Hey Fat Head, eat more Fat!

[Gt-R R34]

Interesting read.

Does any doctor want to chime in? I'm just so curious on the labwork on this type of information.

[SkinnyPupp]

As much as I hate labels like "paleo diet" and "low carb diet" and especially "Atkin's diet" those people are the ones helping spread the information.

As far as published studies go, start here.

[SkinnyPupp]

Some more published research, which "may suggest" that a high starch/low fibre diet introduced many diseases into our species, such as:

-Obesity: 1, 2, 3
-Heart Disease: 1, 2, 3
-High Blood Pressure: 1
-Diabetes (type 2): 1, 2
-Osteoperosis: 1, 2
-Colon Cancer (that's right, it's not "red meat" after all): 1, 2, 3
-Acne: 1, 2, 3, 4
-Depression: 1
-And of course, vitamin and mineral deficiencies (you'd assume this would go without saying): 1, 2, 3, 4

There, some reading material for ya

[kAzE-]

Originally Posted by !SG

diabetes has been on the rise amongst asians, specifically china asians.

those that seem to fight against diabetes are those that are physically hard working, thus farmers in china.

however, the general modern chinese now have diabetes on the rise. actually a lot of chinese ppl have cut back on their rice consumption.

Why now? Why not 100 or 200 years ago when Modern Chinese were eating rice? If you think about it, if rice increased our risk of diabetes our ethnicity wouldn't be as populous as it is today. Is there any possibility that the introduction of western foods and western processing techniques have a larger influence to the risk of diabetes?

edit: Western processing probably helped switch the Chinese diet that consisted mainly of whole rice to processed white rice.

[kAzE-]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

Just about every Chinese person you know probably has some form of insulin resistance or diabetes, or is related to someone who does. I can pretty much guarantee that.

I'm curious where you got this fact from. It's a very very broad statement.

[!SG]

its because of all the other foods.

ok, being asian, you can laugh and say all we do is eat rice. but there are several other foods that we eat as well.

in the past 10-20 years, china has gotten a huge dump of western influence. fast food, junk food, processed foods are readily available in china now. if we sustanned the exact same eating habits as before, with the exact same food as before, then there would be no issue. now with all this abundant self indulging new processed food available, it throws off that balance of what we eat.

if these new processed foods are on the same line as say no different calorie wise, or even no different than compared to sugar in the way our bodies absorb and treat these new processed foods, then its like no different than eating a bigger bag of sugar.

thats what this whole arguement is going around. that todays modern food is so processed, that the body cannot tell the difference between it and plain old sugar. this coupled with todays lack of activity in todays society is creating all the health problems.

so whats the solution? there isnt 1 dead set one, but one possible is changing the basic rice in a chinese diet. change it from regular long grain white rice to something different. the problem is drastic changes are harsh. in my household, we mix the regular rice, with brown rice and red rice. its suppose to be healthier. i notice i eat way less rice now.

Originally Posted by kAzE-

Why now? Why not 100 or 200 years ago when Modern Chinese were eating rice? If you think about it, if rice increased our risk of diabetes our ethnicity wouldn't be as populous as it is today. Is there any possibility that the introduction of western foods and western processing techniques have a larger influence to the risk of diabetes?

[!SG]

just ask around, you'll be surprised.

i myself, and my family are diabetic.

i got it over 10 years ago, my dad got it, even though he is relatively healthy, active, for his age, according to his doctor. my grandma on my mom's side had it. i was 2nd in line in the household to get it, (if anyone on one side of the family has it, you have 25% chance of getting it, thus for me, i had 50/50 chance) my sis was diognosed 3rd, and finally my mom.

it takes us a year to go thru a small 1kg bag of sugar. you cant completely eliminate it from ur life, some things, during cooking, u still need the sugar, however, you learn fast how to avoid sugar, and either just not use any, or stay away from it, or even use less.

after taking diabetes classes, if anything, you become more aware of what u eat. i cant say im exactly the healthiest, but i do keep my blood sugars in relative check. diet pop is my friend, i love crystal light, sugar free jello pudding and jello are gods gifts! i have a bad habit of skipping meals and not knowing when im having a sugar low. but apparently, i can be a total ass when that happens.

