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.

(io9)   Rules of good nutrition that absolutely everybody agrees on   (io9.com) divider line 115
    More: Obvious, omega-3 fatty acids, DHA, nutritional information, fish oils, abdominal obesity, transfats, insulin resistance, leptin  
•       •       •

8531 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Apr 2013 at 5:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 11:03:38 AM

worlddan: willfullyobscure:

This guy lives on chemicals he buys online

Thanks for this link. My brother and I got into an argument about this very possibility about a year ago but I was too lazy to follow through. I am glad to see someone else do it and I may join in his crusade. The truth is that a great deal of "nutrition" is promoted by agribusinesses who stand to benefit from it. Humanity's digestive systems did not evolve in a vacuum and there is no earthly reason to freeze such evolution in time. Our bodies can evolve to live on nothing but processed chemicals.


Well, humanity's might but yours won't.  Evolution does not work that way.
 
2013-04-04 11:12:49 AM

revrendjim: Much to my surprise this is pretty much a non-retarded list. Those are all good suggestions. However, one thing I struggle with is the definition of "processed" foods. What the hell does that mean? Isn't anything that is cooked a "processed" food? Nobody is going to dispute that Cheese-Whiz is processed, but what about bread? It certainly does not occur in nature. Where is the line?


that's my thought on "processed food" as well.

Cold cuts? good or bad? Deli cold cuts vs pre-packaged? Fancy cheese vs American slices?

I generally assume processed food to be anything with a number of extra bits added for the unique purpose of prolonging shelf life and reducing the cost of production.
 
2013-04-04 11:43:46 AM

CeroX: LOL. when was the last time you had some tasty Parmesan cheese, may I ask?not really sure, it's probably been 2 months... The only cheeses i've had in the last 2 months are bleu cheese and dubliner... i regularly buy bleu cheese wheels and crumble them into my salads, and the dubliner was an impulse buy where my wife and i had some broiled dubliner on toasted mini rye slices one eveningand i didn't say i cut it out, i cut back on that stuff...And those 2 people who lost weight that you listed in your second post, those are exceptions, not the rule...My dietary changes have allowed me to lose 33 pounds and still going... so i'd say i'm doing something right...


aged cheeses are redolent with MSG. Parmesan is the most concentrated form of MSG in a natural food product outside of yeast extract. Bleu cheese is no slouch either.
 
2013-04-04 12:05:50 PM

willfullyobscure: aged cheeses are redolent with MSG. Parmesan is the most concentrated form of MSG in a natural food product outside of yeast extract. Bleu cheese is no slouch either.


could by why my weight loss is not as significant as it should be... i'll go a week or 2 without and see how it goes...
 
2013-04-04 12:20:17 PM

CeroX: .
 infant mortality factors


For the record, dead infants don't need nutrition. Well, unless they are zombie infants....then the need BRAINS.
 
2013-04-04 12:23:15 PM

BafflerMeal: worlddan: willfullyobscure:.

Well, humanity's might but yours won't.  Evolution does not work that way.


Of course evolution works that way. Someone's genes have to mutate. Might as well be mine.

Of course, if my genes did mutate that would mean that I would need to have sex to pass those mutations on to the next generation...so come to think of it, nah. Sex is bad.
 
2013-04-04 12:24:49 PM
Point 9 simplifies the issue.  Diets that only take food intake into consideration don't work.  A good diet should understand that nutrition encompasses ALL areas of one's lifestyle.
 
2013-04-04 01:27:36 PM
I have one simple rule: If you can't deep fry it, you'd best deny it.

/off to get me some Popeyes.
 
2013-04-04 02:42:33 PM

CeroX: Smarshmallow: willfullyobscure: Smarshmallow: I stopped reading here,

Sugar, mainly due to the high fructose content, is being implicated as a leading cause of obesity, cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes

Sugar does these things because it contains a lot of calories, and because blood sugar is a signal to spike insulin. Sucrose, fructose and glucose all do this.

CeroX: Seth'n'Spectrum: I don't understand the carbohydrates hate. The healthiest I've ever been was when I was a kid eating a half-plate of brown rice for dinner every night. Haven't carbs always historically been the primary sourcinie of energy for humans?

