My girlfriend getting too thin?

[casual_cyclist]

I suppose they are trying to be inclusive of all ethnic diets....

I think it more likely that they do not want to upset powerful wheat interests.

^^^ this. Especially when the guidelines go on to state that Australians need to eat more nutritious food. Wheat per weight/volume/calorie is pretty poor in nutrition compared to the same weight/volume/calories of vegetables or fruit.

When you look at the blue zone populations, from memory none have wheat as a staple.

National Geo did an article about the blue zones. I love this princple on page 8 under Okinawans: "Try To Be Likeable". It's a great goal!

http://www.bluezones.com/wp-content/upl ... gevity.pdf

[simonn]

I suppose they are trying to be inclusive of all ethnic diets....

I think it more likely that they do not want to upset powerful wheat interests.

^^^ this. Especially when the guidelines go on to state that Australians need to eat more nutritious food. Wheat per weight/volume/calorie is pretty poor in nutrition compared to the same weight/volume/calories of vegetables or fruit.

Which vegetable or fruit? It is a bit unfair to compare one type of food against multiple types. Potatoes are pretty similar in the high calories vs other stuff you need, like wheat. Good luck eating the same level of calories with lettuce etc

You need a balanced diet, and a balanced diet can include wheat. Although, we (as a society) do tend to eat far to much of it and seem to be unaware of it's high calorific value, and it is a good thing to skip if you are trying to lose weight, like some vegetables and fruit... and rice... and all the things I miss

When you look at the blue zone populations you notice that they are quite inbred... ...I mean that their long age has probably more to do with genetics than diet.

FTFY

[casual_cyclist]

I think it more likely that they do not want to upset powerful wheat interests.

^^^ this. Especially when the guidelines go on to state that Australians need to eat more nutritious food. Wheat per weight/volume/calorie is pretty poor in nutrition compared to the same weight/volume/calories of vegetables or fruit.

Which vegetable or fruit? It is a bit unfair to compare one type of food against multiple types.

Ok, apples and sweet potatoes then (just coz I eat them) ... or should we do bananas, considering who started the thread

Potatoes are pretty similar in the high calories vs other stuff you need, like wheat. Good luck eating the same level of calories with lettuce etc

Ah yes, white potatoes, the white flour/white sugar of the vegetable world.

[casual_cyclist]

When you look at the blue zone populations you notice that they are quite inbred... ...I mean that their long age has probably more to do with genetics than diet.

FTFY

That's a scary thought. So, changes to lifestyle in terms of exercise and nutrition are pointless because genetics determines our longevity? So we may as well eat ourselves into oblivion and sit on the couch watching tv until we die because exercising and eating well won't make any difference?

Really though, it's a fair point. Anecdotally, it has been reported that Okinawans that move to the US and adopt a western lifestyle do not live as long as their Okinawan based counterparts.

Another factor to consider is that some of the blue zone populations are losing their advantage due to the younger generations adopting more western foods and a sedentary lifestyle and shunning traditional foods (or is it that the younger generation have lost their genetic advantage gained by "inbreeding"?)

And the Sardinians’ longevity is rapidly disappearing due to the changing diet and sedentary lifestyle.

But they, too, are losing their edge on longevity. Researchers now observe 2 distinct populations in Okinawa: an older, traditional group who adhere to their past cultural way of life and a new group who adopt a Western lifestyle and diet. Okinawa now has the most fast food restaurants in Japan and coincidentally has the highest obesity rate in all of Japan.

http://www.myhealthfixz.com/44-bible-pr ... -zone.html

The whole theory of Buettner's Blue Zone work is that longevity is largely based on lifestyle, not just nutrition. Although I suspect the "research" was not scientifically rigorous and suffered heavily from confirmation bias. For interest, here is his theory of a longevity promoting lifestyle:

1. Move naturally
2. Have a purpose
3. Avoid stress
4. Restrict calories
5. Eat mainly plants
6. Drink 1 to 2 glasses of wine per day
7. Have faith
8. Put your family first
9. Be a part of a social network

Good luck to people with a western lifestyle on points 1 and 3, especially avoiding stress. Maybe it is all about stress, which reduces our longevity but assists those in the blue zones to live longer (boring) lives. Stress is a killer: http://www.martinvcohen.com/stress.html

An alternate theory for you. If you believe this study, it's climate, not lifestyle or genetics. People who suffer cold winters die sooner.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22613089

