Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So much info and conflictions, I get so confused!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So much info and conflictions, I get so confused!

    I love to read and people who speak the good "health talk" and "science talk" can persuade me well. I'm easily influenced. Someone just posted this article to me, she is very healthy and fit. Not primal though. I read this and don't know what to think. I find it so hard to focus with all this propaganda out there but I do respect all nutritional ideas, cultures, and techniques. Do you all put bllinders on and keep to yourself?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/op...oc.semityn.www

  • #2
    Believe what ever you want.
    "Go For Broke"
    Fat Kine-230/24% @ 6'2"
    Small Kine-168/9%
    Now- 200/8%
    Goal- 210/6%

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Kinesio View Post
      Do you all put bllinders on and keep to yourself?
      Haha.

      That article has already been discussed on here.
      Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

      Griff's cholesterol primer
      5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
      Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
      TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
      bloodorchid is always right

      Comment


      • #4
        haha, right on. All I know is I feel great when I eat plenty of fresh fruit, and grass fed beef. Kerrygold butter makes everything better too. And kale, I feel it immediately.

        Comment


        • #5
          Science is amazing, but it ignores reality all too often in trying to isolate variables. Common sense - as unscientific as it might seem - trumps isolated data. It might take science ten years to prove that flies eat poop. They'd have to set down tons of parameters, develop intrumentation to gather data, set up scenario after scenario to test, retest, peer review and verify the validity of each experiment. It might take weeks to define "flies", "eat" and "poop", and how they relate. And they'd uncover a lot of interesting - but largely useless - data along the way. But we both know flies eat poop. So when reports come out on both sides of the fence declaring flies don't eat poop, and flies do eat poop, you know where to stand.

          Same for dietary science. We KNOW what humans eat. Plants, animals, each other, some dirt, some rotten fruit, bugs, etc. That's how we came about as a species, by eating everything in sight that didn't kill us off right away, and adapting to the rest, the mild toxins, and reproducing before dying.
          Crohn's, doing SCD

          Comment


          • #6
            My view on it is sort of that the basics are what is important, and from there you can do whatever you want.

            Knifegill makes a good point... we know what we're supposed to eat. Things that come from nature and aren't tampered with.

            Basically that article was dissing red meat and low carb diets... but I mean it's not like primal pushes red meat in particular, or even low carb for that matter. Quite a few people on here eat reasonably high carbs, the difference is that it's from the right sources! Also the article mentioned Atkins a lot and hopefully they didn't model the studies on people eating protein bars and other fake foods some people on diets use.

            I eat red meat probably 3 times a week, sometimes 2, and I'm not reaaaally low carb. I go from 20g a day up to about 100g. It is "low carb" compared to SAD but it's not low carb enough for ketosis. I only go into ketosis when I'm like <10g of carbs per day for some reason.

            I dunno. I mean you have to take things as they come, look at the context, look at your situation, and always remember moderation, and once you do that, I tend to find most studies BASICALLY agree with eachother, they've just sometimes been interpreted the wrong way/too extreme.
            Current weight lost: 82.9lb (37.6kg)

            Current PRs:
            Bench: 45kg/99lb
            Squat: 100kg/220lb
            Deadlift: 120kg/265lb

            My blog
            My journal

            Comment


            • #7
              It wasn't dissing low carb diets. It was dissing low carb high protein diets.

              Everybody agrees that low carb low fat high protein diets are the worst (aka rabbit starvation). Protein needs to be kept at between 1/5 and 1/3 of calories. It's disingenuous to suggest that that sort of diet has any sort of bearing on a low carb high fat diet.
              Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

              Griff's cholesterol primer
              5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
              Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
              TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
              bloodorchid is always right

              Comment


              • #8
                I think most people can agree that sugar is bad for you. And it's a fact that grains are inflammatory, not to mention that there is nothing they provide that can't be found in better sources like vegetables, meat, eggs, and fruit. You can make an argument based on this study or that one for ANY diet. Eat however you want, believe what you want, but just listen to your body. If it feels good then you are good. I know my body likes to be very low carb with a high carb day thrown in occasionally. In don't need some article to tell me I feel good.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
                  Science is amazing, but it ignores reality all too often in trying to isolate variables. Common sense - as unscientific as it might seem - trumps isolated data. It might take science ten years to prove that flies eat poop. They'd have to set down tons of parameters, develop intrumentation to gather data, set up scenario after scenario to test, retest, peer review and verify the validity of each experiment. It might take weeks to define "flies", "eat" and "poop", and how they relate. And they'd uncover a lot of interesting - but largely useless - data along the way. But we both know flies eat poop. So when reports come out on both sides of the fence declaring flies don't eat poop, and flies do eat poop, you know where to stand.

                  Same for dietary science. We KNOW what humans eat. Plants, animals, each other, some dirt, some rotten fruit, bugs, etc. That's how we came about as a species, by eating everything in sight that didn't kill us off right away, and adapting to the rest, the mild toxins, and reproducing before dying.
                  Common sense is entirely useless. Its common sense that says that being gay is a sin, its common sense that eating fat makes you fat, its common sense that red meat gives you cancer, its common sense that whole grains are the best food on earth, its common sense that eating powdered rhino horn cures erectile issues.
                  http://lifemutt.blogspot.sg/ - Gaming, Food Reviews and Life in Singapore

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    98% of what I believe is simply what works for me. I've had over half a century to gauge what makes me perform and look the best.

