81–90 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that what you're proposing is in no way supported by science but is merely your personal theory based on an analogy, right?
A system running at its limits is more sensitive to fluctuations in inputs. That's as true for your body as it is for a nuclear reactor.
The article kindly submitted here is interesting. Like more and more recent articles about science in the popular press, this article, which reports on a large analysis of previously published papers on salt in the human diet, digs into the process of science to look at how (or even whether) scientists learn from one another by citing the previously published papers on the same topic. The article's key point, just be…
I also have asthma. It's a mild case, and I don't need an inhaler or any medication for it, just get pretty short on breath under heavy exercise.
Now, accumulated medical wisdom is that beta blockers are bad for asthmatics. They supposedly shorten air intake, and can even be fatal, especially in severe cases. NHS guidelines in the UK recommend against prescribing them to asthmatics and other similar lung conditions.
But ... see it turns out this wisdom basically goes back to some case reviews from back in the 70s, of patients having reactions to proplanolol, the first beta blocker released to market.
But recent reviews of the research shows that's pretty much all there's ever been: case studies. The only actual experimental trials done on this had significant methodological issues (one of them didn't even have a control group!), leaving little more than just a pile of what amounts to anecdotal evidence, involving two conditions (heart and lung) that have significant chance of comorbidity anyway.
On top of that, even most of that research is all based on the original "nonselective" kind of beta blockers, while initial research with the modern "selective" variety indicates they may even help. Even more fun is that the beta-agonists sometimes prescribed as an alternative to blockers, may themselves have a reaction with asthma ...
The end result is that in nearly 50 years of beta blockers being on market, no one medical professional actually seems to have any idea whether they're good or bad for asthma, but the "wisdom" gets passed down all the same ...
And meanwhile I've got a bottle of them on my desk. I'm not a doctor, or a pharmaceutical scientist, and if they don't know if it's safe for me to take them or not, how in fuck am I supposed to make that choice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On cannot eat too much starch. Try to eat only potatoes or rice prepared without any oil/butter for couple of weeks with perhaps few vegetables or fruits in addition with any amount of salt or herbs for taste. You learn that it is impossible to overeat as normal appetite controlling signals kicks in and limit the consumed amount. One does not gain weight on such diet and likely even loose some. Similarly with sugar.…
> Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it This is blatantly not true in the US, you can observe any number of people anywhere drinking full sugar sodas all day long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Currently the best way to consume food is to avoid addictive and highly processed food products and then trust your gut with the rest." Allow me to suggest a further path forward that is superior to "trusting your gut": Establish a regular, very high output exercise regime - incorporating both long duration aerobic/cardio and relatively intense resistance training. Under such a regimen, you will notice what food doe…
incorporating both long duration aerobic/cardio and relatively intense resistance training And there are studies that show walking is just as good, and it certainly wears down the body less than your alternative.
I'm not sure I've ever actually seen one of these studies that show walking is as good for overall health as strenuous exercise. It's hard for me to believe, mostly because I do a ton of walking and find personally that the benefits are nowhere close. But also, "walking is just as good" seems mostly to be the rallying cry of out of shape people who don't want to exercise because it's hard.
> and it certainly wears down the body less than your alternative.
That's an odd way to put it. Exercise doesn't "wear down the body". It builds it up, quite literally if we're talking about resistance training. But even aerobic exercise builds up the cardiovascular system measurably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it This is blatantly not true in the US, you can observe any number of people anywhere drinking full sugar sodas all day long.
One have to specifically drink plain water with table sugar or fructose - anything else reverses the effects, search the Shangri-La diet for details.
I'd probably lose weight drinking sugar water because it would kill my appetite by inducing nausea.
