Three men were standing in line to get into heaven one day. Apparently it had been a pretty busy day, though, so Peter had to tell the first one, "Heaven's getting pretty close to full today, and I've been asked to admit only people who have had particularly horrible deaths. So what's your story?"
So the first man replies: "Well, for a while I've suspected my wife has been cheating on me, so today I came home early to try to catch her red-handed. As I came into my 25th floor apartment, I could tell something was wrong, but all my searching around didn't reveal where this other guy could have been hiding. Finally, I went out to the balcony, and sure enough, there was this man hanging off the railing, 25 floors above ground! By now I was really mad, so I started beating on him and kicking him, but wouldn't you know it, he wouldn't fall off. So finally I went back into my apartment and got a hammer and starting hammering on his fingers. Of course, he couldn't stand that for long, so he let go and fell -- but even after 25 stories, he fell into the bushes, stunned but okay. I couldn't stand it anymore, so I ran into the kitchen, grabbed the fridge and threw it over the edge where it landed on him, killing him instantly. But all the stress and anger got to me, and I had a heart attack and died there on the balcony."
"That sounds like a pretty bad day to me," said Peter, and let the man in.
The second man comes up and Peter explains to him about heaven being full, and again asks for his story.
"It's been a very strange day. You see, I live on the 26th floor of my apartment building, and every morning I do my exercises out on my balcony. Well, this morning I must have slipped or something, because I fell over the edge. But I got lucky, and caught the railing of the balcony on the floor below me. I knew I couldn't hang on for very long, when suddenly this man burst out onto the balcony. I thought for sure I was saved, when he started beating on me and kicking me. I held on the best I could until he ran into the apartment and grabbed a hammer and started pounding on my hands. Finally I just let go, but again I got lucky and fell into the bushes below, stunned but all right. Just when I was thinking I was going to be okay, this refrigerator comes falling out of the sky and crushes me instantly, and now I'm here."
Once again, Peter had to concede that that sounded like a pretty horrible death.
The third man came to the front of the line, and again Peter explained that heaven was full and asked for his story.
"Picture this," says the third man, "I'm hiding inside a refrigerator..."
So the first man replies: "Well, for a while I've suspected my wife has been cheating on me, so today I came home early to try to catch her red-handed. As I came into my 25th floor apartment, I could tell something was wrong, but all my searching around didn't reveal where this other guy could have been hiding. Finally, I went out to the balcony, and sure enough, there was this man hanging off the railing, 25 floors above ground! By now I was really mad, so I started beating on him and kicking him, but wouldn't you know it, he wouldn't fall off. So finally I went back into my apartment and got a hammer and starting hammering on his fingers. Of course, he couldn't stand that for long, so he let go and fell -- but even after 25 stories, he fell into the bushes, stunned but okay. I couldn't stand it anymore, so I ran into the kitchen, grabbed the fridge and threw it over the edge where it landed on him, killing him instantly. But all the stress and anger got to me, and I had a heart attack and died there on the balcony."
"That sounds like a pretty bad day to me," said Peter, and let the man in.
The second man comes up and Peter explains to him about heaven being full, and again asks for his story.
"It's been a very strange day. You see, I live on the 26th floor of my apartment building, and every morning I do my exercises out on my balcony. Well, this morning I must have slipped or something, because I fell over the edge. But I got lucky, and caught the railing of the balcony on the floor below me. I knew I couldn't hang on for very long, when suddenly this man burst out onto the balcony. I thought for sure I was saved, when he started beating on me and kicking me. I held on the best I could until he ran into the apartment and grabbed a hammer and started pounding on my hands. Finally I just let go, but again I got lucky and fell into the bushes below, stunned but all right. Just when I was thinking I was going to be okay, this refrigerator comes falling out of the sky and crushes me instantly, and now I'm here."
Once again, Peter had to concede that that sounded like a pretty horrible death.
The third man came to the front of the line, and again Peter explained that heaven was full and asked for his story.
"Picture this," says the third man, "I'm hiding inside a refrigerator..."
it's about time...
. Proper labeling of food products listing amount of ADDED SUGAR. Of course Coca Cola is funding their OWN research that points the obesity finger elsewhere. LOL
http://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-funding-research-2015-8
no one is blaming sugar solely, Coke.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/fda-nutrition-labels-sugar-soda/
Tesco takes it up a notch...
The U.K. supermarket chain, Tesco, is banning Capri Sun and other sweetened drinks aimed at kids from its shelves.
Tesco, a $77 billion company, will begin the ban in September, when kids go back to school, according to the reporter in a trade publication, The Grocer. “This is part of our 10-point plan against obesity and we have decided that from September we will only sell no-added-sugar drinks in the kids’ juice category,” Tesco’s soft drinks buyingmanager David Beardmore reportedly toldThe Grocer.
Tesco’s move goes way beyond what companies in the U.S. have done to reduce the consumption of sodas and sweetened drinks, but that may soon change.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just revisedthe proposed nutrition label changes to emphasize just how much sugar we consume from packaged food and drinks. The new rules, if adopted, would require labels to not just state how much sugar is in a food, but how muchadded sugar it contains. To clarify, that’s the sugar that’s not naturally occurring in the food or drink.
