Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   ^
Old Tue, Mar-19-24, 06:17
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,357
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Like Oprah, before I found low carb eating, I was ravenously hungry all the time and couldn’t understand how other pople did it, how they could eat a certain amount and then stop because they were full and not eat again until they got hungry. I never felt full. Low carb eating changed all that. While I still dont really have a complete full signal I no longer feel that ravenously hungry gotta eat feeling. It’s worked for about 20 years now. I prefer eating this way to the thought of taking a pill with all its side effects, known and unknown. It bothers me that Oprah is advocating this medication but it seems to be the fad of the moment. There really is another way to go about weightloss.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Tue, Mar-19-24, 09:39
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,979
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
She added: “This is what I got for the first time after I took the medication - all these years I thought all of the people who never had to diet were just using their willpower and they were for some reason stronger than me. And now I realise y’all weren’t even thinking about the food.

“It’s not that you had the willpower you weren’t thinking about, you weren’t obsessing about it.
That is the big thing I learned.”


She is absolutely right about this.

But that same "not even thinking about the food" can be achieved by cutting out the addictive foods that cause you to obsess over them, even though it does take quite a long time to get to where you stop thinking about those foods.

That's how AA works - you cut out the alcohol completely. You stay away from it at all costs. When you fall off the wagon, you get right back on that wagon as soon as you possibly can. There isn't really another option, unless you really want to be in an alcohol induced stupor forever.



I have to admit that I don't think we're going to get to that kind of attitude about food addictions though, at least not in my lifetime, especially now that we have drugs that are pretty good at limiting appetite, no matter what you crave.

There was a trend at one time to cut out the carby foods (despite the constant narrative to the contrary saying you NEEED all those carbs, meats and fats are deadly, etc), which for a carb addict was the same as an alcoholic ditching the alcohol. It's tough to do - all of us here remember what it was like to throw out or stop buying those foods - even more difficult if we had to continue to buy/make them for our family while we stopped eating them.

People who previously tried to ditch their carb addiction but fell off the wagon too many times are willing to admit that they don't have the self control needed to stay on a LC diet for the duration. They're happy to let a drug control their appetite. They no longer need to give up the addictive food - they now have a drug that controls how much they can eat of that addictive food.

Those who never tried LC because they couldn't even imagine giving up bread are also delighted to have the drug. No more calorie counting. No more eating a small serving off a tiny plate while trying to convince yourself that you're full. No more mindful eating where you chew each tiny bite 27 times before swallowing. No more drinking a big glass of water before a meal to fill up your stomach as much as possible so you can't eat as much. No more tasteless fat free foods - you can have whatever food you want, if you can stomach that food. You just don't want much food.

The development of semaglutide drugs have changed the perspective on food in general.

When they say it's a game changer, it really is a game changer for those who can't or won't ditch the addictive carbs.

At least it's a game changer until the drugs end up causing so many serious side effects that they need to stop taking them. Then they'll be right back where they started - out of control carb eating, regaining the weight they lost, beating themselves up again because they lack self control over food.

I'm not sure what come after that - maybe they'll use weight loss surgery as a back-up in those cases.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Wed, Mar-20-24, 01:03
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,890
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

What a fat load of trash! MAUREEN CALLAHAN slams Oprah as a dishonest shill whose Ozempic special was a glorified Big Pharma ad that indulged her lies about weight-loss jabs... and fed her oversized ego

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...N-CALLAHAN.html
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Wed, Mar-20-24, 02:54
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,782
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Pharma is being told by investment firms: we don't want cures. Healthy people don't make them any money.

I mean, they've been accused of it before, but now it's widely on record what they are acting upon. I still see serious problems letting such delusional people run important things. I first read this in 2018 and I'm assuming things got worse, as they do on this subject:

It's Official! Curing Patients Is Bad for Business

Quote:
Pharmaceutical companies are developing new drugs in only two therapeutic areas these days -- cancer and rare diseases. Why? These are the only therapeutic areas where exorbitant pricing is tolerated by payers.

How exorbitant are we talking about? Most new drugs for cancer and rare diseases are being priced above $400,000 a year per patient. Some drugs are being priced at $1 million per treatment. And prices continue to soar.