                    The other 2% comes from reading and learning. Reading labels, articles on both sides of the fence on a given topic (GMOs, veg oils, soy, etc.). When I've assimilated and tested something new, if it works for me, it goes into the 98%. My body is my temple, but sometimes it's also my petri dish.
                    "Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine

                    B*tch-lite

                    Who says back fat is a bad thing? Maybe on a hairy guy at the beach, but not on a crab.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I don't ignore the arguments. I take them into consideration. Then I experiment on myself. Things changed for me during my life. I used to thrive on the healthy version of CW before I had my child. Now it turns me into a sick wreck. I strive to find a way of eating that suits me the best by keeping me in a desired weight range, while satiating me and making my moods and energy stable. The rest is irrelevant in the long run.
                      My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                      When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by AMonkey View Post
                        Common sense is entirely useless. Its common sense that says that being gay is a sin, its common sense that eating fat makes you fat, its common sense that red meat gives you cancer, its common sense that whole grains are the best food on earth, its common sense that eating powdered rhino horn cures erectile issues.
                        I think you mean Conventional Wisdom?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The Ornish article?

                          It's a lot of bluff. He's got virtually nothing to back it.

                          Have a look at this article on the "research" he's leaning on:

                          The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.Do statinators dream of engineered mice? » The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kinesio View Post
                            I love to read and people who speak the good "health talk" and "science talk" can persuade me well. I'm easily influenced. Someone just posted this article to me, she is very healthy and fit. Not primal though. I read this and don't know what to think.
                            If you're easily influenced, then you should cut it out! (my saying that should work, provided you're easily influenced)

                            Ornish has pretty well-known biases...always good to check bylines and funding sources for those. But impartial altruists are rare in science, so this only gets you so far. (At least you can identify the battle lines and the different camps involved.)

                            I like to remember that any real scientific truth is a feature of the terrain, like the Arch at St. Louis, casting its shadow in all directions. It may not look the same from every angle, but as experiments and data accumulate, that landmark will keep popping up in one form or another, even if finding it wasn't the investigators' main goal. This is convergence, and also coherence: independent studies keep showing us the same thing in different contexts, and the pictures they paint fit together.

                            Of course if you've an ax to grind (or a corporate funder to please), you can always pick the one vantage point where the Great Arch looks like a mere tower if you squint hard enough, take some grainy photos, and then write a rigorous-sounding paper that claims the Arch has no curve.

                            That's how a lot of CW hit pieces work: they start from faulty premises, like a "representative LCHF diet" based on modified shoe-leather keratin and hydrogenated mung bean oil; or they use gerrymandered statistical methods while ignoring confounding variables and inconvenient findings, like Colin Campbell in The China Study; or else their technically valid conclusions have very limited applicability (to certain genetically engineered mice, but not to humans, for example).

                            Usually the authors stop just short of outright misrepresentation and let the ham-handed media finish the job for them: some watered-down correlation in a retrospective, questionnaire-based analysis of cardiac patients turns into
                            "UNIVERSITY STUDY SHOWS BACON KILLS ZOMG RUN AWAY!!!!11!"
                            They succeed in making waves, but they don't achieve convergence and coherence--only conspiracy, once there are enough influential voices promoting the same misinformation.

                            Originally posted by Kinesio View Post
                            I find it so hard to focus with all this propaganda out there but I do respect all nutritional ideas, cultures, and techniques. Do you all put bllinders on and keep to yourself?
                            I wouldn't endorse wearing blinders, but you do need a filter. Once you've read enough to get the lay of the land and pick a general direction, then you really have to do your own n=1 and go with what works for you without getting tripped up by every new debating point or hysterical overcorrection. Debunking propaganda is exhausting, and true scientific progress is glacial: It's very hard to design good experiments in complex areas like human nutrition, even if you find someone willing to fund them. Being open to new information is great, but you'll be long dead before science validates even a tenth of the choices you make!
                            Last edited by cantare; 09-25-2012, 04:35 PM.
                            6' 2" | Age: 42 | SW: 341 | CW: 198 | GW: 180?

                            “Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards.”
                            ― Søren Kierkegaard

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The problem is that they'll often compare "eating a diet high in fruit and vegetables with healthy whole grains" to "eating a SAD" rather than "eating a clean, paleo/primal diet". It sounds to me like the article is promoting the first sort of diet, without actually taking into consideration the health benefits one gets from eating a diet mostly composed of meat, veggies and plenty of saturated fats. It ASSUMES that red meat and saturated fats are "unhealthy" and that whole grains etc. etc. are "healthy" without actually being able to PROVE this assertion either way.

                              The article says "But never underestimate the power of telling people what they want to hear — like cheeseburgers and bacon are good for you. " I'm pretty sure no one here will claim a cheeseburger is healthy (unless it's sans bread and made with grass fed beef )... but certainly the McDonald's cheeseburger would never fit that category!

                              Logic states that people should eat real food. That is... food that our ancestors would have recognised (those of 100 years ago, as well as those of 20,000 years ago).

                              People 100 years ago didn't get heart attacks. They just didn't. They were eating full fat meat and butter, full fat milk, cream etc. etc. They also weren't eating processed, refined junk food .

                              There's no point in comparing someone eating a "healthy" CW diet and someone eating a lot of rubbish (which may just happen to include lots of red meat and saturated fats), it's NOT the same as comparing CW with primal/paleo.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X