Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gator Country Health and Fitness' started by Dreamliner, Aug 2, 2012.
So, uh, you didnt bother to look at the articles linked in any of the posts did ya tooth?
I read the ones that didn't require me to register. No one is doubting that the food industry is perpetuating the so-called "food hysteria," and profiting by packaging unhealthy foods as healthy. I do question these notions that people who eat healthy are somehow fearful of death, and that a healthy diet isn't important. The OP's link even backs up what I'm saying. People eat healthy because they want to be healthy, and want to lead a productive and energetic life for as long as possible without having to deal with chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Being a cancer survivor I can tell you that being a healthy person won't stop you from developing a cancer, but it makes it a heck of a lot easier to treat and recover from the treatment.
Imagine two men who die at 85. One of them dies in a nursing home as a result of congestive heart failure complicated by diabetes. The other dies from a heart attack out on the golf course. Your diet will usually determine which of those men you'll be.
'Healthy vs. unhealthy' is a dubious concept. No study that I'm aware of points to any one food killing you, when you eat it, or any one food extending your life, if you eat it.
Regarding diabetes, you're obsessing over food choices when the real culprit appears to be food *amount.* Why do you dexterously ignore this ? Are you like the many Americans whose gratification is tied to being able to eat a certain amount of food ? In any case, I meet fat people, just about every week, who 'hunger' for the easy road to health, this or that particular food choice, which will impart health, irrespective of weight.
Again: you do know you're going to die, don't you ? It is entirely possible that the people whose food choices you bemoan, these people who eat fast food all the time (where are they ?), are going to outlive you.
Then who are you going to shake your fist out for being betrayed ?
So, am I to assume that you have some scientific evidence to back up this claim?
Many of the chronic diseases you are discussing are associated directly with obesity. I think we can agree that obesity is bad and not being obese is good. However, people are way too focused on food type when it comes to doing things to reduce the likelihood of being obese. When instead they should be focused on food amount.
Can you be "healthy" on just fast food? There is some evidence to that, just see the Fast Food Diet or Jared from Subway.
Can you be "healthy" eating just junk food? Yup, just look at that professor who did the Twinkie diet. He lost 27 pounds and improved a bunch of health markers. Because being overweight is bad for your health markers and losing weight is good for it no matter what you are eating. His conclusion, "there seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy."
And that does not even begin the debate of what exactly is eating healthy? Ask 5 people and I guarantee they will not be able to agree on what the definition of healthy eating is. So, with that said the only food that we can all agree is bad for you is too much.
I swear I wrote my post before I saw Dreams.
Speaking of diabetes, the going advice to lose as little as 5-10% of bodyweight, to improve health markers, as taken a bit of a hit.
A recent study tracked obese diabetics who lost an average of 8% of their bodyweight over (I think) a year.
Outcome: their diabetes improved slightly. But there was no decrease in the incidence of heart attack or stroke. The supposition is then that obese people might need to raise their sights a bit in terms of weight loss.
What I learned from your post is that you didn't read anything I posted, and that you take testimonials as scientific evidence to make your point. Your point that people who eat a high fat, high sodium diet will out live me is laughable unless I get hit by a car before they keel over from a heart attack or stroke.
I agree that obesity is the culprit but you have to look at the reasons for the obesity. More often than not people who eat fast food are obese than people who don't eat fast food. A person who eats healthy can also eat more food than a person who eats fast food. Further, a person who consumes complex carbohydrates has more readily available fuel along with vitamins, minerals, and fiber than with processed foods.
As far as the Twinkie guy goes, there's no arguing the First Law of Thermodynamics. Anyone can eat a stick if butter dipped in sugar drizzled with chocolate and lose weight if they maintain a caloric deficit. But why do it when you can eat more nutrition packed food, never be hungry, and still maintain the same caloric deficit? That's my point.
I read every word of your scaremongering, which is to say I read all your posts.