Because people need to learn to differentiate. There's a massive difference in having rice, which contains carbs, versus flour, which was once wheat, which after it's been milled they then seperate the germ and the oil leaving the endosperm, then grind the endosperm into a fine powder which then goes through a bleaching process... leaving you with an extract that is mostly carbs with a small amount of protein (gluten). Unless you buy "gluten free" flour which any protein left has also been extracted...

CeroX: I've lost 33 pounds in the last 2 months by doing the following:

Having at least 32 ounces of fresh did-it-myself juice containing the following fresh ingredients:
Kale
Zutl:dr

This guy lost 25lbs eating nothing but cookies snack cakes and Doritos.

This guy lives on chemicals he buys online

I'd say y'all are a tad optimistic on what you actually know about biology and nutrition. But hey. Dunning-Kroeger yourself into all the wacky eating habits you feel like! Enjoy!


I'd say you're all overthinking it a little bit.

You may be under-thinking. There will always be some people outside of the norm. Also, don't group me with Cerox. I speak from several years working in obesity research, he speaks from ignorance.

you have my attention....

and i didn't see your post earlier, so while i agree with you tomatoes wouldn't contain MSG, it is possible to extract the glutamates from tomatoes to produce MSG, and then by FDA standards call it "Tomato protein extract" on the label...

unless you disagree?


I have no idea about tomato extract, since I'm not an FDA lawyer, but most of the chemicals that you listed are absolutely not msg, and couldn't conceivably be labeled as such.
 
2013-04-04 03:07:27 PM

CeroX: well, my shape appears to be that of a 325lb football... my blood tests though are better now than before i started... i don't have the paper here at work with the numbers but everything is better, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucos levels... they are better now that before i started all this...

So haters can hate, but i'm on my way to a better me...


Are you sure you haven't just lost mostly water weight and maybe even some muscle mass? Weight loss is not always healthy and two months isn't a sufficient amount of time to know what path you are on. People should really go by body fat percentage more than weight. If you do one thing to measure your progress, it should be waist size, not what your scale says. Obviously the more data, the better. But to say, "I've lost x lbs." means absolutely nothing on its own. A gallon of water weighs about 8lbs. Losing just water weight means nothing good.

Talk to your family doctor, get a personal trainer, eat a balanced diet (preferably eat 6 times a day, small portioned meals), do cardio twice every day, do resistance training at least four days out of the week. That's A LOT of work, but it really does work for everyone... of course, should be done with input from your doc.

MSG or no MSG. I don't think that even matters.
 
2013-04-04 03:15:30 PM
Eating six times a day is pointless. The only thing that matters for losing weight is calorie amount, unless it is your job to exercise.

Examine.com handles many nutrition myths through actual studies, and even grades the studies on methodology, e.g. whether it was double blind or not.
 
2013-04-04 03:24:19 PM

tylerdurden217: Are you sure you haven't just lost mostly water weight and maybe even some muscle mass? Weight loss is not always healthy and two months isn't a sufficient amount of time to know what path you are on. People should really go by body fat percentage more than weight. If you do one thing to measure your progress, it should be waist size, not what your scale says. Obviously the more data, the better. But to say, "I've lost x lbs." means absolutely nothing on its own. A gallon of water weighs about 8lbs. Losing just water weight means nothing good.

Talk to your family doctor, get a personal trainer, eat a balanced diet (preferably eat 6 times a day, small portioned meals), do cardio twice every day, do resistance training at least four days out of the week. That's A LOT of work, but it really does work for everyone... of course, should be done with input from your doc.

MSG or no MSG. I don't think that even matters.


Yes, i am being closely watched by my family doctor... i see her once every 2 weeks, and i saw a personal trainer earlier this week which is why i have a work out plan that is 5 days a week focusing on smaller muscle groups... i went 2 months without exercise BECAUSE my doctor told me to hold off while she examined me. I've been cleared and so Monday I start a routine that includes 15 minutes of cardio preworkout with strength training on muscle groups with the exception of doing crunches daily... After 12 weeks the cardio it increased... I'll post more about my progress in some future thread and folks can see the results for themselves... i still have about 100 pounds to lose and i'm not letting anything get in the way of that...
 