The reality is that the blue zone longevity thing is old news. Okinawa, the blue zone hero lost its lost its life expectancy at birth ranking in 2000. That we are still discussing them shows how pervasive myths are. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18924533

or it's an excuse to sell an overpriced supplement http://www.okinawalife.com/okinawa-life

Oh, it looks like there was a better study done by a team including Dr Makoto Suzuki. According to the study,

Does this mean that Okinawan longevity is all genetic? Not at all. We believe the Okinawans have both genetic and non-genetic longevity advantages -- the best combination. In fact, we have written extensively that the Okinawan traditional way of life -- the dietary habits, the physical activity, the psychological and social aspects, all play an important role in Okinawan longevity.

http://www.okicent.org/study.html

[winstonw]

re wheat, I read the history of it some time ago, and it is attributed for allowing the industrial revolution.
it allowed us to move away from food production areas and dwell en masse in cities, and explore the world in ships.
it has allowed civilizations to survive inclement weather and droughts.

nevertheless, I accept wheat is associated with health issues for many these days. however, I am not convinced all the fault rests with grain. it may very well be a combo of derived grain species, immune abnormalities, issues due to exposure to artificial materials (plastics?) , vaccinations, sexually transmitted diseases, and just living more chronically stressful and sedentary lives with poorer sleep!

[ColinOldnCranky]

re wheat, I read the history of it some time ago, and it is attributed for allowing the industrial revolution.
it allowed us to move away from food production areas and dwell en masse in cities, and explore the world in ships.
it has allowed civilizations to survive inclement weather and droughts.

OFF TOPIC:

Hmmm. I'd say that that is writing out 5,000 years of history, startign withthe Sumerians. They started intensive agriculture giving rise to the economics of "surplus" for the first time. With central granaries to tame the vagaries of drought, the ability of that civilisation to have a class of people who were freed from the day to activity of hunting, gathering and generally staying alive (the priesthood) and thinking and developing ideas, not to mention technology (bronze, timing of the floods and arrival of the waters of teh nutrient rich NIle), the governing of the resources to maintain a growing population (largely allocation of water to the productive farmers), and so forth. And cities.

The efficient movement of produce over open oceans certainly had to wait until for another several thousand years, though still before the industrial revolution I think. Ships that could sail into the wind, better methods of navigation using accurate charts, compass and accurate timekeeping to accuracies measured in seconds over extended journeys.

The migration to cities and away from the crops, protection the economy against the elements and adverse seasons and the wholesale storage and distribution of grain was all in existence In Sumer. And when Sumeria collapsed, it was all repeated later by other civilisations, still thousands of years in the past.

Not too sure where you read it Winstonw but I'd certainly not want to overstate the significance of the industrial revolution or any other time in the last couple of thousand years on these matters. The industrial revolution was certainly world changing in the life and functioning of cities and society.

[ball bearing]

it has allowed civilizations to survive inclement weather and droughts.

Just see where that has gotten the poor planet Earth and mankind. What a mess! I believe that it would be far better if we humans had been kept at a population level that is in balance with our fellow beings.

nevertheless, I accept wheat is associated with health issues for many these days. however, I am not convinced all the fault rests with grain. it may very well be a combo of derived grain species, immune abnormalities, issues due to exposure to artificial materials (plastics?) , vaccinations, sexually transmitted diseases, and just living more chronically stressful and sedentary lives with poorer sleep!

Perhaps. What I do know is that since giving up all grains I have shed 28 kilos and my knees have allowed me to walk again without arthritic pain.

[simonn]

re wheat, I read the history of it some time ago, and it is attributed for allowing the industrial revolution.
it allowed us to move away from food production areas and dwell en masse in cities, and explore the world in ships.
it has allowed civilizations to survive inclement weather and droughts.

nevertheless, I accept wheat is associated with health issues for many these days. however, I am not convinced all the fault rests with grain. it may very well be a combo of derived grain species, immune abnormalities, issues due to exposure to artificial materials (plastics?) , vaccinations, sexually transmitted diseases, and just living more chronically stressful and sedentary lives with poorer sleep!

