|
Post by jean on May 16, 2018 9:26:34 GMT 1
There is some truth in what you write, but it is not nearly as simple as you make out. And Big Sugar is more to blame than anything for the reversing of earlier advice on weight loss diets. ...Hence the worldwide epidemics of heart disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, ADHD, asthma, and a wide range of cancers (also known to be implicated in this officially recommended diet.) You missed out autism.(Oh I forgot - it doesn't exist.)
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 16, 2018 9:39:03 GMT 1
There is some truth in what you write, but it is not nearly as simple as you make out. Yes, it is. Nope. It had nothing to do with "Big Sugar". The low-fat high-carb calory-counting advice was promulgated by the AMA citing a very scrappy piece of research from Ancel Keys after the war. Actually, at the time, from the 50s to the 80s, Big Sugar was deliberately keeping sugar supplies down in the States, to artificially keep the cost high. Who told you autism doesn't exist? Same lesbian SJW blog that told you race and IQ are myths, was it?
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 16, 2018 9:47:20 GMT 1
No, it was you, on here. Keep up, please.
It was Big Sugar that did for John Yudkin, no question.
As so often, you oversimplify to such a degree that the truth in what you write is submerged by the panaceas
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on May 16, 2018 9:50:27 GMT 1
No, it isn't. A trial of 30 participants who adhered to the diet resulted in only 12 of the people having their blood glucose being reduced to below the diabetic level. "The study points to the possibility that some people with type 2 diabetes may be able to be treated with diet alone if they are able to lose enough excess weight – and keep it off. However, the results we have are from a small group of highly motivated volunteers, so we don't know how many people would be able to follow the diet and keep the weight off afterwards. An intake of 700 calories a day is around a third of the recommended intake for a woman (2,000 calories) and around a quarter of the intake for a man (2,500 calories). Even the most committed dieter may find it hard to stick to these limits. Even within this group, one participant was excluded from the study after week one of the very low calorie diet for not meeting the weight loss target of 3.8% body weight. This treatment is not likely to work for many people with diabetes who have already tried and failed to lose weight. " www.nhs.uk/news/diabetes/could-a-very-low-calorie-diet-cure-type-2-diabetes/
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 16, 2018 9:59:44 GMT 1
Yes, it is. That's not the same diet, you moron! It's nothing remotely like it. I think you may be the most stupid person I've ever met on these boards, and believe me you've got serious competition. In any case, I'm not wasting any more time trying to correct your ludicrous nonsense, some of us have work to do.
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 16, 2018 12:42:58 GMT 1
That's not the same diet... No, but it would achieve the same effect - that is, weight loss. But weight loss is more easily achieved on the high-fat, high-protein regime you advocate than on one that only counts calories without restricting carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates. Everyone knows that obesity is a factor in Type 2 diabetes. So however you lose the weight, that will be a good thing, though possibly not sufficient by itself. What we don't know is whether a high-fat, high-protein diet will eiminate Type 2 diabetes more effectively than weight loss by other means, or how far it will go towards eliminating all the other conditions you enumerate. Have you any actual figures for its success in controlling (for example) Alzheimer's? And does it work on other forms of dementia, too? (Oh, and you're still not formatting your quotes properly on occasion. Don't forget to eliminate the final [ /quote ] from your post before you post it.)
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on May 16, 2018 13:08:54 GMT 1
Hmm, but I can usually get the formatting right. Don't suppose you have got good evidence of the diet you mentioned being effective?
You call these organisations "trillionaires" (applying that term to organisations is a curious use of the word). Dupont has total assets of $42 billion, Monsanto about $21 billion, still far less than a trillion.
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 16, 2018 16:58:22 GMT 1
And Big Sugar is more to blame than anything for the reversing of earlier advice on weight loss diets. Nope. It had nothing to do with "Big Sugar". As usual, you oversimnplify. Read this article. ...The most prominent recommendation of both governments was to cut back on saturated fats and cholesterol (this was the first time that the public had been advised to eat less of something, rather than enough of everything). Consumers dutifully obeyed. We replaced steak and sausages with pasta and rice, butter with margarine and vegetable oils, eggs with muesli, and milk with low-fat milk or orange juice. But instead of becoming healthier, we grew fatter and sicker.
Look at a graph of postwar obesity rates and it becomes clear that something changed after 1980. In the US, the line rises very gradually until, in the early 1980s, it takes off like an aeroplane. Just 12% of Americans were obese in 1950, 15% in 1980, 35% by 2000. In the UK, the line is flat for decades until the mid-1980s, at which point it also turns towards the sky. Only 6% of Britons were obese in 1980. In the next 20 years that figure more than trebled. Today, two thirds of Britons are either obese or overweight, making this the fattest country in the EU. Type 2 diabetes, closely related to obesity, has risen in tandem in both countries. Sugar tax: Osborne's two-tier levy brings mixed response Read more
At best, we can conclude that the official guidelines did not achieve their objective; at worst, they led to a decades-long health catastrophe. Naturally, then, a search for culprits has ensued. Scientists are conventionally apolitical figures, but these days, nutrition researchers write editorials and books that resemble liberal activist tracts, fizzing with righteous denunciations of “big sugar” and fast food. Nobody could have predicted, it is said, how the food manufacturers would respond to the injunction against fat – selling us low-fat yoghurts bulked up with sugar, and cakes infused with liver-corroding transfats...And note particularly, in relation to your ...Ancel Keys was intensely aware that Yudkin’s sugar hypothesis posed an alternative to his own. If Yudkin published a paper, Keys would excoriate it, and him. He called Yudkin’s theory “a mountain of nonsense”, and accused him of issuing “propaganda” for the meat and dairy industries. “Yudkin and his commercial backers are not deterred by the facts,” he said. “They continue to sing the same discredited tune.” Yudkin never responded in kind. He was a mild-mannered man, unskilled in the art of political combat.
