - always good advice

Cardiovascular disease was virtually unheard of before WW2 (before sugar started to be added to everything, and food became 'fake')
People then had a diet with much higher amounts of saturated fat than what we do now, ate far more calories, were much more active, and type II diabetes and heart attacks were virtually unknown.
(Of course far more people died of infectious diseases, trauma, medical neglect and starvation too!)

Along with changes to food were changes to lifestyle. Manual labour diminished, White Collar work increases, Washing machines, cars, automation etc. Heart disease from hardened arteries was first described in 1912 by James B. Herrick. It took off after WW2, yes. Like many diseases, the advent of greater knowledge and testing revealed what might have been an already underlying incidence.

High saturated fat and high exercise. What was the life expectancy? My grandfather was middle class English. Had cars, latest mod-cons for the time, early telephone, maids, servants, etc. He had a great life, died from natural causes at the start of WW2, didn't make it to 70.

Edit, ooops. He was 66 when he died, not 46...

Last edited by photohiker on Wed 06 Nov, 2013 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[GPSGuided]

a cure foor poor circulation or heart congestion used to be to eat reasonable amounts of butter, that was pre pasteurisation,, unpasteurised butter is full of lipase a fat digesting enzyme that would clean out the arteries.... despite the fact that butter is pure fat,, it made no adverse affect on arteries...

Errr.... Better confirm that lipase of whatever type can be "absorbed" through the intestines first, and then confirm those "lipase" molecules actually can "clean out" arteries. Two pretty significant barriers to the truthfulness of an idealistically descriptive sequence of events.

[corvus]

I am lost in this post ,butter ,margarine, trans fats ,sugar can we actually eat anything
corvus

[GPSGuided]

I am lost in this post ,butter ,margarine, trans fats ,sugar can we actually eat anything

No! Only what your great grandparents ate!

[photohiker]

I am lost in this post ,butter ,margarine, trans fats ,sugar can we actually eat anything
corvus

Eat em all in moderation, but I'd stay away from trans fats.

Anyone for Wagyu steak?

[Onestepmore]

Sure! Kobe, Matsusaki?

And give me an old heirloom breed pork rather than the dry tasteless stuff they supply as pork fillets in the supermarket. Did anyone watch 'From Paddock to Plate' with Matt Moran?
Eat less, eat local, eat better quality, know the provenance of your produce.
And as someone above said 'shop the perimeters' of the supermarket - lol, where the 'real' food is!

[icefest]

doesnt help that in dietician schools no distinction is made between how fats are prcessed, margarine is considered a legitimate source o poluyunsaturated fats
artificial sweeteners are also interesting "sucralose" or "splenda" is widespread in use as an artificial sweetener, its in the same family as pesticides and about as toxic in the long term, i'm highly reactive to it and have thrown up on it before
http://www.rense.com/general65/splend.htm

It's hard to review an article that does not state it's sources. I'll do my best and am apologising in advance that I'm not up to Wiley Library standards.

That article claims that sucralose is an chlorocarbon. This is correct.
It also claims that all chlorocarbons are "incompatible with normal normal human metabolic functioning"
Not true Not all chlorocarbons are toxic.
4-Chloroindole-3-acetic acid is a chlorocarbon which is found in the decidedly nontoxic green peas, lentils and beans.

All the rest of the articles states the effects of other chlorocarbons and insists that the same must be true for sucralose

There is one mention that in test animals sucralose produced swollen livers and shrunken thymus glands, but as dosage levels were not mentioned this could have been at dosages several orders of magnitude higher than human use. I do not know what data he is using so I did some research:
The estimated daily intake at the 90th percentile is was estimated to never exceed 5.5mg/kg. This is estimated by replacing all sugar consumed with sucralose. (http://puu.sh/5as02.png). Acceptable daily intake by the Australian National Food Authority is 15mg/kg and the highest-no-adverse-effect level is around 1500mg/kg http://puu.sh/5as1l.png. This is a safety margin of over 100x.



Are you aware that the author, James (Jim) Bowen claims that:

*Aspartame gave him Motor Neurone disease: http://puu.sh/5apnf.png http://disinfo.com/2013/01/the-aspartame-epidemic/
*Jews are poisoning everyone with aspartame.
*Jews made him be charged with "getting a little too fresh with an adult female"
*Israel is a satanistic ploy

The same website also claims such thing as:

*Polio is not caused by viruses nor is it infectious http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio_not_contagious.html
*There was no such thing as the holocaust http://www.whale.to/b/holocaust_revisionism.html
*Drinking urine is good for you: http://www.whale.to/b/urine_therapy_h.html
*AIDS/HIV is not a virus but a reaction to drugs http://www.whale.to/a/pharma_aids.html

Do you have any studies showing the toxicity that you claim? (RCT, Cohort, or Case control, would be preferred)

[wayno]

some of my information comes from magazines read and thrown out, the magazines usually quoted references for their sources though..

