Deceptive Food Ads

[Indy107]

Originally Posted by The Big D

The difference is that my beliefs are backed up by sound scientific reasoning.

And I question 'sound scientific reasoning' every time I see an obese child. One that now has a 1 in 3 chance of becoming a diabetic, while they continue to wolf down processed food like products and energy drinks full of HFCS, MSG, Hydrogenated Fats, Aspartame, and who knows what else.

That sound scientific reasoning has been in place for a long time. And just because we've believed something to be true for a long time - doesn't mean it is true. The status quo in America, following that same reasoning is now sickness and disease.

I think it's time to look in a new direction. Author Michael Pollan has a few ideas on this, as does John Robbins. I think T Colin Campbell might have something to say about it too.

As for unhealthy Vegan kids - ask Steve and Erin how theirs are doing. I bet they're healthier than most of us.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

I've seen a label like this on a bag of apples:

"No cholesterol, No fat, No sodium"

Ha. In the early 90's I used to buy the Entemens choclate cake because they made a fat free version. I had no idea sugar would hinder weight loss, I just cut out all possible fat sources.
I did get really lean but lost practically every ounce of muscle I had gained.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by joelr

Ha. In the early 90's I used to buy the Entemens choclate cake because they made a fat free version. I had no idea sugar would hinder weight loss, I just cut out all possible fat sources.
I did get really lean but lost practically every ounce of muscle I had gained.

You got lean? I think you're the only one, LOL.

I also bought the "cut fat out of your diet and everything will be hunky-dory" propaganda back then. I had cut out about 90 to 99% of meat and dairy from my diet.

One of the interesting side-effects of this "healthy" diet is that it made me crave sugar and sweets. Here I was attempting to be on a healthy vegetarian diet, and I was mortified that all I could think about was tootsie rolls, donuts, and cake.

I have never been so sick, depressed, and overweight as I was then.

[The Big D]

Originally Posted by Indy107

And I question 'sound scientific reasoning' every time I see an obese child. One that now has a 1 in 3 chance of becoming a diabetic, while they continue to wolf down processed food like products and energy drinks full of HFCS, MSG, Hydrogenated Fats, Aspartame, and who knows what else.

Now you're just being silly or intentionally deceitful (I have no way to tell which over the internet). You know what science has to say about obese children? That if you decrease their calorie intake by decreasing food quantity, and increase their calorie output via exercise, they'll lose weight and stop being at risk for all the health problems that come with obesity. The exact same is true for obese adults.

And you know what, science is exactly right. If you do those things, you will achieve a healthy weight. It's not even questionable - it's a 100% certainty. People are obese because they have chosen (or for young kids, their parents have chosen) to go against that scientific wisdom. Ranting against science when it's precisely the solution to this problem is simply absurd.

[The Big D]

Originally Posted by liamona

You got lean? I think you're the only one, LOL.

I also bought the "cut fat out of your diet and everything will be hunky-dory" propaganda back then. I had cut out about 90 to 99% of meat and dairy from my diet.

One of the interesting side-effects of this "healthy" diet is that it made me crave sugar and sweets. Here I was attempting to be on a healthy vegetarian diet, and I was mortified that all I could think about was tootsie rolls, donuts, and cake.

I have never been so sick, depressed, and overweight as I was then.

The low fat diet is the worst bullshit ever pawned off on people trying to lose weight. It CAN work - you can eat literally anything and lose weight if you eat little enough of it and exercise enough - but it works worse than all other possible alternatives.

What does work is keeping carbs to a reasonable minimum by cutting out most simple carbs (some fruit sugars being the exception) and having lots of fat and protein, keeping quantities reasonable across the board, and then exercising with a focus on building muscle. Cardio's good too, but is kind of a secondary concern when it comes to weight loss.

[Indy107]

Originally Posted by The Big D

You know what science has to say about obese children? That if you decrease their calorie intake by decreasing food quantity, and increase their calorie output via exercise, they'll lose weight and stop being at risk for all the health problems that come with obesity. The exact same is true for obese adults.

And you know what, science is exactly right. If you do those things, you will achieve a healthy weight. It's not even questionable - it's a 100% certainty. People are obese because they have chosen (or for young kids, their parents have chosen) to go against that scientific wisdom. Ranting against science when it's precisely the solution to this problem is simply absurd.

