Personal Development for Smart People Forums

Personal Development for Smart PeopleTM Forums

 

Go Back   Personal Development for Smart People Forums > Personal Development > Health & Fitness

Notices

Health & Fitness Health issues, diet, exercise, sleep, fitness, endurance, flexibility, strength, physical skills, sports, health habits, healing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2007, 03:02 PM   #1 (permalink)
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Home
Posts: 2,578
Andrew Brunelle is a splendid one to beholdAndrew Brunelle is a splendid one to beholdAndrew Brunelle is a splendid one to beholdAndrew Brunelle is a splendid one to beholdAndrew Brunelle is a splendid one to beholdAndrew Brunelle is a splendid one to beholdAndrew Brunelle is a splendid one to behold
Default Reading Health Books Can Be Confusing

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.
Andrew Brunelle is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2007, 10:27 PM   #2 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 56
groove88 is on a distinguished road
Default

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
groove88 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2007, 11:32 PM   #3 (permalink)
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto, Canuckland
Posts: 1,737
RT Wolf is on a distinguished road
Default

Great idea. The question becomes, is this the 20% of advice which makes 80% of the difference? Are the differences even that important?
RT Wolf is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 03:17 AM   #4 (permalink)
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,139
Keith will become famous soon enough
Default

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.
Keith is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 07:09 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 201
Dimitry is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Dimitry is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 09:12 AM   #6 (permalink)
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,243
escapee is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Last edited by escapee; 04-15-2007 at 09:23 AM.
escapee is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 09:20 AM   #7 (permalink)
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,243
escapee is on a distinguished road
Default

Understanding Fats and Oils

Tips on Cooking oil

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Last edited by escapee; 04-15-2007 at 10:08 AM.
escapee is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 09:50 AM   #8 (permalink)
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,139
Keith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by escapee View Post
Tips on Cooking oil
What about Macadamia oil? Is it good?
Keith is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 09:57 AM   #9 (permalink)
Family Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,243
escapee is on a distinguished road
Default

From Wikipedia
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by escapee; 04-15-2007 at 10:16 AM.
escapee is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2007, 10:02 AM   #10 (permalink)
kat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 212
kat will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle View Post
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.
kat is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photoreading Chris Personal Effectiveness 180 10-03-2011 11:01 PM
speedreading vs. photoreading Mind-On Personal Effectiveness 30 03-28-2011 07:00 PM
What are you reading ? River Fun & Recreation 56 09-08-2007 12:45 AM
My reading (long) carenkh Erin Pavlina 3 02-15-2007 09:07 PM
Multi-dimensional Health.... (I'm not a body; it's just where I live) craigharper.com Character & Contribution 4 12-23-2006 11:49 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0
Copyright © 2010 by Pavlina LLC