Industry groups say new FDA labels designed to highlight sugar consumption aren’t based on scientific evidence.
Not only that, the way sugar is represented would change. Currently, a label provides the amount of sugar in grams, which is somewhat meaningless to consumer. A 20-ounce can of Coke has 65 grams of sugar. Sounds like a lot, but how much is it really?
Though some advocates have suggested using teaspoons (that Coke can has 15 teaspoons of sugar), the FDA has proposed that labels list the percent daily value for added sugars, which means the amount of added sugar you are advised to consume each day in your diet. The FDA recommends that your added sugar intake should not exceed 10 percent of your total daily calorie intake.
So for a 2,000 calorie diet, the standard used on the nutrition label, that can of Coke, containing 240 calories, would provide 120% of your daily added sugar intake. Drink that soda, and you should be done for the day.
According to the FDA, added sugar in the diet, which we consume primarily from sugar-sweetened drinks, is linked to weight gain, hypertension and other health conditions and it contributes to eating a less healthy nutrients. Americans, on average, consume twice as much added sugar as is recommended, according to Marion Nestle, PhD., professor in the department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University whoposted a comment on the nutrition label proposals.
The new labeling is meant to give consumers more information to make healthier choices, but it’s also meant to disrupt the industry, as the FDA reveals on its website: “the label may encourage manufacturers to reformulate existing products and offer new products with a healthier nutrition profile.”
The food and beverage industry is far from thrilled. A number of trade groups have voiced their opposition on the FDA’s comment page. In a 17-page letter, the Sugar Association took issue with the “added sugar” distinction, laying out what it said was a lack of evidence supporting the recommendation. The American Beverage Association (ABA), the soda industry’s largest trade group, contended that “added sugars are not uniquely or directly linked to a risk of chronic disease, health-related condition, or a physiological endpoint.”
ABA also said the labeling change was unnecessary because the industry was already jumping on the low sugar bandwagon. The group said its members had been voluntarily trying to reduce sugar consumption by making calorie content information more visible on labels, as well as discontinuing sales of full-calorie sodas to schools nationwide, and replacing them with more lower-calorie or no-calorie beverages, along with smaller portion size options.
. Proper labeling of food products listing amount of ADDED SUGAR. Of course Coca Cola is funding their OWN research that points the obesity finger elsewhere. LOLhttp://www.businessinsider.com/coca-cola-funding-research-2015-8
no one is blaming sugar solely, Coke.
http://fortune.com/2015/07/29/fda-nutrition-labels-sugar-soda/
Tesco takes it up a notch...
The U.K. supermarket chain, Tesco, is banning Capri Sun and other sweetened drinks aimed at kids from its shelves.
Tesco, a $77 billion company, will begin the ban in September, when kids go back to school, according to the reporter in a trade publication, The Grocer. “This is part of our 10-point plan against obesity and we have decided that from September we will only sell no-added-sugar drinks in the kids’ juice category,” Tesco’s soft drinks buyingmanager David Beardmore reportedly toldThe Grocer.
Tesco’s move goes way beyond what companies in the U.S. have done to reduce the consumption of sodas and sweetened drinks, but that may soon change.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just revisedthe proposed nutrition label changes to emphasize just how much sugar we consume from packaged food and drinks. The new rules, if adopted, would require labels to not just state how much sugar is in a food, but how muchadded sugar it contains. To clarify, that’s the sugar that’s not naturally occurring in the food or drink.
Industry groups say new FDA labels designed to highlight sugar consumption aren’t based on scientific evidence.
Not only that, the way sugar is represented would change. Currently, a label provides the amount of sugar in grams, which is somewhat meaningless to consumer. A 20-ounce can of Coke has 65 grams of sugar. Sounds like a lot, but how much is it really?
Though some advocates have suggested using teaspoons (that Coke can has 15 teaspoons of sugar), the FDA has proposed that labels list the percent daily value for added sugars, which means the amount of added sugar you are advised to consume each day in your diet. The FDA recommends that your added sugar intake should not exceed 10 percent of your total daily calorie intake.
So for a 2,000 calorie diet, the standard used on the nutrition label, that can of Coke, containing 240 calories, would provide 120% of your daily added sugar intake. Drink that soda, and you should be done for the day.
According to the FDA, added sugar in the diet, which we consume primarily from sugar-sweetened drinks, is linked to weight gain, hypertension and other health conditions and it contributes to eating a less healthy nutrients. Americans, on average, consume twice as much added sugar as is recommended, according to Marion Nestle, PhD., professor in the department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University whoposted a comment on the nutrition label proposals.
The new labeling is meant to give consumers more information to make healthier choices, but it’s also meant to disrupt the industry, as the FDA reveals on its website: “the label may encourage manufacturers to reformulate existing products and offer new products with a healthier nutrition profile.”
The food and beverage industry is far from thrilled. A number of trade groups have voiced their opposition on the FDA’s comment page. In a 17-page letter, the Sugar Association took issue with the “added sugar” distinction, laying out what it said was a lack of evidence supporting the recommendation. The American Beverage Association (ABA), the soda industry’s largest trade group, contended that “added sugars are not uniquely or directly linked to a risk of chronic disease, health-related condition, or a physiological endpoint.”
