Community Chat

[Irshgrl31201]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

@sidsmom@Irshgrl31201

Most recent studies are saying sugar is the bigger culprit rather than fat---there are good fats you need....doctors are now saying sugar is more of a risk factor to heart disease than high cholesteral. More and more doctors are speaking out on this........

---

Someone can reference all the recent studies they wish

(and one should question who sponsors or funds

these 'recent findings' for what financial gain),

but the fact is history, thoroughout millennia in all cultures

around the world, proves a low fat diet reigns supreme

for longevity & health....and more importantly for satiation & 

long-term weight control.  

Calorie Density.  It's a simple as that.

Fat are nutritionally 'expensive.'

Not a good dietary investment.

We only need 10-20% of our daily calories in fat...and most of that

can be obtained naturally with beans, greens, fruit, veg & starches. 

I want to eat as much food as I can for as little calories.

---

No, we should be getting anywhere between 25-35% of our daily calories from fat. There is only scants amounts of fat in most fruits and veggies, not enough for what we need. Fat is not only used as an energy source but is also vital for helping our bodies absorb vitamins and helping us produce certain hormones. Sources of good fat include olive oil, and oils from nuts and seeds, fatty fish like salmon and foods like avocados, olive oil, peanut butter, etc...

Fat is vital for so many things in our body ranging not only from physical health but also mental health. Certain fats are GOOD FOR YOU @sidsmom. Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats are important for good heart health. Fats are essential for healthy cells, they are a vital part of the cell membrane that surrounds each cell of the body. Fats are essential for brain growth and function. They also surround each nerve fiber. Fats are also needed to help our intestines absorb vitamins and vitamins K, E, D and A as they are fat soluble.

The low fat craze of the 90's resulted in wide spread weight gain for Americans. 

Fats are also structural components of  some of the most important substances in the body, hormones. Fats are essential in the production or sex hormones. Girls who are too lean and eat too little fat experience delayed pubertal development. Fat is important for our hair, skin and nails. Fatty acid deficiency will result in dry, flaky skin.

[sidsmom]

---

@Irshgrl31201 wrote:

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

@sidsmom@Irshgrl31201

Most recent studies are saying sugar is the bigger culprit rather than fat---there are good fats you need....doctors are now saying sugar is more of a risk factor to heart disease than high cholesteral. More and more doctors are speaking out on this........

---

Someone can reference all the recent studies they wish

(and one should question who sponsors or funds

these 'recent findings' for what financial gain),

but the fact is history, thoroughout millennia in all cultures

around the world, proves a low fat diet reigns supreme

for longevity & health....and more importantly for satiation & 

long-term weight control.  

Calorie Density.  It's a simple as that.

Fat are nutritionally 'expensive.'

Not a good dietary investment.

We only need 10-20% of our daily calories in fat...and most of that

can be obtained naturally with beans, greens, fruit, veg & starches. 

I want to eat as much food as I can for as little calories.

---

".....more overweight children and adults eat high carb low fat diets than any other group."

---

.....says no one ever.

Wow.

Who are these people?

I'm pretty in tune w/ the HCLF community...the result of HCLF is a healthy lower body fat%, optimum body weight & fewer diseases like diabetes & heart issues.  Especially no diabetes since fat causes insulin resistance. 

All the Blue Zones & countries (HCLF) where starch is the main source of calories will be trim.  If one doesn't have $, you can eat very well, and healthfully, on a bag of beans and rice/potatoes/oats as your main source of calories. Think peasant food...fat & animal products/byproducts are expensive. 

Blaming the '90s 'low fat craze' on the obesity problem of today....uh, the low carb, high fat camp had well over 20 years..really close to THIRTY years to fix....how come eating 'healthy fat-more protein' is sicker than ever?  It's not working.  The % of fat we're consuming today directly relates to the amount of processed food & animal meat/byproducts....higher & higher w/ each decade.  And I'm not even going to touch on the increased sodium & processed sugars/fats increasing each decade, as well.  Salt/Fat/Sugar...the Addictive Trinity. If you have one, the others can't be too far behind. 