Originally Posted by kAzE-

I'm curious where you got this fact from. It's a very very broad statement.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by !SG

if these new processed foods are on the same line as say no different calorie wise, or even no different than compared to sugar in the way our bodies absorb and treat these new processed foods, then its like no different than eating a bigger bag of sugar.

thats what this whole arguement is going around. that todays modern food is so processed, that the body cannot tell the difference between it and plain old sugar.

Now I fully expect SkippyPupp to delete this, yet maybe he'll read it first:

What you're referring to refined vs complex carbs. Humans used to consume complex carbs (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, ...) yet has moved to refined carbs (white bread/pasta, baked goods, ...). When carbs are refined they are stripped of nutritional value, most importantly fiber.

Consider orange or apple juice. If you get naturally squeezed juice its high in complex carbs, yet if you drink the processed supermarket juice its high in simple carbs for 2 reasons. Sugar is usually added to sweeten, yet the heat used for processing converts complex carbs to simple/refined carbs and removes the nutritional benefit. Even some whole grain products that appear "healthy" are mass-produced will be stripped of the complex carbs during processing.

Why did i single out fiber so important? Cause it helps control glucose absorption, much like it helps digestion. Complex carbs may be high on the GI, yet they contain fiber that helps reduce glucose absorption while providing nutrients.

Here's an article to read about managing GI:
http://www.acu-cell.com/gi.html

This is why in the movie FatHead the carb count is purposely kept low, cause most fast food carbs are simple or refined carbs and bad for you.

[kAzE-]

Originally Posted by !SG

just ask around, you'll be surprised.

i myself, and my family are diabetic.

i got it over 10 years ago, my dad got it, even though he is relatively healthy, active, for his age, according to his doctor. my grandma on my mom's side had it. i was 2nd in line in the household to get it, (if anyone on one side of the family has it, you have 25% chance of getting it, thus for me, i had 50/50 chance) my sis was diognosed 3rd, and finally my mom.

it takes us a year to go thru a small 1kg bag of sugar. you cant completely eliminate it from ur life, some things, during cooking, u still need the sugar, however, you learn fast how to avoid sugar, and either just not use any, or stay away from it, or even use less.

after taking diabetes classes, if anything, you become more aware of what u eat. i cant say im exactly the healthiest, but i do keep my blood sugars in relative check. diet pop is my friend, i love crystal light, sugar free jello pudding and jello are gods gifts! i have a bad habit of skipping meals and not knowing when im having a sugar low. but apparently, i can be a total ass when that happens.

I agree with everything you said but just had an issue with singling out rice. I believe the issue with diabetes is not that Chinese people eat rice, it's because we had developing bad eating habits and consuming all the processed foods that you had previously mentioned.

In my experience, I know very few chinese individuals with diabetes. I was taken a back when a there is a statement suggesting that diabetes is epidemic among the Chinese population.

What I noticed from all the posts is that everyone is in agreement that simple carbs are bad and complex carbs are good. Everyone is just repeating this message in a different way.

In my opinion, diets that recommend low carbs are easy for the lay person to understand because they do not need to analyze whether the food they are eating had been processed to hell; all they need to do is avoid most carbs. When you are trying to influence a mass amount of people, simple messages are generally the most effective.

[!SG]

there really is a rise. my parents have always sought after the chinese herbal solution as cures. on their last trip to china, they found out a huge array of new chinese herbal drugs suppositely helping cure diabetes or at least control it. Probably not as great at those "ling ji" mushroom cure alls out there, but there's quite a bit. diabetes in chinese is literally "sugar piss" and if u ask around, there are a lot more cases now more than ever.

Originally Posted by kAzE-

I agree with everything you said but just had an issue with singling out rice. I believe the issue with diabetes is not that Chinese people eat rice, it's because we had developing bad eating habits and consuming all the processed foods that you had previously mentioned.

In my experience, I know very few chinese individuals with diabetes. I was taken a back when a there is a statement suggesting that diabetes is epidemic among the Chinese population.

What I noticed from all the posts is that everyone is in agreement that simple carbs are bad and complex carbs are good. Everyone is just repeating this message in a different way.

In my opinion, diets that recommend low carbs are easy for the lay person to understand because they do not need to analyze whether the food they are eating had been processed to hell; all they need to do is avoid most carbs. When you are trying to influence a mass amount of people, simple messages are generally the most effective.

