|
On Health
I want to bring to your attention a blog that I just discovered when researcing somehting on iodine, and I found some excellent research and writing beign done there. The author is a Dr. Neville Wilson who else is an unknown to me, but that may be different for those of you living in the US, I don'T know.
https://drnevillewilson.com/ So far I took a deep read into his articles on iodine and on fats, and I want to bring these two to your attention. They both supplement what i already had learned before form two books on these matters which I would reocmmend as well, since they provide a comfortable and understandable access to the matter that even non-professionals can easily follow. On FATS: https://drnevillewilson.com/2017/07/...or-bad-advice/ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40276480-superfuel https://discover.grasslandbeef.com/b...an-trans-fats/ https://link.springer.com/article/10...08-019-00687-x On IODINE: https://drnevillewilson.com/2018/10/...alth-benefits/ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6399174-iodine https://www.optimox.com/iodine-research https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afZg2jzHuCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih6Kpzu2E74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1Y8xXJBwDw On SALT: https://drnevillewilson.com/2014/08/...ul-or-healthy/ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...2-the-salt-fix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f8VAK-K1A0 You can read online. You can order a book and then read. You can watch and listen to a youtube film. What you cannot is - escape! :O: On NITRATE and NITRITE: https://translate.google.com/transla...le_id%3D154545 On CHOLESTEROL: A very interesting, fascinating explanation why the consummation of saturated fats lead to higher levels of LDL. It might be not so much a sign of a health issue, but a normal adaptation mechanism. https://sciencenorway.no/cholesterol...ystery/1810159 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://kochketo.de/cholesterin-und-keto/ https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://foodpunk.de/alles-ueber-cholesterin/ On OBESITY & DIABETES: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...8&postcount=17 https://translate.google.com/transla...r-Ketonkoerper https://www.dietdoctor.com/does-fasting-burn-muscle On SWEETENERS: https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sho...4&postcount=18 https://translate.google.com/transla...fwechselrisiko https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/9/2530 On FASTING and INTERMITTEND FASTING https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Aw0P7GjHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJgHBbEgsE https://www.dietdoctor.com/does-fasting-burn-muscle On OMEGA 3: https://link.springer.com/article/10...08-019-00687-x On IMMUNITY: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdLrpl8TzAw On WHEAT and all that: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.apotheken-umschau.de/krankheiten-symptome/magen-und-darmerkrankungen/ati-sensitivitaet-was-ist-das-748581.html https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/B07YFS6PTV/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?__mk_de_DE=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3 %95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=detlef+shed+an&qid=161 9260014&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0 INSULINE METABOLIC SYNDROME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpNU72dny2s On SOY: https://translate.google.com/transla...soja-ungesund/ |
As healthy a lifestyle you lead as you see matters, you've still as much chance as anyone else walking the streets of getting run over by a bad driver :03:
|
So make it part of your prophylaxis to make that driver eat unhealthy as long as there still is time! Then he is too dead on the day he wanted to roll over you. :D
|
Effects of dietary fats on blood lipids: a review of direct comparison trials
OpenHeart/British Medical Journal BMJ https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000871 |
Quote:
Aren't you just a ray of sunshine or in this case, a ray of sunstroke. :03: * Hides under the bed * Great article, Sky. Thanks for listing the items you use in your kitchen. We got an air fryer a few years ago and haven't fried anything since. Before that, we might have fried foods maybe once or twice a year. |
So did I, I love the taste of frying oil on chicken wings, calamaris and pommes frites. But no more do I eat it, since I fully understood the rattail of issues with transfats, Omega-6 and all that.
