Sunday, January 25, 2009

Good Calories, Bad Calories.....a new lease on life

I must say I was a bit skeptical when Adam gave me the book "Good calories, Bad calories." Hold your thoughts until you read Adam's overview. This book will change the way you live. Below in all his writing majesty I present Adam Jensen's new lease on life:

So, first of all, I don't drink coffee, I don't agree with wasting hours of the day, sitting and talking about what you could be doing,instead of actually doing it, I don't like blogs, and I used to not like fat people because I thought they were lazy. My view has drastically changed recently (about fat people, not coffee or blogs)to sympathizing with their ignorance, and to the hatred of the government, education system and companies that lie to us, and businesses that profit off it – like fast food and coffee shops. That said, I owe the discovery of the book to old man Shryock. I'm just more persistently persuasive, or annoying, depending on who you ask,at pushing my ideas on people. Not trying to convince people to change anything here, just want people to be aware of what you, society,politics, and mega-corporations are doing to the health of yourself and everyone else on the planet. Since the 50's, when government, the FDA and the American Heart Association, began vigorously promoting lowfat, high carb diets, for a plethora of idealistic and, at the time,common sense reasons, to improve Americas health, thing have gotten massively worse. Each decade, more and more are not only overweight,but obese, suffering from heart disease, high blood pressure, high LDLand VLDL cholesterol, diabetes, endocrine cancers, dementia,depression, Alzheimer's, and several other supposedly diet manageable or "genetic" diseases – as if we're recently evolving to express genes during the past 100 years we've been carrying for millions of years.Why then are we still following the same guidelines, which have been ambiguously "proven" for 100 years, to the point that the NIH just granted another $200 million to prove low fat, high carb diets will cause weight loss? If things were so clear, why are we still studyingwhy low fat diets aren't working? Unfortunately, since the powers that be, have chosen yet again, to fund the wrong studies, asking the wrong questions, due to pride, ego and political issues, or heavy corporate and pharmaceutical influence, seeking to clarify the low fat theory, in the mean time, assuming it is correct, while the right questions are assumed to be incorrect without even asking.Who has the most to lose? Big business, Coca-Cola, General Mills,GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, etc. Sound frighteningly like the tobacco industry? These companies know humans are addictable, and are successfully capitalizing off that little weakness. Food industries spend billions on advertising and research on maximizing taste vs.minimizing production costs, not what is beneficial to humans.Cheapest way to make something taste good, add sugar, or even cheaper,high fructose corn syrup. Pharmaceutical industry's billions of profit depends on people being unhealthy. Instead of researching how to prevent disease, it's more profitable to keep people sick,dependant on drugs. I saw a cartoon once, of a kid walking with his father by a huge factory kicking out sky filling plumes of smoke.After the son asked what the factory was for, his father explained that it was to make the little pills they have to take every morning,so they can breath the toxic smoke that fills the air… See the connection? WTF?Being immersed in oral health for the last 3 years, my obvious question is, although we are one of the most evolutionarily sophisticated beings, why would something that is apparently sobeneficial to your heart and brain so destructive to your teeth?Research has conclusively shown that acid-producing bacteria cause carious decay in teeth, only when fed fermentable carbohydrates, most notably sucrose. Sucrose, a.k.a. table sugar, is now being consumed by a typical American at 150 lbs. a year, versus 10 lbs/year 200 years ago. Why? Because we are led to believe that the only way to behealthy is to read labels, and avoid high fat foods. Look on cereal boxes, most say ADA or FDA or AHA approved to lower heart disease, or this product is a heart healthy choice. "Take the Special K challenge," eat massive amounts of carbohydrates, and still be hungry after an hour. Sweet. Point being, your body is smarter than you,and by dissolving your teeth away, it's trying to protect the vitalorgans that you are unknowingly damaging, causing high blood pressure,GI cancers, insulin resistance and obesity, from the insulin response instigated by those carbs. Ever asked why 90% of people at the gymare overweight? You think these people are there to justify overeating chunks of lard and trans fats? No, they see themselves gaining weight, so in addition to eating less fat and more carbohydrates, they workout, making themselves more hungry, feeding themselves with more"health" carbohydrates, and still getting bigger. I'm not saying carbs and exercise aren't good. Obviously fueling, refueling, and recovering with carbs during and after intense exercise is necessary.Why don't the bad side effects of eating sugar happen to elite athletes? Unlike when we are inactive, the way our body is incredibly designed, the working muscle does not need insulin to move sugar out of the blood into the cell. The problem develops when we eat mostly carbs while sedentary the remainder of the day, while in school, at the office, driving, or at home.Random thought, if fat is so fattening, and carbs are so good, then why do people get so fat drinking malt sugar filled beer? Ever thought that the starchy, high glycemic potatoes in French fries might be the problem, not the salt and oil? What about the unrefined flourin hamburger buns instead of the cheese and red meet? Or pizza crust and not the pepperoni and sausage? Or the example the writer uses,the toast and not the butter?Pippo pointed out that our ancestors lived to eat. Our only function in life was to find food, and reproduce of course. Thousands of years later, now that life is more modern and comfortable, we are obsessed with spending as little as possible on food, and as much as possible on cars, houses and toys. Crap thing is, after a while, we're sounhealthy, due to our innocent ignorance, that we can't even enjoy all those excess amenities.Last thought: why are herbivores like elephants and hippos so fat, and carnivores, like lions and tigers, so lean and fit, when both seem tolay around most of the day?I'm not trying to convince anyone to change anything, or even be persuaded by anything I wrote. I just want people to be aware thatthere is a book out there, backed by thousands of research papers,that will change your perspective about many things that influence your and everyone else's lives, and challenge you to educate yourself,in hopes to improve your quality of life - and prolong the life of your teeth. Come on, you knew as part of my growing responsibility of a soon to be dentist I had to throw that in.