[!SG]

the arguement against is even products claiming to have complex carbs are well just that, processed. so unless ur knawing at the real source, id treat it no different than its "non advertised as healthy" counter part.

and you can forget about arguing, skinnypupp got more kudo points thus will only be removed as a moderator by my hands. that day will only happen when he pisses me off.

Originally Posted by taylor192

Now I fully expect SkippyPupp to delete this, yet maybe he'll read it first:

What you're referring to refined vs complex carbs. Humans used to consume complex carbs (fruits, vegetables, whole grains, ...) yet has moved to refined carbs (white bread/pasta, baked goods, ...). When carbs are refined they are stripped of nutritional value, most importantly fiber.

Consider orange or apple juice. If you get naturally squeezed juice its high in complex carbs, yet if you drink the processed supermarket juice its high in simple carbs for 2 reasons. Sugar is usually added to sweeten, yet the heat used for processing converts complex carbs to simple/refined carbs and removes the nutritional benefit. Even some whole grain products that appear "healthy" are mass-produced will be stripped of the complex carbs during processing.

Why did i single out fiber so important? Cause it helps control glucose absorption, much like it helps digestion. Complex carbs may be high on the GI, yet they contain fiber that helps reduce glucose absorption while providing nutrients.

Here's an article to read about managing GI:
http://www.acu-cell.com/gi.html

This is why in the movie FatHead the carb count is purposely kept low, cause most fast food carbs are simple or refined carbs and bad for you.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by !SG

the arguement against is even products claiming to have complex carbs are well just that, processed. so unless ur knawing at the real source, id treat it no different than its "non advertised as healthy" counter part.

and you can forget about arguing, skinnypupp got more kudo points thus will only be removed as a moderator by my hands. that day will only happen when he pisses me off.

LOL good that you have a sense of humour about it

My big problem with this thread and that video is addressed by kAzE-:

Originally Posted by kAzE-

In my opinion, diets that recommend low carbs are easy for the lay person to understand because they do not need to analyze whether the food they are eating had been processed to hell; all they need to do is avoid most carbs. When you are trying to influence a mass amount of people, simple messages are generally the most effective.

People are sheep and easily influenced, thus advertising diets that lose weight yet eat fast food and minimize carbs is very misleading. Someone watching SuperSizeMe could assume never eat fast food, its terrible for you. Meanwhile someone watching FatHead assumes fast food is good for you if eaten selectively and in small potions. Neither are very good messages on their own and the audience is focused on the sensationalized diets and forget the rest of the film.

Simple messages can be harmful, sensationalized messages are worse, education is best.

Read this review of FatHead, its inline with SkippyPupp's attitude:
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/fathead.php

Few people are going to listen to someone talking down their nose. Trust me, I know

[SkinnyPupp]

I need to make a few quick points:

1) All due respect to SG, but Diabetes is not a new problem to Chinese/Asian people. Quite the opposite in fact. Ever since rice was a significant part of their diet, diabetes has been a problem. It may be getting worse now, because there is even more garbage available now than ever. But the bottom line is, 99.95% of our history did not involve eating starch - refined or otherwise. 0.05% does. If you want to see a group that has only recently begun to have problems with diabetes, look at the Inuit. It wasn't that many years ago that their people would never touch a grain.

2) Still have no respect for taylor, since he still doesn't get it. The "fast food experiment" of "Fat Head" is not even the main part of the movie. It's just a whacky gimmick to get people to watch it, since it refutes all the claims made by the highly popular award-winning "Super Size Me". The first half of the movie is fun for shits and giggles, but the real bulk of the movie takes place after the silly fast food experiment. Because it's a movie, it has to be entertaining, and has to be sensationalized. If you have a brain that works, you can look past the sensationalized messages, and actually get the point. For some reason, you lack this ability. Maybe not having ever watched the movie, but continuing to try to discredit it has something to do with it. It also makes you look like a fool, because you are bringing up arguments against points that don't even exist.

So if you have a functioning brain, you will learn more from the mother than "you can lose weight eating fast food".

Let me break it down again, to make the points from the movie, again.

1) Saturated fat is not evil. It's not bad for you. It does not kill you. It does not cause disease. It does not "make you fat" (and by that I mean "any more than any food in the same amount will).