Fats is a topic that really everybody should get some basic education on, like sugar, glucose, corn syrups. The problem is that the mainstream information and paradigms on this and other food topics - are wrong. And have been so since decades and even a century. Problem also is that even many doctors and medical practitioners and food advisors do not know it. Not easy. You need luck to get even started, and then a good instinct when plotting your new course for the first steps. Its easy to go wrong. Today I red that the kernel of avocados, of which many say it also can be eaten and is oh so healthy and a miracle food like the fruit meat, in fact is so poisonous that in Mexico they grate and pulverize it, mix it with cheese and fat and put it out on the street - as mouse and rat poison. Bon Appetit. |
Quote:
|
I got the book "The Salt Fix" on Skybird's recommendation and have also read about the benefits of iodine in the diet
Currently our sugar-free diet is still going well; I sweeten my tea and coffee with 'stevia' plant extract and Moira is also able to use this to produce sugar-free cakes and other confections My wrinkles haven't disappeared yet though :06: |
Quote:
I found Stevia to be something that needs to get used to, it has a strong own taste, whose intensity varies with different quality grades of the product. If you find that to be a concern, too, I would encourage you to also test Ethylit. Google it, it is uncritical regarding any health concerns, and has a more natural taste like sugar, but a "cooling" taste to it. Its sweetness is 65-70% that of sugar, but practically zero calories (othger sweeteners all have calories, just5 not as many as sugar). Xylit also is a good option, thogh Ethylit imo is even better. The sweetener that is most closely to sugar imo is Aspartam, but it is being debated if and to what degree it is a health hazard, or not. Just saying, in taste and sweetness Aspartam is the best and I cannot differentiate it form sugar. I do not use it, however. Second, iodine, I hope you do not just ran into the adventure with closed eyes. As I have said several times, taking Selenium together with it, is a must. Capsules usually have 200-220mcgr, whcih is okay. Daily dose not higher than 400 mcgr, please. Also you should have checked your tyroid status, to be sure there is no organic deformation already present that indicates you already have problems there. Finally, please start with small doses, and slowly increase them over time. Maybe I exaggerated it, but I went by these steps, each of them taking 7-10 days: 200mcgr, 400 mcgr, 600mcgr, 900 mcgr, 1.2 mg, 1.5 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, 12 mg, 19 mg. I then jumped to 38 mg for three months exactly, and felt some detoxification issues that I adressed wiht high doses of B2, B3 and Q10 - problem solved wihtin 12 hours, as if a button was pushed. I am now on 25 mg. Expect your TSH being raised, and T3 and T4 maybe beign chnaged, too, and it will stay that way for quite some time. That is good, but your doctor may frown his eye brows and tell you it isn't. He most likely will be wrong then, it must be like that. It mreans youir NIS symporters ar ebeeing build and your brain has noticed that ther eis more idoine in yoru system now, so it must bring the symporters - the logistic network that disrtibute id9one in your body, in your iorgans, in your cells - into a functional state - it has spend the past decades in hibernaiton and is most likely in a poor state. That the body does this is indicated by higher productiuon of TSH. It must be so! It means" green lights". As long as you do not suffer from any other health issues at least. Find a health practitioner who a.) knwos the way of the Iodine :) , and b.) who can arrange an iodine loading test. Not a simple iodine urine test, that has practically no information value, but an iodine loading test, or mayb eoyu clal it exretion test, I am not certain. You take 50 mg, and then see over 24 hours how much idone the body gives away again: the more you pee out again, the better your iodine status already is. Here in Germany, these tests still are not known by most doctors and labs. In the US it is by now clinical standard, I read. Don'T want to alarm you, really, just want to make sure that although iodine is quite safe to use you you treat it with respect, not with just blindly seeking adventure. :salute: Did you like the salt book? I am really curious to learn what people think of it, when they got the complete picture. Its a history lesson on quite some broken, corrupted science, isn't it. |
^ No I have no plans to take iodine... I was simply commenting that I've read about it. I haven't read the salt book yet; my wife usually reads these kinds of books first and passes on to me the important points. I will let you know what we think
Thanks for the info about alternatives to Stevia... I am very interested in trying Ethylit, although I do rather enjoy the licorice-like taste of Stevia We avoid all conventional sweeteners because of the false signals they send to your body, which as I recall mistakenly perceives them as sugar and retains fat in reaction |
That is often claimed, but afaik unproven. And calories not present in your stomach cannot get metabolized.
A more realistic concern with sweeteners is that they may do damage to your guts microbiome. Xylit, Erythrit and Stevia do not belong to these. Guts are today understood to form two thirds of our immune system. High system relevance, I would say! |
Quote:
:03: |
I gave that idea up years ago
|
The Historical Background of the Iodine Project (2005)
https://www.optimox.com/iodine-study-8 Quote:
I add this link also to the first post in this thread, under "Iodine". https://www.optimox.com/iodine-research Quote:
The group around Abraham (+), Brownstein and Flechas are the practical founders of the neo iodine movement amongst American health practitioners, and since over two decades form the spearhead of combining lab stuying and practical experience that is being called the Iodine Project. They base on several tens of thousands of anonymous patient data records now, from laboratories from across all of the US. In result they practically reconnect to the tradition of healing with Iodine as was common until the time around WWII. The defamation of Iodine however began already in the mid- late 20s, when in 1926 pharmaceutical producer Herring released the first artificial Tyroxin drug and immediately began to aggressively advertize for it. Part of that campaign of course was also the defamation of the much cheaper and more logical alternative and rival, Iodine. After WWII, the Soviet Union and its allies continued to use Iodine in clinical use and were the first to restart research on it again, the Americans came second and the Europeans last. But the Sovjets science done on Iodine was leading. Since this could not be admitted openly in the West, Cold War and rivalling systems and all that, and since one could not just say "Its Sovjet success, so it must be bad success becauses its the Sovjets", one instead reinforced attempts to defame Iodine and to bagatellize it, and by this: rendering the Sovjet success useless. Tyroxin drugs since those times and until today year after year belong to the three most-sold drugs categories worldwide, I read. Which of course has nothing to do with why Iodine get demonised and med students do not get told much about it at university... Heck, I got the impression the even get told that it is toxic! Absurd. All halogenes like Flourid, Bromide and Chloride are extremely aggressive cellular toxines - and we allow them to be used in water and added to flour, medical drugs and what else. The only non-toxic halogene is Iodine - and this one gets demonised!? Big Food and Big Pharma lobbyism, I tell you. Do not be angry at your doctor, he is not the one guilty for faulty curriculae and has learned what they demanded him to learn and learned not what they withheld from him. In a way, he is a victim. But maybe tell him about such things, and if then he refuses to learn what he missed earlier, you maybe do not argue but better start looking for a new doctor. Thats what I did. The new however is not really that much more in the knowing on these things than the old one, so maybe I need to look again. Its your health, doctors are humans, training is deficitary (necessarily), and industrial lobby interests additionally poison the medical branch. So retake responsibility for yourself and your health. You only have this one body. Do not just blindly trust somebody with a PhD. Not even me, without my PhD. :D Read. Learn. Teach yourself. If your doc does not like that, flee from him. Doctors are advisors only, and they owe it to you to be right in most of the questions you raise to them, and to continue to learn new things all their career long. If you find they aren't, then you are dealing with no good doctor. Find another one then. You owe them no blind loyalty. |
On NITRATE and NITRITE
I stumbled over the topic of nitrate durign my latest researchges on ketongenic diat and the socalled Paleo food trend. It seems to be another myth that since some years gets busted: that it is oh so dangerous to our health and that we should avoid it. Personally, I have never cared much for it. BTW, our salvia includes plenty of nitrate - multiple times a smiuch as we eat per day even if we consuke large ammounts of nitrate-including food products, salted and processed meat, bacon and the likes. The following is by Udo Pollmer, a German food chemist and book author on (mostly) food, he also runs an according institute. He is known for his laconic comments and black-humoured, witty writing style, and often takes uncomfortable, unorthodox positions on topics. Quote:
|
On CHOLESTEROL:
A very interesting, fascinating explanation why the consummation of saturated fats lead to higher levels of LDL. It might be not so much a sign of a health issue, but a normal adaptation mechanism. https://sciencenorway.no/cholesterol...ystery/1810159 The understanding of fats and cholesterol has seen a revolution in the last decade or even slightly longer. Food and pharma lobby bitterly fight and argue against it, but it is quite clear by now that the old belief that saturated fats are bad and unsaturated fats are better, can no longer be supported. The Norwegian ecothrophologist authoring the article behind the link above, is just a very new look at it (and she has beside her witty brain also the good looks of herself to offer...). We also need to understand that cholesterol gets transported by LDL and HDL, from liver to organs, and back. Certain fats like coconut fat include very high levels of saturated fat acids, (90-96%), and correlate with rises in LDL. However, there are LDLs with small and with big particle sizes. The problem are the small ones, since these can penetrate into the walls of blood vessels, if these are already fractured or rough, for any reason. Then the small particles can start to clot and form atherosclerosis, possibly (it depends on so many other facotrs, on the ability to counter oxydation, the presence of other molecules and vitamines and nutrients and amino acids and so much more). The message here is that LDL is not just LDL. While coconut oil can correlate with a rise in LDL, it nevertheless has a health benefit, because it raises the LDL mostly by big particled LDL, while reducing small particled LDL, which is the dangerous one. So while you have a higher total LDL, you may nevertheless enjoy a lower level in small particled LDL, which in the end is a net gain in health effect. After coconut oil got celebrated, since some years the food industry tries to defame it again, instead wants to sell their seed oils with claimed healthy unsaturated fats and their toxic levels of inflammatory Omega 6 (sunflower oil has a O6 : O3 ratio of 125:1 !!!) from their monumental monocultural farms that bring so much wanted profits (if not for the farmers, then at least for the food industry...). Don't believe everything they try to tell you to scare you and fearmonger you! There are studies that the increased consummation of saturatedf fats can even extend the life of the elderly people and protect them to some degree against strokes and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). What should be avoided, are trans fats, seed oils and Omega-6 oils, as well as any oil that is especially prone to fast oxidation (linseed oil!). Eat freshly shreddered linseeds and nuts completely instead of using just their oil. The O6 may still be in the comolkete seed/nut - but also plenty of antioxidants mother nature put into the nut and seed that keep O6 under control and in balance. In oils, you usually miss these antioxidants. Also, avoid refined oils, ald every oil sold in clear plastic bottle (light and UV means constant ongoing oxydation). Avoid oils that get won by using heat, and in plenty of light. Keep heat and oxydation out of the equation of creating oil, whereever possible. |