Who loses from this pricing practice? You might think the patients with cancer or with rare diseases are most likely to suffer. But that isn't true.

To cover these exorbitant costs for even a small number of people, payers slash their expenditures in other therapeutic areas, and these cuts affect millions of people. For example, instead of agreeing to pay for the best treatment for diabetes for $1,500, payers approve the use of a second-rate treatment for $75. Physicians are not good at challenging payers, so most patients will get the second-rate treatment.

So the patients who lose the most are typically those who do not have cancer or rare diseases. Actually, nearly everyone else loses when a company prices a novel drug at extreme levels.


An even better plan is avoiding a lot of unnecessary medical treatment, of course. But I can tell you -- as someone forced into early retirement from health issues -- once a person is a US senior we are officially a cash cow in a for-profit system. It's great that a sick person can see all kinds of specialists but why do retirees get it forced on them as a hobby?

Practically a job in itself between fighting the extra insurer US people get sucked into signing up for, and all the different offices and appointments and tests, with extra confusion and all the burden on the patient to track everything and get there and come up with co-pays.

It's not that I haven't helped close seniors through this, but doing this myself, after 20 years of eating for health, is that even being healthy is not always enough to get off the ride. My doctor understands my cholesterol numbers and my diet, but 99 others would insist on statins, maybe even throw me out.

BTW, the way to solve this problem is to fire your doctor. But we no longer have the privilege, most of the time. Especially once we are retired.

Poor health practices by the patient leads to poor health advice from the doctors who have to -- first -- cross off the most effective strategies because diabetes and heart disease patients won't change their lifestyle. They want to take a pill. Because they have absorbed that this is what you do: take a pill and go about your business.

It's not that we're doing a bad thing by providing health care to people who need it. It's that we're doing a good thing in a bad way, because the incredible bulk of this senior care is preventable.

Snag is, the way it is set up for profit: if we aren't sick, how can they make money? While the US once had the reputation for "best healthcare," now it's merely the most expensive.

Wrong metric. And do remember that, even if Oprah has a ton of money, it hasn't helped her lose weight. But she knows her audience. Really well.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Wed, Mar-20-24, 03:20
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,782
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Gary Taubes' new diabetes history book is like a roadmap of how we got here. Faced with certain death, some people still wouldn't stick to the animal diet, essentially carnivore, which kept many diabetics healthy for decades, pre-insulin.

Which means some people can't stay off carbs even if it will kill them. Which is my definition of an addiction problem. Humans can make anything a substance, mentally; gambling, shopping, etc. But biological intake makes something a double whammy. This is a serious struggle because now we are messing with our metabolism and our brains.

One hundred years ago, insulin was looked upon as a cure, when it was a still-misunderstood* hormone used as a medicine. Taubes' point is that diabetes treatment went downhill around the same time industrial foods began increasing the problem of patients out-eating their diminished pancreas. Because it wasn't that the animal diet "didn't work" for some patients. Even those with type I and very low function, they lived for decades, without carbs and without complications.

That is the power of how addiction works for many people. From years of observation, the motivation to put together a sustained life effort without overusing of a coping mechanism -- be that shopping, gambling, substance abuse, or Frankenfoods -- must come from within the person.

But the least we can do is, as a society, is tell them the truth about food. Doctors act like just telling people is enough, the classes are run by dieticians trained by professional vegans, and the entire culture pressures everyone to eat more carbs and sugar because they are all so depressed and miserable.

Maybe, at last, we really will spend that money on mental health, instead? To help people make better decisions, themselves. And how they are relying on false authority and experts who have been secretly paid to lie.

I have diabetes in my family, and they all have the tool in their hands already. But they were told to take "insulin to cover" any carb intake, forcing patients to perform this tricky task every meal, and if they can afford it, getting a pump and other aids.

But it still doesn't work if the person doesn't eat in a way that is aware of the condition. That's what they mean by when they say "brittle diabetic." It's not that insulin has stopped working. It's that the patient can't stay away from grains, starch, sugar, and alcohol in a way that requres pin-point control their body no longer has over these substances.

Which are all almost the same addictive substance. They drain B vitamins and leads to hormone derangements if they aren't eating enough animal fat.