2) Humans are not meant to eat so much carbs. For 2 million years, our diet consisted of very little carbs. Ranging from 10% to about 15%. Today, it consists of 70% carbs. This is because of garbage food like pop, snacks, and so much grains in a "recommended" diet.

And that's about it. Those two points, you are arguing against. If you have anything against my point, then you are saying that it is good to have a diet that is 70% junk.

And finally think about this. What happens when you eliminate all carbs from your diet? You might be a bit tired at first, but that's about it. Your body can cope and it will get its glycogen eventually. What happens when you eliminate all protein? You die. What happens when you eliminate all fat? You die.

That is not to say it's a great idea to never eat any carbs (it's not). We're not carnivores, we're omnivores. We need to eat vegetables and fruits for nutrients, and some grains for quick energy.

I can't believe I am basically repeating myself in different words.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

If you have a brain that works, you can look past the sensationalized messages, and actually get the point. For some reason, you lack this ability. Maybe not having ever watched the movie, but continuing to try to discredit it has something to do with it. It also makes you look like a fool, because you are bringing up arguments against points that don't even exist.

I watched the movie last night.

The reason anyone would watch the movie is cause it tries (poorly) to discredit SuperSizeMe. Why is Naughton trying to discredit Spurlock? Don't know, personal vendetta? or that Naughton has a problem with the message of SuperSizeMe? Why anyone would have a problem with someone criticizing eating nothing but fast food is beyond me, yet Naughton seems like a terrible comedian, more intent on making his point than being entertaining about it.

That is the problem, not only with the movie, yet also with your responses. People stop listening when you call them ignorant and stupid. Good way to get your point across! Why even bother speaking if no-one is going to listen?

BTW there's lots of great documentaries that aren't sensationalized. FatHead could have been one, since the second have of the film is very well done, yet the message lost after watching the annoying first half.

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

If you have a brain that works, you can look past the sensationalized messages, and actually get the point. For some reason, you lack this ability.

This is why you're talking to a wall. No-one is going to listen to you or give you any credit when you talk to them like this. My funny sunglass thread had more responses before I revived this thread.

Now if you want to talk seriously about GI and the lack of proven research into it, then drop the ignorant insulting comments and act like a human. Otherwise I've had enough and will gladly leave your threads to die from lack of responses from now on.

[taylor192]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

1) Saturated fat is not evil. It's not bad for you. It does not kill you. It does not cause disease. It does not "make you fat" (and by that I mean "any more than any food in the same amount will).

* Protein contains 4 calories per gram
* Carbohydrates contain 4 calories per gram
* Fat contains 9 calories per gram

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

2) Humans are not meant to eat so much carbs. For 2 million years, our diet consisted of very little carbs. Ranging from 10% to about 15%. Today, it consists of 70% carbs. This is because of garbage food like pop, snacks, and so much grains in a "recommended" diet.

Please post the links to history to prove this.

For 2 million years we lived in caves and chased animals with spears. The agricultural revolution was 10K years ago, you know, we we decided to stop living in caves and started forming the basis of modern day society? We've made it 10K years, yet really the problem is the last 100 years when mass-produced processed foods have become popular.

A diet high in complex carbs is not bad for you - thus we're back to what started this: you criticizing Michael Phelp's diet. Yes its insanely high in both fat and carbs, yet he needa calories so there's more calories in fat, yet he needs energy and there's more energy in carbs. Since he's using it all, there's no problems. I guess that's why I can enjoy my high-carb diet

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

And finally think about this. What happens when you eliminate all carbs from your diet? You might be a bit tired at first, but that's about it. Your body can cope and it will get its glycogen eventually.

Your brain needs glycogen to operate, so when you starve your body of it your liver kicks in and makes some, then redirects it all to the brain to ensure adequate levels, and starves your body of it continuing the lethargic feeling.

This is why the body needs some carbs, more than the 5% in the fathead diet.

[waddy41]

http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c...JtE/b.3484237/

This shit is why we get so confused.

"Saturated fat

This can raise the bad LDL cholesterol. Foods high in saturated fat include fatty meats, full-fat dairy products, butter, hard margarines, lard, coconut oil, ghee (clarified butter), vegetable ghee, and palm oil."

Saturated fat from those natural sources are good. There is a difference between BLOOD cholesterol and DIETARY cholesterol.

[waddy41]

"Monounsaturated fats

These have been shown to improve blood cholesterol levels. They're found in olive oil, canola oil, peanut oil, non-hydrogenated margarine, avocados and some nuts such as almonds, pistachios, cashews, pecans and hazelnuts."

CANOLA OIL IS GOOD FOR YOU?!?

[hal0g0dv2]

milk also has saturated fat

[misteranswer]

I believe no one is really arguing that saturated fat is bad for you, but only that too much saturated fat is bad for you. All those health organizations which advocate a reduction in saturated fat are saying so because they believe the North American diet contains a lot more than what is needed or optimal.

If insulin spikes are the main argument against grains, then I would say eliminating grains is not entirely necessary. One could avoid spikes by eating more often but in smaller portions. In fact, I think at least 4 meals a day (afternoon snack) is advocated in most health guides.

[FeistyBearH22a]

Please refrain from posting derogatory insults. Lets keep the thread clean. It's a free world we can have people with varying opinions.

[kAzE-]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

I need to make a few quick points:

2) Humans are not meant to eat so much carbs. For 2 million years, our diet consisted of very little carbs. Ranging from 10% to about 15%. Today, it consists of 70% carbs. This is because of garbage food like pop, snacks, and so much grains in a "recommended" diet.

Again, where are you getting this fact from? From what I learned about human evolution and diet from anthropology class, for most of our history we subsisted on gathered fruits, plants, roots and supplemented with scavenged meat and lucky kills.

[kazuki]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...c/fulltext.pdf

I thought this was a pretty good article that looked at different fats and carbohydrates.

The article does suggest that saturated fats can lead to insulin resistance. High glycemic load foods can increase risk of type 2 diabetes. In the end, it is hard to come to a solid conclusion since there are multiple factors that are very hard to control in studies. Overall, I think its a pretty good review on the research done and organized it in a pretty clear layout. But it is from 2001 and there may be better articles out there that are more recent.

[kazuki]

Ok back to the rice diet with ancient China. I believe they didn't have a problem with diabetes because even when they ate a lot of rice, there are not taking in excess calories. I've said this in the other thread about red meats that caloric intake play a bigger role than eating sugar when it comes to getting diabetes. After looking around a bit I found this article.

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org.../3566.abstract

"In this study, a high-sucrose intake as part of an eucaloric, weight-maintaining diet had no detrimental effect on insulin sensitivity, glycemic profiles, or measures of vascular compliance in healthy nondiabetic subjects."

[kazuki]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

Some more published research, which "may suggest" that a high starch/low fibre diet introduced many diseases into our species, such as:

-Diabetes (type 2): 1, 2

There, some reading material for ya

I only looked at the diabetes articles and found things that are contradictory to the ideas you have been trying to push about saturated fats and the old hunter gatherer diet.

From article 1. "Reduced intake of total fat, particularly saturated fat, may reduce risk for diabetes." Again, it says saturated fat is NOT good for you.

"The importance of a balanced ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 intake, as in the ancient Paleolithic diet, was recently tested in the Lyon Heart Study [114]. This study was a prospective, randomized, single-blinded secondary prevention trial, which compared the effects of a modified Cretan diet, enriched with alpha-linolenic acid (ALA; ratio of omega-6/3, 4:1), low in saturated fat, very low in trans fat and high in vitamin C and E, to that of a Step I American Heart Association Diet in the secondary prevention of coronary events and death."

I assume the "paleolithic diet" is the old hunter gatherer diet. This shows that the old hunter gatherers did not eat a lot of red meat and was LOW in saturated fat.

In article 2. "As man has moved over the centuries from a hunter-gatherer diet to greater intakes of saturated and trans-fatty acids, insulin resistance has appeared with its related pathology."

So eating more saturated fats lead to insulin resistance/diabetes.

[Liquid_o2]

Originally Posted by FeistyBearH22a

Please refrain from posting derogatory insults. Lets keep the thread clean. It's a free world we can have people with varying opinions.

Agreed. Not sure why anyone who disagrees with SkinnyPupp is a 'fool' or a person with 'half a brain'? Everyone has their own opinions, and you can't be closeminded to what other people think and believe.

In the end... when you take out all the science, history and math, anything absorbed in large quantities is not good for you. Moderation is key. A healthy diet of protein, fruits, vegetables, carbs and fats along with exercise is what is important.