As far as being satiated w/ a low fat diet...yes.  We all have stretch receptors in our stomach.  If those receptors are not met, we continue to eat & eat & eat.  

Fat is 9 calories/gram.  

Carbohydrates/protein 4 calories/gram.

Nutrition 101.

Low carb/High fat? Cranky & basically a starvation diet.  Being high carbohydrate/low fat, one can consume TWICE the amount of food...no, really more than twice the amount of food.   Clean, whole food, plant based carbohydrate is an amazing fuel for the body. Hard to slow us down!

I have a feeling most reading this already knows what I'm saying...and understands the reasoning.  A low fat, whole foods, plant based diet (starch based) is preferred for optimum health...for Generations, always has been...and always will be.

[feline groovy]

[itiswhatitis]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Lucky Charm wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Lucky Charm, I don't doubt that.  I'm not talking about what they purchased or how healthy it appears.  I'm talking about the comparison of what food choices some economic levels have while their more well off neighbors have more choices.

I said nothing about sugary drinks or soda.  I said nothing about whether they are good for you or not.  I said nothing about the fast food offerings they chose.

My point, and then I'll end here is the talk about what Americans consume.  Some of the poorest people in our country are obese and there is a reason that goes beyond drinking and eating unhealthy foods.  Part of it has to do with their access to nutritional food.

---

Okay whatitis, we aren't on the same page then. I was going by the picture of the groceries bought and how much was spent.

Seems the lower income level familes pictured didn't bother to buy *junk*, just the necessities (whole food). 

I wonder if these people also had fast food places and ordered cheap hamburgers, would they wash it down with a fountain soda or a bottle of water?  Water I can only hope.

---

@Lucky Charm, I tried to impart on the discussion the "why" as opposed to the what.  If we want to understand patterns and behaviors (including food choices) we need to know the whys.  I posted quite a few articles that may play a significant role in food choices (aside from I just prefer junk theories).

I saw these pics and there are many more families from different regions who have food items that are just as questionable.  I read the whole article.

---

While I totally understand that fresh food choices are not available to many in poorer communities (and I know of groups that are working to change that), for a great number of people their food choices are based on a very simiple criteria - they LIKE them.  Of course, that brings up the issues of food "manufacturers" and their use of high amounts of salt, sugar and fat to make them taste good and to hook people on them.

But I suppose that's a different topic.

---

@QueenDanceALot, if given other options, they could learn to like them as well.  It's been shown and proven that access to fresh foods would be a staple of their meal planning if access were available.  You can only like it, if it is prepared for you to eat it.  Yes, they like junk food.  However, urban gardens and even our former FLOTUS made it seem cool to eat veggies but people have to have access.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Lucky Charm wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Lucky Charm, I don't doubt that.  I'm not talking about what they purchased or how healthy it appears.  I'm talking about the comparison of what food choices some economic levels have while their more well off neighbors have more choices.

I said nothing about sugary drinks or soda.  I said nothing about whether they are good for you or not.  I said nothing about the fast food offerings they chose.

My point, and then I'll end here is the talk about what Americans consume.  Some of the poorest people in our country are obese and there is a reason that goes beyond drinking and eating unhealthy foods.  Part of it has to do with their access to nutritional food.

---

Okay whatitis, we aren't on the same page then. I was going by the picture of the groceries bought and how much was spent.

Seems the lower income level familes pictured didn't bother to buy *junk*, just the necessities (whole food). 

I wonder if these people also had fast food places and ordered cheap hamburgers, would they wash it down with a fountain soda or a bottle of water?  Water I can only hope.

---

@Lucky Charm, I tried to impart on the discussion the "why" as opposed to the what.  If we want to understand patterns and behaviors (including food choices) we need to know the whys.  I posted quite a few articles that may play a significant role in food choices (aside from I just prefer junk theories).