So, once again, it is the food.

*misunderstood because other hormones develop resistance and the interplay is important. Like my cortisol resistance, which contributes to my anxiety and blood sugar issues with the results.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Wed, Mar-20-24, 08:16
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,979
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Even those with type I and very low function, they lived for decades, without carbs and without complications.


Also keep in mind that the very first use of injected insulin was for T1 children who were literally at death's door because their pancreas had shut down completely and their bodies were unable to produce any insulin at all.

It was used experimentally as a last ditch effort to save the lives of those children. And it worked.

Also, let's not forget that children don't have much control over what food they are provided. Other than refusing food they don't like, they don't really have a choice, and if they're hungry enough they will eventually even eat food that they hate.

Of course the whole thing has gotten completely out of control now with "healthy carbs" being pushed on everyone, no matter what. Add in the constant increase in carb based snacks and vegan diets, and it's just a health disaster.

But still, the use of insulin really did start out with good intentions.
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Wed, Mar-20-24, 08:28
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,979
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Posting this because it gives a slightly different viewpoint of weight loss drugs from the point of view of Whoopie Goldberg.
Quote:


Whoopi Goldberg Reveals She Used Weight Loss Medication Mounjaro After Hitting 300 Lbs.: ‘That’s a Lot of Me’

"My weight has come and gone and up and down, but it’s never been an issue for me because I don’t listen to what other people say about me," the EGOT winner said
By Dave Quinn
Published on March 19, 2024 02:30PM EDT



Whoopi Goldberg is standing with her former Color Purple costar Oprah Winfrey.

While discussing the former talk show host's televised ABC special about the conversation surrounding the use of popular drugs like Ozempic and Mounjaro for weight loss, the EGOT winner told the audience on Tuesday's episode of The View that she too had taken the medication.

She made the decision after filming Till, the 2022 biographical drama about Mamie Till-Bradley, an educator who pursued justice after the murder of her 14-year-old son Emmett in August 1955.

"I will tell you, I weighed almost 300 lbs. when I made Till," said Goldberg, who acted and produced the motion picture.



At the time, Goldberg was also recovering from a near-fatal health scare that landed her in the hospital for nearly a month. She was diagnosed with pneumonia in both lungs and also had sepsis, a potentially deadly condition caused by the body’s response to an infection that can lead to tissue damage and organ failure.

"I had taken all those steroids, I was on all this stuff," Goldberg said Tuesday. "And one of the things that’s helped me dropped the weight was the Mounjaro. That’s what I used."

The comedian went on to admit that she didn't realize how much weight she had gained until she looked at herself in the mirror one day. "I just always felt like me," she said. "And then I saw me and I thought, ‘Oh! That’s a lot of me!’ "


Winfrey, 70, revealed to PEOPLE in December that she was using a prescription weight-loss medication as part of her health and wellness regimen, alongside regular exercise and other lifestyle tweaks. She did not share what medication she takes.

On An Oprah Special: Shame, Blame and the Weight Loss Revolution, the media giant spoke with a handful of medical experts on obesity, which the American Medical Association designated as a disease in 2013. She also discussed her own up and down journey with her weight, and the shame she felt when she was publicly ridiculed for her gains and losses.

"For 25 years, making fun of my weight was national sport," Winfrey said, recalling hurtful headlines she had read about herself over the decades, and her own decisions to starve herself in order to drop the pounds.

Oprah Winfrey Recalls Diet Where She ‘Starved’ Herself for ‘5 Months,’ Says Obesity Is ‘Disease’ Not ‘Character Flaw’

The turning point for Winfrey’s approach to using pharmaceutical aids came in July 2022 when she had an "aha moment" during a taped panel conversation with weight loss experts and clinicians. (Called The State of Weight, the chat was part of Oprah Daily’s Life You Want series).

"I realized I’d been blaming myself all these years for being overweight, and I have a predisposition that no amount of willpower is going to control," she said on Monday's show. "Obesity is a disease. It’s not about willpower — it's about the brain."



Goldberg related to that, and suggest on The View Tuesday that viewers be a little bit bit kinder to each other, and to themselves.

"Maybe the key is to stop judging everybody. Maybe that’s the key," she said.