[photohiker]

some of my information comes from magazines read and thrown out, the magazines usually quoted references for their sources though..

Were these magazines like "New Idea" or more like "Nutrition Journal" ?

Here's a relevant paper from the Nutrition Journal: The relationships between body composition and cardiovascular risk factors in young Australian men

Conclusions

It is a serious concern to observe such a high percentage of CV risk factors in a group of apparently healthy young men. The likelihood of multiple CV risk factors is greater among those with high body fatness and low MUFA intake. Intake of MUFA (monounsaturated fatty acids) favorably affects CV risk factors regardless of the source.

I like how the Nutrition Journal has open access. Pity all journals don't.

[Moondog55]

What was infant mortality in 1922?
IM always skews life expectancy data.

[GPSGuided]

What was infant mortality in 1922?
IM always skews life expectancy data.

Whilst looking for that data I came across this pretty comprehensive report on Australian mortality trend over the last century. Very interesting numbers that gives us a perspective on health trends.
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/Downloa ... 6442459697

Quote from page XXIV

For males, the death rate for circulatory diseases increased from 437 deaths per 100,000 population in 1907 to 1,020 in 1968 (AIHW GRIM Books), before falling to 319 in 2000.

When compared with other causes of death, absolute number peaked in mid-late 20th Century and came back down just back before the start of 21st Century. So again demonstrating CV diseases have always been around. What's also interesting is that cancer has been around too and despite its increase in modern times, the increase isn't as dramatic as I originally thought. Though the increase in lung cancer is pretty dramatic. Smoking? Or city air? Or industrial contact? Report suggested smoking as the dominant factor.

[Moondog55]

Genetics always has something to do with long life as well. I come from a fairly long lived family, including a couple of centenarians dating back to the late 1800s early 1900's.

I just read an unscientific report on obesity being caused by insufficient protein in the diet, made some sense tho as some authorities have long regarded severe obesity as a deficiency disease/ type of malnutrition [ sorry no links, as I only just remembered I have heard this] but I find the statement possible. I do know that I find a thousand Calories of red meat more satisfying than a thousand Calories of pasta; as much as I like pasta.

[GPSGuided]

You are blessed to have the right genes. To me, that's the dominant factor.

On obesity. I discount any write up that suggests one factor as being responsible. Fact is, it's a multi factorial issue for 99.5% of those so afflicted. Reduce calories in and increase calories out, problem solved. No other ways out but for the will of the individual.

[Onestepmore]

Reduce calories in and increase calories out, problem solved. No other ways out but for the will of the individual.

No, the source of the calories does make a difference, due to activation of insulin etc. Fructose (sugar is fructose and glucose) doesn't cause insulin production, and the switch off mechanism of appetite isn't stimulated. If you eat calories from protein (often meat) and fat, and you're not eating sugar, then your satiety centre of your brain is switched on, you feel full. I stopped eating sugar, restricted carbohydrates, ate more fat and protein, and actually DOUBLED the amount of calories eaten per day (and I monitored this over a few months). I lost 14 kg over eight months, and still am. I stopped starving myself with low calorie low fat foods. I never felt hungry. Stopped when I was full. No cravings. BP down, more energy, bloodwork fine.
So no, calories in dont equal calories out. Ask any woman who struggles to keep at 1200 calories per day, eats low fat low taste anything, exercises, and continually complains of tiredness and NO WEIGHT LOSS.

[Onestepmore]

Both Atkins type diets (low carbohydrate and high protein and high fat) and Japanese type diets (high carbohydrate and low fat and lower protein) work because they have something in common. Little or no sugar
Eating fat doesn't make you fat.
Eating cholesterol doesn't make you get atherosclerosis.
Eating sugar both makes you fat, increases risk of type II diabetes and increases your risk of cardiovascular disease. .

Last edited by Onestepmore on Thu 07 Nov, 2013 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[GPSGuided]

Source of calorie can influence rate and mode, but calorie in and out equation is an undeniable common pathway for any diet you care to name. Until that balance equation is shifted, there will be no weight changes (basic conservation of energy law).

Eat less, burn more with exercises, weight loss is guaranteed. There are no fatties in an African famine. Weight loss really is that simple until the commercial industry got involved. Will power is everything here.

Last edited by GPSGuided on Fri 08 Nov, 2013 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

[icefest]

OSM, If it is sugar that makes you fat, then would I get fat if I got all my energy from sugar, but only consumed 60% of the calories I burned?
Conversely, what happened if I ate double of my energy output in fat every day? Would I get fat?
The point GPSG was making is that in most people an energy deficit will cause you to loose weight. I'd love to know how it is possible to gain weight with an energy deficit.