On OBESITY & DIABETES:
When I went to school, leaving school in the mid-80s, there were no fat kids. Today there are many fat kids, and some already have adult onset diabetes. Tendency growing. Fast. The obesity wave started rolling in the 80s. That was when we slowly realised that still recommending refined white sugar maybe is not so good an idea. We started to avoid sugar, slowly, and started to turn to artificial high-chem sweeteners. And we started to become obese. Sugar was not the only thing that changed. When I grew up, at home we had three meals a day, and rarely only was I allowed to snack inbetween. Sweets got strictly controlled by my Mom. I knew it to be like this with the parents of other kids as well. It was common, it was how parent used to run their "regime". Today, we snack all day long. Additionally to the main meals of the day. And obesity has turned into a pandemic overrolling the industrialised world. We have breakfast, on the way to work we have a bonbon maybe, in the office somebody switches on the caffee machine and guess what - somebody puts some cookies on the table. In the meeting we maybe have a piece of cake, the woke eco friends have a banana or apple instead, and then comes lunch. After that, this or that person may join colleagues in the cafeteria and have a coffee, probably with a cookie or a chocolte bar as dessert. Afternoon shift, more coffee maybe, ad an occasional toffee. And at home, what do we do? Having supper. And to the TV we go (many of us do not excercise, lets be honest), and what is a good film without some sweets or candies, popcorn or potatoe flips? We eat all day long. Our reaction to that obesity wave in many cases is a very infantile one: we start to babble about self-esteem and being proud of our (ugly fat) body, and we invest much time into convincing others of how great it feels to have this (ugly fat) body, and , in the end, convince mostly ourselves how well we feel in our (ugly fat) body, so that we must not lift our lower backs from he couch and start with getting something done about our beautifully ugly fat body. The health consequences of this ugly fatness we nevertheless will and must suffer in the future - but we ignore them as long as we do not feel the pain: non-alcoholic fatty liver, liver inflammation, liver hepathitis, diabetes-amputation-blindness-death, CVD, silent inflammations, auto-immune deseases. How could it be that all this overwhelms Western societies, when we get so "well advised" by nutrition societies and state authorities to avoid sugar, to eat frequently and at rest, vegetable 5, 6 or 7 times a day, fruits 3, 4, 5 times a day, a balanced diet with "healthy plant oil" and no smoking and no alcohol? Its been recommended since 40 years. And thats the 40 years when the obesity wave arrived and started to flatten society and financially overwhelm health systems with ugly fat bodies. Is the good advise by nutrition societies really that good an advise? Well, to put it this way: I avoid such nutrition societies and their advice like the most lethal of pleagues. I cannot even just laugh about them anynmore - I am furious about them. Due to their eating advice, but also for other reasons having to do with supplements and how they demonise them and mistake absolutely minimum doses as above-optimum and almost dangerous doses. It oversteps the thin red line to physical assault, like recommending to eat rat poison would. What is wrong with having 5 portions of fruits per day and 5-7 portions of vegetable per day? Well. You eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. And eat. You eat all day long. You layaway yourself from fruit to vegetable, from vegetable to fruit (if you would do that). More realistically, you layaway yourself from snack to snack. Unhealthy snacks, filled with plenty of bad oils and fats, and sugar. You add limonades and corn syrup-enriched liquids. And almost every time you put something into your mouth, your create an insuline spike. Artificial sweeteners do not save you. They may not rise your blood glucose level, they may not add calories to your metabolism, but they nevertheless trigger an insuline production spike. Worse, this spike can be higher than that of a similiar amount of sugar! I did not know this until just days ago. I did not like learning this. I do not drink lemonades, but I thought I do a little good deed when not using sugar but sweetner in my coffee. Damn! Insuline is a hormone whose purpose is to press fructose into the liver and into the fat cells. Whenever insuline gets produced, you build fat - in the liver with its limited storage capacity (reach that limit and the liver starts to form "symptoms"), and into the body's fat cells. It is a myth that you become fat due to eating more calories than you "burn", it also is a myth that you can loose weight by exercising. There are even studies showing that it does not work this way. The problem is - insuline. This is at the heart of the problem of obesity and diabetes. The more often you eat, the more insuline spikes you have over the day. The more often your fat depots get fed. The more your general insuline level must rise, due to rising insuline restistance: more and more insuline is needed to still get all that fructose pushed into your overloaded fat cells. And here you have the reason why fat is not your enemy, but your friend, good fats that have no trans fats and that have small or minor levels of inflammatory Omega 6 in them: fat does not create insuline spikes. Not on a level worth to be mentioned at least. By eating fat, you offer your body the other fuel that it can burn: beside glucose, it can burn fat. The liver forms ketones from it. Ketones can feed your cells' energy cycles, especially your brain cells, and they can pass the blood brain barrier. Many cells in the brain and elsewhere even