"My weight has come and gone and up and down, but it’s never been an issue for me because I don’t listen to what other people say about me so it has never been a problem. But I think it’s very hard for people to just know what a normal weight would be," she added, noting that others don't often know how to talk to someone when they've been through a weight gain. "Everyone has something to say but no one said, ‘How you doing?’ Because it involves so many other things."

"I think it is a matter of how we treat ourselves," Goldberg noted.




https://people.com/whoopi-goldberg-...300-lbs-8611145

She doesn't say whether she'd be likely to use Monjauro again if she has another massive weight gain due to needing steroids or other drugs that cause rapid weight gain, since she never really cared that much about her weight until that particular high point.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Wed, Mar-20-24, 08:28
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,357
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demi
What a fat load of trash! MAUREEN CALLAHAN slams Oprah as a dishonest shill whose Ozempic special was a glorified Big Pharma ad that indulged her lies about weight-loss jabs... and fed her oversized ego

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowb...N-CALLAHAN.html


Oprah definitely appeared to be a shill for big pharma.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Wed, Mar-20-24, 17:58
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,979
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Considering that there have been other diet drugs over the years... decades... or even a century ago when tape worms were used to lose weight.

I found a chart on the NIH site that has a list of weight loss drugs, how they were supposed to promote weight loss, and why they were never approved or were pulled from the market. The list covers the years from 1892-2020. Some were never marketed because of ineffectiveness or the side effects during testing , others were pulled from the market due to serious side effects:

Quote:
1892 Thyroid Thermogenesis Hyperthyroidism
1932 Dintrophenol Thermogenesis Disapproved due to Cataracts/Neuropathy
1937 Amphetamine Sympathomimetic Disapproved due to Addiction
1961-90 Human chorionic gonadotropin Reduce food intake Disapproved - Ineffective compared to placebo
1971 Aminorex Sympathomimetic Withdrawn after marketing due to Pulmonary hypertension
1985 Gelatin-based very low-calorie diet Reduce food intake Cardiovascular Deaths (Torsade de Points)
1991-95 Fluoxetine Serotonin reuptake inhibitor Weight regain after loss
1985-98 β-3 Agonists Increased thermogenesis Limited Effect; Increased HR
1997 Fenfluramine Serotonergic receptor activation (? 5HT2c) Withdrawn after marketing due to cardiac valvulopathy and pulmonary hypertension
1998 Phenylpropanolamine Sympathomimetic Withdrawn after marketing for Strokes
1999 Leptin Leptin receptor agonist-reduced food intake Limited Weight Loss
2003 Ephedrine/Caffeine & Herbal Ma Huang Sympathomimetic and adrenergic blocker Withdrawn after marketing for Heart attacks/stroke
2003 Ciliary Neurotrophic Factor Acts on leptin receptor Produced neutralizing antibodies
2007 MK-0557 Neuropeptide Y5 (NPY) receptor antagonist-reduced food intake. Limited effectiveness
2007 Ecopipam D2/D5 agonist-Reduce food intake Suicidality
2008 Tesofensine Triple Monoamine Reuptake Inhibitor Raised blood pressure
2009 Melanocortin-4 Receptor Agonist Reduce Food Intake Limited effectiveness, priapism
2010 Capsinoids Thermogenesis Limited effectiveness
2010 Rimonabant Endocannabinoid agonist Suicidality
2011 Sibutramine Triple Reuptake Inhibitor Withdrawn after marketing for cardiovascular toxicity
2020 Lorcaserin Serotonergic Reduce Food Intake Cancer


I think most of us recall at least a few of these being promoted as the answer to weight loss - and yet none of them are on the market today.

The semaglutide drugs are really only just the latest in a long line of weight loss drugs, and they're really only just getting started, but with this kind of track record for weight loss drugs and the side effects already reported, I'd say it's only a matter of time before they're pulled from the market too.
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Thu, Mar-21-24, 03:50
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,782
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
But still, the use of insulin really did start out with good intentions.


Of course, it was a "miracle" for some. Taubes' point in the book is that it became a crutch. Once again, it was all about a miracle drug, not understanding its use as a hormone?

