General Diet Plans and Questions - Top 11 lies of Mainstream Nutrition




Wannabeskinny
02-14-2013, 10:24 AM
Just found this article. It confirms everything most of us already know:

http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-nutrition/

The only thing that confuses me is about the omega-6 oils. Does that include olive oils and other healthy fats like avocado?


betsy2013
02-14-2013, 11:30 AM
Thanks for sharing. Being in my 60s and having lived through all of the various "healthy eating" approaches recommended by doctors and nutritionists, I've just gotten to the point where I know what works for me and do that.

the shiv
02-14-2013, 12:46 PM
That's no surprise to me. What IS a surprise is that after I started eating intuitively in December, I think I've had 2 pieces of bread. I just rarely ever want it. I had 2 pork chops for dinner the other night then some vegetables later on. I've been really surprised that listening to what my body wants has, 90% of the time, driven me away from refined carbs.

I don't know who else this has happened to, but I know I feel better, I'm losing weight, I don't eat nearly as much as I used to, I'm hungry less often, I haven't felt dizzy from spiking blood sugar, if I have a hangover (which is rare) it's now 1 day long, not 2, and my TOM is nowhere near as debilitating as it used to be. This article makes a lot of sense. Although I too am confused about the omega-6 thing.


Wannabeskinny
02-15-2013, 07:21 AM
Betsy, I'm in my mid-30's and just now starting to figure it out. Luckily I've never fallen prey to fads like weight loss pills or weird diets. When I became a calorie counter it became painfully obvious that carbohydrates packed a huge caloric punch and I instinctively realized that I could eat more protein and vegetables than carbs. I gradually came to find that there are so many more reasons to limit them in my diet. I always instinctively knew that fat wasn't bad for you, that eggs aren't bad for you, and that sugar is deadly. And I knew right off the bat that low-cal or low-fat foods were not good for me either. But through research and knowledge I now KNOW exactly why these foods are good/not good for me. Knowledge is power and power drives success!

the shiv
02-21-2013, 01:33 PM
Hey, I found this:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-tell-if-youre-inflamed-objective-and-subjective-inflammatory-markers/#axzz2LT0Ik436

There's mention of the omega3-6 levels that might explain some things.

berryblondeboys
02-21-2013, 02:07 PM
I blogged about that article yesterday. Ok, same article, different spot and it had a TON fo comments and LOTS of non-believers. I wonder when the mainstream will catch up with what a lot of us already know - experimenting with our own bodies! here's the URL I saw: http://io9.com/5984275/the-worst-lies-that-mainstream-nutrition-has-told-you

And here's my blog post on it:

http://melissaslife42.blogspot.com/2013/02/an-interesting-article.html

lin43
02-21-2013, 04:04 PM
I may be the odd one out here, but when I read articles like this one, I can't help but think that the info about gluten, wheat, carbs, etc., don't make a major difference for most people in terms of weight loss. The reason most people are overweight is that they eat too much--whether carbs or anything else---and don't exercise enough. I still believe weight is mainly a matter of calories in-calories out.

Also, I always take studies with a grain of salt. If I were so inclined, I'm sure I could do a bit of research and find studies that refute almost every claim in that article. My point is that what is "truth" today may be "myth" tomorrow. One day coffee is bad for you, the next day it's good. One day grains are bad for you, the next day they're good---you get the picture.

The best I can do is just figure out what works best for me.

Skellig19
02-21-2013, 04:22 PM
I may be the odd one out here, but when I read articles like this one, I can't help but think that the info about gluten, wheat, carbs, etc., don't make a major difference for most people in terms of weight loss. The reason most people are overweight is that they eat too much--whether carbs or anything else---and don't exercise enough. I still believe weight is mainly a matter of calories in-calories out.

Also, I always take studies with a grain of salt. If I were so inclined, I'm sure I could do a bit of research and find studies that refute almost every claim in that article. My point is that what is "truth" today may be "myth" tomorrow. One day coffee is bad for you, the next day it's good. One day grains are bad for you, the next day they're good---you get the picture.

