Nutritional Science almost never shows up on this board, so I thought I'd make a thread about it.
I have a couple questions about nutrition:
1. Is saturated fat or dietary cholesterol bad for you? Does your health decline the more you increase the intake of either of the two.
2. Why do students in medicine rarely have take classes on nutrition? Wouldn't nutrition be the most important aspect of health?
3. Why is there no consensus on Low Carb vs. High Carb diets? Why is there rarely any consensus on nutritional information, despite the amount of studies preformed?
Finally, it took more than 7000 scientific studies for the Surgeon General to make his famous report regarding cigarettes. This was most likely due to the fact that cigarettes were so deeply infused within our culture, and how Big Tobacco tried to fight change every step of the way. Can we apply this situation to the current state of Nutritional Science?
I started training for endurance athletics (long distance running and road bike racing) back in 2008 and the first thing I did was get my diet sorted not only for training, but for general health.
2. Nutrition is definitely the most important aspect of health next to physical activity (loading your skeleton, stressing your muscles, etc.) If you want to understand why nutrition as a science and as a conscious thought is suppressed in most of the world you are going to have to TRAVEL DEEP DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE AND SWALLOW BIG-ASS REDPILLS THAT WILL BLOW YOUR FUCKING WEAK, MALNOURISHED MIND INTO PIECES. WOW.
3. Carbohydrates are your body's main source of energy and also happens to be the most available form of energy to obtain from digestion (carbs are easy to break down). How much carbs you decide to include into your diet should reflect your activity levels.
If you are a degenerate piece of shit and do not exercise at all (failure as a biological organism / waste of life) and consume video games and anime all day I recommend eating less carbs.
If you exercise anywhere from five times a week to every day with high intensity or longer duration (hour+) then you need to maintain your glycogen stores with a sufficient amount of carbohydrates before training and within two hours after completion.
There are calculators for this shit to give you a rough idea of the proper ratios based on your height and weight along with what type of exercise you are engaging in.
Has there been any research to support your conclusions, other than anecdotal ones?
I am not trying to discredit what you are saying, in fact I agree with most if it. But why does this imply good health? If anything it makes it sound as if it only effects how much energy you want to intake, which really is more of an example of the idea of calories in vs. calories out.
That's 4 questions but w/e
>1. Is saturated fat or dietary cholesterol bad for you? Does your health decline the more you increase the intake of either of the two.
Saturated fat: yes, after a certain (low) point.
Cholesterol: There is good and bad cholesterol.
>2. Why do students in medicine rarely have take classes on nutrition? Wouldn't nutrition be the most important aspect of health?
They do have to take classes on dietetics, as in what sick people should eat. But because medical research is driven by big pharma, the focus of medical schools is on curing people who come in sick, preferably with expensive medicines.
>3. Why is there no consensus on Low Carb vs. High Carb diets? Why is there rarely any consensus on nutritional information, despite the amount of studies preformed?
I thought it had been established that of course tons of carbs are bad, but "low carb" diets like Atkins were a stupid 2003-era fad.
>Finally, it took more than 7000 scientific studies for the Surgeon General to make his famous report regarding cigarettes. This was most likely due to the fact that cigarettes were so deeply infused within our culture, and how Big Tobacco tried to fight change every step of the way. Can we apply this situation to the current state of Nutritional Science?
I think it's much more important to focus on finding risk factors for developing cancer than on drugs and techniques for curing it. But as long as Big Pharma calls the shots, no one is ever going to study risk factors. Cancer prevention doesn't make anyone any money or fame. Cancer curing makes you a hero and puts you on the cover of Time and makes you $$$.
We're learning more all the time about how symbiotic we are with our gut flora. I predict that in 20 years gut flora therapies (injecting new "good" bugs into our rectums, etc.) are going to be big big big.
If you continue to consume carbs after your glycogen levels in your liver and muscles have peaked some of the excess is stored as fat. When you are talking about how carbs effect your health directly you need to consider your activity levels for this reason. Carbohydrates themselves have no adverse health effects (they are just fuel that is broken down into sugars) unless you are consuming more than you need on a consistent basis. You may also want to consider processed carbs vs. carbs obtained from raw, unprepared, or unrefined sources.
I ride (FULL CARBON ROAD BIKE WOW) with a 65 year old man on the weekends and we do about 100K with 3,000 meters of climbing in near freezing temperatures with up to 30mph gusts in the winter in FAGGOT ASS LYCRA KITS. Everyone thinks riding a bike or running is pure cardio, but try going uphill for three hours on most training rides and your legs will explode into juicy fucking hams.
Basically, you are a weak little bitch if you don't do cardio. I don't care how big you are. If you can't keep up with my skinny ass around the block you are pretty pathetic desu, senpai.
You also need carbs for basic bodily functions so I would not recommend cutting out one of your bodies main sources of energy. It would also prove to be near impossible unless you want to eat only meat and dairy for the rest of your fat life.