ABA also said the labeling change was unnecessary because the industry was already jumping on the low sugar bandwagon.
The group said its members had been voluntarily trying to reduce sugar consumption by making calorie content information more visible on labels, as well as discontinuing sales of full-calorie sodas to schools nationwide, and replacing them with more lower-calorie or no-calorie beverages, along with smaller portion size options.
times are a changin'.....Swedes leading the way.............
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sw...ogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/
Sweden has become the first Western nation to develop national dietary guidelines that reject the popular low-fat diet dogma in favor of low-carb high-fat nutrition advice.
The switch in dietary advice followed the publication of a two-year study by the independent Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. The committee reviewed 16,000 studies published through May 31, 2013.
Swedish doctor, Andreas Eenfeldt, who runs the most popular health blog in Scandinavia (DietDoctor.com) published some of the highlights of this study in English:
Health markers will improve on a low-carbohydrate diet:
…a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides.” (Source.)
Dr. Eenfeldt also translated an article from a local Swedish newspaper covering the committee’s findings:
Butter, olive oil, heavy cream, and bacon are not harmful foods. Quite the opposite. Fat is the best thing for those who want to lose weight. And there are no connections between a high fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
On Monday, SBU, the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment, dropped a bombshell. After a two-year long inquiry, reviewing 16,000 studies, the report “Dietary Treatment for Obesity” upends the conventional dietary guidelines for obese or diabetic people.
For a long time, the health care system has given the public advice to avoid fat, saturated fat in particular, and calories. A low-carb diet (LCHF – Low Carb High Fat, is actually a Swedish “invention”) has been dismissed as harmful, a humbug and as being a fad diet lacking any scientific basis.
Instead, the health care system has urged diabetics to eat a lot of fruit (=sugar) and low-fat products with considerable amounts of sugar or artificial sweeteners, the latter a dangerous trigger for the sugar-addicted person.
This report turns the current concepts upside down and advocates a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, as the most effective weapon against obesity.
The expert committee consisted of ten physicians, and several of them were skeptics to low-carbohydrate diets at the beginning of the investigation. (Source.)
One of the committee members was Prof. Fredrik Nyström, from Linköping, Sweden – a long-time critic of the low-fat diet and a proponent of the benefits of saturated fat, from sources such as butter, full fat cream, and bacon. Some quotes from Prof. Nyström translated into English from Dr. Eenfeldt:
“I’ve been working with this for so long. It feels great to have this scientific report, and that the skepticism towards low-carb diets among my colleagues has disappeared during the course of the work. When all recent scientific studies are lined up the result is indisputable: our deep-seated fear of fat is completely unfounded. You don’t get fat from fatty foods, just as you don’t get atherosclerosis from calcium or turn green from green vegetables.”
Nyström has long advocated a greatly reduced intake of carbohydrate-rich foods high in sugar and starch, in order to achieve healthy levels of insulin, blood lipids and the good cholesterol. This means doing away with sugar, potatoes, pasta, rice, wheat flour, bread, and embracing olive oil, nuts, butter, full fat cream, oily fish and fattier meat cuts. “If you eat potatoes you might as well eat candy. Potatoes contain glucose units in a chain, which is converted to sugar in the GI tract. Such a diet causes blood sugar, and then the hormone insulin, to skyrocket.”
There are many mantras we have been taught to accept as truths:
“Calories are calories, no matter where they come from.”
“It’s all about the balance between calories in and calories out.”
“People are fat because they don’t move enough.”
“Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.”
“Of course these are not true. This kind of nonsense has people with weight problems feeling bad about themselves. As if it were all about their inferior character. For many people a greater intake of fat means that you’ll feel satiated, stay so longer, and have less of a need to eat every five minutes. On the other hand, you won’t feel satiated after drinking a Coke, or after eating almost fat free, low-fat fruit yogurt loaded with sugar. Sure, exercise is great in many ways, but what really affects weight is diet.” (Source.)
Will the USDA Now Revise Their Guidelines?
The scientific literature implicating the dangers of refined carbohydrates and the benefits of healthy fats has been around for decades now. One probable reason why this study was done in Sweden is that a lot of people were obvious already following such a diet. Currently in Sweden, it is estimated that only 14 percent of the population are obese compared with one-third in the USA.
So will the U.S. follow suit and explore revising USDA dietary guidelines? Not likely.
As I have recently pointed out in an article published YOU the Taxpayer are Funding the Agri Business Takeover of our Food Supply, the USDA nutritional guidelines favor the heavily subsidized crops of wheat, soy, and corn. The political forces are just too strong in the U.S. right now to allow any dietary advice that would cut into corporate profits and their production of cheap food to dominate world food supplies.
This dietary advice of a low-carb high-fat diet has been around since the 1920s, when the ketogenic diet was developed at John Hopkins Hospital to cure epilepsy in children who did not respond to drugs. With the advent of the USDA diet guidelines, starting with the McGovern Report in the 1970s, fat was condemned and the low-fat diet advice was promoted through the healthcare system. You can see original TV coverage of this report from 1977 in this YouTube clip from The Fat Head movie:
In 2002, science journalist Gary Taubes began writing on the dangers of the high-carbohydrate diet and benefits of a high-fat diet, and his work was published in both the N.Y. Times and Time Magazine. His article title was “What If It Were All a Big Fat Lie!”