GPSGuided, have you heard of adipotide? An interesting proapoptotic protein that only affects blood vessels supplying white adipose tissue? I'll be interested how the human trials turn out.

[wayno]

if you eat sugar and too many carbs especially refined carbs and you don't exercise enough then you end up with a liver and muscles fully stocked with glucose in the form of glycogen....
sugar and refined carbs flood the system your body has to turn it into fat if you're not expending energy when you have this senario...
unrefined carbs are absorbed slower and the rate at which they will be turned into fat will be slower, depending on the glycaemic index of the food... you also have the problem that sugar nad refined carbs cause fluctiations of blood sugar, it spikes, so the body has to produce a lot of insulin to capture the blood sugar and carry it off for processing then the blood sugar dips making you feel hungry and want to eat more ,so you can end up overeating and exacerbating the production of fat....
thers also other arguments about eating too much reined food, your body may feel hungry but its not necessarily for energy, it could be for the other missing minerals or vitanins you don't get enough of with too much processed food.
this argument was put in a tv doco, people were tested for deficiencies of nutrients, and given hte nutrient that was deficient and their overall hunger levels were lessened, and they then ate less.
i eat a lot of carbs but none of it is refined, my weight is stable even though i dont exercise much during the week...
i eat the main meals but dont feel the need to snack when i'm not exrcising much...

[GPSGuided]

GPSGuided, have you heard of adipotide? An interesting proapoptotic protein that only affects blood vessels supplying white adipose tissue? I'll be interested how the human trials turn out.

I have not read about human trials on adipotide. My instinctive concern is the artificialness of such a weight loss modality. Us human have evolved into an all encompassing system, weight loss for weight loss sake is a worry when it only targets one specific tissue type when diseases associated with obesity involves multiple organs. Not sure "magic bullet" is the way to go here and it'll just continue to fuel the commercial lazy approach. As said, weight loss is all about will power. Eat less and exercise more for negative caloric balance and its all solved. I wonder if such is much different to liposuction?

[wayno]

theres a couple of types of fat stores in the body
white fat and brown fat
actually the fat is actually teh same colour in both types of fat, but the brown fat just looks brown because the brown fat cells far more metabolically active than white fat cells,
brown fat is filled with far more blood vessels than white fat. Its far more raedily burnt off to supply energy when required,
people who exercise more have more brown fat and can burn their fat faster as a result...
but it can be a two way process, if you stop exercising and dont cut your calorie intake it can mean you put fat on faster as well.

[photohiker]

I'm seeing a lot of theories here about nutrition and explanations of weight gains and loss, but also a lot of tip-toeing around GPSGuided's repeated "Elephant in the Room":

weight loss is all about will power. Eat less and exercise more for negative caloric balance and its all solved.

Do we agree on this, if not why not?

[wayno]

you put a plate of the identical types and amounts of foods in front of two people and keep doing it repeatedly
one of those people could loose weight and the other gain weight...
genetics can be a big variable...
depends how you get the calories? protein? fat carbs? sugar?
high fat high sugar diets are slow to digest reducing floods of energy which stimulate fat gain.... but can still be giving you as many calories as a high carb diet, fat has two and a half times the calories by weight as carbs...
if you come from a culture that has traditionally experience famine , you're more prone to storing more fat in your body, someone identified a "thrifty gene" in some populations that made them more prone to becoming corpulent when they had unrestricted access to calories...
and as you get older your metabolism changes. growth hormone drops and that causes muscle mass to drop and encourage fat to increase... and your digestion gets less efficient you get less energy from a given amount of calories ingested..
then thers leptin and insulin sensitivity that can also affect your likeihood to hold onto and shed fat
excess stress hormones can encourage fat retention
if you have an overactive thyroid or underactive adrenal gland you're not likely to retain fat, if your adrenal glands re overactive you're likely to retain fat more...
also what happens with time if you have a certain body fat percentage for a lengthy period of time , regardless of ho much or how little a percentage it is of your total body mass, your body gets programed that taht amount of fat is the norm and it will regulate your metabolism to try and maintain that amount of fat, if you restrict calories and the fat drops below what your body has set as the norm it will then reduce your metabolism to reduce further fat loss and it will spur your appetite to eat more.. thats why it can be so hard for people to keep weight off, you have to keep teh weight off for around a year and fight urges to eat more and to exercis less as your body tries to slow down the metabolism making you tierder, then eventually your body will accept the new lower body fat levels as teh norm and life won't be so difficult...