Not that I disagree, but this is pretty much the paleo/primal/slow carb diet packaged as "the top 11 lies from mainstream nutrition."
Instead of leading in with "There's a lot of misinformation out there...", say it like it is "As a fan of low carb diets, here's what I get mainstream nutritionists get wrong..."
Lots of references, but I checked one at random and the article misrepresented the content.
Specifically, the claim "Eating gluten can damage the intestinal lining, cause pain, bloating, stool inconsistency and tiredness". But reference 14 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224837) is a study of something else entirely: they studied people who had IBS, tested negative for celiac disease, but reported that restricting gluten intake helped their symptoms.
The study showed that the patients were right: under double-blind conditions they had less symptoms under a non-gluten diet. This is an interesting result, and the authors conclude that "Non-celiac gluten intolerance" may exist, but no clues to the mechanism were elucidated.
But converting this into medical advice for the vast majority of people who are not suffering from clinical levels of IBS is not an honest representation of the research. Given that the rest of the article makes a lot of bombastic claims mixed with what I already assumed was "mainstream nutrition" (it would be nice for them to define this), I think it's safe to put this article/site in the kook pile.
I mostly agree with the article. The bit on too much Omega-6 surprised me (I like flax seed oil, and after some research I will probably cut down on this).
Sorry for plugging my own stuff, but I like to see the approximate nutrients in the meals I make so I built a little web site that lets me check the recipes I use (http://cookingspace.com - still a work in progress).
There may be certain tricks you can use to help you do this, but in the end it is all calories-in vs calories-out. The hard part is the hunger that results from this deficit.
Actually, it's not that simple. Someone else suggested the book "Why We Get Fat", which is a good place to start. There is reason to suggest that what we eat is just as important as how many calories we eat. I think this book mentions that we don't get fat because we eat a lot, but that we eat a lot because we are getting fat because of the content of our diet.
Yeah, because citing a lot of papers increases your credibility and you can go ahead with promoting whatever agenda you had in the first place ("evidence-based approach", as they call it).
In the long term, protein has a strong association with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture (18, 19).
Additionally, studies don’t show any association of high protein with kidney disease in otherwise healthy people (20, 21).
In fact, two of the main risk factors for kidney failure are diabetes and high blood pressure. Eating a high protein diet improves both (22, 23).
If anything, a high protein diet should be protective against osteoporosis and kidney failure!
The quoted studies actually question the presence of evidence that a high protein diet contributes to renal or liver diseases, they do not provide any evidence of absence of those ill side effects, that's quite a difference.
Bottom Line: Newer studies have proven that saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Natural foods that are high in saturated fat are good for you.
Of course the amount of saturated fats you consume and how the rest of diet is composed does not matter at all here...
The low-fat, high-carb diet is a miserable failure and has been proven repeatedly to be vastly inferior to lower-carb, higher-fat diets.
And "low-fat, high-carb" is of course a fully accurate and meaningful description of a diet.
Seriously, do not get your nutrition advice from SEO landing pages with bulleted lists.
| Soy is nasty stuff used in a lot of bread products.
| It has to be processed to within an inch of
| destruction to be made non toxic and is incredibly
| allergenic.
Apparently this lady doesn't realize that the 'edamame' you get at a sushi place is just steamed soybeans with salt.
14 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 42.8 ms ] threadhttp://www.amazon.ca/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307272702
Instead of leading in with "There's a lot of misinformation out there...", say it like it is "As a fan of low carb diets, here's what I get mainstream nutritionists get wrong..."
(Disclaimer: I try to follow a low carb diet)
Specifically, the claim "Eating gluten can damage the intestinal lining, cause pain, bloating, stool inconsistency and tiredness". But reference 14 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224837) is a study of something else entirely: they studied people who had IBS, tested negative for celiac disease, but reported that restricting gluten intake helped their symptoms.
The study showed that the patients were right: under double-blind conditions they had less symptoms under a non-gluten diet. This is an interesting result, and the authors conclude that "Non-celiac gluten intolerance" may exist, but no clues to the mechanism were elucidated.
But converting this into medical advice for the vast majority of people who are not suffering from clinical levels of IBS is not an honest representation of the research. Given that the rest of the article makes a lot of bombastic claims mixed with what I already assumed was "mainstream nutrition" (it would be nice for them to define this), I think it's safe to put this article/site in the kook pile.
Sorry for plugging my own stuff, but I like to see the approximate nutrients in the meals I make so I built a little web site that lets me check the recipes I use (http://cookingspace.com - still a work in progress).
Source: http://www.rejuvenation-science.com/omega-3-6-oils.html
Under that 5%, the ratio of Omega-6 and 3 should be maintained.
In the long term, protein has a strong association with improved bone health and a lower risk of fracture (18, 19). Additionally, studies don’t show any association of high protein with kidney disease in otherwise healthy people (20, 21). In fact, two of the main risk factors for kidney failure are diabetes and high blood pressure. Eating a high protein diet improves both (22, 23). If anything, a high protein diet should be protective against osteoporosis and kidney failure!
The quoted studies actually question the presence of evidence that a high protein diet contributes to renal or liver diseases, they do not provide any evidence of absence of those ill side effects, that's quite a difference.
Bottom Line: Newer studies have proven that saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Natural foods that are high in saturated fat are good for you.
Of course the amount of saturated fats you consume and how the rest of diet is composed does not matter at all here...
The low-fat, high-carb diet is a miserable failure and has been proven repeatedly to be vastly inferior to lower-carb, higher-fat diets.
And "low-fat, high-carb" is of course a fully accurate and meaningful description of a diet.
Seriously, do not get your nutrition advice from SEO landing pages with bulleted lists.