321–330 of 537 posts
How did no one speak up? Would people ever have spoken up if we didnt have social media?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it died due to disease We're discussing roadkill bear . Meaning a bear that was killed on the road (by a vehicle). It's technically true that it still could have any of the scary afflictions you mention, but that's no different than any hunted game, or any industrially farmed animal. Barring prions or poisoning (incredibly and quite rare, respectively), all of those issues can and would be evaluated by someone w…
No, we're discussing a bear that was dead by the road. There's never been a claim it was killed by a vehicle. He found the bear long after whatever occurred did. Also, he then dumped it in central park, so even he thought it wasn't "good meat".
> No, we're discussing a bear that was dead by the road.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roadkill
Your interpretation is wrong, and potentially disingenuous.
Animals killed by vehicles on the road are pretty easy to distinguish from animals that coincidentally died on the road.
> He found the bear long after whatever occurred did. Also, he then dumped it in central park, so even he thought it wasn't "good meat"
So your argument is that there's something wrong with roadkill because it might be afflicted with something that would make it detrimental for human consumption; now you admit that he was able to evaluate its fitness for consumption, and avoided consuming something that wasn't "good meat"?
What point are you making exactly?
Yours is the same argument as right wingers screaming "ewwww insect derived protein is gross, don't you know insects can cause ____".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking the cream out is (by some diet theories) bad. The fat in whole milk slows down the absorption of lactose, leading to a slower rise in blood glucose compared to skim milk. Whole milk is more satiating as well, because of the fat. If you are trying to have some reasonable balance of fat, protein, and carbs in your diet, pushing kids from whole to skim milk is going to move the diet towards consuming more sugar/c…
None of that makes "remove the fats and replace them with sugar" in the post upthread accurate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think common sense here can be a guide though. You don't need sugar at all, excluding high levels of anaerobic exercise. Your liver can produce the glucose your body actually needs from other sources (gluconeogenesis) and a lot of your tissues that use glucose also can use fatty acids or ketones. Fructose isn't needed at all. ("low blood sugar" isn't a symptom of not consuming enough sugar, it's a symptom of a disr…
That has nothing to do with whether excesses of those nutrients cause cardiovascular disease, though. The general consensus is that the healthiest diet is one with 5-10% of total calories from saturated fat. For most people, it's necessary to restrict saturated fat to land in that range. We also need to distinguish between sugar and carbohydrates. Again, the general consensus is that intake of sugar and refined carbo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the mental image of eating roadkill is also unappetizing to me, I have to admit my reaction here is irrational. Eating roadkill isn’t much different from eating wild game you hunted — except with roadkill, it was someone else and their car that killed it accidentally, rather you and a gun intentionally.
If you didn't see it die you don't know what it died of. Shooting something healthy and then dressing it while fresh is different from finding windfall after some unknown amount of time.
No offense, but you're simply ignorant on this topic.
https://scispace.com/pdf/a-guide-to-time-of-death-in-selecte...
This is just one of literally thousands of resources answering this exact question. There are other resources to help evaluate other potential consumption risks. There's no need to pretend that the only animals people can eat are the ones they witnessed being killed; people do otherwise, and have for millennia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of that makes "remove the fats and replace them with sugar" in the post upthread accurate.
When you take a high satiety, high fat item, and replace it with a non-fat, low satiety item, you are in effect replacing fat with sugar, because you will eat/drink more of it to get same number of calories, and same amount of fullness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has nothing to do with whether excesses of those nutrients cause cardiovascular disease, though. The general consensus is that the healthiest diet is one with 5-10% of total calories from saturated fat. For most people, it's necessary to restrict saturated fat to land in that range. We also need to distinguish between sugar and carbohydrates. Again, the general consensus is that intake of sugar and refined carbo…
Funny you should say that after today's FDA announcement. (Not taking any side here just interested in how we determine what is a consensus these days)
My go-to source for nutrition information is Understanding Nutrition by Whitney and Rolfes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only way to get consumed fat into your bloodstream is to first convert it into sugar --- which itself burns some energy. Fat does not get converted into glucose in normal conditions in appreciable quantities. It's used as-is, most of the body can directly utilize fatty acids as a fuel source. Also, body has a lot of mechanisms to deal with sugar. It is normally stored in the liver and then released slowly.
And the muscles. You can’t fight or flight if you have to ask the liver to deliver glycogen. That’s how anaerobic exercise works. You have the fuel but not enough oxygen to burn it so you burn it fuel rich and oxidizer poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think “Everything in Moderation” means you won’t get too much of the bad stuff. The philosophy alludes to the fact that in the modern world, trying to have the ideal diet is exhausting and near impossible. Lack of choice, money, time, education, self control etc. all contribute to you intentionally or unintentionally eating stuff that’s going to do irreparable harm to you. You could be eating salads and someh…
Is it really that exhausting though? I've been on a zero-carb diet for two months (other than thanksgiving or christmas), and it really hasn't been hard at all. If I eat at a restaurant there's some things I can't avoid (seed oils), but otherwise it's not too hard to look at a menu and see things I can eat. The only hard part is to be optimally healthy I need to cook for myself, but that's always been true. In a lot…
Also:
- If you are eating more fish (as opposed to eating meat), you are likely consuming more mercury.
- If you are eating more fresh veggies you are probably ingesting more pesticides.
- If you are easting dark chocolate for its health benefits, you are also ingesting cadmium and other heavy metals.
So all the above should be done in moderation. Even things that seem like unalloyed good can be dangerous. A burst of exercise beyond your conditioning can lead to a CV event. Too much water can be poisonous. Some people get constipation for too much veggies in their diet.
For example, instead to sticking to a narrow faddish supposedly healthy diet, you can enjoy a wide range of foods, which will make it more likely you are getting all the nutrients that will do you good (of course clearly unhealthy food should be avoided).
The body is more complex than we can ever know. There are some general principles for good health (including CV health) that should be followed, but to me it is clear that good health does not arise from a slavish devotion to very detailed set of rules.