The Skinny on Fat and Cholesterol

there is no way to control insulin resistance.

you can only treat the consequences weight gain and/or diabetes
and that is with Metformin.

The conspiracy is that a package of noodles has a higher profit margin than a pound of meat. When you look around in the supermarket, 80% of what is in there is really bad for us, but this stuff is cheap to make.

It is funny I was talking about that today. I was asking questions about something to increase my metabolism and cut my hunger pains. I was told to eat protein and good fats to do that. The problem is carbs do not stimulate the “I am full” trigger in your brain, and good fats do. Fats also do not affect insulin like carbs/sugars do and when you’re on that rollercoaster of sugar and insulin highslows your body is always hungry for what is lacking at that point in time.

The reason why you can eat 25 Oreos is because they use bad fats in them that do not stimulate your “I am full” trigger, and this is done with the purpose for you to eat and buy more.

Poor people are fat because the bad stuff is the cheapest. I can buy 50 pounds of white rice for 20 bucks, but 10 pounds of the much better brown rice is 15 bucks. Price sweet potatoes to regular potatoes, which one is much better for you…here is a hint, the one that cost more.

We are now at the point that being good for you is a reason to greatly increase the price on that alone. Eat your protein, good fats and fiber and drink lots of water for this alone would wipe out vast majority of our health problems.

But the problem is the big corps don’t want you to be healthy….they just want your money

Originally posted by ANNED
there is no way to control insulin resistance.

you can only treat the consequences weight gain and/or diabetes
and that is with Metformin.

The only way to treat type 2 diabetes is to treat insulin itself. Increasing insulin sensitivity will, in effect, control resistance. Through diet, insulin sensitivity can be restored faster and safer than drugs.

Why would you use a drug to fix a problem caused by malnutrition, especially when the problem can be reversed by simply eating the right foods, or not eating the wrong ones?

These "consequences", or symptoms, along with many others such as heart disease and bad lipid profiles are caused by insulin. Simply taking a pill might fix a symptom, but it does nothing to fix the core problem. In fact, most of the time, treating the symptom actually makes the problem worse.

Insulin resistance can be controlled, without the help, or intrusion, of pharmaceuticals.

-Dev

reply to post by Xtrozero


Good post.

The thing is, eating bad foods due to financial hardships will only cause more hardships in the long term, all thanks to the medical expenses brought on by those cheap foods.

That reminds me of people avoiding saturated fats while consuming buckets full of carbs. See, your body ends up storing excess sugar as, you guessed it, saturated fat.

-Dev

The Truth About the Recent Cholesterol Drug Study

(In November, 2008), the results of a new study on a cholesterol-lowering drug were released generating a ton of press attention. The study (the JUPITER study) made the front page of the NY Times, was featured on just about every television news show, and generally created a lot of buzz. Even if you weren't paying too much attention- and it was hard not to- you might have heard that the study showed that a cholesterol-lowering medication (Crestor) lowered the risk for heart disease by over 40% in people who did not have high cholesterol in the first place!

Why? I just don't understand why we would place people with no cholesterol problems on cholesterol lowering drugs. Looking at this from a distance, one would come to the conclusion that medicating everyone is the ultimate goal. All for what? Greed? Control?

In case you are worried about your cholesterol levels and depend on such publications to determine whether or not to take such drugs, you might think twice when considering the numbers game...

The real numbers were as follows: In the non-treated group, about 14 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (in other words 1.4 percent of the group). In the treated group, only 8 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (.8 percent). Tiny numbers- but reducing 14 to 8 does produce a "44% reduction" (just as reducing 3-in-a-million to 2-in-a-million produces a 33% reduction!)

Wow, is right. Does the spin stop here? I think not. So many reports are based off of these types of "twisted" numbers.

The article, a blog entry, actually describes how inflammation is the cause of heart disease. I would agree.

-Dev

A very recent study was released on the effects of a Paleolithic diet on modern humans. Why haven't other studies like this been conducted? Because no one really knows what Paleolithic man really ate. All we can go by is wall paintings and geographical surroundings.

The only records Paleolithic man left are the cave paintings, of which Lascaux in France is the most famous. Virtually all of these paintings feature animals prominently, which would lead one to believe that animals figured greatly in the lives of Paleolithic people. Since they didn’t domesticate these animals, and since it seems unlikely that they kept zoos, the most obvious reason these early people focused so much artistic effort on these animals is that they ate them. Carbon-13 isotope studies bear out that idea as the same carbon isotopes found in grass are also found heavily concentrated in the bones of Paleolithic man and other known carnivores, which leads to one of two conclusions: either Paleolithic man spent his days grazing or he ate animals that grazed. I would opt for the latter interpretation.

The study consisted of healthy, non-obese, sedentary subjects(6 men; 3 women) and lasted 17 days. 7 days of a ramp up to the paleo diet and 10 days on the paleo diet itself.

What they ate:

Meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, canola oil, mayonnaise and honey were included in the Ramp and Paleo phases of the diet. We excluded dairy products, legumes, cereals, grains, potatoes and products containing potassium chloride (some foods, such as mayonnaise, carrot juice and domestic meat were not consumed by hunter-gatherers, but contain the general nutritional characteristics of preagricultural foods).