The best I can do is just figure out what works best for me.

AMEN! This is what I was itching to write but had no idea how to word it. Hit the nail on the head. Coincidence that this article coincides with the paleo/primal diet and gluten-free everything popularity surge? I think not... Always take these things with a grain of salt... or not because salt is bad for me.

AlmostMe
02-21-2013, 04:40 PM
A lot of this is paleo/primal stuff...A fad as many other fads are.... Some elements of truth, but a lot of nonsense in terms of thinking that we all need to eat as hunter/gatherers. When humans were hunter/gatherers there weren't many of us and many sub-species of humans have gone totally extinct. Since the agrarian revolution we've been pretty darn successful as a species. Unlike much of the world's populations, my Northern European ancestors DID evolve to eat dairy, so I can't see a problem with it. They also seem to have done pretty well on wheat and other grains, too - when you come down to it...

That being said I completely agree that low fat/high carb (mainly sugar - easy conversion to sugar) diets and sedentary lifestyle has been fabulously detrimental to our health. I also know that I felt a lot better after a week in Finland where I ate a lot of fish, good quality meat, mainly rye bread, lots of genuinely gathered food (berries, mushrooms...some gathered by me) - but I also ate potato and wheat bread, butter, milk, egg and cheese. However, I ate almost no junk food or highly processed foods (beyond a few items made with white flour).

Real food, not "diet" food is the way to go! Low-fat products that have flavour enhanced by sugar are not good. But low-fat and carb isn't bad or not flavourful. Look at broccoli! Lots of taste and carb to boot...and frankly probably not something that hunter gatherers would have eaten a lot of. They'd be hoping for more caloric bang for their buck.

berryblondeboys
02-21-2013, 05:25 PM
The reason most people are overweight is that they eat too much--whether carbs or anything else---and don't exercise enough. I still believe weight is mainly a matter of calories in-calories out.

...

The best I can do is just figure out what works best for me.

It's obvious from your response that you don't have problems with sugars/grains. So, because you don't, you think most don't?

Even the article said that not everyone sensitive to sugars/simple carbs, but some are.

I can guarantee you that if I didn't have a carb addiction/glucose intolerance, I wouldn't have gotten fat. Even now, when I eat them, I feel the cravings come back. I cannot possibly convey to someone who doesn't have this issue the difference between a "I want a cookie" to "I NEED a cookie" (or whatever simple carb).

Do I think everything here is true for everyone? No. Do I think that more research needs to be done? Absolutely and maybe some of this will be debunked, but there are truths there. At least these are truths for my body.

lin43
02-21-2013, 08:35 PM
It's obvious from your response that you don't have problems with sugars/grains. So, because you don't, you think most don't?

I don't believe I indicated anywhere in my post that I was basing my opinion on just my "problems" or lack thereof. (My comment about being the "odd" person out was in reference to me being the minority opinion on this thread regarding that article). I'm not basing my viewpoint on just on my eating patterns (although the latter part of your post suggests that you might be drawing conclusions based on your eating patterns). I'm basing my opinion on what I've observed over my lifetime, i.e., people who overeat and gain weight because of that, not because of gluten sensitivity, not because they ate carbs rather than protein, etc. But since you brought me into it, I'll say that I've been fat and I've been thin, and I ate carbs in both scenarios. The crucial difference is that I don't eat as many carbs ---or as much of any other food (so, not as many calories) when I'm thin. I, too, get more cravings when I eat sugar; I'm not disputing that this occurs. I still stand by my comment that most of those who are overweight are that way because they are consuming more calories than they are expending, not because of gluten sensitivity.

Even the article said that not everyone sensitive to sugars/simple carbs, but some are.

Right---"some are"--who's disputing that?

At least these are truths for my body.