I saw these pics and there are many more families from different regions who have food items that are just as questionable.  I read the whole article.

---

While I totally understand that fresh food choices are not available to many in poorer communities (and I know of groups that are working to change that), for a great number of people their food choices are based on a very simiple criteria - they LIKE them.  Of course, that brings up the issues of food "manufacturers" and their use of high amounts of salt, sugar and fat to make them taste good and to hook people on them.

But I suppose that's a different topic.

---

@QueenDanceALot, if given other options, they could learn to like them as well.  It's been shown and proven that access to fresh foods would be a staple of their meal planning if access were available.  You can only like it, if it is prepared for you to eat it.  Yes, they like junk food.  However, urban gardens and even our former FLOTUS made it seem cool to eat veggies but people have to have access.

---

I don't disagree, but I can think of several people I know personally who have access to fresh food but prefer to eat the processed salt, sugar and fat laden things that they already like.  They also have no interest in hearing about how eating differently would be better for their health.

I can't tell you the percentages of people who WOULD change what they eat, given the option, but I CAN tell you about those people I know who would tell me to go fly a kite if I suggested they shop veegetables instead of frozen pizza.

[truffle]

I wonder how the author of this book orchestrated the photography without spoiling all the food. I'm sure each photo shoot and the placement of all the food was time consuming, getting all the family members agreeing to it and sitting in a specific place and position. Also am wondering if the author accompanied each family to the grocery store or farmer's market and paid for a weeks worth of grocries telling them to purchase what they normally eat. Sorry but this whole story seems very contrived.  

[Irshgrl31201]

Because @sidsmom, most people don't just eat healthy fats and stick to perimeter of the stores, eating fruits, veg, lean meats and complex carbs. Most people or many people in America are eating processed foods laden with sugar. Sugar is the #1 cause of heart disease in America, surpassing all other causes. 

Are you honestly claiming that people were eating healthy or losing weight during the low fat craze? Taking fat out of everything possible and replacing it with sugar? We went from eating arond 5 pounds yearly over 100 yrs ago to now eating between 150-170 lbs a year. That is the major problem and medical crisis in America.

You know exactly what I am talking about. People eating fat is not the problem if people are eating lean meats, fish, veggie fruits and whole grains, nuts, legumes etc... You know that. Every nutrionists and dr in the world knows this. The problem comes in when people eat processed foods and the wrong types of fat. 

Are you saying you don't agree that there are good fats? There really is no sense in continuing this argument with you. It has been proven that children and adults that eat more healthy fat are less hungry throughout the day. Science supports my argument, only obscure doctors who write for natural news support yours. I dont' mean to sound rude but there is study after study (independent) that supports what I am saying. 

[Irshgrl31201]

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Irshgrl31201 wrote:

---

@sidsmom wrote:

---

@Spurt wrote:

@sidsmom@Irshgrl31201

Most recent studies are saying sugar is the bigger culprit rather than fat---there are good fats you need....doctors are now saying sugar is more of a risk factor to heart disease than high cholesteral. More and more doctors are speaking out on this........

---

Someone can reference all the recent studies they wish

(and one should question who sponsors or funds

these 'recent findings' for what financial gain),

but the fact is history, thoroughout millennia in all cultures

around the world, proves a low fat diet reigns supreme

for longevity & health....and more importantly for satiation & 

long-term weight control.  

Calorie Density.  It's a simple as that.

Fat are nutritionally 'expensive.'

Not a good dietary investment.

We only need 10-20% of our daily calories in fat...and most of that

can be obtained naturally with beans, greens, fruit, veg & starches. 

I want to eat as much food as I can for as little calories.

---

".....more overweight children and adults eat high carb low fat diets than any other group."

---

.....says no one ever.

Wow.

Who are these people?