Adam Jensen

10 comments:

Elliot Bassett said...

Adam,
You are an idiot. Seriously. You prove yourself wrong in your own article.
It is low activity level that is the problem. If the countries collective activity level was raised to what the "damned corporate government studies" say activity should be in other "government" studies then there wouldn't be this book, because those food studies are taking into account a normal active human life style. Don't blame nestle because 80% of Americans are lazy fucks. Lots of diets can be healthy, but they all fail with inactivity.
Damn, I'm ashamed to say we attended the same university, and that you got way better grades then me.
I'll hold out on saying the book is dumb, because I haven't read it. But you representation of the book is dumb.
Love,
Elliot

Doug Dale said...

Like adam, I'm too busy to work out much so this is the perfect way to help stay in shape on what little I can do.

Dale

Adam said...

Please show me one conclusive study proving that our country's low activity level is causing fatness, or could be that something else causing fatness causes inactivity? Try thinking less myopically. And if you read all the hundreds of studies the book sites, not all diets can be healthy. Actually, most of the perceived healthiest diets are nothing but the contrary. It is our perception that is the problem, the propaganda we were raised to believe. Think of history, religion, Nazi's, etc, propaganda is a powerful thing. From a retrospective view, such historic acts seem outrageous, however at the time, 100% acceptable.

UM Cycling said...

Adam,
Thanks for bringing this topic up I was also surprised by this book, mostly due to the politics behind everything. However, I couldn't help but post these quotes, as I read these kinds of studies everyday.

""Our results strongly suggest that the increased risk of obesity due to genetic susceptibility can be blunted through physical activity,” the authors conclude. “These findings emphasize the important role of physical activity in public health efforts to combat obesity, particularly in genetically susceptible individuals.” The results of the study are being published in the Sept. 8, 2008, issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine."

"Dr. Snitker, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, says the FTO gene is likely only one of a number of genes linked to obesity and notes that the effect of these genes may have changed over time."