Yes---and that's pretty much what I wrote at the end of my post. Each of us must find what works for us.

berryblondeboys
02-21-2013, 08:44 PM
... I'm basing my opinion on what I've observed over my lifetime, i.e., people who overeat and gain weight because of that, not because of gluten sensitivity, not because they ate carbs rather than protein, etc. ... I, too, get more cravings when I eat sugar; I'm not disputing that this occurs. I still stand by my comment that most of those who are overweight are that way because they are consuming more calories than they are expending, not because of gluten sensitivity.



But, this article wasn't just about gluten sensitivity (I do think that is overhyped), but SUGAR sensitivity - wheat is also very quickly a sugar and is usually paired with sugar.

I don't know... I don't think we would see the morbidly obese numbers if people ate less carbs. I really don't.

And of course the obese are consuming more calories than they expend - that's what makes all of us fat, but how controllable are those cravings and urges? it's not just "wanting" something. it's not even just psychological. It's physiological. If you stop that physiological high/low blood sugar never ending spiral, I think you would see people wouldn't get as heavy as they get or as many people get as heavy at all.

Wannabeskinny
02-22-2013, 08:20 AM
I may be the odd one out here, but when I read articles like this one, I can't help but think that the info about gluten, wheat, carbs, etc., don't make a major difference for most people in terms of weight loss. The reason most people are overweight is that they eat too much--whether carbs or anything else---and don't exercise enough. I still believe weight is mainly a matter of calories in-calories out.

Also, I always take studies with a grain of salt. If I were so inclined, I'm sure I could do a bit of research and find studies that refute almost every claim in that article. My point is that what is "truth" today may be "myth" tomorrow. One day coffee is bad for you, the next day it's good. One day grains are bad for you, the next day they're good---you get the picture.

The best I can do is just figure out what works best for me.

Learning about nutrition is a journey. We have to weed through a jungle of information and misinformation, find a way to deal with our hunger and cravings, battle the unattainable images of women in the media, and find time to devote 100% of ourselves to our health when we have little time to begin with. So a little debate is necessary to help each of us understand our convictions.

I'll never forget the day I found out that "calories in - calories out" was a very very very small part of the puzzle. It's true but only in a very technical sense. But in order for it to be universally true we'd have to operate under the notion that every calorie is created equal = but it is not! We've been fed a lot of nonsense, mainly in the form of processed food including low fat and low calorie prepackaged meals. Is it possible to live off diet coke, fat-free cheese and 100-calorie packs of cookies? Yes it is and many have proved it. But is it nutritious? Absolutely not.

The way most of our bodies are wired makes it impossible to sustain ourselves on low fat high carb foods. These things make us crave more and more and more and I can attest to that in my own life. I don't think this article is a fad - it states some pretty obvious facts including the myth that we NEED carbohydrates. Of course we need them, but we certainly do not need them in the quantities that are being advocated to us in the food pyramid. And trust me, I love carbs! Under doctor's orders I've been following a low-gluten diet for 2 weeks. Cravings were harsh the first couple of days but I really can't emphasize enough how much energy I have and how low my hunger level is. This was never the case when I was following a low fat diet with no carb restrictions. I do not have a gluten intolerance but there is an obvious correlation between how many carbs I eat and my energy level - I ain't no scientist but it is remarkable how much better my mind and body feel right now. When your body feels "right" then it can't be a fad.

If you want more information on the idea that a calorie is not just a calorie please check out these videos called The Skinny on Obesity by Dr. Lustig who is the proponent of Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAqcbQByeec&playnext=1&list=PL39F782316B425249&feature=results_main

These videos have changed my life.

TripSwitch
02-22-2013, 08:52 AM
I think my main problem with "calories in... calories out" besides the fact that I don't believe losing weight is ever that simple... is that it just reinforces the same old message to just "eat less... and move more..." which just isn't working for so many people... and it leads me to believe that there may indeed be something to this idea that the type of calories we consume plays a role in why we are becoming more and more overweight and obese...

berryblondeboys
02-22-2013, 09:06 AM
Learning about nutrition is a journey. We have to weed through a jungle of information and misinformation, find a way to deal with our hunger and cravings, battle the unattainable images of women in the media, and find time to devote 100% of ourselves to our health when we have little time to begin with. So a little debate is necessary to help each of us understand our convictions.