I'm pretty in tune w/ the HCLF community...the result of HCLF is a healthy lower body fat%, optimum body weight & fewer diseases like diabetes & heart issues.  Especially no diabetes since fat causes insulin resistance. 

All the Blue Zones & countries (HCLF) where starch is the main source of calories will be trim.  If one doesn't have $, you can eat very well, and healthfully, on a bag of beans and rice/potatoes/oats as your main source of calories. Think peasant food...fat & animal products/byproducts are expensive. 

Blaming the '90s 'low fat craze' on the obesity problem of today....uh, the low carb, high fat camp had well over 20 years..really close to THIRTY years to fix....how come eating 'healthy fat-more protein' is sicker than ever?  It's not working.  The % of fat we're consuming today directly relates to the amount of processed food & animal meat/byproducts....higher & higher w/ each decade.  And I'm not even going to touch on the increased sodium & processed sugars/fats increasing each decade, as well.  Salt/Fat/Sugar...the Addictive Trinity. If you have one, the others can't be too far behind. 

As far as being satiated w/ a low fat diet...yes.  We all have stretch receptors in our stomach.  If those receptors are not met, we continue to eat & eat & eat.  

Fat is 9 calories/gram.  

Carbohydrates/protein 4 calories/gram.

Nutrition 101.

Low carb/High fat? Cranky & basically a starvation diet.  Being high carbohydrate/low fat, one can consume TWICE the amount of food...no, really more than twice the amount of food.   Clean, whole food, plant based carbohydrate is an amazing fuel for the body. Hard to slow us down!

I have a feeling most reading this already knows what I'm saying...and understands the reasoning.  A low fat, whole foods, plant based diet (starch based) is preferred for optimum health...for Generations, always has been...and always will be.

---

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/28/295332576/why-we-got-fatter-during-the-fat-free-food-...

She says if you look at the results of studies where participants followed low-fat diets, there's no convincing evidence that this pattern of eating cuts the risk of disease.

"There have been a number of studies done," Flynn said, "and there's been no benefit for low-fat diets to lead to better weight loss, and there's no benefit for low-fat diets to lead to less disease."

One of those studies, published in 2006, was part of the Women's Health Initiative that included thousands of women.

It's complicated to look back over 40 years and tease out an independent effect of diet on heart disease. That's because Americans have changed many other habits. For instance, many people stopped smoking, started exercising and began taking statin medicines to control cholesterol.

But what's become clear, Flynn says, is that avoiding fat is not the key to a healthy diet.

[itiswhatitis]

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Lucky Charm wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Lucky Charm, I don't doubt that.  I'm not talking about what they purchased or how healthy it appears.  I'm talking about the comparison of what food choices some economic levels have while their more well off neighbors have more choices.

I said nothing about sugary drinks or soda.  I said nothing about whether they are good for you or not.  I said nothing about the fast food offerings they chose.

My point, and then I'll end here is the talk about what Americans consume.  Some of the poorest people in our country are obese and there is a reason that goes beyond drinking and eating unhealthy foods.  Part of it has to do with their access to nutritional food.

---

Okay whatitis, we aren't on the same page then. I was going by the picture of the groceries bought and how much was spent.

Seems the lower income level familes pictured didn't bother to buy *junk*, just the necessities (whole food). 

I wonder if these people also had fast food places and ordered cheap hamburgers, would they wash it down with a fountain soda or a bottle of water?  Water I can only hope.

---

@Lucky Charm, I tried to impart on the discussion the "why" as opposed to the what.  If we want to understand patterns and behaviors (including food choices) we need to know the whys.  I posted quite a few articles that may play a significant role in food choices (aside from I just prefer junk theories).

I saw these pics and there are many more families from different regions who have food items that are just as questionable.  I read the whole article.

---

While I totally understand that fresh food choices are not available to many in poorer communities (and I know of groups that are working to change that), for a great number of people their food choices are based on a very simiple criteria - they LIKE them.  Of course, that brings up the issues of food "manufacturers" and their use of high amounts of salt, sugar and fat to make them taste good and to hook people on them.

