Cycling and vegetarianism

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
[...]

problem than eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total
hogwash.

The new one is significantly less retarded than the original, although it's
still stupidly biased against red meat (although I'm reliably informed red
meat is somewhat fattier in the States than it is here because of the way
cattle are grain fed).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news
[...]

problem than eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total
hogwash.

The new one is significantly less retarded than the original, although it's
still stupidly biased against red meat (although I'm reliably informed red
meat is somewhat fattier in the States than it is here because of the way
cattle are grain fed).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof. I don't have the time to spend
trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's sensible.
Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in sensible
quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No reason it won't
work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often people
eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your blood sugar
and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know this to be true,
both based on the science and on personal experience. I don't, however,
for a minute believe that carbs are bad. It's just what kind of carbs and
how much are you eating in total, that's the question. I wish I could ask
a question like this without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both
sides when it becomes a ****ing match over whose diet is better) coming
out and using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the
other. I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right ahead.
Far be it from me to question your need to feed your ego. I'm just trying
to feed my body the right way. All dogmatism aside, once again.

Preston

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof. I don't have the time to spend
trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's sensible.
Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in sensible
quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No reason it won't
work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often people
eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your blood sugar
and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know this to be true,
both based on the science and on personal experience. I don't, however,
for a minute believe that carbs are bad. It's just what kind of carbs and
how much are you eating in total, that's the question. I wish I could ask
a question like this without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both
sides when it becomes a ****ing match over whose diet is better) coming
out and using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the
other. I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right ahead.
Far be it from me to question your need to feed your ego. I'm just trying
to feed my body the right way. All dogmatism aside, once again.

Preston

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
that diets don't work if you don't exercise.

Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.

I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).

-B

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS"
wrote:

The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
that diets don't work if you don't exercise.

Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.

I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).

-B

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Peter Cole" wrote

It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a
very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
disease.

Tell it to Atkins.

I might, but he's dead.

"However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical examiner's report
let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a heart attack, congestive
heart failure, and hypertension, before his death. The report was given to the
Journal by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that
advocates vegetarianism. Because the medical examiner's office is claiming
this information was circulated in error, it may not be possible at this time
to determine if what was in that report referred to events that immediately
preceded (and therefore might have caused) the doctor's death, or if they were
in reference to damage done over the course of a lifetime. (The report had
been sent to a doctor in Nebraska who requested it. It was later discovered
the person it was sent to was not "the treating physician" and so should not
have had access to the report.) At present, the medical examiner's office will
only say Atkins died of a head injury from the fall. "I can't comment on
people's previous conditions. It's against the law," said spokeswoman Ellen
Borakove. "



I have only one personal data point, my father, who after
many years of poor diet, smoking, and no exercise, had an
angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet (10% fat),
successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy 20 years
later (age 85).

It sounds like he would have benefited from any non-retarded eating plan.

Perhaps, but that would make him the exception. Most c-v therapy is based on
the goal of controlling the disease. Successive angioplasties, stents, and
finally bypass surgury seem the normal progression.


Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries
for others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues
regarding quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the
current findings are hardly a "great lie".

The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie.

Told by whom? I think that is a straw man.


The idea that you can keep
on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is a great
lie.

There has been a lot of accumulating evidence that some fats are good, but
also that others remain as bad, or worse, than thought.


Most expectations of
people adopting low fat diets seemed to be for weight control, any
nutritionist would tell you that total calories are what counts
there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced calories varies among
individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no clear
statistical winner.

People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not constantly
battling hunger.

High glycemic index foods cause insulin response and blood sugar fluctuations
in some people. High carb doesn't mean high GI, almost all diets these days
recommend to severe restriction of high GI foods.


The long term health consequences of some of
these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
evangelicalism.

That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one and it's
just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to confront the
truth even when it's right in front of their faces. Low carb's been around
for decades and we know damn well what the long term consequences are. You
live healthier.

I think the picture is a bit more complicated than that. The guy I'm most
inclined to listen to is Willett at Harvard:

"Citing both positive and negative research findings about most categories of
food and nutrients, the Healthy Eating Pyramid reshuffles the ingredients into
a new structure to guide daily eating. Several of the recommendations directly
challenge those of the USDA pyramid.

a.. The Healthy Eating Pyramid puts red meat, butter, potatoes, sweets,
white bread, white rice, ordinary pasta and other refined grain products into
a tiny compartment at the top, labeled "Use Sparingly."
b.. The broad foundation of the new pyramid — the foods intended to provide
the largest portion of daily calories — consists of whole-grain foods, such as
brown rice and whole-wheat bread, and vegetable oils such as olive and canola.
In the USDA pyramid, all grain products are in one category, and people are
urged to eat six to 11 servings a day, the most of any food group. The USDA
recommends only limited use of all oils, fats and sweets.
c.. Both pyramids put fruits and vegetables in the middle. The new guide
divides protein into categories, emphasizing nuts and legumes, followed by
fish, poultry and eggs. It says that adults need only one to two servings of
calcium-rich foods — not necessarily dairy products — or a calcium supplement
each day."
Kind of dull, but the diet that current science seems to support for best
health.

"DRS" wrote in message
...
"Peter Cole" wrote

It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a
very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
disease.

Tell it to Atkins.

I might, but he's dead.