With mainstream media now covering the truth about the fallacies of the low-fat diet in the early 2000s, Dr. Atkins and his low-carb high-fat diet, which had been around for many years, gained a huge following. Various forms of the low-carb high-fat diet exist today in the U.S., but they are still considered “fringe” and “extreme.” The low-carb high-fat diet is routinely attacked by the government and medical system, even as pharmaceutical companies rush to make patented drugs that mimic the ketone effects of the diet, particularly in cancer treatment, the largest market share for pharmaceutical companies.
So, while Sweden has taken a huge step forward in following a commission who looked at over 16,000 studies and confirmed science that has been around for many years, don’t expect the U.S. government to do anything similar anytime soon. It is up to you to do your own research to understand the REAL facts about a healthy diet.
- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sw...carb-high-fat-nutrition/#sthash.6lra8843.dpuf
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sw...ogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/
Sweden has become the first Western nation to develop national dietary guidelines that reject the popular low-fat diet dogma in favor of low-carb high-fat nutrition advice.
The switch in dietary advice followed the publication of a two-year study by the independent Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. The committee reviewed 16,000 studies published through May 31, 2013.
Swedish doctor, Andreas Eenfeldt, who runs the most popular health blog in Scandinavia (DietDoctor.com) published some of the highlights of this study in English:
Health markers will improve on a low-carbohydrate diet:
…a greater increase in HDL cholesterol (“the good cholesterol”) without having any adverse affects on LDL cholesterol (“the bad cholesterol”). This applies to both the moderate low-carbohydrate intake of less than 40 percent of the total energy intake, as well as to the stricter low-carbohydrate diet, where carbohydrate intake is less than 20 percent of the total energy intake. In addition, the stricter low-carbohydrate diet will lead to improved glucose levels for individuals with obesity and diabetes, and to marginally decreased levels of triglycerides.” (Source.)
Dr. Eenfeldt also translated an article from a local Swedish newspaper covering the committee’s findings:
Butter, olive oil, heavy cream, and bacon are not harmful foods. Quite the opposite. Fat is the best thing for those who want to lose weight. And there are no connections between a high fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
On Monday, SBU, the Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment, dropped a bombshell. After a two-year long inquiry, reviewing 16,000 studies, the report “Dietary Treatment for Obesity” upends the conventional dietary guidelines for obese or diabetic people.
For a long time, the health care system has given the public advice to avoid fat, saturated fat in particular, and calories. A low-carb diet (LCHF – Low Carb High Fat, is actually a Swedish “invention”) has been dismissed as harmful, a humbug and as being a fad diet lacking any scientific basis.
Instead, the health care system has urged diabetics to eat a lot of fruit (=sugar) and low-fat products with considerable amounts of sugar or artificial sweeteners, the latter a dangerous trigger for the sugar-addicted person.
This report turns the current concepts upside down and advocates a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, as the most effective weapon against obesity.
The expert committee consisted of ten physicians, and several of them were skeptics to low-carbohydrate diets at the beginning of the investigation. (Source.)
One of the committee members was Prof. Fredrik Nyström, from Linköping, Sweden – a long-time critic of the low-fat diet and a proponent of the benefits of saturated fat, from sources such as butter, full fat cream, and bacon. Some quotes from Prof. Nyström translated into English from Dr. Eenfeldt:
“I’ve been working with this for so long. It feels great to have this scientific report, and that the skepticism towards low-carb diets among my colleagues has disappeared during the course of the work. When all recent scientific studies are lined up the result is indisputable: our deep-seated fear of fat is completely unfounded. You don’t get fat from fatty foods, just as you don’t get atherosclerosis from calcium or turn green from green vegetables.”
Nyström has long advocated a greatly reduced intake of carbohydrate-rich foods high in sugar and starch, in order to achieve healthy levels of insulin, blood lipids and the good cholesterol. This means doing away with sugar, potatoes, pasta, rice, wheat flour, bread, and embracing olive oil, nuts, butter, full fat cream, oily fish and fattier meat cuts. “If you eat potatoes you might as well eat candy. Potatoes contain glucose units in a chain, which is converted to sugar in the GI tract. Such a diet causes blood sugar, and then the hormone insulin, to skyrocket.”
There are many mantras we have been taught to accept as truths:
“Calories are calories, no matter where they come from.”
“It’s all about the balance between calories in and calories out.”
“People are fat because they don’t move enough.”
“Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.”
“Of course these are not true. This kind of nonsense has people with weight problems feeling bad about themselves. As if it were all about their inferior character. For many people a greater intake of fat means that you’ll feel satiated, stay so longer, and have less of a need to eat every five minutes. On the other hand, you won’t feel satiated after drinking a Coke, or after eating almost fat free, low-fat fruit yogurt loaded with sugar. Sure, exercise is great in many ways, but what really affects weight is diet.” (Source.)
Will the USDA Now Revise Their Guidelines?
The scientific literature implicating the dangers of refined carbohydrates and the benefits of healthy fats has been around for decades now. One probable reason why this study was done in Sweden is that a lot of people were obvious already following such a diet. Currently in Sweden, it is estimated that only 14 percent of the population are obese compared with one-third in the USA.
