On Health

[Skybird]

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










On SALT:

https://drnevillewilson.com/2014/08/...ul-or-healthy/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...2-the-salt-fix



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!



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.dietdoctor.com/does-fasting-burn-muscle



On OMEGA 3:

https://link.springer.com/article/10...08-019-00687-x



On IMMUNITY:






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/

[Jimbuna]

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

[Skybird]

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.

[Skybird]

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

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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

Aren't you just a ray of sunshine or in this case, a ray of sunstroke.


* 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.

[Skybird]

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.

[3catcircus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Si did I, I love the taste of frying opil on chicken nwings, 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, corny syrups. The problem is that the maoinstream ifnormation 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 coarse 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.

Re: avocado pits. *Any* fruit with a pit has a strong chance of the pit to contain poisonous substances. Avo pits contain persin and cyanide-producing compounds. But eating one isn't going to harm you. Your have to eat a lot. Pets and livestock, on the other hand, are likely to become poisoned and die.

[Eichhörnchen]

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

[Skybird]

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.

[Skybird]

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.

[Skybird]

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/

Recent studies on cell cultures and laboratory animals have shown that there is a stimulus from the taste receptors to certain hormone-producing cells in the digestive tract. Theoretically, these cells could promote insulin release. Numerous clinical studies with volunteers have shown, however, that this stimulus is so minimal that it ultimately has no effect on either blood sugar or insulin levels.

[Skybird]

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.

[Skybird]

On FASTING and INTERMITTEND FASTING


I have seen many of his shorter interviews, podcasts and lectures, but I found this to be the most suitable as an introduction to both the idea of fasting, and the man (to get an impression og him). I know it is a bit longer, one hour or so, but if yo are into these thigns or wondered about it before and did not dare or whatever, this might be what was needed to convince you.


I do much of that myself, and sinc elogner time now. It works. Its easy. You get used to it. Combine fastign with a carbohydrate reduced diet, replace your unhealthy with good eating fats, slash out refined sugar and do not snack between meals. Keep insuline spikes rare in numbers and low in amplitude. Then you are on a good way to improving your health.

[Skybird]

"When you're a kid, you think adults have their shlt together, when you're an adult, you realize no one has their shlt together...." - Dr. Fung on the qualification of doctors who went through just the drilling program of ordinary medical studies at university.


Another brilliant presentation by Dr. Fung. I can only wonder on how many thousands of people'S lives he has had a positive, healing, life-saving influence on by not just sitting in his office and talking to those who find their way to him, but being so engaged in spreading the message as actively as he can. He has the empiry behind him, and his explanatiosn just make bloody strwight, consistent sense. Theory meets empiry, and they get happily married and have many kids.

The industry must hate this man. There is no money in what he recommends.

Fasting as a therapeutic option

Originally Posted by video description

Dr. Jason Fung, MD, is a nephrologist and expert in the use of intermittent fasting and low-carbohydrate diets for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. In this presentation, delivered on Aug. 2, 2018, at the 2018 CrossFit Health Conference in Madison, Wisconsin, Fung shares his first-hand experiences with “The Mess” and discusses how he shifted his research and medical practices as a result of those experiences.

Fung’s objectives for his presentation include: 1. Understanding why long-term weight loss is so difficult. 2. Introducing the concept of therapeutic fasting. 3. Understanding some myths and misunderstandings associated with the fasting process. He recalls treating obese and diabetic patients with traditional methods, which included what he characterizes as poor dietary recommendations and a slurry of drugs. He explains, “It became obvious that I’m just sort of holding their hand until they get their heart attack, until they get dialysis, until they go blind, until we chop their feet off.” “It’s really sad to realize that the profession that you’ve chosen is not really helping people,” he says. This realization compelled him to diagnose the problems associated with traditional care and seek alternative treatment methods for his patients.

Fung historicizes what he calls “the modern eating pattern,” which emerged in 1977 in the U.S. with the development of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. He notes the 1977 guidelines led to the consumption of more grains and sugars, which in turn led to people “eating often, eating late, and eating all the time.” Incidences of obesity and Type 2 diabetes reached epidemic levels, and the most common treatments long have been drug interventions. Unfortunately, the prevailing non-pharmaceutical prescription — to eat less and move more — has a 99.9% failure rate.

Fung observes that popular wisdom tells us to blame the patient and assume he or she did not adhere to the prescription. He claims a basic understanding of metabolism suggests otherwise, however. Fung explains why a significant reduction in caloric intake leads to a decrease in basal metabolism. This biological inevitability is ignored by the proponents of the “calories in, calories out” fallacy, he observes. He also explains why intermittent fasting is an effective alternative to traditional treatments for obesity and diabetes. The modern eating pattern keeps our insulin levels high all the time as we eat over long durations, and when insulin remains high all the time, Fung explains, our bodies store food energy as fat, and we remain hungry. Intermittent fasting, on the other hand, allows insulin levels to drop, which puts us in burning mode rather than storing mode. Fung claims his recommendations are so effective that patients no longer need to say, “Oh wow, I have to go see my doctor to see what pill I need,” or, “I need to go see my doctor to see if he needs to stick a stent in me.” Instead, Fung explains, “We’re giving you the power to take back your own health, because you’re not gonna get it from anywhere else.”

[Skybird]

On IMMUNITY:



I currently have the book in reading again (after a longer interruption), necessarily in English, still no German translation. Good one.