I would love to see a comparison study done.

In Group 1 - you can have x number of kids, eat their normal everyday foods, but cut back on calories, and exercise more.

In Group 2 - I would introduce my kids to a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle, concentrating on Nutrition alone.

And then measure the results after say 10 years, or maybe 20.

Getting kids to cut back on calories will feel like deprivation to them. I just don't think it would last. And as I understand it, you're still allowing them to eat anything they want. You cannot lose any permanent weight while eating highly processed, high fat, nutrient deficient, junk food. That sounds like telling Jr, eat only half your pizza, and then go run around the block and you'll be healthier.

Cutting off the chemicals, artificial flavorings, colors, scents, sugars, MSG, etc etc, will be hard no doubt. But as your body detoxes, you do lose the cravings. And once the chemicals are out of your body, while you are eating foods that actually give it the vitamins, minerals, and nutrients it needs, you will feel a surge of energy. And you will begin to feel really, really, good. And with this rush of energy and well being - you will naturally WANT to start exercising more. You won't be able to help it. It's a cascading effect. And yes, I am speaking from experience.

I'm not trying to say that my way of eating is the only answer. In fact I'll be the first to admit that I may be totally wrong. But I do know that after a year of it, I am still losing weight, and I feeling better and better every day. I never get sick, never get a cold, and rarely ever get a headache anymore. In fact, I'm 47, and can run circles around the 20 somethings I work with, who drink their energy drinks, eat their meats, and go out for fast food every night. They are constantly sick. Always have a cold. Constantly complain about their diarrhea or constipation.... Are slow and sluggish..... And the few who are older than me? Who used to eat just like these youngsters do now? They are diabetic, one has cancer, one has heart disease, some have gout...........

Take it however you will.

And remember, many of these 'scientific studies' are actually bought and paid for by the same companies that are trying to get you to buy their product.

[liamona]

Speaking of fat kids and fat in diet, recently a link to this Swedish study was posted in the Hyperlid blog. I don't know how good a study it is, but it concluded that

"Intake of saturated fat was negatively associated to anthropometry and children who consumed full fat milk regularly had a lower BMI compared to those who seldom or never drank milk"

and

"Saturated fat and intake of full fat milk were inversely associated with BMI."

Here's a graph from the study:

[The Big D]

I likewise don't know anything about that study per se, but that conclusion is pretty simple biology. Fat, when consumed, turns into blood sugar very slowly and inefficiently. Thus in effect fat calories count less, and the stable blood sugar will help you avoid putting on fat or being hungry in the future.

[The Big D]

Originally Posted by Indy107

Getting kids to cut back on calories will feel like deprivation to them.

This is, in my experience, totally untrue. I've known lots of kids that were very fit and at an ideal weight because of sports, and who ate more or less whatever they wanted in reasonable quantities. I never heard a single one suggest they were deprived. If they were hungry, they would just eat.

I just don't think it would last. And as I understand it, you're still allowing them to eat anything they want. You cannot lose any permanent weight while eating highly processed, high fat, nutrient deficient, junk food. That sounds like telling Jr, eat only half your pizza, and then go run around the block and you'll be healthier.

This is where you go off the deep end. You CAN eat half a pizza, work out for real (running around the block isn't enough to count) and come out fine or in calorie deficit, at least if you're male and reasonably sized. I know this for a fact because I do it all the time. Half a 14" pizza is roughly 1300 calories, depending on the exact pizza in question. An hour's serious workout is roughly 700 depending on what you're doing. So a kid who eats half a pizza and then does a 2 hour basketball practice or whatever is probably SHORT 100 calories past where he would be if he skipped dinner. He's going to be damn hungry - he should have eaten more like 3/4 of the pizza and even then with afterburn and muscle repair/building he may end up net losing weight out of the exchange. It's highly unlikely 3/4 of a pizza is going to leave someone feeling deprived.

[joelr]

Originally Posted by liamona

You got lean? I think you're the only one, LOL.

I also bought the "cut fat out of your diet and everything will be hunky-dory" propaganda back then. I had cut out about 90 to 99% of meat and dairy from my diet.