So will the U.S. follow suit and explore revising USDA dietary guidelines? Not likely.
As I have recently pointed out in an article published YOU the Taxpayer are Funding the Agri Business Takeover of our Food Supply, the USDA nutritional guidelines favor the heavily subsidized crops of wheat, soy, and corn. The political forces are just too strong in the U.S. right now to allow any dietary advice that would cut into corporate profits and their production of cheap food to dominate world food supplies.
This dietary advice of a low-carb high-fat diet has been around since the 1920s, when the ketogenic diet was developed at John Hopkins Hospital to cure epilepsy in children who did not respond to drugs. With the advent of the USDA diet guidelines, starting with the McGovern Report in the 1970s, fat was condemned and the low-fat diet advice was promoted through the healthcare system. You can see original TV coverage of this report from 1977 in this YouTube clip from The Fat Head movie:
In 2002, science journalist Gary Taubes began writing on the dangers of the high-carbohydrate diet and benefits of a high-fat diet, and his work was published in both the N.Y. Times and Time Magazine. His article title was “What If It Were All a Big Fat Lie!”
With mainstream media now covering the truth about the fallacies of the low-fat diet in the early 2000s, Dr. Atkins and his low-carb high-fat diet, which had been around for many years, gained a huge following. Various forms of the low-carb high-fat diet exist today in the U.S., but they are still considered “fringe” and “extreme.” The low-carb high-fat diet is routinely attacked by the government and medical system, even as pharmaceutical companies rush to make patented drugs that mimic the ketone effects of the diet, particularly in cancer treatment, the largest market share for pharmaceutical companies.
So, while Sweden has taken a huge step forward in following a commission who looked at over 16,000 studies and confirmed science that has been around for many years, don’t expect the U.S. government to do anything similar anytime soon. It is up to you to do your own research to understand the REAL facts about a healthy diet.
- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/sw...carb-high-fat-nutrition/#sthash.6lra8843.dpuf
adding to above theme....
http://authoritynutrition.com/10-super-healthy-high-fat-foods/
posted the top 5 from the article. For #3 Dark Chocolate , I disagree with using 70% cacao products. They add waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much to it. 90% minimum; will have 3x times less sugar. And if you really want to put your taste buds to the test, try the 99% cacao!! 1 gm of sugar,...i have it with my morning coffee, makes it palatable . I use Lindt's products, Swiss excellence
http://www.lindt.ca/en/shop/our-brands/excellence-ca/excellence-cocoa-99-ca
[h=2]1. Avocados[/h]The avocado is different from most other fruits.
Whereas most fruits primarily contain carbs, avocados are loaded with fats.
In fact, avocados are about 77% fat, by calories, making them even higher in fat than most animal foods (3).
The main fatty acid is a monounsaturated fat called oleic acid. This is also the predominant fatty acid in olive oil, associated with various health benefits (4, 5).
Avocados are among the best sources of potassium in the diet, even containing 40% more potassium than bananas, a typical high potassium food.
They’re also a great source of fiber, and studies have shown that they can lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, while raising HDL (the “good”) cholesterol (6, 7, 8).
Even though they are high in fat and calories, one study shows that people who eatavocados tend to weigh less and have less belly fat than those who don’t (9).
[h=2]2. Cheese[/h]Cheese is incredibly nutritious.
This makes sense, given that an entire cup of milk is used to produce a single thick slice of cheese.
It is a great source of calcium, vitamin B12, phosphorus and selenium, and contains all sorts of other nutrients (10).
It is also very rich in protein, with a single thick slice of cheese containing 6.7 grams of protein, same as a glass of milk.
Cheese, like other high-fat dairy products, also contains powerful fatty acids that have been linked to all sorts of benefits, including reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (11).
[h=2]3. Dark Chocolate[/h]
Dark chocolate is one of those rare health foods that actually taste incredible.
It is very high in fat, with fat at around 65% of calories.
Dark chocolate is 11% fiber and contains over 50% of the RDA for iron, magnesium, copper and manganese (12).
It is also loaded with antioxidants, so much that it is one of the highest scoring foods tested, even outranking blueberries (13).
Some of the antioxidants in it have potent biological activity, and can lower blood pressure and protect LDL cholesterol in the blood from becoming oxidized (14, 15).
Studies also show that people who eat dark chocolate 5 or more times per week are less than half as likely to die from heart disease, compared to people who don’t eat dark chocolate (16, 17).
There are also some studies showing that dark chocolate can improve brain function, and protect your skin from damage when exposed to the sun (18, 19).
Just make sure to choose quality dark chocolate, with at least 70% cocoa.
[h=2]4. Whole Eggs[/h]
Whole eggs used to be considered unhealthy because the yolks are high in cholesterol and fat.
In fact, a single egg contains 212 mg of cholesterol, which is 71% of the recommended daily intake. Plus, 62% of the calories in whole eggs are from fat (20).
However, new studies have shown that cholesterol in eggs doesn’t affect the cholesterol in the blood, at least not in the majority of people (21).
What we’re left with is one of the most nutrient dense foods on the planet.