I'll never forget the day I found out that "calories in - calories out" was a very very very small part of the puzzle. It's true but only in a very technical sense. But in order for it to be universally true we'd have to operate under the notion that every calorie is created equal = but it is not! We've been fed a lot of nonsense, mainly in the form of processed food including low fat and low calorie prepackaged meals. Is it possible to live off diet coke, fat-free cheese and 100-calorie packs of cookies? Yes it is and many have proved it. But is it nutritious? Absolutely not.

The way most of our bodies are wired makes it impossible to sustain ourselves on low fat high carb foods. These things make us crave more and more and more and I can attest to that in my own life. I don't think this article is a fad - it states some pretty obvious facts including the myth that we NEED carbohydrates. Of course we need them, but we certainly do not need them in the quantities that are being advocated to us in the food pyramid. And trust me, I love carbs! Under doctor's orders I've been following a low-gluten diet for 2 weeks. Cravings were harsh the first couple of days but I really can't emphasize enough how much energy I have and how low my hunger level is. This was never the case when I was following a low fat diet with no carb restrictions. I do not have a gluten intolerance but there is an obvious correlation between how many carbs I eat and my energy level - I ain't no scientist but it is remarkable how much better my mind and body feel right now. When your body feels "right" then it can't be a fad.

If you want more information on the idea that a calorie is not just a calorie please check out these videos called The Skinny on Obesity by Dr. Lustig who is the proponent of Sugar: The Bitter Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAqcbQByeec&playnext=1&list=PL39F782316B425249&feature=results_main

These videos have changed my life.

Thank you! You said it more precisely and eloquently than I was able to do.

berryblondeboys
02-22-2013, 09:09 AM
I think my main problem with "calories in... calories out" besides the fact that I don't believe losing weight is ever that simple... is that it just reinforces the same old message to just "eat less... and move more..." which just isn't working for so many people... and it leads me to believe that there may indeed be something to this idea that the type of calories we consume plays a role in why we are becoming more and more overweight and obese...

That was my problem with my first weight loss effort. I really did treat it as calories in and calories out. And it worked for awhile, but then it was like a demon possessed me and I just lost complete control. I NOW know it was because I upped my carbs. Sure, the fit into my caloric allowance, but it threw me off balance and before I knew it, I was eating a whole box of donuts and didn't know what hit me. (Sleep deprivation was the root of that evil too - lack of sleep meant grabbing quick energy.)

I simply didn't put it all together then. This was before much internet existed and before atkins diet... There was Weight Watchers and they were pretty much about calories in and out. Well... works for some, there needs to be more for me.

mnemosyne
02-22-2013, 10:12 AM
Real food, not "diet" food is the way to go! Low-fat products that have flavour enhanced by sugar are not good. But low-fat and carb isn't bad or not flavourful. Look at broccoli! Lots of taste and carb to boot...and frankly probably not something that hunter gatherers would have eaten a lot of. They'd be hoping for more caloric bang for their buck.

Well, I think hunter-gatherers ate a LOT of plants. But they certainly did not eat broccoli, because broccoli and cauliflower and loads of other vegetables that we rely on regularly today are domesticized and bred by ... humans, for consumption. In the case of broccoli, it was probably the Etruscans. Pretty much every vegetable we eat is like that - the product of experimentation and breeding by our agricultural forefathers. So probably if you wanted to eat like the hunter-gatherers did, you would have to find some wild kales and chickweed and make do. :)

Though I totally agree with you. Real food in real variety, rather than processed stuff. For me that includes whole grains and beans and bread and oatmeal and cheese and veggies, veggies, veggies and fruit, primarily. Plus coffee! Oh, and diet ginger ale. ;)

I cannot possibly convey to someone who doesn't have this issue the difference between a "I want a cookie" to "I NEED a cookie" (or whatever simple carb).