"However, revelations in February 2004 from the city medical examiner's report
let slip the information that Atkins had suffered a heart attack, congestive
heart failure, and hypertension, before his death. The report was given to the
Journal by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group that
advocates vegetarianism. Because the medical examiner's office is claiming
this information was circulated in error, it may not be possible at this time
to determine if what was in that report referred to events that immediately
preceded (and therefore might have caused) the doctor's death, or if they were
in reference to damage done over the course of a lifetime. (The report had
been sent to a doctor in Nebraska who requested it. It was later discovered
the person it was sent to was not "the treating physician" and so should not
have had access to the report.) At present, the medical examiner's office will
only say Atkins died of a head injury from the fall. "I can't comment on
people's previous conditions. It's against the law," said spokeswoman Ellen
Borakove. "



I have only one personal data point, my father, who after
many years of poor diet, smoking, and no exercise, had an
angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet (10% fat),
successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy 20 years
later (age 85).

It sounds like he would have benefited from any non-retarded eating plan.

Perhaps, but that would make him the exception. Most c-v therapy is based on
the goal of controlling the disease. Successive angioplasties, stents, and
finally bypass surgury seem the normal progression.


Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries
for others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues
regarding quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the
current findings are hardly a "great lie".

The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie.

Told by whom? I think that is a straw man.


The idea that you can keep
on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is a great
lie.

There has been a lot of accumulating evidence that some fats are good, but
also that others remain as bad, or worse, than thought.


Most expectations of
people adopting low fat diets seemed to be for weight control, any
nutritionist would tell you that total calories are what counts
there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced calories varies among
individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no clear
statistical winner.

People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not constantly
battling hunger.

High glycemic index foods cause insulin response and blood sugar fluctuations
in some people. High carb doesn't mean high GI, almost all diets these days
recommend to severe restriction of high GI foods.


The long term health consequences of some of
these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
evangelicalism.

That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one and it's
just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to confront the
truth even when it's right in front of their faces. Low carb's been around
for decades and we know damn well what the long term consequences are. You
live healthier.

I think the picture is a bit more complicated than that. The guy I'm most
inclined to listen to is Willett at Harvard:

"Citing both positive and negative research findings about most categories of
food and nutrients, the Healthy Eating Pyramid reshuffles the ingredients into
a new structure to guide daily eating. Several of the recommendations directly
challenge those of the USDA pyramid.

a.. The Healthy Eating Pyramid puts red meat, butter, potatoes, sweets,
white bread, white rice, ordinary pasta and other refined grain products into
a tiny compartment at the top, labeled "Use Sparingly."
b.. The broad foundation of the new pyramid — the foods intended to provide
the largest portion of daily calories — consists of whole-grain foods, such as
brown rice and whole-wheat bread, and vegetable oils such as olive and canola.
In the USDA pyramid, all grain products are in one category, and people are
urged to eat six to 11 servings a day, the most of any food group. The USDA
recommends only limited use of all oils, fats and sweets.
c.. Both pyramids put fruits and vegetables in the middle. The new guide
divides protein into categories, emphasizing nuts and legumes, followed by
fish, poultry and eggs. It says that adults need only one to two servings of
calcium-rich foods — not necessarily dairy products — or a calcium supplement
each day."
Kind of dull, but the diet that current science seems to support for best
health.

"Preston Crawford" wrote in message

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof.

Bob didn't do that, he was quoting from studies or abstracts of studies.
You know, the science you're always on about.

I don't have the time to
spend trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's
sensible. Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in
sensible quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No
reason it won't work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often
people eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your
blood sugar and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know
this to be true, both based on the science and on personal
experience.

Er, no. Whatever you your think your personal experience to be in this
matter what you wrote is certainly not supported by the science. Firstly,
it's not "poor quality carbs" that "screw with your blood sugar", it's all
simple sugars and it's not the hyperglycaemia per se that's the problem,
it's the insulin spikes. Secondly, it is not "turned into fat". The
creation of new fat cells is called de novo lipogenesis and it's actually
rare. What normally happens is that excess calories are stored in existing
fat cells.

I don't, however, for a minute believe that carbs are
bad. It's just what kind of carbs and how much are you eating in
total, that's the question. I wish I could ask a question like this
without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both sides when it
becomes a ****ing match over whose diet is better) coming out and
using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the other. I
happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

What science do you have to support that supposition?

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right
ahead.

What the medical establishment, on the whole, knows about nutrition can be
written on the back of a postcard. Doctors don't get taught nutrition and
once in practice they're hard pressed just to keep up with their own
speciality, let alone researching an entirely different field from scratch.
As a result most doctors spout the same old misinformed bull**** as Joe
Public does.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

"Preston Crawford" wrote in message

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof.

Bob didn't do that, he was quoting from studies or abstracts of studies.
You know, the science you're always on about.

I don't have the time to
spend trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's
sensible. Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in
sensible quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No
reason it won't work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often
people eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your
blood sugar and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know
this to be true, both based on the science and on personal
experience.

Er, no. Whatever you your think your personal experience to be in this
matter what you wrote is certainly not supported by the science. Firstly,
it's not "poor quality carbs" that "screw with your blood sugar", it's all
simple sugars and it's not the hyperglycaemia per se that's the problem,
it's the insulin spikes. Secondly, it is not "turned into fat". The
creation of new fat cells is called de novo lipogenesis and it's actually
rare. What normally happens is that excess calories are stored in existing
fat cells.

I don't, however, for a minute believe that carbs are
bad. It's just what kind of carbs and how much are you eating in
total, that's the question. I wish I could ask a question like this
without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both sides when it
becomes a ****ing match over whose diet is better) coming out and
using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the other. I
happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

What science do you have to support that supposition?

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right
ahead.

What the medical establishment, on the whole, knows about nutrition can be
written on the back of a postcard. Doctors don't get taught nutrition and
once in practice they're hard pressed just to keep up with their own
speciality, let alone researching an entirely different field from scratch.
As a result most doctors spout the same old misinformed bull**** as Joe
Public does.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?