If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   In a shocking twist of events that suprises everyone, "Southern" diets have been linked with cancer, heart disease, and stroke   (sfgate.com) divider line 63
    More: PSA, strokes, heart disease  
•       •       •

1944 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2013 at 9:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-08 01:30:42 PM

Too_many_Brians: yeah, I've read a lot of the keto stories on reedit, but the thing is that I'm 6'6 220lbs. I'm in shape and healthy physically, and I worry about how this will affect me since I'm not a fattyboombatty (no offense). I went into ketosis within 15 hours of fasting, so I know my body responds well to intake and output. Just looking at the stroke and colon cancer aspects.


Stick with your diet...you'll be okay. TFA doesn't mention it, but any low-carb diet book will tell you the risk comes from combining high fat intake with high carb intake. For southerners that means lots of sweet tea, sodas and flour-drenched fried food. That deadly combination raises one's triglycerides AND cholesterol, leading to plaque build-up and eventually strokes and coronary disease.

/went from the low obese range to upper normal weight range by cutting out the big carbs...spuds, bread, rice and pasta
 
2013-02-08 01:37:16 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Bullshiat

All four grandparents ate heavily.
More cream than coffee.
Typical breakfast - Eggs and bacon, biscuits/gravy for breakfast.
Typical lunch - two pork chop, mashed potatoes, corn on the cob/butter, bacon fat sautéed green beans, home made apple pie.
Typical dinner - steak, potatoes, macaroni/cheese, plate of fresh vegetables, fresh yeast rolls/butter. Homemade pecan pie.

All four lived deep into their 90s and were active. No arthritis, no canes or walkers. No eyesight problems, etc.
Aunts and uncles lived well into their 90s. Ate like starving soldiers.
Not a single relative was overweight, had heart trouble or high BP. All nine went in their sleep without prior problems.

However, parents a different story. Obese, died early from typical problems associated with this article. Only took one generation.

Difference?

Older relatives lived off food they grew or butchered themselves. It was real food, untouched by groceries, food marketers, pesticides, etc etc.

The difference is so remarkable it cannot be denied. Real food is not the problem. What we call "food" today is the problem.


No, the real difference is the wheat. Modern wheat is a  "perfect, chronic poison." Get that out of your diet and you can live long lives like your grandparents did.
 
2013-02-08 01:39:06 PM
And yet the Southerners who eat them still aren't dying off fast enough.
 
2013-02-08 01:50:59 PM
You can have my chicken when you pry it from my cold, dead and greasy hands.

Fry it in bacon fat, but do not deep fry. About half immersed, then turn. Deep fryers have made chicken terrible.
 
2013-02-08 02:14:31 PM
Why live long when you can't live happy?
 
2013-02-08 03:46:08 PM

Stone Meadow: No, the real difference is the wheat. Modern wheat is a  "perfect, chronic poison."


Because when I think "reliable medical information", the first website that comes to mind is infowars.
 
2013-02-08 03:53:58 PM

OptionC: Stone Meadow: No, the real difference is the wheat. Modern wheat is a  "perfect, chronic poison."

Because when I think "reliable medical information", the first website that comes to mind is infowars.


You can read all about it here: Wheat Belly.
 
2013-02-09 10:15:35 AM

Stone Meadow: OptionC: Stone Meadow: No, the real difference is the wheat. Modern wheat is a  "perfect, chronic poison."

Because when I think "reliable medical information", the first website that comes to mind is infowars.

You can read all about it here: Wheat Belly.


Food fads!  Every year, some nutty doctor "discovers" a new substance that has to be avoided because it's a "slow-acting poison."

Look, it has been known for a long time that if you go overboard on bread or pasta, you get fat.  And when you get fat, you increase your risks of heart disease and other related problems.  Doctors often tell overweight people to cut down on the starches in order to lose weight.  It does not follow, however, that wheat is "poisonous."
 
2013-02-09 12:26:23 PM

tirob: Stone Meadow: OptionC: Stone Meadow: No, the real difference is the wheat. Modern wheat is a  "perfect, chronic poison."

Because when I think "reliable medical information", the first website that comes to mind is infowars.

You can read all about it here: Wheat Belly.