2013-04-04 03:28:09 PM

Shakin_Haitian: Eating six times a day is pointless. The only thing that matters for losing weight is calorie amount, unless it is your job to exercise.

Examine.com handles many nutrition myths through actual studies, and even grades the studies on methodology, e.g. whether it was double blind or not.


Great site. I had no idea this existed until you referenced it.

I eat about 6 times a day because I get hungry more often. I found that I can have the same daily intake and not get as hungry if I eat smaller meals more frequently. May not work for everyone, but I think it works for a lot of people. Could be psychological.

Examine suggests: There may be benefits to manipulating meal frequency and eating the same amount of food more often or less often, but metabolic rate is not one of them. There is no evidence to support the idea that multiple meals increases metabolic rate.

I wouldn't claim that it increases my metabolic rate. I do think I can give my body the nutrients it needs without overdoing it by eating smaller, frequent meals. (also, I'm not talking about grazing all day like a cow)
 
2013-04-04 08:15:37 PM

CeroX: tylerdurden217: Are you sure you haven't just lost mostly water weight and maybe even some muscle mass? Weight loss is not always healthy and two months isn't a sufficient amount of time to know what path you are on. People should really go by body fat percentage more than weight. If you do one thing to measure your progress, it should be waist size, not what your scale says. Obviously the more data, the better. But to say, "I've lost x lbs." means absolutely nothing on its own. A gallon of water weighs about 8lbs. Losing just water weight means nothing good.

Talk to your family doctor, get a personal trainer, eat a balanced diet (preferably eat 6 times a day, small portioned meals), do cardio twice every day, do resistance training at least four days out of the week. That's A LOT of work, but it really does work for everyone... of course, should be done with input from your doc.

MSG or no MSG. I don't think that even matters.

Yes, i am being closely watched by my family doctor... i see her once every 2 weeks, and i saw a personal trainer earlier this week which is why i have a work out plan that is 5 days a week focusing on smaller muscle groups... i went 2 months without exercise BECAUSE my doctor told me to hold off while she examined me. I've been cleared and so Monday I start a routine that includes 15 minutes of cardio preworkout with strength training on muscle groups with the exception of doing crunches daily... After 12 weeks the cardio it increased... I'll post more about my progress in some future thread and folks can see the results for themselves... i still have about 100 pounds to lose and i'm not letting anything get in the way of that...


Hey, I dropped by the thread agian to say I'm sory for needling you. I think you're maybe a little out in left field on how you think, but there's nothing you're doing thats bad for you, quite the reverse. I'm not 335, but I could 30lbs and nobody would notice myself, so I basically don't have shiat to say to your good work.  Keep on truckin and nihil carborundum illegitemi and all that, son.
 
2013-04-04 09:19:20 PM

GAT_00: revrendjim: GAT_00: revrendjim: Much to my surprise this is pretty much a non-retarded list. Those are all good suggestions. However, one thing I struggle with is the definition of "processed" foods. What the hell does that mean? Isn't anything that is cooked a "processed" food? Nobody is going to dispute that Cheese-Whiz is processed, but what about bread? It certainly does not occur in nature. Where is the line?

Arguably, anything except grain, raw meat and fish and vegetables are "processed" foods.  Milk for example is unprocessed if gotten unpasteurized, but that's illegal.  So you can only buy "processed" milk.  That doesn't make milk bad.

So I'd interpret that as the less processing in your food, the better, which also seems to be fairly uniform in agreement across the board.

Don't disagree, except to point out that cooked food is generally more nutritious than raw food, so some processing is actually helpful. Not so much whatever they do to turn cheese into cheetos.

Agreed, which is why I said less processing.  I think health advocates would also say that cooking food yourself is not processing, but I could be wrong.  So that falls under minimal processing.

Long of the short, we were healthiest when our culinary skills were at the Neanderthal level.  Which is of course a blatant contradiction since the life of Neanderthals and humans at that time was nasty, brutish and short, marked by a constant quest to find food.


You do realize that the Neanderthals died out 20,000 years ago.
 
Displayed 15 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report