have the ability to take certain fats directly and build the ketones themselves, by passing the liver and not needing it, this for example is true with many brain cells. "Food light" products, with reduced fat contents, work as good as sweeteners, therefore: not at all. Plus they are inferior in taste. Proteins and carbohydrates trigger insuline spikes, fat does not. Now you know why many diets limit carbs ("low carb"). Full grain bread often has a higher glycaemic index than refined sugar! Not even connecting to the health issues that can be caused by wheat itself, it must be said that full grain diet probably is not a good idea at all, at least if you want to loose weight, or have a diabetes issue. Another good method to reduce insuline production is - to not eat at all. Fasting. There is nothing wrong with it, its a natural state in our evolution. There are many ways how to do it, personally I have become a fan of intermittend fasting. I did it for 12 months three years ago, I lost 14 kilograms in six months, and kept that level easily for another 6 months. Alsmost 92 kg before, almost 76 kg after. Nowadays, I have just two meals a day, a late breakfast and a later lunch with a warm meal. I only eat in the time window of 12am to 8pm, and every second or third or fourth day, depends on how I feel, I even skip the breakfast, and reduce the lunch to something with low calories not above around 600, its the only thing I care to make a reasonable calory estimation for - elsewise I think counting calories is total bollocks. A recent blood test I needed to do in preparation for the anesthesia during a planned jaw surgery showed me unwelcomed high levels of blood glucose, low levels of HDL, and a slightly elevated level of GPT (which is an indicator for the liver health, often meaning there are inflammated cells in the liver). All this together with my weight development of the past months and last year indicated to me what I already suspected in decembre, due to my again reached weight of 92 kg back then: that I likely had a non-alcoholic fatty liver, and was and maybe still am in a state of so-called pre-diabetes. Already in Decembre I had started with intermittend fasting again. I already was busy with studying vitamines and minerals due to corona and immune system and all that, as you have noticed :) , but since a few weeks, since that blood test, have dived into diet and low carb as well, combining low carb and intermittend fasting with elements of ketogen diet, especially I had - already before - replaced bad fats with good fats, and pushed fish and Omega-3 oil up on my charts. I try to teach my body to depend less on carbohydrates, and more on fats as a major fuel. And I am successful, I am at 81 kg (that is 11 kg in 3 months), still dropping constantly, it goes faster than three years ago when I fasted without low carb and keto. If there is one message one should really understand about why we become obese despite doing as we are advised and using light food products and sweeteners, than it is this: obesity and diabetes are caused by dysbalances in the insuline metabolism. You do not become obese so much by what you eat, but when you eat. And "When" means: by eating too often and keeping your insuline level high all day long. Antidot: Keeping insuline low, and avoid as many spikes as you can. Thats why fatty diet, low carb work, as does fasting. Combine the fatty diet (low insuline and switching to fat instead of glucose burning) with intermittend or full days fasting (reducing the number of opportunities over the day when insuline goes up) is your way to go. The combining of intermittend fasting and elements of keto and low carb I experimented with and stumbled over all by myself, without having a full model of understanding, I imagined more or less a rough orientation (which turned out to have been right on target and being in congruency with theory I now read), but a few days ago I finally also found a very competent author and expert who finally also gave me the full deal on theory and explanation that my intellectual mindset also craves for. I want to recommend him to you if you feel interested in these topics for any reason. His name is Jason Fung, he is a Canadian nephrologist who got interested into these topics twenty years ago and today usually gets announced as one of the world's leading experts on treating obesity and diabetes. Form yourself an impression of him, I provide links at the bottom for starters. There are several books by him, I recommend his two bestsellers "The Obesity Code" and "The Diabetes Code". Read 2 minutes, his best advise: https://www.dietdoctor.com/my-single...eight-loss-tip Get an impression on the man in person: https://www.dietdoctor.com/how-to-maximize-fat-burning ^ The video, lasting 4 minutes., Four minutes that have it all in them. I like the man. He is smart, I find him sympathetic, and after two books that I consummed in two rushed readings I say he obviously knows his stuff inside out. Here is a doctor whom I trust! I will not avoid forever carbs, wheat, pasta. I baked my bread over 25 years myself, i would not have done that if I would not LOVE the taste and smell of fresh, good bread. I know a thing or two about how to do a real good pizza dough (like none I can get in any restaurant here in my hometown). I LOVE spaghetti with two or three different sauces I use to prepare for them. I love boiled potatoe with herring in dill cream, and ibnly butter and salt on the potatoes. But I will for exmaple avoid noodles, potatoes as part of a lunch that has other main inredinets: give me the fish, the meat, the fat, the vegetable, the sauce - but keep rice, noodles, potatoes. But my short time goal is to drop below 80kg, my medium time goal is to get into the med-70 range, and my long time goal is to get near or right on the mark of 70. Thats why I currently eat more fat than before, but not as much as I would like to: the fat I eat is the fat my body must not burn from his fat deposits (take this as an indication that "eat fatty!" does not mean to blindly consume fat in absurd quantities). Thats why I avoid carbs currently. Thats why I drink no alcohol, no carb-including alcoho-free white beer, no pasta. Its not forever, but for some more months. Once I reached my target