Food fads!  Every year, some nutty doctor "discovers" a new substance that has to be avoided because it's a "slow-acting poison."

Look, it has been known for a long time that if you go overboard on bread or pasta, you get fat.  And when you get fat, you increase your risks of heart disease and other related problems.  Doctors often tell overweight people to cut down on the starches in order to lose weight.  It does not follow, however, that wheat is "poisonous."


You know how I can tell you didn't actually read anything about wheat, right?

That said, you ARE correct that doctors have know for a long time (more than a century) that the proper way to lose weight is to cut out carb-rich foods. The problem is that starting about 40 years ago Big Food...and in particular Big Wheat...working hand in glove with US government agencies, began vilifying meat and fat in favor of "healthy grains" and low fat diets with lots of servings of wheat. Combine that with sugar's role and we've had an explosion in obesity rates and their attendant lifestyle-based diseases.
 
2013-02-09 01:05:27 PM

Stone Meadow: tirob:

Look, it has been known for a long time that if you go overboard on bread or pasta, you get fat.  And when you get fat, you increase your risks of heart disease and other related problems.  Doctors often tell overweight people to cut down on the starches in order to lose weight.  It does not follow, however, that wheat is "poisonous."

You know how I can tell you didn't actually read anything about wheat, right?

That said, you ARE correct that doctors have know for a long time (more than a century) that the proper way to lose weight is to cut out carb-rich foods. The problem is that starting about 40 years ago Big Food...and in particular Big Wheat...working hand in glove with US government agencies, began vilifying meat and fat in favor of "healthy grains" and low fat diets with lots of servings of wheat. Combine that with sugar's role and we've had an explosion in obesity rates and their attendant lifestyle-based diseases.


You are very much mistaken.  I read a good part of your link--as much of it as I could stand to read, in fact.  Your Dr. Davis is a cardiologist who sees a lot of overweight people.  His advice to them--cut down on wheat and other starches--is good.  Where he goes off the rails is when he then draws the conclusion that *all* wheat is bad for *everyone.*  The evidence he presents in defense of this proposition is extremely thin.  Not everyone is a cardiology patient, or overweight, or a celiac sufferer.

Part of my point here is that there have been eras where *every* kind of food and diet gets vilified--meat, fat, fish, sugar, sugar substitutes, low-carb, high-carb, you name it.  It's wheat's turn now.  Give it a few years and this particular fad will be debunked, too.
 
2013-02-09 02:43:52 PM

tirob: Part of my point here is that there have been eras where *every* kind of food and diet gets vilified--meat, fat, fish, sugar, sugar substitutes, low-carb, high-carb, you name it.  It's wheat's turn now.  Give it a few years and this particular fad will be debunked, too.


Are you really arguing that the evidence against sugar, for instance, is a "fad" that will be debunked in a few years?
 
2013-02-09 05:22:22 PM

Stone Meadow: tirob: Part of my point here is that there have been eras where *every* kind of food and diet gets vilified--meat, fat, fish, sugar, sugar substitutes, low-carb, high-carb, you name it.  It's wheat's turn now.  Give it a few years and this particular fad will be debunked, too.

Are you really arguing that the evidence against sugar, for instance, is a "fad" that will be debunked in a few years?


No, and maybe I should have been clearer.  My recollection is that the arguments against sugar go back to the sixties of the last century.  At that time, people started coming out with all kinds of sugar substitutes--which caught on quite nicely until studies showed that the substitutes were worse for you than sugar was.  This sort of back and forth between sugar and sugar substitutes continues to this day.

Sugar, like a lot of other things, is bad for you if you consume too much of it.  But a little bit now and then is all right.  Heck, back in the day before it was mass produced, it was used as a medicine.
 
2013-02-10 10:25:03 AM

Stone Meadow: tirob: Part of my point here is that there have been eras where *every* kind of food and diet gets vilified--meat, fat, fish, sugar, sugar substitutes, low-carb, high-carb, you name it.  It's wheat's turn now.  Give it a few years and this particular fad will be debunked, too.

Are you really arguing that the evidence against sugar, for instance, is a "fad" that will be debunked in a few years?


Sugar has an important function in the diets of athletes...at least athletes who perform long duration high intensity cardiovascular exercise. That evidence is not particularly new.
 
Displayed 13 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report