"“Some of the genes shown to cause obesity in our modern environment may not have had this effect a few centuries ago when most people’s lives were similar to that of present-day Amish farmers,” he says. He adds that environmental and lifestyle factors, such as a high-fat diet and lack of exercise, also may serve as triggers for obesity in genetically susceptible people."

http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/fto_gene.htm


"Low PA [physical activity] and poor CR fitness are independent predictors of mortality related to type 2 diabetes and chronic disease in general. Together with well-demonstrated mechanisms, there is strong evidence that low PA and low CR fitness are direct, independent causes of metabolic dysfunction and type 2 diabetes. ...However, in the absence of established mechanisms, evidence is insufficient to conclude that either general or visceral obesity is a direct, independent cause of metabolic dysfunction or type 2 diabetes."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561334

Adam said...

Who wrote UM Cycling's comments? Did you read the book, or just hear of the book, think you know what it says, then find some studies that merely suggest things? I can flip a coin 5 times, get heads 4 times, and suggest the coin is heaver on the tails side. You can find suggestions in data if you try hard enough. Problem is, people are looking at data from the wrong viewpoint. Please read the entire book, then get back to me. Dietary fat gets a bad name because it's almost always consumed with refined carbohydrates and sugar, however, because we're programed to think fat is stored as fat and sugar is burned, the problem has to be fat. But what if it's not. I gave the book to my mom to read, or I would reference numerous studies showing insulin and IGF's role in many pathologies, including diabetes and obesity - hormones produced in response to carbohydrates, not fats. Eskimos used to eat nothing but fish and seal, who's diet's were almost 100% fat and protein, and it was extremely rare to find incidences of high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, and GI cancers - that is until western diets infiltrated their cultures.

As for the low activity argument, it's like telling a smoker to just stop smoking. Makes sense. Just be more active. Could you be more vague? Pretty much an oversimplified catchall, blaming the obvious, however not identifying if that is even a cause. If activity is such a solution, didn't someone end up fatter after our 2000 mile bike study? Hard to get much more active than that. Other that Pipo, no one really lost weight, especially since activity increased 500% in some subjects. Activity makes you hungry. Yes, you burn calories, but by eating the wrong ones, you are, in a sense, negating the activity. I'm not trying to prove the world wrong, I just want some else to read the book and share their thoughts. I'm sick of arguing with people not on the same page. It's like trying to use logic with women - you're doomed from the start and you'll never win.

Remember, the earth was flat until some wacko set sail to prove it was round.

One honest question though, I always thought the Atkins was a bunch of BS, however, how do you explain the huge success of millions of people that have successfully lost and kept off massive amounts of weight, plus reduced blood pressure. Maybe he's not so full of it. I ignorantly just assumed it was crap, but never had an argument proving it's faults. If anyone has reasons why the Atkins is bad and won't/shouldn't work to reduce BP, weight, LDL and VLDL cholesterol, and risk of diabetes, please educate me. Proven reasons, not suggestions.

And Elliot, I guess you're right, you definitely got a better education than I did, since I only took one year to pass anatomy and physiology. And, after 10 years of college, I still have one more to go.

Elliot Bassett said...

Adam,
I'm not saying you are less intelligent than I. I am saying that pretty much all of your arguments could be turned the other way and used against you.

This book is as much "nazi" propaganda as the studies it is calling out. Did the author do any specific studies to prove his theories, or did he just use already published work? That is an actual question, not rhetorical.
For the record, losing weight is not always an indicator of health. When I started Giro D'scovery @ 5% body fat @ 139lbs, then ended @ 139 and 5% body fat. That is how it should be. Most of everyone lost a bit a body fat, but no one except Phil really had much too lose. I'm not sure how having us all end up underweight would be healthy.
I also never said the book was wrong, I just said your reasons for backing it whole heartedly were wrong.
Didn't I say "lots" of diets can be healthy, not "ALL" diets. That is a big difference.
You should read into what people say and not trust them because they are published and have a lot of catchy on hand studies.
In the world of science, if one thing holds true, it is that nothing is for sure the truth. Keep an open mind and don't go saying everyone is wrong and it is a government conspiracy.
that's all.
love,
elliot

UM Cycling said...