weight, I will eat carbs again, but at limited amounts and with time pauses between them, days. I will eat even more fat. I will allow myself an occasional Bailey's again. Life is too short to pass on all the good things always and forever. Because last but not least: EATING SHOULD BE PLEASURABLE AND FUN AND SHOULD GIVE SATISFACTION IN TASTE AND SMELL! This together with the massively improved nutrition status that i started to implement last year, results in many health benefits, loss of minor physical symptoms, and greater mental and emotional stability of mine. I feel so good like I have not since - well, since as long as I can remember. Very long time, I mean. I had to change my doc, however, the old one was too unwilling to learn new, and strictly limited himself to what he learned at university long time ago, and what the DEG, the German Nutrition Society, says. The new one is not more educated, but a bit more open to listen to new stuff. Thats okay, I see doctors not as people making decisions in my place, but only as advisors. And I must not accept every advice if it does not make sense to me or cannot be reasonably explained. Listen to your doctor - but never blindly trust one. They too are just humans, you know. |
Addendum: On SWEETENERS:
In the post before I mentioned that sweeteners were found to nevertheless trigger an insuline reaction although they may do not rise blood sugar/glucose. Comparable claims I have red many times before, and it never made sense to me. It still does not, and thats why I researched it today after having red in a believable source recently that sweeteners can trigger an insuline spike up to 20% higher than normal sugar. I googled for it. Two hours long. And I did not find a convincing evidence for this claim. If there is evidence, then it still waits for me somewhere out there. Where is Mulder when you need him. This is a confusing situation, and I think its worthy and necessary to shed some light on the situation of the debate. I do not like the picture I see. What angers me is that when you look for biochemical arguments against sweeteners, you literally always sooner rather than later get confronted with criticism based on not chemical, physiological facts, but psychological and ecological arguments. They all get systematically mixed into just one argument, without any differentation: that sweetners are bad, should not be used, and implying that enjoying sweet taste is a sin in general, we better do not use neither sugar nor sweeteners. I am so sick and tired of this pleasure-hostile reeducation! While the changing of your diet changes your taste preferences a bit over time (due to TASTE, not due to feeling a duty of any kind), and consumming salt can reduce your craving for sweetness for sure on the brain-neurological level, and your appetite chnages as well (which is hormone-controlled and even can set up its own, hormone-dependent time tables: you feel an appetite because it is that time of the day and although you even are not hungry, because that hormone gets produced when the timer beeps), lets face it: a basic appetite for sweetness remains in many of us, always, if not in form of "sweetness intense", then at least as an additional ingredient helping to make something else you drink or eat more pleasurable a taste experience: coffee for example, tea. I love coffee - but never black, black it is an ineditable, bitter, suspicious brew to me, It makes me almost vomitting that bad it is, I add milk and some mild sweetnes to actually change it into somethign extremely! enjoyable. For the same reason, historically this is why Espresso traditionally gets served and enjoyed with lots and lots of sugar. The drink stems from the times when after WWII the factory workers in Italy had neither time nor money to waste precious money on expensive good coffee, they wanted a coffeine kick, and it had to be fast and affordable. The quality of the coffee used for cheap Espresso (a fast brew costing less time to prepare and to drink), was accordingly: it was a bitter, terrible brew, and it needed lots of sugar to turn into something eatable. Cheap coffee beans = bad coffee. Trivial! Sweeteners are not all the same. Some get more metabolistically digested and chemically processed in your guts than others, thats why most of them differ in the dose at which they already produce diarrhea, the differences can be many factors. They also differ greatly in sweeteness intensity and own taste, some have very strict, strong own taste (Stevia) that even limit their usability, others are more neutral and less offensive in own taste, can even taste like sugar (I personally find the controversial Aspartam so convincing that I cannot reliably differentiate it from sugar, but I do almost never use it anyway). Now, insuline. I have not found anything describing how sweeteners chemically or metabolistically trigger an insuline reaction while not causing a rise in blood sugar. Please note: some products that have sweetners in them, do cause insuline reactions, to varying degrees. You may even have a written warning on the bottle or box. Usually it is less intense than from sugars exclusively used. Since some sweetners are not completely free from calories, and/or get digested differently in the upper guts - and because additional agents are beign used that for themselves DO cause insuline spikes. I think this is what the source of the quoted claim ("some sweetners can cause insuline spikes up to 20% higher than those from sugar") has allowed itself to get confused over: talking of sweetners as a pure agent while in fact referring to ready-to-eat products or liquids that include sweetners AND other agents. Please note: mixtures of different sweeteners, mostly used in ready-to-eat products like lemonades for exmaple, can include different agents to add sweetness, and such an added agent for example can be fructose. In light lemondes, it can form up to 1% of the liquid's volume. That is something that definitely triggers an insuline reaction. Heck, its fructose, or corn syrups, so what else would you expect? But this does not mean that you get the same when adding for example Xylit - without any fructose. Xylit and Erythrit do not cause any raise in blood sugar, period. And hence I strongly assume they do not