I have those same impulses, but they are hardly confined to simple carbohydrates. I can eat nuts to infinity, and nut butters call to me more strongly than most cookies.

I'm glad that you've been able to trace and perhaps eliminate those cravings by reducing simple carbs, but for me they exist, no matter what I eat and are entirely unrelated to the actual food.

It is emotional or mental or compulsive or some combination of all of the above, and the way I control them is by controlling the availability of triggering foods, rather than eliminating them entirely from my diet. If I thought that eliminating 'simple carbs' or 'carbs' from my diet would let me walk through the world's largest potato chip-and-cashew buffet without sampling eleventy thousand varieties, I might consider it. But for me (and probably a fair number of other people) the problem is not in the food.

mnemosyne
02-22-2013, 10:46 AM
Oh, PS - there was a great article in the NY Times earlier this week about how fast/junk food is designed to be addictive, and it is definitely more complex than carbohydrates. It's the combination of salt and fat and crunch and "mouthfeel." Chili's shreds its chicken for its SW chicken eggrolls so that it just melts in your mouth. And so on.

Way more Frankensteiny: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)

berryblondeboys
02-22-2013, 10:59 AM
Oh, PS - there was a great article in the NY Times earlier this week about how fast/junk food is designed to be addictive, and it is definitely more complex than carbohydrates. It's the combination of salt and fat and crunch and "mouthfeel." Chili's shreds its chicken for its SW chicken eggrolls so that it just melts in your mouth. And so on.

Way more Frankensteiny: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&)

Yep, I read that too. And I wonder if that's why a lot of people can't stop eating nuts.

For me, I WILL continue to dip into them if they are there available and not restricted. BUT... it's not the same NEED like a carb/sugar pick me up. That is the boost I get from the sugar - it's the high, quite literally.

For nuts and such salty/crunchy things (and I LOVE PB), it's the taste - pure and simple. But, I don't wake up dreaming about it. I don't have the same response to it as I do with sugars.

Yet, I know those can be huge triggers for some people - they were purposefully DESIGNED to be eaten that way. That whole, "I bet you can't eat just one" commercial? Dude, it's like, "Come on... try to eat just one. We dare ya!" And then people eat the whole bag. as YUM!!!! It's a double whammy if it's also a carby thing as it's the yum AND the sugar rush.

mnemosyne
02-22-2013, 11:39 AM
For me, I WILL continue to dip into them if they are there available and not restricted. BUT... it's not the same NEED like a carb/sugar pick me up. That is the boost I get from the sugar - it's the high, quite literally.

For nuts and such salty/crunchy things (and I LOVE PB), it's the taste - pure and simple. But, I don't wake up dreaming about it. I don't have the same response to it as I do with sugars.

That's so interesting. Yeah, sweets are not really my thing and I've always been better about leaving them alone than snack foods. I keep chocolate and ice cream and whatnot and am fine with it around, but sometimes if I have a container of nuts - not just available, but anywhere in the house - I cannot stop thinking about them. So I guess I don't get that sugar-high?

I had a container of peanuts in the pantry over Christmas that I used to make some sweets. Left them in there all through the holidays and was okay. Sometime in early January I suddenly remembered them, and wanted some. And wanted some, and wanted some. Finally, I took them and put them out on the front porch until I could bring them to work. It was COLD outside so physically removing them from the house helped me set a boundary that somehow I could mentally respect.