The same applies to your starch comment. Yeah, it's hard to overconsume plain rice if you eat it with no sauce and no salt. Not because it's better for you, but because it's unpleasant. It'd also be hard to overconsume pure lard if that were all you could eat. It'd get old immediately and you'd eat enough to survive and not much more because it's so unpleasant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On cannot eat too much starch. Try to eat only potatoes or rice prepared without any oil/butter for couple of weeks with perhaps few vegetables or fruits in addition with any amount of salt or herbs for taste. You learn that it is impossible to overeat as normal appetite controlling signals kicks in and limit the consumed amount. One does not gain weight on such diet and likely even loose some. Similarly with sugar.…
> Try to drink plain water with sugar (not tee/coffee or anything else that bring own taste). It is just impossible to drink too much of it This is blatantly not true in the US, you can observe any number of people anywhere drinking full sugar sodas all day long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C? Of course this point has the same problem of lacking details. But recognizing "modern food" as a culprit is actually less overeaching than putting the blame on a single substance that has been used for centuries.
"Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C?" No; that would fall under "no good reason". Are you sure people "ate less"? Given that we (think we) know that people of the past were also more active (although history is definitely on your side for that one), and how much more active people need to eat to sustain their activity, I would be completely unsurprised to learn that people…
Charts with the data from 1909-2010 can be found here:
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USFoodSupply-1909-2010
The kilocalorie availability per capita per day was pretty consistently in the 3100-3400 range until about 1976 or so. After 1976, the kilocalorie available per capita per day slowly creeps up until it reaches about 4000-4200 calories a day.
This metric is not perfect by any means, but I would say there's a high probability that this correlates to the United States consuming more food, for what it's worth.
It's honestly the one food metric with this particular dataset that stands out. The percentage of calories from sugars and sweeteners, sodium levels, and grain consumption seems consistent with the 1950s.
The only other data metric that stands out with to me (if this dataset can be inferred as a proxy of changes in the food industry) is a large rise in the percentage calories consisting of fat. Specifically, the "salad / cooking oils" rises from being 0.5% of calories available in 1909 to a whopping 15.1% of calories available in 2010.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. I recently cut sugar and bread products and I experienced random dizziness. I was eating plenty of fruit and I was eating natural sugars. I decided to experiment one day; had 4 donuts, bread and butter, and my body felt better. Now the plan is to avoid processed, avoid preservatives, and move towards more natural and organic. I went to the doctor and they said don't wait more than 3-4 hours between meals.
>I went to the doctor and they said don't wait more than 3-4 hours between meals. Do you have a medical condition that requires you to continously eat? If not this advice is suspect at best. Do the people who advise this wake up in the middle of the night to eat? Of course everyone is different so experement and listen to your body. Mine strongly prefers going long periods of time between meals.
Could be a medical condition, a diet issue, could be a mind issue - anxiety/depression, or it could be that from training as an endurance athlete, and now that I've stopped running my body is having trouble adapting. I read some research with 4 groups: male endurance trained, female endurance trained, male not trained, female no trained. After tests , male endurance trained had a heart pattern change and the other 3 subjects didn't have the same change. From 14-23 I trained at higher levels for distance running and now I do light walking.
I consider myself to be an active thinker, meaning that my mind is always contemplating some topic. Does my brain burn more calories than Expected and does it need certain nutrition to maintain health?
The diZiness is a miscommunication between the heart and the brain.
I don't know..I've had dark chocolate and granola trail mix near me between meals the last 2 days and I've had no dizziness.
It seems to me that in otherwise healthy people, they are able to deal with excess salt by getting rid of it, but when people have issues they are unable to do so as efficiently and that's when salt is bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Would "people ate less and suffered less heart diseases time ago?" qualify as C?" No; that would fall under "no good reason". Are you sure people "ate less"? Given that we (think we) know that people of the past were also more active (although history is definitely on your side for that one), and how much more active people need to eat to sustain their activity, I would be completely unsurprised to learn that people…
Unless, of course, you've seen the relevant science, in which case it falls under B. My point was that, even if not exactly science, basic facts are known. Yes, I'm sure people ate less in the past. I've seen the numbers and, to a certain extent, I've seen people changing their habits in my lifetime. This is like a tide, while many studies are focusing in a few waves. That's what my point anyway.