>I thought it had been established that of course tons of carbs are bad, but "low carb" diets like Atkins were a stupid 2003-era fad.
Ask the ketogenic people that, or even, to some extent, paleolithic dieters.
>You may also want to consider processed carbs vs. carbs obtained from raw, unprepared, or unrefined sources.
There is a school of thought in nutrition that the only importance in diet is macronutrients. If that was so, wouldn't it not make a different on what your source of carbs is?
The difference is different kinds of carbs get turned by the body into glucose at different rates (see glycemic index) and ideally you want something with a high glycemic index so it doesn't all become glucose at once causing an insulin spike
>But because medical research is driven by big pharma, the focus of medical schools is on curing people who come in sick, preferably with expensive medicines.
Who the fuck do you think has the money to fund controlled large scale clinical studies on diets for general health?
How would you profit from this investment?
Until someone fronts the bill all we have are correlational studies which are worthless.
Copy the diet & activity regimen of someone who is built how you want to be built, this would be a good start.
I don't know why everyone feels the need to be told by some central authority on what works when there are 7 billion examples walking around to pick from.
I am 52 and just finished eleven weeks on a strict ketogenic diet easily less than 40 grams carbohydrates a day.
Egg,s Coconut Oil, Butter, Coconut Milk, Heavy Cream, Cheeses, Avocado, Macadamia Nuts, Olives and Olive Oil.
I just spent the afternoon lifting weights and feel pretty good. sitting here naked with the heat off where its 25 degrees outdoors.
Read up on what Low Density Lipoprotein can do to your coronary arteries and High Density Lipoprotein as well. That's why you need nutrition before you go ahead and perform bypass.
Come on, I think most of us know about the relationship that LDL and HDL have on your health. There was even a statement made by Dr. William Roberts that cholesterol was the sole factor of your risk of heart disease. This is common stuff.
The reason is there is no independent gubernamental organ that works to protect the consumers. Only when the consumers protest or the damage is very obvious to the public then some measures are taken, there are numerous examples of this.
Nobody is going to pay for a study that may reduce profits, if someone does an independent study, nobody is going to care about it, if someone does, a bit of diffamation will whipe it out anyways.
Sounds a lot like conspiration, but its just business, get used to it.
no I have never had any blood work done to assess my health.
I have been taking larger doses on Nicotinic Acid (Niacin) for a while and include many elements which are suggested to have beneficial effects on the cardiovascular system like cacao, .
There is of late much news coming out that this sat fat fear is based on old flawed research .
I have limited my simple carb intake for many years now and It seems to my understanding those combined with LDL are the problem by way of Arterial Plaques.
Not true at all.
Processed meats ARE carcinogenic. This is indisputable. The WHO has determined that processed meats CAUSE colon cancer, they are in a Group 1 category
>This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.
In the case of red meat, which is classified in Group 2A, which means that red meats are PROBABLY carcinogenic to humans.
>In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.
Also note that research long before the WHO findings have reached conclusions similar to this. The problem is the WHO has to make absolutely sure that their claims are accurate before they can say anything, but a huge majority of research has shown these findings for decades now.
It depends. A good fresh sausage is essentially the same as regular meat. Most sausages are heavily processed, though. I don't know the details. Processing generally means the addition of various chemicals and other additives, as well as various strange industrial processes that are applied to the food.
My favourite example of processing: chicken breast is put in a huge vat of saline solution, and an electric current is applied across the solution. The current causes the chicken to suck up some quantity of the solution, inflating it. This increases its volume by something like 20%, essentially by puffing it up with water. They can still sell it as 100% chicken, of course. There are probably significantly more disturbing examples than this.
I don't really see how processed meat could be more carcinogenic than regular meat unless they're literally adding carcinogenics to it. Sounds to me like what those epidemiological studies find is just unhealthy people getting cancer and eating processed meat.
>Is saturated fat or dietary cholesterol bad for you? Does your health decline the more you increase the intake of either of the two.
Saturated fat is bad for you and your health does decline the more you increase your intake.
Dietary Cholesterol is more complicated. What Cholesterol source, besides phytosterols, do nothing different from intake. We also need Cholesterol in our diets. However, too much and your body produces too much Low density lipoproteins (LDL cholesterol) that are unhealthy.
Processed meat basically is any meat that has been tampered with to increase its shelf life or taste.
"Suspected carcinogenic chemicals can form during meat processing. These include N-nitroso compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
Cooking the meat at high temperatures, especially on a barbecue, can also produce these dangerous chemicals.
However, the WHO's experts admit that the cancer risk is "not yet fully understood".
From the BBC
However, you shouldn't dismiss epidemiological studies lightly, as they are an important tool in medicine. Remember that the WHO is basically a house-hold name, and they don't go around making statements like "processed meats cause cancer" lightly. If you look it up, the amount of research is staggering, and if you had been following it, you would have probably come to this conclusion long ago.