But I suppose that's a different topic.

---

@QueenDanceALot, if given other options, they could learn to like them as well.  It's been shown and proven that access to fresh foods would be a staple of their meal planning if access were available.  You can only like it, if it is prepared for you to eat it.  Yes, they like junk food.  However, urban gardens and even our former FLOTUS made it seem cool to eat veggies but people have to have access.

---

I don't disagree, but I can think of several people I know personally who have access to fresh food but prefer to eat the processed salt, sugar and fat laden things that they already like.  They also have no interest in hearing about how eating differently would be better for their health.

I can't tell you the percentages of people who WOULD change what they eat, given the option, but I CAN tell you about those people I know who would tell me to go fly a kite if I suggested they shop veegetables instead of frozen pizza.

---

@QueenDanceALot I don't disagree.  I know plenty too.  I'm not talking about those with choices.  I'm talking about those without.  They exist and it is a bigger part of the problem. It's not the entire problem, but it plays a significant role.  I think I spoke to this up thread somewhere in here.  

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Lucky Charm wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

@Lucky Charm, I don't doubt that.  I'm not talking about what they purchased or how healthy it appears.  I'm talking about the comparison of what food choices some economic levels have while their more well off neighbors have more choices.

I said nothing about sugary drinks or soda.  I said nothing about whether they are good for you or not.  I said nothing about the fast food offerings they chose.

My point, and then I'll end here is the talk about what Americans consume.  Some of the poorest people in our country are obese and there is a reason that goes beyond drinking and eating unhealthy foods.  Part of it has to do with their access to nutritional food.

---

Okay whatitis, we aren't on the same page then. I was going by the picture of the groceries bought and how much was spent.

Seems the lower income level familes pictured didn't bother to buy *junk*, just the necessities (whole food). 

I wonder if these people also had fast food places and ordered cheap hamburgers, would they wash it down with a fountain soda or a bottle of water?  Water I can only hope.

---

@Lucky Charm, I tried to impart on the discussion the "why" as opposed to the what.  If we want to understand patterns and behaviors (including food choices) we need to know the whys.  I posted quite a few articles that may play a significant role in food choices (aside from I just prefer junk theories).

I saw these pics and there are many more families from different regions who have food items that are just as questionable.  I read the whole article.

---

While I totally understand that fresh food choices are not available to many in poorer communities (and I know of groups that are working to change that), for a great number of people their food choices are based on a very simiple criteria - they LIKE them.  Of course, that brings up the issues of food "manufacturers" and their use of high amounts of salt, sugar and fat to make them taste good and to hook people on them.

But I suppose that's a different topic.

---

@QueenDanceALot, if given other options, they could learn to like them as well.  It's been shown and proven that access to fresh foods would be a staple of their meal planning if access were available.  You can only like it, if it is prepared for you to eat it.  Yes, they like junk food.  However, urban gardens and even our former FLOTUS made it seem cool to eat veggies but people have to have access.

---

I don't disagree, but I can think of several people I know personally who have access to fresh food but prefer to eat the processed salt, sugar and fat laden things that they already like.  They also have no interest in hearing about how eating differently would be better for their health.

I can't tell you the percentages of people who WOULD change what they eat, given the option, but I CAN tell you about those people I know who would tell me to go fly a kite if I suggested they shop veegetables instead of frozen pizza.

---

@QueenDanceALot I don't disagree.  I know plenty too.  I'm not talking about those with choices.  I'm talking about those without.  They exist and it is a bigger part of the problem. It's not the entire problem, but it plays a significant role.  I think I spoke to this up thread somewhere in here.  

---

You were talking about those who would eat better if they had choices in the post I was responding to.  

I have already stated several times that I AGREE that many people don't have healthy choices AND that there are people working towards a change in that situation.

I don't see the beef (haha).