Hormones create sensitivity. It's a body feedback mechanism, which regulates how much gets into the cell. So doctors began forcing hormones into the cell.

so some people didn't have to eat differently from other people.

This conformist worm in people's heads which did not allow for genetic variation -- which is real -- and the idea of different treatments is still not as accepted as it should be. It's gotten better, but everything is still based on the young medical students who were the guinea pigs for so many years. And that was not a diverse group, was it? Women, in particular, just weren't studied.

I loathe bad science thought!

People have to eat the way that is right for them. It's no different from me not wanting to wear colors that don't flatter me. But the fashion industry tells everyone what to wear, and the food industry tells everyone what to eat.

If they can get away with it.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Thu, Mar-21-24, 08:11
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,979
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
Of course, it was a "miracle" for some. Taubes' point in the book is that it became a crutch. Once again, it was all about a miracle drug, not understanding its use as a hormone?

Hormones create sensitivity. It's a body feedback mechanism, which regulates how much gets into the cell. So doctors began forcing hormones into the cell.

so some people didn't have to eat differently from other people.

This conformist worm in people's heads which did not allow for genetic variation -- which is real -- and the idea of different treatments is still not as accepted as it should be. It's gotten better, but everything is still based on the young medical students who were the guinea pigs for so many years. And that was not a diverse group, was it? Women, in particular, just weren't studied.

I loathe bad science thought!

People have to eat the way that is right for them. It's no different from me not wanting to wear colors that don't flatter me. But the fashion industry tells everyone what to wear, and the food industry tells everyone what to eat.

If they can get away with it.


Since it actually starts with the medical diet studies (based on young healthy male participants) which determines what a "healthy diet"/"healthy weight"/"healthy lifestyle" is for everyone on the planet. They then do a press release, and the media passes that on to the public.

The public is exposed to that information at the same time the food manufacturers are exposed to it.

But the food manufacturers aren't going to go all-in on producing food that meets those recommendations immediately - that would be absolute folly.

Sure, they will start figuring out how they might accomplish those recommendations in what they produce, whether it's reducing fat content or increasing fiber, etc. Changing production takes quite a while - years actually. If they make a product that has more fiber, can their current equipment handle that? Or do they need to make changes to the equipment to keep the equipment from breaking down 10 times a day? So while they're waiting to see how the public takes to new food recommendations (conducting focus groups, surveys, watching their own sales to see whether foods that naturally are closer to those recommendations sell better than those which don't meet the new food recommendations) to make it clear what the public wants (meaning: what the public will buy) before they start creating new foods or revamping how they make foods to fit the dietary parameters set up by the healthy diet research.

Meanwhile, they also do lots of taste testing of a new product long before production starts - if they're trying to make a low fat cheese, then they start out with their test kitchens producing various types of low fat cheese - lots of taste testing. And very likely lots of totally unnatural ingredients included to try to imitate the taste and texture of all the missing fat until they finally have something that not only meets the health recommendations but gets as close as possible to real cheese taste and texture (no matter how far that falls from the mark). Once they have some potential low fat cheeses that don't have the taste and texture of mud in comparison to real cheese, they start doing taste testing with focus groups. From that they determine which ones are most likely to succeed with members of the public who actually want a low fat cheese. If they find that only a very small percentage of the public is interested in low fat cheese, they're not going to immediately convert all their production to low fat - they'll only convert just enough production equipment to meet the potential demand. (They also need to figure out what they're going to do with all the cream they remove from the milk used to make the low fat cheese, because it's an expense removing all that cream - they're going to try to recoup as much of that expense as possible, and hopefully even make a profit on that too - maybe add cream cheese or marscapone to their product line, because they know not all of their customers are going to go low fat.)

My point is that it's not really the food industry telling us what to eat - it's what passes for diet research, the dieticians, and the market analysis that shapes what the manufacturer produces.

The fashion industry on the other hand... that's why I sew. At least with the fabric outlets around here, I can find fabrics I like, in colors and prints I like, and make the style of clothes I like... because I'm old enough and rebellious enough that I just don't care anymore at all what's considered fashionable.