Eh? What fault? The mortality rate is better than it ever has been. Certainly better, even with the obesity epidemic, than 100 years ago. Sure, things aren't perfect, but they are better than they have been for most people for more than 99.999999% of humanities long and mostly dismal existence. I'd argue that eating and amusing ourselves to death is better than dying of sickness and starvation. As evidence, I tender our unbelievable growth in population in the last century. "Oh, but medicine mumble mumble"... Try having a modern industrialized society, and therefore modern medicine, without an abundance of food, it is not going to happen - because hungry people spend their time looking for food, not learning medicine.

Regarding the industrial revolution, at least in England (the home of the industrial revolution), it is probably the case that most people did not want to leave the land, but were forced to, economically if not actually:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unfortunately, history is not written by the downtrodden. On a side note, the industrial revolution is almost entirely to blame for the bland English cuisine. Former peasant farmers turned (forced) factory workers could no longer have their herb (and vegetable) gardens in tenement slums.

[winstonw]

The morbidity rate is no doubt more pertinent re the 'grain debate'.

I think population growth rate adds objective clarity to whatever sociopolitical slant is put on history.

[casual_cyclist]

Blogger goes nuts over Catalyst "sugar" story. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-tr ... -fat-loss/

[winstonw]

Blogger goes nuts over Catalyst "sugar" story. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-tr ... -fat-loss/

wow.....thanks for posting that cc. just read half and skimmed the rest. Brilliant stuff. I always reckon science is best conducted by people with aspergers and ocd

[casual_cyclist]

Blogger goes nuts over Catalyst "sugar" story. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-tr ... -fat-loss/

wow.....thanks for posting that cc. just read half and skimmed the rest. Brilliant stuff. I always reckon science is best conducted by people with aspergers and ocd

hehe. Bro science. To be fair, he eventually gets to a point which I think is a fairly reasonable assessment of the science:

Consuming a surplus of calories – whether it be from sugar, starch, fat, protein or alcohol – for a sufficient length in time will cause bodyweight and bodyfat gain. Some foods and beverages lend themselves to overconsumption due to their low volume and high concentration of calories. Highly palatable foods and beverages that are high in sugar, high in fat, or both, or high in alcohol, are more likely to lead to caloric surpluses. Because of this ability to promote caloric overconsumption, consumption of these foods and beverages should therefore either be avoided or compensated for by concomitant decreases in other caloric sources by those wishing to either lose weight or avoid weight gain.

It should be noted that even when consumed in a manner that does not lead to weight gain, high intakes of sugar-rich foodstuffs and beverages can be problematic for other reasons. Regular consumption of sugar-rich beverages and foods has been implicated in accelerated tooth decay, for example. In sedentary individuals, isocaloric diets containing high amounts of simple refined sugars can also increase visceral and liver fat deposition even though overall bodyweight remains unchanged.

Except when consumed during or immediately following vigorous exercise (the former of which has been repeatedly shown to improve performance in endurance activities and the latter of which promotes accelerated glycogen repletion after exercise), there is little reason for healthy human beings with normal digestive function to consume liquids rich in simple sugars. When consumed away from exercise, sugars should be consumed in the manner nature intended – as part of whole, minimally processed foods.

[matagi]

I quite like this bit too:

Yep, welcome to Generation Sook, folks. The tech-laden generation that enjoys the most automated existence in the history of mankind, who will never know the need for the backbreaking labour that was an inevitable part of our forebears daily lives, yet pisses and moans when someone has the temerity to suggest that maybe they shovel a little less !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! down their throats and spend 6 or 7 of the 168 hours that comprise a calendar week (i.e. less than 5% of their otherwise sedentary, inactive week) doing some exercise.

[simonn]

Blogger goes nuts over Catalyst "sugar" story

This sort of ignores the political/economic angle (and at the end of the day economics governs - in a ~ evolutionary way - everything), which is better explored in this series of docos - much easier over 3x50 odd mins rather than 1x30 mins):





Basically, when fat in food became an issue the food companies basically replaced fat with sugar - for economic and political reasons. This explains why we, as a society, today eat far too much sugar.

I get what Anthony Colpo is saying and (FWIW, which is very little, I'm just an IT person who rides bicycles and reads/watches stuff from t'interwebs) believe he is correct, but when a normal person has to go out of their way to avoid eating copious amounts of sugar (OT, but also sodium for that matter) it is easy to see sugar as the problem. The personal responsibility/"we're just providing what the market requires" arguments to counter this, which certainly have validity at some level, but those arguments certainly do not appear to work for society (if reducing obesity/improving health is the real goal).