April Snow
02-22-2013, 11:45 AM
I never used to think of myself as a sugar or carb addict. And over the years, I lost weight on calorie counting. Even as recently as about 4 years ago, I lost almost 50 lbs with calorie counting and added activity. Eat less, move more. It wasn't easy but I could put in the effort and do it (at least for a little while - sticking with anything remains my biggest obstacle)

But when I started the Dukan diet (low carb and low fat), I was astonished to find out how much easier it was for me. I don't want to say it's effortless but it really is easy for me. And a huge part of that is the fact that aside from a few spoonfuls of oat bran each day, there are no grains or starches, at least at this point in the program. I still get carbs from low/no fat dairy and from veggies, but with those foods, it takes a LOT of food to get that many carbs.

And for me, one of the biggest things is that I don't get cravings and am never hungry - not physically because while food choices are limited on my plan, the amounts are not, so I can eat when I feel hungry. But I am also not psychologically "hungry". Sure, I can think that a freshly baked cookie or some other treat *sounds* good but I really have no particular desire to eat it. And that's even faced directly with temptation, like the table of post-Valentine Day sweets that made it's way into my office.

I think if you are someone who isn't triggered by sugars (meaning wheat, etc. as well as actual sugar), you honestly cannot know what a revelation it is when you eliminate them. It's really a very different thing than emotional eating, or even eating when you aren't hungry just because it tastes good.

Wannabeskinny
02-22-2013, 03:48 PM
That's so interesting. Yeah, sweets are not really my thing and I've always been better about leaving them alone than snack foods. I keep chocolate and ice cream and whatnot and am fine with it around, but sometimes if I have a container of nuts - not just available, but anywhere in the house - I cannot stop thinking about them. So I guess I don't get that sugar-high?

I had a container of peanuts in the pantry over Christmas that I used to make some sweets. Left them in there all through the holidays and was okay. Sometime in early January I suddenly remembered them, and wanted some. And wanted some, and wanted some. Finally, I took them and put them out on the front porch until I could bring them to work. It was COLD outside so physically removing them from the house helped me set a boundary that somehow I could mentally respect.

It's great not to be addicted to sugar. As long as you keep sugar at bay it will leave you alone. I used to be that way too. I had dessert every once in a while, never had real cravings for it, could enjoy it in small amounts and then never think about it. But then I started breastfeeding - and that brings on a hunger for carbs like I wasn't prepared for. I gave in to my cravings of course because I was burning so many calories from nursing and didn't think much of it. 1.5yrs later it's left me with a sugar addiction and 25 extra pounds I couldn't even see coming. Make no mistake, sugar is addictive and the more you have it the worse it can get. It's such a small part of your life and then suddenly bam, you're addicted to it. It's like crack.

lin43
02-22-2013, 06:26 PM
. . . Though I totally agree with you. Real food in real variety, rather than processed stuff. For me that includes whole grains and beans and bread and oatmeal and cheese and veggies, veggies, veggies and fruit, primarily. Plus coffee! Oh, and diet ginger ale. ;)

. . .

I have those same impulses, but they are hardly confined to simple carbohydrates. I can eat nuts to infinity, and nut butters call to me more strongly than most cookies.

I'm glad that you've been able to trace and perhaps eliminate those cravings by reducing simple carbs, but for me they exist, no matter what I eat and are entirely unrelated to the actual food.

It is emotional or mental or compulsive or some combination of all of the above, and the way I control them is by controlling the availability of triggering foods, rather than eliminating them entirely from my diet. If I thought that eliminating 'simple carbs' or 'carbs' from my diet would let me walk through the world's largest potato chip-and-cashew buffet without sampling eleventy thousand varieties, I might consider it. But for me (and probably a fair number of other people) the problem is not in the food.

Great post! I excerpted the parts that especially spoke to me. I cannot keep cashews in the house without way overeating them (and it doesn't take much for those calories to add up).

I understand what some of the other ladies here are saying about simple sugars causing cravings, because I have those, too. But, like you, I have other, non-carb-cravings, so significantly reducing carbs would not work the magic on me that it would work on some. For those who can eliminate cravings by reducing carbs, I say, Go for it! I guess I just take exception to any article that claims to be the myth-buster. Like most pieces of advice, it applies and will work for some people but not for all.