Adam,
I am not arguing you statements regarding skewed ideas lots of people have on diet, or the fact that the book raises and proves many common ideas about diet wrong.

I am arguing, however, that a statement implying that people are getting fat and therefore becoming inactive, and then developing chronic illness is false. Perhaps in isolated cases it can be true, but as a whole studies show low PA comes first. This is the only section of the book where I disagree and wish the author had done more diligent research. Taubes gets lazy with this argument and picks studies that support his thesis. Had he claimed that exercise will not fix or neutralize a poor diet I would heartily agree. However, Taubes instead claims, hands down, that exercise is not responsible for weight loss because it makes us hungry, and therefor is also not responsible for lower incidence of chronic disease. The argument regarding trained individuals doesn't apply here, I agree, but the issue of obesity and diabetes does not generally apply to them either. Studies do show that in the general population raising levels of PA lowers incidence of obesity and the risk of chronic disease. Taubes refuses to acknowlege this.

Also, while the book is well written as are most of Taubes' publications, he has no formal training whatsoever in medicine or nutrition. Read what he writes as journalism, the book is simply a compilation of research that has been discussed ad nauseam by the folks doing the studies.

Thats all I've got - no more energy for this one.

Jeremy
- not sure why i have been coming up as UM cycling

Adam said...

Jeremy,

Thanks for the comments. This is the dialog I was initially trying to illicit. I agree with you, the book left me with many questions, some of which I've discussed with the UM HHP Scientists, especially about exercise. I think exercise needs to be defined, as it is too vague. According to the Scientists, a certain intensity has to be attained to negate any deleterious effects of carbohydrates. And I see your point about low physical activity, however, more importantly, why are people less physically active? And are we really any more physically inactive than we were 1000 or 10,000 years ago? Remember the part about the African tribes that only hunt every 3 days because they get enough to sustain themselves for that long. In the mean time, they sit around their village and entertain guests, make clothes, make baskets, etc. And yet no modern diseases plague them. There has to be some other reason for the growing childhood obesity epidemic as well, other than video games. I don't think kids, and later adults, are innately lazy and inactive, I think that something, possibly connected to secretion of insulin, is causing it. And unfortunately, it seems that it is an increasingly uphill battle to find out why. It seems we are content in studying the relationships, ex. inactivity and obesity, or diabetes and periodontal disease, rather than causes. Too much focus is on band-aid treatment, because that's what's looking us right in the face. It's tough to see beyond that and make new suggestions for solutions that are counter intuitive. Clearly my initial statements were generalizations, not intending that the world is a terrible place and everyone is against everyone, I was pointing out observations the book addresses that in todays society that appear to be ignored. I believe people want to do the right thing to be healthy, I simply want to caution the complete acceptance and question the accuracy of what we've been taught in the past. So before another round of juvenile, counter productive personal attacks, I just hope I've instigated some motivation for others to have an open enough mind to read the book - to then ideally have future, less biased discussions, maybe even while drinking coffee.

UM Cycling said...

Adam,
Thanks for opening up the dialog. To be honest, other than the studies I do read, which can have very narrow and specific purposes, I had not thought about the broader implications the book brings up since reading it. That was a long time ago, I think christmas '07...

It was refreshing to bring up some of the issues again.

Jeremy

Jeffro said...

Adams, has this book make you into a conspiracy thorist as well? It seems that your emblazonment regarding the subject is more anger for having been mislead than epiphany fostered by good science.
Also, I know that you have found a new soft-spot for the less fortunate (fat people), but Seriously, WE all seem to be doing just fine. I think that this information would better serve a sedentary population, EVEN THOUGH we are tecnically sedentary for most of our day. Are you suggesting elliot deny himself his insulin spikes during his lunch-break?
Finally, if you ask me, label reading IS a great idea. Whom among us has ever analized fat content? I am looking for vitamins!