And for your scaremongering, I pronounce a curse on you: For your bravado and effete food snobbery, may you live in fear of being out-lived by people who enjoy burgers, fries and donuts now and again.
People who were confident that they would outlive the general population, because of stringent attention to diet, but who died young:
*Originator of South Beach Diet
*Author of The Blood Pressure Cure
*Author of the Pritiken lifestyle.
*Editor of Prevention Magazine.
*Author of You Can Stay Well.
*Author of The 120 Year Diet.
Note: they were all sneering at the junk-foodists ... right up until they died.
I'm sorry but I'm going to back out of this thread of yours. Your paradoxical thinking is starting to make my head hurt and it's not worth the effort. I do think I'm going to enjoy this forum however.
You have to throw heredity out the window. We're not talking about how long you will live. All things being equal , with genetics. Please tell me that you guys aren't saying that someone that eats sugar and canned ravioli is going to be the same phisically as someone that eats healthy.
You brought nothing but bromides. You displayed no knowledge of actual research. You leave with only your false bravado.
With all due respect, I wonder if you've been paying any attention. "healthy eating" is a dubious concept. What does it mean ?
Did someone say donut? Hello postworkout meal.
At first I think you have to define what you mean by "healthy". I would define healthy as eating a diet that is evolutionarily derived for the human race. This means lean protein sources, lots of fresh vegetables and fruits (including potatoes imho). This would out dairy & grains (even complex ones like oatmeal).
Now to refine my definition I would say its still "healthy" to eat the following defined diet 75% of the time, but allow yourself to eat rice/bread/dairy, etc in small portions each day with each meal. I also would still deem it healthy if you eat a donut at work on monday and a burrito from taco bell on thursday, while stuffing down some tostitos with nacho dip on saturday washed down with beer, so long as week by week your consuming a nice balance of foods in general during the week.
On the other hand, I wouldn't consider it healthy to eat a dozen donuts every day for the rest of your life....but I think that's pushing the definition of unhealthy a little too far to the left. You could probably maintain decent health on subway due to the array of foods you put in between the buns of death . Also Pizza with a nice array of toppings isn't so bad, since there is some sort of balance....but food devoid of proteins/fats & basic vitamins as a sole food source is very very unhealthy. I'm pretty sure you don't do that, and until you do I think its reckless to promote it as healthy.
This is of course assuming you start with a baseline level of good general health. The definition of what is healthy breaks down considerably as you add health problems to the mix, and this is where I think Dream's/Leaf's views are not only incorrect but dangerous....
Now that said I do agree with you that most people worry too much about what the food is, but I don't agree with you that you shouldn't concern yourself at all with what is in the food.
Instead of abandoning nutritional science, think you need to sift through it more and not just concentrate on the parts you like.
Thank you and you are spot on. I've been taught by integrated physicians (UF med school) that if 90% of your diet is quality food then the other 10% can be crap which goes along nicely with what you're saying.
You're ideas are ignorant void of any valid research. You argue in circles and people trying to follow your convoluted rants are wasting their time. Trust me, when I see your posts my first thoughts will be "nothing of interest with this guy." and I'll move on to something of value.
Hey nut my views are actually not that far off from yours at all except for some slight disagreements about the evolutionary stuff and avoiding grain or dairy in the absence of a diagnosed allergy. If my posts on here come off more extreme than that it is only in response to the over the top vilification of certain types of food.
The thing is the definition of what is healthy and what is not is constantly changing while the one constant is that overconsumption is a bad idea. Your definition of healthy would be disputed by many and they would have science to back them up as well.
We could write out a list of foods right now and find no consensus on whether or not each is healthy without cherry picking the studies that support our own belief system. And trust me that is what this argument really comes down to, emotions and attachment to some food based belief system.
This thread is making me dizzy. But I love to blow sh*t up. What if I ate baked chicken veggies and a glass of milk for every meal,but turns out my chicken and milk are pumped with hormones?
Haha. You are awesome. That is all.