One of the interesting side-effects of this "healthy" diet is that it made me crave sugar and sweets. Here I was attempting to be on a healthy vegetarian diet, and I was mortified that all I could think about was tootsie rolls, donuts, and cake.

I have never been so sick, depressed, and overweight as I was then.

I got lean but I was around 185. Which is fine but I was trying to look like an old school bodybuilder who would be that lean but weigh ~225.
So that was a failure.

[DerekMB]

I'm not too familiar with it but I think it's also important to note that there is another kind of body type that pretty much subsists on fat instead of carbs and protein like most athletes. Swimmers in particular are known for consuming an awful lot of fat in their diets. These are the types of people who swim the english channel. As I understand it, fat is burned/used up more slowly in the body than the other main nutrients and so provides longer, more sustainable, energy, which is essential for long distance swimming. Also good insulation

Originally Posted by liamona

Speaking of fat kids and fat in diet, recently a link to this Swedish study was posted in the Hyperlid blog. I don't know how good a study it is, but it concluded that

"Intake of saturated fat was negatively associated to anthropometry and children who consumed full fat milk regularly had a lower BMI compared to those who seldom or never drank milk"

and

"Saturated fat and intake of full fat milk were inversely associated with BMI."

Here's a graph from the study:

This seems somewhat misleading as Milk has a lot of other stuff in it besides saturated fat like essential amino acids Why not just drink lowfat or better yet, skim milk -which has potassium!- and get the best of both worlds? Saturated fat is really bad for you. And you really don't need that much to begin with.

[Indy107]

Originally Posted by The Big D

This is where you go off the deep end. You CAN eat half a pizza, work out for real (running around the block isn't enough to count) and come out fine or in calorie deficit, at least if you're male and reasonably sized. I know this for a fact because I do it all the time. Half a 14" pizza is roughly 1300 calories, depending on the exact pizza in question. An hour's serious workout is roughly 700 depending on what you're doing. So a kid who eats half a pizza and then does a 2 hour basketball practice or whatever is probably SHORT 100 calories past where he would be if he skipped dinner. He's going to be damn hungry - he should have eaten more like 3/4 of the pizza and even then with afterburn and muscle repair/building he may end up net losing weight out of the exchange. It's highly unlikely 3/4 of a pizza is going to leave someone feeling deprived.

You're confusing weight loss with good health. Good health has so much more to do with the quality of food - not just the calories in vs out. What are you getting in that 14" pizza - besides 1300 calories? Processed white flour, salt, sugar, processed tomato sauce, processed meats, processed cheese, saturated fat, cholesterol..... It's all empty calories. Where's the vitamins? Minerals? Nutrients? And I'm not talking about synthetic chemicals that are injected back into the food after the fact. I'm talking about the building blocks that our body needs to thrive.

What I'm saying is - that when you focus on nutrition - giving the body what it really needs - weight loss is a by-product.

I remember when I was young, I too, could eat whatever I wanted. My metabolism was high enough that I would burn off whatever I ate. But as you get older, and you'll have to trust me on this one, your metabolism will slow down. Your internal organs get tired of trying to process all the junk you've swallowed over the years. And when that happens - look out.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by The Big D

Of those listed, the following are not fruits or vegetables: nuts, seeds, peanut butter, olive oil, legumes, and lentils.

Of those you listed, the following are fruits or vegetables: nuts(fruit), seeds(fruit, or at least, part of), peanut butter(peanuts are a nut), olive oil probably comes from olives, and olives are a fruit, legumes are fruit, and lentils are a type of legume.

But I'm sure you knew that, seeing as how you seem to know so much.

[The Big D]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Of those you listed, the following are fruits or vegetables: nuts(fruit), seeds(fruit, or at least, part of), peanut butter(peanuts are a nut), olive oil probably comes from olives, and olives are a fruit, legumes are fruit, and lentils are a type of legume.

But I'm sure you knew that, seeing as how you seem to know so much.

Nuts are not a fruit. Neither is oil or any sort of bean or legume. Nice try though.

I can't believe I actually had to post this.

[Gene]

Originally Posted by The Big D

Nuts are not a fruit. Neither is oil or any sort of bean or legume. Nice try though.

I can't believe I actually had to post this.