But then I do the same thing when it comes to food - I cook what I like and makes me feel better. As long as I can still get the basic ingredients, I'm fine.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Thu, Mar-28-24, 03:05
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,782
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calianna
My point is that it's not really the food industry telling us what to eat - it's what passes for diet research, the dieticians, and the market analysis that shapes what the manufacturer produces.


While that's true, who is shaping the diet we have now? No one did research on all the junk that's in it now, which has slipped in through regulatory loopholes that just assume all this is safe.

Because I've noticed the drive is all one way. We get research that says butter is good for us and it makes it to the cover of Time. But no one brought out, as yet, a line of "EXTRA SAT FAT" anything.

My cat food research indicates the food industry loves bad fats because they don't turn rancid on the shelf. So I supplement my cat's fats, because they won't put them in the food. People are not so lucky, but yet, there is no support for the real research. And we all know who pays for the false studies, and run the American Diabetes Association...

Quote:
Cats, on the other hand, do not rely on ketones. Cats, being obligate carnivores, do a straight protein (amino acid)/fat conversion to glucose, which is used for energy. Cats have a very efficient metabolic system which is a part of what makes them the perfect predator. As much as they do not rely on ketones, they still rely on fats and proteins for energy, however much more efficiently than humans.


Which is why I think the dietician's goal (make everyone vegan) and the food industry goal (make it as cheap as possible) combined with how economy of scale got applied to biologic organisms -- and now we are starving ourselves while getting overweight and sick.

I'm saying things get this screwed up with a lot of effort.

Quote:
But then I do the same thing when it comes to food - I cook what I like and makes me feel better. As long as I can still get the basic ingredients, I'm fine.


My bold. Because it's hard to imagine that won't be the case... but there's a lot of incredible arrogant delusion going around. Including people who think they can live on weightloss drugs and junk food.

The irony is that many, like Oprah, who can afford the best food, home gyms, therapists, and personal chefs. Andf they still can't get it together without a drug?

Aren't they really swapping one drug for another? Like going from heroin to methadone? When all the solutions are corporate ones, we all suffer.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Thu, Mar-28-24, 03:21
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,782
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 129%
Location: USA
Default

Thinking about cats, obligate carnivores, it's clear they should be restricted to the 5% carbohydrate found in studies of their wild ancestors. Domestication wouldn't change what they should eat.

And it goes the same for us. We created cities, bread, and beer. Food storage (thanks to cats. This is why they were worshipped in Egypt, and already domesticated.) But we didn't change our digestive systems, to my knowledge. Just saying hunter gatherers didn't have that problem, AND every region had a winter season of some kind where plant foods aren't available.

This, I theorize, lets them purge themselves of plant toxins, which I now must avoid completely to keep my current health roll going. I think I've always been especially sensitive, but as a hunter/gatherer, I don't think it would have ever come up.

Since I'm so sensitive to anti-nutrients, I'm not getting much nutrition from plant content anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Thu, Mar-28-24, 08:55
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,979
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
While that's true, who is shaping the diet we have now? No one did research on all the junk that's in it now, which has slipped in through regulatory loopholes that just assume all this is safe.


Not all of the market research has to do with what the ADA and dieticians tell us to eat (through the news releases to the media). The UPFs are definitely being driven by the constant desire to increase sales.

The eventual development of junk food is definitely linked very closely to the shift from a hunter gatherer world to the beginnings of agriculture.

It seems that even ancient Egyptians were sifting flour - which removed the bran and germ, thereby removing most of the nutrients, but removing all those chunks from the whole grain flour created a flour which was easier to work with, wasn't as attractive to rodents, and and didn't go bad as quickly (oils in the germ become rancid very quickly after the wheat is ground - want it to last longer? Remove the germ by sifting it out).

I'd consider it to be the first UPF - or at least the first step towards the UPFs we see today.

It didn't really have that much chance to snowball into the craziness we call "food" today until society developed ways to remove the last remnants of nutrients in the already sifted flour that might cause it to go bad, developed ways to refine sugar from sugar cane (and vegetables such as beets and corn), and refine oils from seeds (which supposedly keep for ages, but to me they always smell rancid).

The UPFs developed over the last 100 years or so, and especially over the last 50 years or less - those are being inspired by the UPF factory marketing depts (corporate greed): "What else can we make that people will love so much that they want to keep eating it?" By the time that product is showing signs that the public might be getting tired of it, they've come up with a dozen other UPF products that are taking it's place.