Whole eggs are actually loaded with vitamins and minerals. They contain a little bit of almost every single nutrient we need.
They even contain powerful antioxidants that protect the eyes, and lots of choline, a brain nutrient that 90% of people don’t get enough of (22, 23).
Eggs are also a weight loss friendly food. They are very fulfilling and high in protein, the most important nutrient for weight loss (24).
Despite being high in fat, people who replace a grain-based breakfast with eggs end up eating fewer calories and losing weight (25, 26).
The best eggs are omega-3 enriched or pastured. Just don’t throw away the yolk, that’s where almost all the nutrients are found.
[h=2]5. Fatty Fish[/h]
One of the few animal products that most people agree is healthy, is fatty fish.
This includes fish like salmon, trout, mackerel, sardines and herring.
These fish are loaded with heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, high quality proteins and all sorts of important nutrients (27).
Studies show that people who eat fish tend to be much healthier, with a lower risk of heart disease, depression, dementia and all sorts of common diseases (28, 29, 30).
If you can’t (or won’t) eat fish, then taking a fish liver oil supplement can be useful. Cod fish liver oil is best, it contains the omega-3s that you need, as well as plenty ofvitamin D (31).
http://authoritynutrition.com/10-super-healthy-high-fat-foods/
posted the top 5 from the article. For #3 Dark Chocolate , I disagree with using 70% cacao products. They add waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much to it. 90% minimum; will have 3x times less sugar. And if you really want to put your taste buds to the test, try the 99% cacao!! 1 gm of sugar,
...i have it with my morning coffee, makes it palatable . I use Lindt's products, Swiss excellencehttp://www.lindt.ca/en/shop/our-brands/excellence-ca/excellence-cocoa-99-ca
[h=2]1. Avocados[/h]The avocado is different from most other fruits.
Whereas most fruits primarily contain carbs, avocados are loaded with fats.
In fact, avocados are about 77% fat, by calories, making them even higher in fat than most animal foods (3).
The main fatty acid is a monounsaturated fat called oleic acid. This is also the predominant fatty acid in olive oil, associated with various health benefits (4, 5).
Avocados are among the best sources of potassium in the diet, even containing 40% more potassium than bananas, a typical high potassium food.
They’re also a great source of fiber, and studies have shown that they can lower LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, while raising HDL (the “good”) cholesterol (6, 7, 8).
Even though they are high in fat and calories, one study shows that people who eatavocados tend to weigh less and have less belly fat than those who don’t (9).
[h=2]2. Cheese[/h]Cheese is incredibly nutritious.
This makes sense, given that an entire cup of milk is used to produce a single thick slice of cheese.
It is a great source of calcium, vitamin B12, phosphorus and selenium, and contains all sorts of other nutrients (10).
It is also very rich in protein, with a single thick slice of cheese containing 6.7 grams of protein, same as a glass of milk.
Cheese, like other high-fat dairy products, also contains powerful fatty acids that have been linked to all sorts of benefits, including reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (11).
[h=2]3. Dark Chocolate[/h]
Dark chocolate is one of those rare health foods that actually taste incredible.
It is very high in fat, with fat at around 65% of calories.
Dark chocolate is 11% fiber and contains over 50% of the RDA for iron, magnesium, copper and manganese (12).
It is also loaded with antioxidants, so much that it is one of the highest scoring foods tested, even outranking blueberries (13).
Some of the antioxidants in it have potent biological activity, and can lower blood pressure and protect LDL cholesterol in the blood from becoming oxidized (14, 15).
Studies also show that people who eat dark chocolate 5 or more times per week are less than half as likely to die from heart disease, compared to people who don’t eat dark chocolate (16, 17).
There are also some studies showing that dark chocolate can improve brain function, and protect your skin from damage when exposed to the sun (18, 19).
Just make sure to choose quality dark chocolate, with at least 70% cocoa.
[h=2]4. Whole Eggs[/h]
Whole eggs used to be considered unhealthy because the yolks are high in cholesterol and fat.
In fact, a single egg contains 212 mg of cholesterol, which is 71% of the recommended daily intake. Plus, 62% of the calories in whole eggs are from fat (20).
However, new studies have shown that cholesterol in eggs doesn’t affect the cholesterol in the blood, at least not in the majority of people (21).
What we’re left with is one of the most nutrient dense foods on the planet.
Whole eggs are actually loaded with vitamins and minerals. They contain a little bit of almost every single nutrient we need.
They even contain powerful antioxidants that protect the eyes, and lots of choline, a brain nutrient that 90% of people don’t get enough of (22, 23).
Eggs are also a weight loss friendly food. They are very fulfilling and high in protein, the most important nutrient for weight loss (24).
Despite being high in fat, people who replace a grain-based breakfast with eggs end up eating fewer calories and losing weight (25, 26).
The best eggs are omega-3 enriched or pastured. Just don’t throw away the yolk, that’s where almost all the nutrients are found.
[h=2]5. Fatty Fish[/h]
One of the few animal products that most people agree is healthy, is fatty fish.
This includes fish like salmon, trout, mackerel, sardines and herring.
These fish are loaded with heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, high quality proteins and all sorts of important nutrients (27).