Here in Midwestern farm country we think of green beans as vegetables.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by The Big D

Nuts are not a fruit. Neither is oil or any sort of bean or legume. Nice try though.

I can't believe I actually had to post this.

Look it up. Even wikipedia says nuts are fruit.
Nut (fruit) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Nut is a hard shelled fruit of some plants that has an indehiscent seed."

Legume - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A legume in botanical writing is a plant in the family Fabaceae (or Leguminosae), or a fruit of these specific plants. A 'legume' fruit is a simple dry fruit that develops from a simple carpel and usually dehisces (opens along a seam) on two sides. A common name for this type of fruit is a pod, although "pod" is also applied to a few other fruit types"

[The Big D]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Look it up. Even wikipedia says nuts are fruit.
Nut (fruit) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Nut is a hard shelled fruit of some plants that has an indehiscent seed."

Legume - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A legume in botanical writing is a plant in the family Fabaceae (or Leguminosae), or a fruit of these specific plants. A 'legume' fruit is a simple dry fruit that develops from a simple carpel and usually dehisces (opens along a seam) on two sides. A common name for this type of fruit is a pod, although "pod" is also applied to a few other fruit types"

And yet the dictionary and every respectable dietary source disagrees. Funny how one of these sources can be edited by anyone - you know as well as I that that page could say nuts are a poison in 5 minutes if I wanted.

here's the relevant definitions of fruit, taken from Webster, so you don't misuse the word:

b (1) : the usually edible reproductive body of a seed plant; especially : one having a sweet pulp associated with the seed <the fruit of the tree> (2) : a succulent plant part (as the petioles of a rhubarb plant) used chiefly in a dessert or sweet course

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by The Big D

And yet the dictionary and every respectable dietary source disagrees. Funny how one of these sources can be edited by anyone - you know as well as I that that page could say nuts are a poison in 5 minutes if I wanted.

here's the relevant definitions of fruit, taken from Webster, so you don't misuse the word:

So nuts aren't fruit because they have a hard shell? Some nuts are only seeds, others are the fruit. Seeds are a part of a fruit. If you put nuts are poison on wikipedia, it will be changed very quickly. There are a lot of other sources saying nuts are fruit. On a fruitarian diet, you can eat nuts and seeds. Legumes are a fruit of a legume plant, so you can eat those too. You can give the word fruit a general definition that it is the sweet edible part of a plant, like an apple or orange, but when you define a nut, it is defined as a hardshelled fruit. Next you will tell me a watermelon is not a fruit, it is a melon.

[Beuford]

Oh, and heres some more definitions from webster.

Definition: Seed
Seed
Noun
1. A small hard fruit.

Definition: Nut
Nut
Noun
1. Usually large hard-shelled seed.

Definitions: Legume
Legume
Noun
1. An erect or climbing bean or pea plant of the family Leguminosae.

2. The fruit or seed of any of various bean or pea plants consisting of a two-valved case that splits along both sides when ripe and having the seeds attached to one edge of the valves.

So now we've established that nuts are a fruit, we can stop correcting people when they list them under fruits.

[Beuford]

Sorry I was looking at the wrong dictionary, from your one, here is the definiton of nut:

1 a (1) : a hard-shelled dry fruit or seed with a separable rind or shell and interior kernel (2) : the kernel of a nut b : a dry indehiscent one-seeded fruit with a woody pericarp

[The Big D]

And the wacko marches on...

Nuts are not fruits. They are totally different concepts both from a biological and dietary point of view. They are different parts of the plant, have different nutrients, and in fact have next to nothing on common other than that they both come from plants.

Now, if you wanted to argue that say the husk of a peanut was a fruit, you would sort of have a point from a strictly biological point of view. But you would still be completely wrong from a dietary point of view, which is what this thread is about.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by The Big D

And the wacko marches on...

Nuts are not fruits. They are totally different concepts both from a biological and dietary point of view. They are different parts of the plant, have different nutrients, and in fact have next to nothing on common other than that they both come from plants.

Now, if you wanted to argue that say the husk of a peanut was a fruit, you would sort of have a point from a strictly biological point of view. But you would still be completely wrong from a dietary point of view, which is what this thread is about.

You obviously didn't read my post. I used your own dictionaries definition which clearly says nuts are fruit.