cause any insuline reaction at all. I found no evidence and no hint for that. If you know better, I would be thankful for letting me know, I really would like to know these things for certain. Sometimes it is claimed that the brain realising the taste '"sweet", by this stimulus alone already creates insuline reaction. I cannot find anythign confirming this, however!? As long as this circumstance does not change, I rate this as unproven claim, and therefore: myth. What is being done by routine by propagators of the anti-sweet-movement, to give the whole crowd a name to call them by, is this: they take psychological arguments on motivation and behaviour and imply these are like are hard-coded metabolistic reactions and processes on the bio-chemical level. But this is wrong - though a factor worth to be considered! People can - and often do! - believe "Oh, this is a cola light, I saved calories, I have some calories free to eat somethign additional" and they throw in another chocolate bar, or they drink another bottle of it carelessly, ignoring or not knowing that it indeed includes not just a calory-neutral sweetner, but also 1% of fructose. And here you get an insuline reaction for sure - with a "light" product of which you wrongly assume it does not make you thick. It does, a tiny little bit per bottle. But that must not be the wrong of the pure sweetner itself...! So the argument is that because people can be motivated to eat more because they drank a diet coke, products with artificial sweetners (without fructose or anything!) make people thick and fat and so should be avoided. Wouldn't it be better to educate people on the facts better and more honestly so to change their motivation this way? I personally take great anger from this deceptive and cheap argumentation. And until I do not get shown by evidence (!) that my reasoning is wrong on the chemical and metabolistical level, I insist on that taking sweetners is better than taking sugar as long as you take care not to throw in more other bad stoff due to using sweetners. So, I will continue to enjoy my coffee with a mild dose of sweetner in it (I do not want to have sweet coffee, but mild tasting coffee instead of bitter coffee, that ammount and not more sweetnes in it I want, same for condensed milk or cream), without feeling it as ecothrophologically sinful. Another abstruse argument mistaken for chemical reality comes from the ecological direction. It is said that sweeteners are bad because they are indeed NEVER natural food, but always are chemically highly-processed agents from the lab. That is absolutely true, even for Stevia (and especially for that one), also for others that have a better reputation like many other sweetners, namely Xylit and Erythrit. They are food lab - like so much artificial stuff you can buy in the bio-market for vegans. Much of that is high tech food and anything but "natural". And often it is low in nutrients, causing deficits whichwho form patterns by which doctors can identify vegans and vegetarians, vegans and vegetarians, too different degrees, often (though not always) need to supplement nutrients like vitamines and minerals. There are many chemically highly processed food nobody cares to call out: plant oils, refined salt, margarine... And I say each of these is more dangerous than sweetners. Also, an environmentalist argument in formed, due to the chemical processing of sweetners, quoting the energy needed to be invested, and chemical agents used in the process of chemically cracking up molecules, filtering and so forth. Well that is like with avocados. Avocados often get criticised for being transported over long distances, and they need plenty of water to be farmed. That are facts, yes. But these are facts for themselves the consumer should decide on by the standards by which his own personal word view ticks, they are no chemical, nutrition-relevant arguments. Avocados are not dangerous to your health just because they take long travels and need lots of water! They are VERY healthy for sure! Here you again have the case that chemically hard-coded metabolistic arguments and non-related arguments get both mixed together and taken as one. Such intellectual sluggishness makes me wild! And often missionising drive and ideology is behind it - what makes me even wilder. A word on Aspartam. It would be my preferred sweetner, because its sweetness is equal to that of sugar, you therefore can dose it like sugar, and I cannot differentiate the taste of it from the taste of sugar, no other sweetner to me tastes as natural and as much the same like sugar. However, I am only human, too, and I irrationally allowed to get scared by the argument that always is being used against it, although you only have an animal experiment with unclear results in its defence, and no human-researched hard evidence. A rat is a rat, and a man is a man, I reject to conclude from the the one on the other, it does not work, and I saw it not working in relation to according conclusions made in the reading on salt, fat, and acrylamide, too. A rat is no human. A chimp is no human. Chimps can digest cellulose, we cannot. As just one exmaple, the list of exmaple is open-ended. "Aspartam causes cancer." Thats the one claim against Aspartam. More precise: it is claimed to cause cancer in rats, but it has not been really proven in those experiments. Said the American food authorities. The other claim is indeed a chemical fact, and I learned about it already in physiology class at university. Aspartam includes phenylalanin, and there are people with so-called (German) phenylketonurie who are well advised to avoid phenylalanin, which has a very neurotoxical effect on them. The prevalence for this desease is 1 in 8000 (0.125%), and Aspartam-including products thus must have a warning on their packages that the product includes a phenylalanin source. For comparison, in Europe 0.3-8% of kids and 0.3-3% of adults are affected by any forms of food allergies. The Americans allowed Aspartam in the years from the early 80s to the early 90s for different food product groups, and since the mid-90s without any restrictions, and in the EU the product is allowed wihtout restrictions since 1990. The original patent has fallen, the most known marketing name is NutraSweet, but