Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Will There Be a Chance in Consensus? page

  1. #1
    Bill_89's Avatar
    Bill_89 is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    91

    Will There Be a Chance in Consensus?

    First, I meant to say "Change" in the tite . . .

    Do you think mainstream nutritional dogma will ever embrace a high fat diet? Will saturated fat and cholesterol ever be exonerated?

    For me, it's hard to imagine, because the current paradigm is so pervasive. For example, professors in my anatomy and physiology classes condemned fat. Sure, they weren't experts in nutrition, but they were just reporting what everyone knows to be true. Just last week in my population health class, cholesterol was listed as one of the foremost measures of overall mortality.

    And today, I read an article on MSNBC which rightfully condemns high salt intake, but then claims it is "known" that saturated fats damage blood vessels.

    Am I 100% confident that a high fat/low carb diet is the healthiest way to eat? To be honest, no, but I am rarely 100% on anything. What I do know from personal experience is that eating this way seems to cut belly flab and reduce hunger. Due to media effect and prevailing wisdom, it is harder to shake the notion that saturated fat and cholesterol damage the heart. That's my one fear--I had a grandpa I never saw because he died of a heart attack at 50 (then again, he certainly didn't eat paleo/primal)

    Regardless of the true story, I think there is a very understandable (although lamentable) bias against saturated fat and cholesterol by the medical establishment. After all, if the experts got this wrong, the implications are really staggering: think of all the lives that were negatively impacted by their advice. It's easy to demonize people in a position of power and responsibility, but I don't find that position enviable at all. Now they they practically must defend the lipid hypothesis because their reputations and credibility depend on it.

    Nonetheless, a shift may be occurring. GCBC was a paradigm shifting book. If nothing else, it has prompted a debate and made the issue impossible to ignore. Whether Taubes's conclusions are correct are not, the book effectively questions some of the more annoying "truisms" you here mindlessly repeated in nutrition debate, like the superficially reasonable "if you take in more calories than you consume, you will gain weight."
    Last edited by Bill_89; 01-30-2011 at 07:06 AM.

  2. #2
    jspradley's Avatar
    jspradley is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    907
    Da gubbermint and big pharma have too much to gain by creating a society of sick weaklings that will be dependant on Obamacare/NHS/whatever other countries call it and the next wonder pill to ever allow a healthy diet and lifestyle to become the "mainstream".

  3. #3
    IvyBlue's Avatar
    IvyBlue is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Seabrook, NH
    Posts
    1,309
    I give it 20 to 25 years. 25 years ago I started my first adult job in an office where I had to wipe my desk down from the nicotine weekly. My first year of college during winter break (79 into 80) the school banned smoking in the classrooms and removed the ashtrays. I can remember the indignant, vocal reaction of the smokers at the time. My high school had a courtyard designated as a smoking area. In the early 70's the entire plane was smoking before the smoking area was bumped to the back. My mother smoked Winstons at the nurses station where she worked.

    I only make the analogy for the younger folks here, I know my niece and nephew don't actually believe the ubiquity of cigarettes just a generation ago.

    Primal/paleo is too powerful to be resisted and "baby boomers" (God, do I hate that term) will not meekly accept the decrepit old age that comes from following CW. It really is nothing new anyway as many of the Jack LaLanne postings this week showed. I just came back from the supermarket and aside from grassfed beef the good stuff can still be found on the perimeter as it always was and will be.

  4. #4
    Hedonist's Avatar
    Hedonist is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sacramento, California
    Posts
    2,927
    The paleo/primal viewpoint seems to be getting traction. By the way, primal is not a high fat or low carb diet. It is how people ate 100 years ago - moderate fat and however much carb you need. (100 years ago most people needed lots of carbs for doing physical work. So most of us have to eat fewer of them.)
    Ancestral Health Info

    I design websites and blogs for a living. If you would like a blog or website designed by someone who understands Primal, see my web page.

    Primal Blueprint Explorer My blog for people who are not into the Grok thing. Since starting the blog, I have moved close to being Archevore instead of Primal. But Mark's Daily Apple is still the best source of information about living an ancestral lifestyle.

  5. #5
    DaisyEater's Avatar
    DaisyEater is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,784
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I think our biggest hurdle is the fact that it's basically legal to bribe congress. As long as the government-sanctioned nutritional message is carbs are good, fat is bad, that is what will be taught in the schools. That's what will get grant money for research.

    The grain lobby is huge. They have government on their side and a big advertising budget. And then there's big pharma. They don't make money on prevention. They make money on selling us a packet of statins every month for decades. They're deeply invested in the cholesterol = death idea. I also sometimes wonder if they're glad we have so much diabetes, GERD, and other grain & sugar related issues. The medications for these things are hugely popular. If we all got healthy, there goes their biggest revenue streams. I think insurance companies, Medicare, etc., would do better if we got healthy. They'd be paying out less in services. It's the service providers and drug companies that get wealthy off of chronic illness.
    Last edited by DaisyEater; 01-30-2011 at 11:42 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •