Alcohol is poison!

JHarsh80 - Cholesterol has been trumpeted by medical "authorities" and the media for a very long time. However, all the good evidence points toward cholesterol as being more of a question of ratios as opposed to LDL levels.

Cholesterol has virtually nothing to do with heart disease, and the pharmaceutical industry is proof positive that marketing shapes perceptions.

Eggs are a super food, to remove the yolk is to remove the most important part. In fact, to do so would result in a biotin deficiency.

Those who have eaten eggs in prison camps have come out with superior health.

HDL cholesterols when high is a good indication of health, but LDL does not matter much unless it is first oxidized (reacted with oxygen).
The media or medical "authorities" do not make this distinction.

Further, refined starches, grains, and sugars negatively effect cholesterol ratios. What is the LDL level? It's of very little consequence, except as a possible indicator of low thyroid (the real cause of most heart disease). If HDL is high, it matters not what LDL is.

Breads, refined grains, breakdown into glucose faster than table sugar. The faster a food breaks down to glucose, the quicker an insulin spike occurs, that's where the damage begins.

Natural fructose is very low in glucose and if it is accompanied with plant antioxidants that will further reduce impact on negative aspects.

Fructose corn syrup, by-passes the pancreas but increases triglycerides, creating a fatty liver. 1 out of 4 people have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. This is a recipe for metabolic syndrome and inevitable hypertension, mineralcorticoid imbalances, inflammation, everything that is needed to fuel hair loss.

Fiber is another matter -- totally useless unless you are a carb type, who only account for 15% of the population. Fiber is only desired if one eats an especially high carbohydrate diet. It is marketing and myths that perpetuate fiber to a status that it has. Generally for the rest of us, fiber just gives you a bigger stool. Yes, it will slow transit of carbohydrates to the breakdown of glucose, but is what whole food is for.

For the rest of us who do not especially eat that many carbohydrates, fiber is not needed. It is often presumed that constipation would result from a lack of fiber, but it is not true. Constipation is a result of fermenting waste acids, resulting from inadequate stomach acid production and a lack of Magnesium and antioxidant intake. Additionally, a good probiotic will facilitate good regularly as well if additional help is needed.

Looks like nidhogge and I posted at the exact same time, LOL.

There was one point I forgot to make.

Gas is primarily caused by inadequate stomach acid, which results in fermenting waste acids. The byproducts create gas, or indigestible carbohydrates, and last but not least, high fructose corn syrup is a biggie.

HFCS is something engineered for which we have no way to completely break it down, so gas is a frequent result. Cut this out, a lot of gas goes away.

It's worth noting that while we are worried about hair, blood sugar levels for some is a life and death concern: diabetics. There are plenty of resources with detailed info on various food's impact on blood sugar levels; aka the glycemic index. I'm posting one site below mainly because it reverberates on the main page what I learned empirically: baked potatoes are worse than sugar at raising glucose levels and spiking insulin. Here's the site:

http://www.mendosa.com/gi.htm

Nidhogge, The dutch oven has its place much later on in a relationship, but I'm talking more about dating or the "early" stage. lol Thanks for the link too.

Gibson- Thanks for that link; I will check it out.

I appreciate all the info on diet. It's just so damn frustrating that it seems so complicated, and seems to totally oscillate or do a 180 every 5 or ten years. The comedian Lewis Black talks about eggs: "First they were bad, then they were good, then they were bad again, then two a day was ok, now they're good again...make up your fucken mind I gotta eat!!"

I wish the pharma companies wouldn't cloud the issue so much. I did take (and forget almost everything from) physiology a couple semesters ago and my Professor did stress that cholesterol was overly daemonized and vitally necessary for hormones and on and on. Even when studies are cited, you still have no idea what the consensus is, and even meta-studies can be manipulated to produce a desired outcome. Data is supposed to be reliable damn it! But people can twist it and distort it to fit their opinions or agenda, which is really frustrating!

It looks like I have a lot of Googling ahead of me- sigh

For now I think I am just going to try and keep it stupidly simple and say carbs= bad, protein and fat= good, whole grains= really conflicted and or confused.

So is the scientific consensus not always accurate? I ask this because things like say... Global Warming come to mind, and I think about the "crazies" that are still in denial that it is a result of greenhouse gases (man made). What if those "crazies" are actually the sane ones? If I can't trust religion, politics, society, etc.... I need to be able to trust science or I'm going to flip out and lose my mind!

Time for an avodart and a 40

JHarsh80 - There is one reliable way to figure things out. What I've found time and time again is that the media is almost always wrong.

The media is more interested in a juicy story than facts, they love controversy, so to put a story in a context that is debatable is what they look for.

Then you have the scientific community, who for various reasons have their own agendas. When they say, "more studies are needed"
most of the time it's BS. Professionals love to cloud the issues, and keep as many people in the dark as possible, so that they will be reliant on services they do not need.

The good news is that living right is more easy than most of the medical "authorities" and news media would ever have us believe. Understanding all the "tricks" and be overwhelming at first, but eventually it gets easy.

Rarely is anything completely black and white, but if we listen to the media, they like to categorize things as either bad or good.

Is red meat really evil? Not if its the way we used to eat it--when cows eat their native food, grass, they were healthy. Milk was once good for us, until they added rbgh (recombinant bovine growth hormone), pasteurized, homogenized it and started feeding them animal grade grain products.

Personally, I don't even eat breakfast foods per se. It's almost easier to think outside the collective media box, because from the time we're old enough to understand what we're force fed, it is easy not to question it and assume it's correct information.

IH--

LOL ya, we did post at the exact same time. I guess it's a good indication that we should build that joint laser and nutrition clinic! Seriously though, it'd be something to consider in the near future when the capital is there. It'd be, without a doubt, a success in this area of upstate NY.

JH--

Nothing says lovin' like something from the dutch oven!

That said, global warming is just the new flavor of world government propaganda. Scientists that support it do so because it they want to things--fame and fortune. The media provides the fame, the elitists that manipulate the world provide the fortune. If you really, really looked into the history of Global Warming, you'd know that virtually every time throughout the century when scientists began to warn against global warming, the earth would cool, and when they tried to rename it global cooling, it'd often warm. The fact of the matter is, there is only one verifiable way to see if we have affected the climate, and that is drilling deep in the Antarctic to the different levels of soil. This has been done, and the theory has been completely debunked. However, you see, there is a lot of money to be made off of the myth of global warming. The end-result (and Obama is a supporter of this) is a global tax, yet another way to fleece the working folks of the world of their hard earnings, that will see further consolidation of the wealth of the poor and middle class to the richest of the rich.

That said, acid rain is very real, and reason enough to stop pollution. What better way to stop pollution than to take away the pollutant as a source of energy? www.waterforfuel.com

Wish I had the link to this brilliant anti-global warming scientist interview where he completely destroys the global warming movement. He said that the majority of scientists don't buy into global warming--it's just that they don't get coverage in the media. The media and government have an agenda, and have no interest in facilitating the dismantling of that agenda.

nidhogge wrote:IH--

That said, global warming is just the new flavor of world government propaganda. Scientists that support it do so because it they want to things--fame and fortune. The media provides the fame, the elitists that manipulate the world provide the fortune. If you really, really looked into the history of Global Warming, you'd know that virtually every time throughout the century when scientists began to warn against global warming, the earth would cool, and when they tried to rename it global cooling, it'd often warm. The fact of the matter is, there is only one verifiable way to see if we have affected the climate, and that is drilling deep in the Antarctic to the different levels of soil. This has been done, and the theory has been completely debunked. However, you see, there is a lot of money to be made off of the myth of global warming. The end-result (and Obama is a supporter of this) is a global tax, yet another way to fleece the working folks of the world of their hard earnings, that will see further consolidation of the wealth of the poor and middle class to the richest of the rich.[/quote]

I have to wake up and get ready now but I always thought that it would be almost impossible to get a scientific world consensus because we agree on little else. This, along with the fact that I've seen the data and the charts that show a dramatic increase in temp. since the 60's that equally positively relates to the exponential increase in carbon emissions is another reason I can't switch my view that easily. I know from experience that most of the people are wrong most of the time, but I think in this case since we aren't talking about the layman or even one specific society; Instead the scientific community, that this majority is correct. It doesn't even divide up the left and right wings anymore and THAT has got to speak for something.

Just out of curiosity; isn't there more money to be made by debunking global warming than not? I could give examples but I don't really have time now. A hummer (the vehicle not the act) is more expensive than a hybrid last I checked, especially with the price of gas! Global warming aside, we cannot afford to run carbon fueled vehicles anymore, and despite popular belief it is not a result of a supply issue, it is from investors causing the price of gas to rise.

[/quote]
That said, acid rain is very real, and reason enough to stop pollution. What better way to stop pollution than to take away the pollutant as a source of energy? www.waterforfuel.com[/quote]

Thanks I'll add it to my list of links to read

[/quote]
Wish I had the link to this brilliant anti-global warming scientist interview where he completely destroys the global warming movement. He said that the majority of scientists don't buy into global warming--it's just that they don't get coverage in the media. The media and government have an agenda, and have no interest in facilitating the dismantling of that agenda.[/quote]

No doubt the media is controlled, no doubt. I would love to see an actual "debate" between the two sides, but it seems that the side you are speaking of is extinct, What about non mass media outlets like the Internet? Wouldn't there be all kinds of scientists there trying to debunk this vast international conspiracy?

why can't I edit my message?

I messed up the quotes and the complete first half I typed is missing.

Gibson wrote:I agree: fructose, naturally occurring in whole fruit, presents absolutely no problems for me, no inflammation. Whole raw fruits, for the most part, are easily digested and handled by the body. Isolate the fructose, as in fruit sweetened, and there is a challenge, perhaps some inflammation. Totally isolate and bastardize in the lab, as in high fructose corn syrup, you're screwed.

Inflammation is not really the issue. The problem is that fruit, by design, triggers overeating. Nothing will trigger a binge quite like fruit. Moreover, fruit is a bullet train to high triglycerides. If you look at any of the various traditional cultures that Weston A. Price studied, fruit did not figure very prominently--or, in most cases, was not discussed at all.

Gibson wrote:It's worth noting that while we are worried about hair, blood sugar levels for some is a life and death concern: diabetics. There are plenty of resources with detailed info on various food's impact on blood sugar levels; aka the glycemic index. I'm posting one site below mainly because it reverberates on the main page what I learned empirically: baked potatoes are worse than sugar at raising glucose levels and spiking insulin. Here's the site:

http://www.mendosa.com/gi.htm

This misses the point entirely. Indeed, pumpkin scores a 107 on the glycemic index (GI), which is close to potatoes! You think pumpkin will turn people into diabetics and make us fat? Neither do I. But the GI said so, right? The problem here is that the GI is worthless. The GI is worthless because the issue not with blood sugar per se, but rather with insulin secretion. The GI only measures an increase in blood sugar but does not take into account a food's effect on insulin. And if you think these two things go hand in hand, fasten your seatbelt!

Fruit scores low on the GI because it has to be metabolized in the liver first before it is available to the body. (This, BTW, helps explain why sugar has a profound effect on triglycerides and cholesterol, both of which are produced by the liver.) But in light of the fact that it is high insulin which leads to a host of problems--many of which are hormonally related--the question you should be asking is not whether fruit causes a huge rise in blood sugar, but whether it causes a huge rinse in insulin. Here we can rely on Shintani’s look at the glycemic index vs. the insulin response of 10 select foods. You know what he found? The top four foods that caused a huge rise in insulin compared to the rise in blood sugar are:

1) Candy bar (scored a 59 on the GI!)
2) Cookies
3) Fruit (score in the 20s and 30s on the GI)
4) Breakfast cereal

And the foods that did not cause an oversecretion of insulin, listed in order, are:

1) Whole intact grains (e.g., brown rice)
2) Pasta
3) Legumes
4) Grain bread (meaning truly whole grain and coarsely ground)

He found that corn, potatoes, and pumpkins were similar to legumes. Shintani's research is more akin to the glycemic load and helps put foods back in their proper place. It shows that candy truly is something to be avoided. That is a no brainer for most us, but looking at the GI would not necessarily have led you to that conclusion. It shows that pumpkin, legumes, root vegetables, etc. truly are ideal foods from the standpoint of insulin management (something that used to be a no brainer before the GI became popular).

nidhogge wrote:

That said, global warming is just the new flavor of world government propaganda. Scientists that support it do so because it they want to things--fame and fortune. The media provides the fame, the elitists that manipulate the world provide the fortune. If you really, really looked into the history of Global Warming, you'd know that virtually every time throughout the century when scientists began to warn against global warming, the earth would cool, and when they tried to rename it global cooling, it'd often warm. The fact of the matter is, there is only one verifiable way to see if we have affected the climate, and that is drilling deep in the Antarctic to the different levels of soil. This has been done, and the theory has been completely debunked. However, you see, there is a lot of money to be made off of the myth of global warming. The end-result (and Obama is a supporter of this) is a global tax, yet another way to fleece the working folks of the world of their hard earnings, that will see further consolidation of the wealth of the poor and middle class to the richest of the rich.

That said, acid rain is very real, and reason enough to stop pollution. What better way to stop pollution than to take away the pollutant as a source of energy? www.waterforfuel.com

Wish I had the link to this brilliant anti-global warming scientist interview where he completely destroys the global warming movement. He said that the majority of scientists don't buy into global warming--it's just that they don't get coverage in the media. The media and government have an agenda, and have no interest in facilitating the dismantling of that agenda.

Excellent post. There are plenty of good reasons for reducing pollution and emissions (cleaner air, for one), none of which have to do with global warming.

EIC--
The site I linked to posts both scores and echoes what you are saying: same info. Have a look.

regarding the potato, I don't really care to argue its merit. Clearly for me the baked potato is a big time no go.
You may disagree; that's well enough. Apparently, there is at least one site aimed at diabetics that mentions the baked potato on its home page negatively. Similarly, i do not care to argue the merit of the site. Notably, fried potatoes because of the oil slowing down digestion, I guess, are actually better, in my case.

Gibson wrote:EIC--
The site I linked to posts both scores and echoes what you are saying: same info. Have a look.

I don't see that at all, but could have missed it. What I see is a lot of this:

A lot of people still think that it is plain table sugar that people with diabetes need to avoid. The experts used to say that, but the glycemic index shows that complex carbohydrates, like baked potatoes, can be even worse.

That right there should give you enough reason to stop reading. Man has been eating potatoes and other starchy carbs for hundreds of years. Indeed, tubers in particular were consumed in great numbers by Native Americans and Pacific islanders. Obesity and diabetes (diabesity) is a relatively new phenomena. Our access to sugars, natural and refined, is also a relatively new phenomena. Draw your own conclusions. If you don't believe me, conduct your own experiment: Eat a fixed amount of table sugar, say 500 grams, each day for 3 months without eating any starch. Then eat 500 grams of tubers each day for 3 months while totally avoiding sugar. Note the differences in how you feel and realize immediately that the glycemic index is totally worthless.

What is a "carb type" ? How do I know if I'm one of those 15% and what would that mean?

If we don't need whole grains, why do you, NID, order from Pacific Bakery?

Do you guys consume WHEY due to muscle pumping or what?

Let me also add that our fear of starch in America is totally unique in the world. Virtually every other culture has a diet that is based on animal protein, starch, and some vegetables. Examples? Think of the Asian nations with widespread consumption of rice. India, which consumes significant quantities of rice, potatoes, and legumes. The European countries which are known for their wonderful breads. Italy which is known for its consumption of pasta. The Latin American countries which feature rice, beans, and corn as staples.

Only in America do we have this notion that such foods are to be avoided. But the problem is our rabid consumption of natural and refined sugars (which, by inducing hypoglycemia, encourage overconsumption of sugar and starch). Cakes, donuts, cookies are loaded with sucrose (table sugar), which is equal parts fructose and glucose. Studies show that, when combined, fructose and glucose cause a DRAMATIC over-secretion of insulin, which a corresponding drop in blood sugar, which makes you hungry for--you got it--more carbohydrate. High-fructose corn syrup is the same thing. And, as I've said, we have fruit available year round for relatively inexpensive prices. Sugar, sugar, sugar, sugar. We all agree that confection is bad, but we've jettisoned starch in favor of fruit, which is not too far removed from confection. This makes us totally alien in a world of thin, starch-eating cultures.

And regarding diabetics, Dr. Diana Schwarzbein, a highly-regarded endocrinologist, developed her dietary protocol specifically by working with diabetics. She emphasizes protein and fat with starch and found that the combination worked wonders for her patients.

JH--

Those charts are bogus. Charts are nothing but visual statistics, and statistics are easily manipulated, and often are. The reality of the situation is that global warming has been debunked, and like I already pointed out, it is not that the vast majority of the scientific community supports global warming, it's just that the media only highlights the part of the scientific community that does. Look at Ron Paul's presidency--most people had no idea who he is despite being the only honest man that would have fixed our country that was in the running. Props to Dennis Kucinich as well, though he is nowhere near RP's intellect and experience. The media wields great power over the sheeple.

There is no money to be made in debunking just like there is no money to be made for pharmacies in a cure for cancer. Once cancer is eradicated, people don't need meds to keep them in that state between alive and dead any longer. You're eliminating a source of revenue for the big pharmas, just as global warming is a huge money-maker for globalists such as that phony Al Gore who's bogus documentary that was full of fallacies has gained him hundreds of million dollars and a fake nobel. Scientists aren't at the head of global warming, it's who finances the scientists that are. If I offer you money to make a round peg fit into a square hole, then you're going to try your damndest to do it.

Also JH--

The left and right wings are just make-believe to give you the illusion of freedom of choice. If your candidate is in the Council of Foreign Relations, which is a branch of the Illuminati, then it doesn't matter what party they're in. Did Democrats stop the war as they were voted into Congress to do so? That answers your question right there. The right and left both agree on global warming, but not in the way that you think. They agree that it is another way to fleece the middle class and the rest of the world with a global emissions tax. UnConstitutional and UnAmerican. Trust me, the last thing these rich fat cats care about is the environment. They've done more damage to the environment with their military weapons that release all sorts of poisons into the atmosphere than any amount of cars and factories.

Nid, I like your conspira way of thinking. I would LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to hear your thoughts on the 9|11 incident, perhaps over a PM?

I think two powerful groups very often hides in background. A selected group of Bankers and a elected group of weapon manufacturers.

Did anyone of you happen to see the Zeitgeist movie?

I've seen it.

Back in the early 90's I used to talk about the Federal Reverse, etc. LOL, still do and I never imagined it the information would spread to the mainstream. I got to thank Ron Paul for that.

I think we need a separate forum section only for politics & economics

EIC--
For those looking to add a starch to their diets, quinoa is a much better recommendation. Notably, any starch will add to the waistline.

Of course the notion of eating gram for gram sugar vs potatoes is absurd. A pound of sugar lasts me over a month; a pound of potatoes used as a food staple would last a couple of days.

If I were to eat that weight in fructose, in the form of fruit, which isn't realistic either, assuming my tummy were empty, I would only end up looking and feeling great, particularly since it is summer and many fruits are ideal for re-hydration.

[quote="EIC"]

Gibson wrote:
Inflammation is not really the issue. The problem is that fruit, by design, triggers overeating. Nothing will trigger a binge quite like fruit. Moreover, fruit is a bullet train to high triglycerides. If you look at any of the various traditional cultures that Weston A. Price studied, fruit did not figure very prominently--or, in most cases, was not discussed at all.

Amen

why do you assume that discourse carries so much weight? personally, I couldn't care less.