That made him vulnerable to attack, and not just from Keys. The British Sugar Bureau dismissed Yudkin’s claims about sugar as “emotional assertions”; the World Sugar Research Organisation called his book “science fiction”. In his prose, Yudkin is fastidiously precise and undemonstrative, as he was in person. Only occasionally does he hint at how it must have felt to have his life’s work besmirched, as when he asks the reader, “Can you wonder that one sometimes becomes quite despondent about whether it is worthwhile trying to do scientific research in matters of health?”...But as to your general claim: did Big Pharma deliberately make everyone fat so that they could invent remedies for diseases which the fat people would not have suffered from had they not been fat? Or did they manage to predict that even those who did not become fat would be subject to heart disease, Alzheimer's, ADHD, asthma, and a wide range of cancers which they could then set out to cure at great expense? Do you really believe that?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 20, 2018 23:11:53 GMT 1
No, it was you, on here. Keep up, please. Dyslexia, is it? Autism - dyslexia - yes, an easy mistake, I suppose, if you don't read. Loads of people have observed that sugar is harmful. It's a side issue. It's a messsageboard - tell me: Where have I oversimplified, pray tell, and I'll be happy to elaborate. As far as I'm concerned, I've expressed the heart of the matter - I wasn't intending to write a scientific paper, like you, but if you want to delve further, please do so. Just saying "it's not as simple as that" won't do. If I say the Romans invaded Britain I can say so without itemising Caesar's wardrobe.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 20, 2018 23:34:41 GMT 1
That's not the same diet... No, but it would achieve the same effect - that is, weight loss. I wasn't talking about weight loss! I'm not talking about weight loss! It's not "a factor". It's directly correlated, and the cause of that correlation has been known - proven, scientifically - for at least 15 years. Ffs! Let me guess - you're fat? You're worried about losing weight? So you can't quite comprehend what I've said, cos you're bedazzled that it's all to do with you? I repeat - I'm not talking about weight loss. Yes, we do. Thoroughly demonstrated. They're associated. Those associations are complex, but the root causative links don't require wild hypotheses. No - I'm not an epidemiologist. As far as Alzheimer's is concerned, as opposed to generalised phenomenolgoically diagnosed dementia, for which there is clear evidence, the evidence so far asfaik amounts to statistical correlation - and, to be clear, it's nothing to do with this diet, and I didn't say it was, but the medical regime promulgated - with the full financial weight of every Western govt. - of an allopathic remedy for heart disease. Statins, in a word. Next to the anti-depressives, the biggest earner for the medical establishment in the Western world. The drug your GP is so eager to get you on, if you;re not on it already. Fuck off, Sister Mary. Get your own house in order first. Or find someone who gives one.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2018 0:27:47 GMT 1
Really? Oh wel, I suppose that's one-up to you clerics. D That's what you call "getting the formatting right", is it? Amazing. There might be a smiley that indicates: what sort of moron am I dealing with here? That one.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on May 21, 2018 0:37:55 GMT 1
About time you spelt out your prescription, I think, otherwise millions may die from confusion.
(Not that I'm recommending anyone should believe a word you say.)
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2018 1:08:19 GMT 1
.
I recognise that article, as it happens.
And? What's your point?
Yes. Sugar's a side issue. What's your point?
Oh, nooo, nooooo. That's not my claim. Any more than it's my claim that the trillions being earned by the "Climate Warming" conglomerate are down to a calculated conspiracy.
I believe that people have excessive confidence in government "advice", which is itself open to excessive influence from moneyed concerns. That's not my worry. My worry is about "Science" - the conduit through which that influence is legitimised. I value science, it's the great hope for us all - it's corruption the greatest threat to civilisation. The fact that you're fat is important, of course, but just stop stuffing your gob so much, why don't you, ffs?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2018 1:26:47 GMT 1
About time you spelt out your prescription, I think, otherwise millions may die from confusion. My prescription? Well - if you're fat, you're not eating right. It's entirely your fault. That's the start. How about that? There's a bigger issue: The government have been advising you for 50 years to adopt a diet that makes you fat, not to mention a wide range of other ailments that make the corporations that grease them vast fortunes. Don't trust the govt., therefore. It's logic, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 21, 2018 11:11:49 GMT 1
No, but it would achieve the same effect - that is, weight loss. I wasn't talking about weight loss! In that case, why aren't you talking about weight loss? No, I'm not fat (and therefore I am not worried about losing weight.)I'm not fat because I eat very much the diet you recommend - though probably with the addition of more fruit than in its extreme forms, like the version advocated by that at South African person I would be quite wary of. So...you are taking about weight loss - or you should be. So where is the demonstration? What fascinating showed is that it is difficult to lose weight on a diet that restricts fat and relies on calorie counting. And while it is now clear that dietary fat does not cause or exacerbate heart disease, and dietary cholesterol may actually protect against it, we don't have the same evidence for the other diseases you cite, including diabetes - indeed, the evidence in respect of Alzheimer's is contradictory. I think you did. But maybe you're a bit confused still. I'm not on statins, FTR. I have an astonishingly excellent ratio of good to bad cholesterol, my doctor says (that's how doctors talk these days, you know!) which is probably down to diet.
|
|