there are now many other companies offering it, too. Personally, I am surprised by my own hesitation to use it more, I only use it on Belgian waffles a bit, since it can be dosed like ordinary powder sugar: one tea spoon of this and one tea spoon of that both taste the same and add the same quantity of sweetness. The rat claim is just a claim and never got proven and rats are not humans anyway, and the thing with phenylalanin is relevant for just every 8000th consumer. We have many diabetics that shoudl avoid sugar more or less. Does this make an argument to ban sugar from all and everything? People with peanut allergy - should peanuts be banned from the shelves? Other people having metabolic issues that prevents them from eating this and that - should these foods be banned in general? Paracelsus said something like that the dose makes the poison, and there can even be individual doses for different people. Its like that with sugar and sweetners as well. People's organisms react differently to both, and can tolerate different doses of these. They all become toxic if you reach excessive doses. What a surprise! In the late 80s/early 90s the Swedes panicked everybody by claimign that acrylamide causes cancer. What they did not say immediately is that they fed their poor rats - not humans! - with amounts of it that equalled up to several dozens and I think even a hundred times the animals' own body weight. Well, if I eat lets say 600 pounds of acrylamide, I assume I too would then prefer to lay still on the ground and being dead. - This is one of my most favourite examples of how absurd the nutrition debate is often led. In roughly the first decade of this century they tried to replicate the Swedish "findings", and so they amounted almost one thousand studies worldwide! And not one was able to replicate the Swedish findings: not one in almost one thousand! Even worse, more than half of these studies found all the same correlation: a correlation between acrylamid-avoiding eating behaviour, and prevalences to form various sorts of cancer. The more acrylamide-avoiding people were, the more often they got cancer! (This does not mean that acrylamide is an antidot to cancer, it most likely means that the lifestyle acrylamide-aware people are living by makes them prone to cancer: limiting food and nutrients for example) This study meanhwile has been withdrawn, is no longer being referred to, and the scandal is that it even was published in the first, this tells a lot about the lack of quality in the science magazine'S reviewing. Neverthless, until today we get warned to not fry our fries too hot and that we should reduce heat in deep fryers to 175° and you know what. Once the nonsens is out of the bottle, its hard to squeeze it back in. Personally, I do not care for acrylamide one bit. We are evolutionary adapted to it, because our ancestors roasted meat over open fire since - since how many thousands of years...? I bring this example to illustrate from a different angle that not every claim against sweetners should be uncritically believed. Food sciences often base on only observation studies that do not allow causal linking, like correlations do not allow, too, and this is an inherent and unfortunately omni-present weakness of the whole academic branch of ecothrophology. All I want to reach with stating this is: dont stop thinking yourself, be modest with whatever our eat, and practice healthy scepticism: do allow to get convinced, but do not allow to get convinced for free and without solid argument. Always scrutinze what is being claimed. Edit: P.S. The following is a release by the German "Süssstoff Verband e.V.", a lobby group for producers of sweeteners, so what they say better gets taken with some caution. Still - ah well, form your own opinion. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://suessstoff-verband.info/suessstoff-wissen/haeufige-irrtuemer/suessstoffe-regen-den-appetit-an-und-lassen-den-insulinspiegel-steigen/ Quote:
|
Added content:
on Fats: https://discover.grasslandbeef.com/b...an-trans-fats/ Why to be on your guard against Linolic Acid (LA) and Omega 6, and what oxidization and HDL and LDL have to do with it. Avoid O6. Beef up your O3. Big particle LDL must not be much of a worry, but small mparticle LDL should, since it oxidizes easier. The first seemk to not help in forming atherosclerosis, the latter does. Additional information is needed to assess your cholesterol status, just the total HDL and LDL levels tell you almost nothing. |
Added this:
on Fats / Omega 3: https://link.springer.com/article/10...08-019-00687-x The author prof. von Shacky and his companion prof. Harris are amiognst the world'S leading researchers on Omega 3 and close topics. Von Schacky is cardiologist in Munich. The two formed the world'S biggets database on patient data and fatty acid profiles and founded their own company Omega,metrix, which offers the clnical standard for the so-called HS-Omega3-fatty acid analysis, they do some things different than other labs. I had my own fat acid analysis one month ago done in their lab. Theire method seems to have reference character in the US, and slowly finds acceptance by clincial practtioners in germany, too. But I cocldude that as an outsider only. The paper has to be trnaslated if you are not capable to read it in German. It covers some of the very basic thigns about von Schacky's findings,. illustrating why you cannot just recomend a dose of daily intake for Omega 3 fatty acid accordng to age and wight, the range of doifefrence in efficiency at which individuals digest and resorp it, is incredidbly high: 13x21x10 factors. Here is the reason why many recent studies seem to conclude that Omega 3 is overestimated and doe snot do that much of goods for you as was hyoped in the3 years before - these studies all base on wrong assunptions and ignore some very essential needed truths about it. If oyu do not pay attention to them, the traditonal reocmemndaitosn necessarily mjust fail and lead to a recomemndation "to not waste your money". Which simply is lackign knoweldge, and nonsense. I am very happy to have managed to get my own fatty acid profile into the best shape possible, better the values practically cannot get. :up: Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.