IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )


3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Eating Healthy
impala454
post Jun 4 2009, 10:07 PM
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



That'd be cool... I am just curious to see something like: "This study found that when you see X chemical on the label, it is added for Y reason, and Z is what it does to your body that's negative in ____ amount"

Sodium content RDA... eh.. I suppose it makes sense for a "normal" person. Looking at the pdf from the people who make the RDA (here), it's actually even less than that... The recommended daily amount is 1,500mg, and the "tolerable upper intake levels" is 2,300mg. Sounds a little hokey if you ask me, but I digress. 1/3 of a tsp difference between recommended and tolerable?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spectatrix
post Jun 5 2009, 08:32 AM
Post #32





Group: Admin
Posts: 6,906
Joined: 22-February 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9



Didn't see your reply until this morning. I'll dig up some quotes & citations tonight, unless Hartmann gets to it first.

The main thrust of his book wasn't so much that processed food was bad, though. He was largely complaining about reductionist nutrition. E.g., researchers look at people eating carrots and conclude that beta carotene is good for you. Or fish -> omega 3's. Then instead of recommending people eat the whole foods that show beneficial effects, they talk about the importance of getting X amount of Y nutrient in your diet, whether through diet or supplementation.

He also talked about the benefits of eating locally-grown produce over stuff that's picked unripe, out of season, and shipped halfway across the country/world.

-----

RDA on sodium is a little wonky. Most people can (and do) tolerate much higher levels than the RDA. In some folks, though, high sodium pushes their blood pressure up. I have hypertension (treated with meds), but I never found that reducing my sodium helped lower it.


--------------------
QUOTE (pebkac @ Oct 14 2006, 03:15 PM) *
You and your logic.

QUOTE (Foamy)

http://xkcd.com/386/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Jun 5 2009, 09:20 AM
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



I can agree with the premise you mention for the book. I often read about a "study" that was done which I think draws silly conclusions. I.e. something like: "A study at such&such school of 500 people found that if they ate X food for 30 days then Y happened. This means X food is responsible for Y." Well to me (who questions everything (as if yall didn't know that tongue.gif)), I have to wonder if Y happened more because they were eating less of what they previously ate, or if it was some commonality as far as the region the food was served in, the way the food was prepared, etc, etc.

The scientific studies that I like to see are stuff like "in a lab, we did this to food X and found that preparing it a certain way did Y to the food". Without them drawing some fantastical conclusion about the food, just telling you the raw results of the study. Like in my Men's Health mag the other day, I read that some study found that if you fry an egg vs a lower heat method of cooking, it releases some chemical (forget the name) that promotes reduction of bad cholesterol. They simply told you their results, that the higher heat cooking brought out this chemical. They did not claim "eating fried eggs helps lower cholesterol." It's basically like, tell me what you did, show me the result, and I'll draw my own conclusions thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Jun 5 2009, 09:24 AM
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



Oh and also, I'm curious, do you take your own blood pressure with a monitor at home? If not, go get one. What type of method does your doctor's office use to measure your blood pressure? Is it an older one where they manually pump the air bag and read an analog dial? I found big time that a couple of different doctor's offices I've been to, the "assistants" or whatever they are (most of the time not even nurses) have no clue how to properly take blood pressure. It might be because I have a huge arm, I dunno. But they always read it out of sight (like 140s/90s, or even higher). I'm like... uh... no. Then I had my actual doctor do it once, just to prove, and it's completely normal. She had me get one of those wrist based monitors and take it at home every day for a month and write it down, on average I was at like 115/75. So moral of the story, don't necessarily trust the doctor's office for blood pressure. It's crazy, makes me wonder how many people out there are improperly getting blood pressure meds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spectatrix
post Jun 5 2009, 10:40 AM
Post #35





Group: Admin
Posts: 6,906
Joined: 22-February 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9



Yeah, I have a monitor at home, though I don't use it often. I was first diagnosed at 15 or 16 after I noticed that my blood pressure readings were always high at multiple clinics. We know now that it's due to my kidney cysts. Oddly enough, though, studies indicate that my blood pressure may get better as my kidney disease gets worse.

My BP is around 150/100 normally, and 120/70 with meds.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jun 5 2009, 10:42 AM


--------------------
QUOTE (pebkac @ Oct 14 2006, 03:15 PM) *
You and your logic.

QUOTE (Foamy)

http://xkcd.com/386/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spectatrix
post Jun 6 2009, 06:56 PM
Post #36





Group: Admin
Posts: 6,906
Joined: 22-February 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9



Little late on this, sorry. Here's a quote from the book that exemplifies most of what we were talking about.

QUOTE
As we've seen, processing whole foods -- refining, chemically preserving, and canning them -- depletes them of many nutrients, a few of which are then added back: B vitamins in refined flour, vitamins and minerals in breakfast cereal and bread. Fortifying processed foods with missing nutrients is surely better than leaving them out, but food science can add back only the small handful of nutrients that food science recognizes as important today. What is it overlooking? As the whole-grain food synergy study suggests, science doesn't know nearly enough to compensate for everything that processing does to whole foods. We know how to break down a kernal of corn or grain of what into its chemical parts, but we have no idea how to put it back together again. Destroying complexity is a lot easier than creating it.


The study mentioned is "Nutrients, Foods, and Dietary Patterns as Exposures in Research: A Framework for Food Synergy" from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.


--------------------
QUOTE (pebkac @ Oct 14 2006, 03:15 PM) *
You and your logic.

QUOTE (Foamy)

http://xkcd.com/386/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
impala454
post Jun 6 2009, 09:10 PM
Post #37





Group: Members
Posts: 10,620
Joined: 23-February 06
From: Houston, TX
Member No.: 48



I'm sure the study goes into the detail I'd like to see.

Let me say this just as kinda a compromise with you guys:

I think you guys are correct for the most part when you're talking about complete foods that are ready to eat. What I mean by that is something like a hot pocket, frozen dinner, can of soup, or some other pre-cooked meal.

I think I am correct when it comes to single foods or ingredients, such as a simple can of corn, tomatoes, tuna or some such.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spectatrix
post Jun 6 2009, 09:54 PM
Post #38





Group: Admin
Posts: 6,906
Joined: 22-February 06
From: Austin
Member No.: 9



I completely agree. Complex packaged foods like the ones you mentioned are harmful mainly due to excess added sugar, salt, fat, etc. Canned foods, not so much of a problem, though I generally can't stand no-salt-added veggies. Fresh = fantastic, frozen = fantastic, no-salt canned = crap, at least in my experience. Not sure why, since I don't necessarily add salt to my fresh/frozen veggies.

Also, whole foods like whole wheat flour, natural sugars, etc. are more healthful than refined white flour, white sugar, etc.

----

Oh, and even though I only listed one citation, the book has over 22 pages of sources. Just dug out the one I thought was most relevant. It really is a good read. I think you'd get a kick out of the first third of the book, which talks about the history of nutritional "science" and food fads.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jun 6 2009, 09:56 PM


--------------------
QUOTE (pebkac @ Oct 14 2006, 03:15 PM) *
You and your logic.

QUOTE (Foamy)

http://xkcd.com/386/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2018 - 10:48 AM
Skin made by: skeedio.com