What they're often doing now is trying to combine the UPF profit margin with "health" glow of medical research requirements.

Unsaturated fats? Look at that - we already have the cheap unsat fats because butter goes bad too easily in products when we produce enough to have a 6 month supply in our warehouse.

Plant based protein? We're all about that, since most of the UPFs any given factory produces already has some plant based protein in it, since all plants contain bits of protein. Add a bit of soy beans or chick peas to the product (along with enough extra sugar and salt to hide the taste) and put a big label on the front letting the customer know we're behind the whole plant based protein trend, and we'll have another winner!

Reduced salt? We can do that - we can reduce it by a small percentage, add some more sugars to make up for the lack of salt. Print up some "reduced salt" labels for them, ok?

Too much sugar? Easy enough to do - switch part of the sugar to some artificial sweetener (aspartame is cheap) or sugar alcohols (hey they're not technically "sugar" even if they're digested like sugar and can still raise blood sugar). Plaster that "reduced sugar" label on the package, and we're good.

There will be no demise of UPFs - they'll just figure out ways to make them more acceptable to the customer who is looking for specific health features.

Which reminds me of this article I saw a couple days ago:

Quote:

A nutritionist who cut down on ultra-processed foods shares his 5 go-to grocery-store snacks

When hunger strikes, grabbing a 3 p.m. chocolate-chip cookie or after-work bag of chips can tempt even the most disciplined and dedicated healthy eaters.

That's probably because snack foods like these tend to be ultra-processed, meaning they've been designed to be convenient and hyperpalatable, where food is made particularly enticing with the perfect combo of fat, sugar, and salt.

"These foods are marketed to us, and they are quite irresistible," the UK-based nutritionist Rob Hobson told Business Insider. "You want to keep eating more of them." But there are minimally processed, healthier snacks at the store if you know what to look for, he said.

Hobson decided to cut down on UPFs partly because they are linked to health concerns such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer. They are also associated with overeating and weight gain and tend to contain lots of salt, sugar, and saturated fats. Experts don't fully understand why processed foods are bad for our health, but the evidence suggesting that they are continues to grow.

Hobson defines UPFs as items containing five or more ingredients — many of which you wouldn't find in a regular kitchen — that often have a long shelf life and come in highly attention-grabbing packaging.

He shared with BI the minimally processed snacks that he says he picks up from the store when he's hungry and in a rush.

Fruit and nut bars

Protein bars tend to be ultra-processed, though they can certainly have their place in a balanced diet when eaten in moderation, the dietitian Taylor Grasso previously told BI.

But Hobson called snack bars made with just dried fruit and nuts a good minimally processed option. Nuts are a good source of plant-based protein and contain heart-healthy fats.

He's a fan of the British brand Nakd's bars, which can be bought online in the US.

Hummus and crudités

Another healthy snack option is hummus paired with some chopped vegetables, such as carrot sticks.

Hummus contains chickpeas, a source of fiber and protein, and olive oil, which contains healthy fats.

Hobson recommended always looking at the nutritional label because some products contain fewer additives than others.

Nut butter and rice cakes

Hobson suggested grabbing a jar or squeezy packet of nut butter, such as peanut, almond, or cashew, with as few ingredients as possible and spreading it on a rice cake.

"That's a nice protein snack," he said.

Plain popcorn

You may be used to enjoying popcorn doused in salt and butter at the movie theater, but Hobson said it's a very healthy snack when eaten plain.

Popcorn is high in fiber and considered a whole grain, which is linked to a reduced risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Fresh fruit

Though it may sound obvious, fresh fruit, such as berries, oranges, and apples, is easy to pick up and eat on the go. You can't find a less processed snack than that.



These are mostly examples of manufacturers taking advantage of health trends while still not necessarily producing products that are low in sugar, free of seed oils, added salts, etc - and all of them are primarily carb based.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Thu, Mar-28-24, 09:08
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,778
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

snacks are not a part of any health-eating plan. There are always a few times when a snack might be needed but they should not be used every day.
Reply With Quote
Reply

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:17.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.