Studies show that people who eat fish tend to be much healthier, with a lower risk of heart disease, depression, dementia and all sorts of common diseases (28, 29, 30).
If you can’t (or won’t) eat fish, then taking a fish liver oil supplement can be useful. Cod fish liver oil is best, it contains the omega-3s that you need, as well as plenty ofvitamin D (31).
[h=1]Kids need less sugar and more fat Independent nutrition and health experts publish new guidelines on healthy eating for children[/h]
Independent scientists and nutritionists at the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl) have today published new guidelines for healthy eating for children. The guidelines stress the need to help children to shift from burning carbohydrates as their primary energy source to healthy fats, including ones derived from whole milk products, olive oil, nut and seed oils, coconut oil and intramuscular fats in meat. They also call on dramatic reductions in sugar intake, recent increases in consumption being attributed to misinformed government policies to reduce saturated fats.
Robert Verkerk PhD, lead author of the ANH-Intl’s Food4Kids guidelines, said:
“We believe government guidelines are out of step with recent nutritional science.” He added, “Children today are suffering metabolic disease and tooth decay at ever younger ages. They’re victims of a now discredited, 30-year-old policy, based on no proper scientific evaluation, to banish even healthy fats from the diets of children and adults alike. Sugar has filled the gap and kids are paying a heavy price for it.”
Rather than including only 4 food groups like the present UK Department of Health guidelines created by the Children’s Food Trust, the Food4Kids guidelines incorporate 8 food groups. The authors say this is to encourage consumption of healthier food groups, in more appropriate ratios. The guidelines also include a food group entitled ‘concentrated nutrients’; the aim is to promote increased intake of nutrients in herbs and spices, as well as vitamin D and various minerals, intakes of which have been found to be deficient in large numbers of British children following the rolling National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-12).
The guidelines propose that children derive approximately 55% of their energy from healthy fats, 35% from carbohydrates and the remaining 10% from protein sources. This compares with the government advice suggesting 50% of energy is derived from carbohydrates, with no specific mention of fats.
Dr Verkerk remarked that; “Proteins and fats help satiate the appetite, and sugars don’t. There is even emerging evidence that sugars may be addictive. It is the regular consumption of sugary snacks and drinks that’s doing so much damage, and pushing kids ever more quickly into metabolic diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes. We need to help children develop healthier eating and physical activity patterns while reducing their reliance on soft drinks and snacks which are typically energy dense and nutrient deficient.”
About Alliance for Natural Health International
The Alliance for Natural Health International is an independent, non-governmental organisation established in 2002 that promotes and protects natural, sustainable and bio-compatible approaches to healthcare and disease prevention. Our approach is based on ‘good science’ and ‘good law’ and our core activities cover research, education and awareness-raising, legal and advocacy
Independent scientists and nutritionists at the Alliance for Natural Health International (ANH-Intl) have today published new guidelines for healthy eating for children. The guidelines stress the need to help children to shift from burning carbohydrates as their primary energy source to healthy fats, including ones derived from whole milk products, olive oil, nut and seed oils, coconut oil and intramuscular fats in meat. They also call on dramatic reductions in sugar intake, recent increases in consumption being attributed to misinformed government policies to reduce saturated fats.
Robert Verkerk PhD, lead author of the ANH-Intl’s Food4Kids guidelines, said:
“We believe government guidelines are out of step with recent nutritional science.” He added, “Children today are suffering metabolic disease and tooth decay at ever younger ages. They’re victims of a now discredited, 30-year-old policy, based on no proper scientific evaluation, to banish even healthy fats from the diets of children and adults alike. Sugar has filled the gap and kids are paying a heavy price for it.”
Rather than including only 4 food groups like the present UK Department of Health guidelines created by the Children’s Food Trust, the Food4Kids guidelines incorporate 8 food groups. The authors say this is to encourage consumption of healthier food groups, in more appropriate ratios. The guidelines also include a food group entitled ‘concentrated nutrients’; the aim is to promote increased intake of nutrients in herbs and spices, as well as vitamin D and various minerals, intakes of which have been found to be deficient in large numbers of British children following the rolling National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2008-12).
The guidelines propose that children derive approximately 55% of their energy from healthy fats, 35% from carbohydrates and the remaining 10% from protein sources. This compares with the government advice suggesting 50% of energy is derived from carbohydrates, with no specific mention of fats.
Dr Verkerk remarked that; “Proteins and fats help satiate the appetite, and sugars don’t. There is even emerging evidence that sugars may be addictive. It is the regular consumption of sugary snacks and drinks that’s doing so much damage, and pushing kids ever more quickly into metabolic diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes. We need to help children develop healthier eating and physical activity patterns while reducing their reliance on soft drinks and snacks which are typically energy dense and nutrient deficient.”
