Reading Health Books Can Be Confusing

[Andrew Brunelle]

I am here to present a situation about health books and fad diet books. Here is the problem I see: If all diet books are to be treated equally, then we have a big problem. Most of them give conflicting advice to other books I read, so I get to the point where I do not know what to eat. One book says this is bad, while the other says that same food item is good. My approach to this is to take the concepts from these books that are consistent in all of the books, or at least most of them, and go from there. For example:

• No processed foods
• More vegetables and some fruits
• More water
• Less cooked food
• Less sugar
• Organic produce is better
• 4-6 meals a day vs. 3
• Some others I cannot recall at this time

I guess you could call this the common thread approach. Look for the common thread throughout and you can be almost completely sure those work. I am not one to put the nutritional experts up on a pedastal as what works for one person certainly may or may not work for another. What I have noticed is cutting out certain foods and relying on the healhty choice vs. the processed choice does work very well. That should be common sense anyway. I guess you can look at diet and lifestyle as common sense anyway. Let me know what you think about all these differing viewpoints and the common threads even the most opposing viewpoints have in common.

[groove88]

That to me sounds like a very good logical approach. Often wondered about the conflicting differences myself. The other factor that can chuck a small spanner in the works is genetics. Some people jus all out can't eat a particular food, one mans food is another mans poison. But thats something that i think takes a bit of research by oneself. But those general principles you outlined are what i go by to reduce my acne and stomuch problems. And do work, but im still learning

[RT Wolf]

Great idea. The question becomes, is this the 20% of advice which makes 80% of the difference? Are the differences even that important?

[Keith]

Sounds like a great approach.

A couple of points that will hopefully make things clearer rather than murkier.

(1) When 'they' say that something is bad for us, they often mean it's bad for us in excess, not that we should avoid it entirely.

(2) Things are often good and bad for us in different ways. Fatty ocean fish is great because it contains Omega 3 essential fatty acids, but contains mercury. Red meat is full of iron and other nutrients, but increases your chance of bowel cancer.

Both these things indicate that moderation is key. Of course 'moderation' varies from food to food - a moderate amount of butter is a lot less than a moderate amount of lettuce.

[Dimitry]

A bit late jumping in but I reached the same conclusion myself after trying out different diets the last year. I do eat a lot healthier now consistently. Get lots of fruits/veggies each week with lesser meat intake. My meals are also a little more spaced out and more/day in smaller portions.

I still like to eat what I consider junk food (chinese, pizza) but that's very rare. I would say no on average once every 3-4 weeks. Take out Thai I would say every 1-2 weeks.

Cook a lot more myself now too.

[escapee]

Red meat is full of iron and other nutrients, but increases your chance of bowel cancer.

When you nuke or process your food to high temperature and blend it with adulterated vegetable oil/additives/hormone . It doenst matter if it's meat or plant food . It's going to cause damage to a person's health . Oh yes, IMHO, I believe red meat (esp grass fed ) at its natural form is not a carcinogenic food though i dont eat beef myself.

Myths and Truths About Beef

The table he produced showed high rates of colon cancer in European countries and low rates of colon cancer in Japan, and concluded that there was a positive effect, in other words, that saturated fat, the kind found in beef, caused colon cancer. What the data actually showed was that consumption of damaged polyunsaturated vegetable oils, not saturated animal fats, was associated with the incidence of colon cancer. And Wynder forgot to mention that Asians have much higher rates than Americans of other types of cancers, particularly cancers of the liver, pancreas, stomach, esophagus and lungs.

Two American studies conducted in the 1990's have found a higher risk of colon cancer among those who eat red meat.8 However, no study done in Europe has ever shown an association between meat consumption and cancer.9 This suggests that European sausage and luncheon meat, included in the rubric of "meat consumption," are prepared by traditional methods that require few additives, while the similar products in the United States contain many carcinogenic preservatives and flavorings. Unfortunately, the American Cancer Society's 1996 recommendation that Americans cut down on their consumption of meat—particularly fatty meat—in order to avoid cancer makes no distinction between fresh meats and those that have been embalmed with modern chemicals.

[escapee]

Understanding Fats and Oils

Tips on Cooking oil

If you must cook with vegetable oils other than coconut or red palm, the order of preference is olive, peanut, and sesame. These three oils have the highest percentages of oleic fatty acid, the relatively stable monounsaturated fatty acid. Although canola oil also contains a large percentage of monounsaturated fatty acids, it should be avoided because it has a high sulfur content and goes bad very easily. Canola oil is highly susceptible to developing trans fatty acids during processing, making it similar to margarine and shortening.

Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids
When a fatty acid chain is missing several hydrogen atoms, it has two or more double bonds. These fatty acids are called polyunsaturated fatty acids, poly, because there is more than one double bond. Because each double bond represents a kink in the fatty acid chain, polyunsaturated fatty acids have two or more kinks, and are therefore very loosely packed, and remain liquid even in the refrigerator. They are highly unstable, and go bad quite easily when exposed to heat and light. When polyunsaturated fatty acids go bad, free radicals are created. Free radicals are compounds that travel around in your blood, causing damage to just about everything that they come into contact with. Consistent exposure to free radicals has been strongly linked to the development of tumors, cardiovascular disease, premature aging, autoimmune diseases, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and cataracts.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by escapee

Tips on Cooking oil

What about Macadamia oil? Is it good?

[escapee]

From Wikipedia

Macadamia oil contains approximately 60% oleic acid, 19% palmitoleic acid, 2.8% Linoleic acid and 1% Linolenic acid.

I think it's similar to Olive oil with its high monosaturated fatty acid content. I personally use palm oil for cooking and olive oil for salad/steamed vege.

Olive, peanut, and sesame oil can withstand some exposure to heat without becoming harmful, but it is best to avoid using these oils for cooking on a regular basis. Olive oil is best eaten raw or added to your food after it is off the stove.

[kat]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I am here to present a situation about health books and fad diet books. Here is the problem I see: If all diet books are to be treated equally, then we have a big problem. Most of them give conflicting advice to other books I read, so I get to the point where I do not know what to eat. One book says this is bad, while the other says that same food item is good.

Why on Earth would anyone treat all diet books equally? Some are well-written, internally consistent, with many citations, based on years of experience with the recommendations, etc; others are slapped together by people with no experience, taking little care in the process.

evaluate.htm: How to search the web, by fravia+: evaluate is worth reading, although, or even because, the tone and view ('"I imagine" - he said - "that you already know that most of the books... and data... around us are next to useless, don't you?"') is rather different from the stevepavlina.com norm.

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

I guess you could call this the common thread approach. Look for the common thread throughout and you can be almost completely sure those work. I am not one to put the nutritional experts up on a pedastal as what works for one person certainly may or may not work for another. What I have noticed is cutting out certain foods and relying on the healhty choice vs. the processed choice does work very well. That should be common sense anyway. I guess you can look at diet and lifestyle as common sense anyway. Let me know what you think about all these differing viewpoints and the common threads even the most opposing viewpoints have in common.

Your approach is sensible. I think the value of "common sense" books is that common sense varies widely, and that reminders can be helpful.