Not necessarily a low-carb diet as it's more of a no processed carb diet. The macronutrient breakdown was about 30/30/30.

Results?

As you can see, there were significant decreases in triglycerides, total and LDL-cholesterol with no change in HDL-cholesterol....
*snip*
Fasting insulin levels plummeted by more than two thirds in (11.5 to 3.6 µU/ml) and the total area under the insulin curve was lowered by almost half. What these figures tell us is that the diet made these subjects much, much more sensitive to their own insulin. In other words, they required substantially less insulin to keep their blood sugars in the normal range. Since they were producing less insulin, they had less circulating insulin, which meant less fat storage, less arterial stiffening and less of all the things that too much insulin causes.

One of those things that too much insulin causes would also be high blood pressure, and the subjects experienced significant decreased blood pressure.

Sounds great right? It is, however; the test subjects avoided saturated fat at all costs per Nutritional Correctness. One could come to the conclusion that paleolithic man would have been consuming large amounts of saturated fat based on the amount and types of large came they hunted and ate.

Saturated fat would have caused the subjects in our study to show better results quicker. I'll leave you with one more little tid bit.

On our Paleolithic forebears....

These people were strong - stronger by all estimates than most agricultural and industrial people (including ourselves) who lived after them. Skeletal remains reflect strength and muscularity: the size of joints and the sites where muscles are inserted into bones indicate both the mass of the muscles and the magnitude of the force they were able to exert. Average Cro-Magnons, for example, were apparently as strong as today’s superior male and female athletes. Strange as it may seem, Cro-Magnons and other hunters and gatherers may have worked fewer hours per week than did the agriculturalists who followed, yet they were significantly more robust.

This goes to show that diet plays a bigger role in body composition than any other factor, including exercise.

Sources:

Rapid health improvements with a Paleolithic diet

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

The Paleolithic Prescription: A Program of Diet and Exercise and a Design for Living

Edit for sources.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

[edit on 16-2-2009 by DevolutionEvolvd]

Carbs are killing us. I also highly recommend the book Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. The "diseases of civilization" did not run rampant like they are now before the agricultural advances of the 19th and 20th century.

I have been on a zero carb diet for a nearly a month now and feeling great. (Meat and water only) If anyone is interested I recommend this guy's blog:
Blog

There is also a whole forum of people who believe in this way of eating.

This is also a great source of info:

The USFDA Nutritional Guidelines Are Not Scientific. Many people think the Atkins’ low-carbohydrate diet is lacking essential nutrients because it doesn't match the results of the Food Guide Pyramid. Their reference is the US Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Nutritional Guide for Daily Values (DV) as shown on all nutrition labels. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Guide Pyramid was developed by vegetarians with an agenda. Nathan Pritikin and Senator George McGovern were the perpetrators. There is no science behind the Food Guide Pyramid. It was a scam from the beginning - a make believe nutritional plan to limit the consumption of animal products. The results has been rampant heart disease, cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, intestinal diseases and a medical handbook full of other ailments. The USFDA Nutritional Guide is based on the Food Guide Pyramid. This is easy to prove. Simply go to a food count book or www.fitday.com... and enter a 2000 calorie diet exactly according to the pyramid. The results will show every nutritional requirement to be perfectly achieved. It’s all a scam. There is no hard science behind the establishment of the USFDA daily nutritional requirements.

Should Medical Science Ignore the Past?

For their article on hypercholesterolaemia and its management Bhatnagar et al selected reviews only if they included "extensive recent references,"1 thereby missing important knowledge from the past [full list of references in rapid response].2 Let me elaborate:

-No association between cholesterol and degree of atherosclerosis has been found in postmortem studies of unselected individuals
-High cholesterol is not a risk factor for women, patients with renal failure, diabetic patients, or old people3
-Old people with high cholesterol live longer than those with low cholesterol3
-In cohorts of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia, cholesterol is -not associated with the incidence or prevalence of cardiovascular disease, and their average life span is similar to other people’s
-No randomised, controlled, unifactorial, dietary, cholesterol lowering trial has ever succeeded in lowering coronary or total mortality4
-No clinical or angiographic trial has found exposure-response between individual degree of cholesterol lowering and outcome3
-More than 20 cohort studies found that patients with coronary heart disease ate the same amount of saturated fat as did healthy controls4
-Seven of 10 cohort studies found that patients with stroke ate less saturated fat than did healthy controls
-The concentration of short chain fatty acids in adipose tissue, the most reliable reflection of saturated fat intake, is similar or lower in patients with coronary heart disease compared with healthy individuals in five case-control studies
-The effect of statin treatment is grossly overstated and is not due to cholesterol lowering.3 Only a small percentage gain benefit—and then only if they are men at high risk—and the benefit is easily outweighed by side effects that are more common and more serious than reported in the statin trials, if reported at all.5

The evidence is out there folks, you just have to dig through the BS to find it. Arguably the most demonized nutrient known to man and yet there is no proof/evidence, nothing, that suggests saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease directly.

Poor Cholesterol, are you being picked on?

-Dev