Personally, I think it comes down to marketing. When you have chocolate advertised as having antioxidants implying health benefits... really... those utterly devious marketing people would just do the world a favour if they would just shoot themselves instead.

[ColinOldnCranky]

Personally, I think it comes down to marketing. When you have chocolate advertised as having antioxidants implying health benefits... really...

Re antioxidants, marketers who blandly throw in the term avoid truthy-in-advertising issues by not actually making any claims to its benefits - there are none.

But the food industry knows that consumers will then attribute to the product values of healthy food and natural (whatever that means these days).

"Glutin-free"is now becoming the next "anti-oxidant". We really are stupid.

[casual_cyclist]

Blogger goes nuts over Catalyst "sugar" story

This sort of ignores the political/economic angle (and at the end of the day economics governs - in a ~ evolutionary way - everything), which is better explored in this series of docos - much easier over 3x50 odd mins rather than 1x30 mins):

"The men who made us fat" is a great series! I have watched all the episodes and also "The men who made us thin" which looks at how the diet and exercise industries have brainwashed us into thinking that thin is healthy and that you have to diet and exercise to get "thin".

I get what Anthony Colpo is saying and (FWIW, which is very little, I'm just an IT person who rides bicycles and reads/watches stuff from t'interwebs) believe he is correct, but when a normal person has to go out of their way to avoid eating copious amounts of sugar (OT, but also sodium for that matter) it is easy to see sugar as the problem.

After a rambling spray, he does get to a point. But I agree that point says very little. It's interesting in the version of his eBook "The Fat Loss Bible" I have seen he bashes refined sugar and basically tells people not to eat it.

Personally, I think it comes down to marketing. When you have chocolate advertised as having antioxidants implying health benefits... really... those utterly devious marketing people would just do the world a favour if they would just shoot themselves instead.

Market is massive in this and also packaging. Take junk food and put "5 whole grains" on the packet and people will associate it with being healthier. Nevermind that it is 30% sugar.

[simonn]

(FWIW, which is very little, I'm just an IT person who rides bicycles and reads/watches stuff from t'interwebs) believe he is correct

I agree that point says very little.

My wording bad.

I meant my belief is worth little

"The men who made us thin"

Thanks. Something to watch in the corner of my screen this arvo

[simonn]

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden ... nutrition/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[casual_cyclist]

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden ... nutrition/

The switch in dietary advice followed the publication of a two-year study by the independent Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. The committee reviewed 16,000 studies published through May 31, 2013.

16,000 studies! That would be some work. I wonder what they mean by "low-carb high-fat nutrition advice". I've never really seen a definitive macronutrient ration or "high-fat". The last study I read for "low-fat" was 30% of calories from fat which didn't really seem that low to me.

[casual_cyclist]

Ah, ok. I found a definition for low-carbohydrate diet (LChD). By the author's definition, a LChD would have "less than 30% of the total energy requirement. When the carbohydrate intake is reduced, the fat and protein content in the diet increases...". The example of a LChD given is "zone diet" "consisting of a distribution of 30% protein, 40% carbohydrates, and 30% fat".

http://nutrilearning.com.ar/docs/articu ... t_12_3.pdf

[mikesbytes]

the 30/40/30 mix comes from views back in the early 80s. Probably one of the better suggestions of the time, as it suggests a balance as distinct from labeling things good or bad.

Is there current thinking along the lines of a % mix, or is the nutritional world too divided nowadays?

[casual_cyclist]

Good read.

Making a mess of obesity prevention

http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1093

[casual_cyclist]

Cholesterol furore
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 879796.htm

LYNN ROBERTS, HEART FOUNDATION: I just be disappointed if as a result of that some people were watching the program and actually stopped taking their medication [statins] and I can't stress enough how important it is that they actually go and have that conversation with their general practitioner and not just be influenced by the program.

LISA MAKSIMOVIC: The Australian Medical Association welcomes the debate.

[casual_cyclist]

Professor urges ABC to pull Catalyst episode on cholesterol drugs, says it could result in deaths

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/p ... hs/5050866

Link to the episode on this page: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/heartofthematter/

[sogood]

Yawn!

This subject clearly is a highly technical issue for the experts in the field to argue it out at conferences. Dragging lay public in the mix will just muddy the discussions with potential for mis-perception by the public. Crazy! Reminds me of similar in climate change and childhood vaccination. Another reason why sensationalistic media does no favours for the society.