About Alliance for Natural Health International
The Alliance for Natural Health International is an independent, non-governmental organisation established in 2002 that promotes and protects natural, sustainable and bio-compatible approaches to healthcare and disease prevention. Our approach is based on ‘good science’ and ‘good law’ and our core activities cover research, education and awareness-raising, legal and advocacy
What about weight gain? Would eating egg whites as opposed to whole eggs make a difference there? I guess the real question is, do fat grams on the labels matter, or is it more important to cut out carbs and sugar? Speaking of sugar, damn Luden's cough drops! Do nothing for coughs but the bast candy ever.
the weight loss industry has been part of North American culture for a long long long time. Our bodies have various homeostasis mechanisms; they do automatic stuff for us. Such as breathe. We don't tell our brain to breathe. Same with weight maintenance ; our bodies do it for us. UNLESS something dramatically has gone wrong and the system gets broken. The main culprit, of course, is what we eat. The western way has collateral damage including the 'the diseases of civilization' (diabetes , auto-immune disease, cancer, atherosclerosis, asthma.....)
for weight loss , generalities are cool, HOWEVER; anyone who struggles with weight loss despite healthy eating and physical activity needs to address other factors that may have grossly damaged the system. Such as; restoring a healthy gut microbiome , impaired sleep patterns, hormonal pathology. And for those, usually there's underlying chronic disease ; consider functional medicine for help (not traditional)
https://www.functionalmedicine.org/about/whatisfm/
for weight loss, i'd improve quality of food. And yes, DRAMATIC decrease in sugars. Glycogen stores are re-filled nearly exclusively by carbs. Period. Excess amounts need to be stored as fat. It's the carbs that need attention . In addition , with carbs chose LOW GLYCEMIC LOAD carbs. (ex., have the orange but avoid the orange juice); this to avoid constant cravings, spikes of insulin. Google a glycemic load list for carbs and avoid anything high , certainly if its to be eaten by itself. Fats and proteins are silly low in the glycemic load; they keep you 'full', satiety
when it comes to weight loss there's lots of ways to skin a cat; however to keep it off LONGTERM, quality of food is the way
for weight loss , generalities are cool, HOWEVER; anyone who struggles with weight loss despite healthy eating and physical activity needs to address other factors that may have grossly damaged the system. Such as; restoring a healthy gut microbiome , impaired sleep patterns, hormonal pathology. And for those, usually there's underlying chronic disease ; consider functional medicine for help (not traditional)
https://www.functionalmedicine.org/about/whatisfm/
for weight loss, i'd improve quality of food. And yes, DRAMATIC decrease in sugars. Glycogen stores are re-filled nearly exclusively by carbs. Period. Excess amounts need to be stored as fat. It's the carbs that need attention . In addition , with carbs chose LOW GLYCEMIC LOAD carbs. (ex., have the orange but avoid the orange juice); this to avoid constant cravings, spikes of insulin. Google a glycemic load list for carbs and avoid anything high , certainly if its to be eaten by itself. Fats and proteins are silly low in the glycemic load; they keep you 'full', satiety
when it comes to weight loss there's lots of ways to skin a cat; however to keep it off LONGTERM, quality of food is the way
thought i'd add this , Scott. Notice I didn't say a word about calories in the above post; which was your concern with the yolk
'The Calorie Myth; How to eat more, exercise less, lose weight and live better'
as Mr Bailor tells us in this lecture - its WHAT you eat that matters; that's numero uno. Quality based, not quantity. EXCELLENT speaker; uses analogies very well . Information packed; almost gotta watch it more than once to fully absorb.......
'by manipulating the quality of what we eat we will heal the system and we re-regulate our bodies ability to balance calories for us' Jonathan Bailor .........
regarding packaged food labels; i'd look at the added sugar as the prevailing factor . Its written in grams. Kinda dumb as what's 20 grams look like? Divide the number on the label by 4. That gives you the number in teaspoons; now its conceptualized. Example; a packaged product has 45 grams of sugar per serving. 45/4 is 11 teaspoons. Ugh. A guideline is try to keep that added sugar number insanely low. The sugar is added for taste, NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE (empty calories...insulin spike.... chasing the next sugar rush in 2 hrs or so)
'The Calorie Myth; How to eat more, exercise less, lose weight and live better'
as Mr Bailor tells us in this lecture - its WHAT you eat that matters; that's numero uno. Quality based, not quantity. EXCELLENT speaker; uses analogies very well . Information packed; almost gotta watch it more than once to fully absorb.......
'by manipulating the quality of what we eat we will heal the system and we re-regulate our bodies ability to balance calories for us' Jonathan Bailor .........
regarding packaged food labels; i'd look at the added sugar as the prevailing factor . Its written in grams. Kinda dumb as what's 20 grams look like? Divide the number on the label by 4. That gives you the number in teaspoons; now its conceptualized. Example; a packaged product has 45 grams of sugar per serving. 45/4 is 11 teaspoons. Ugh. A guideline is try to keep that added sugar number insanely low. The sugar is added for taste, NO NUTRITIONAL VALUE (empty calories...insulin spike.... chasing the next sugar rush in 2 hrs or so)
then we have this nonsense from Marketwatch of all places. Geez
[h=1]Soda and junk foods are not making you fat[/h]When it comes to healthy eating, there is no silver bullet.
Soda, candy and fast-food are often blamed for the rising rates of obesity in America and, while eating any one high-calorie or high-sugar food to excess is obviously unhealthy and will not help you lose weight, a major new study found that consumption of these foods is not related to Body Mass Index in 95% of the population. The report was published by the Food & Brand Lab at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “While a diet of chocolate bars and cheese burgers washed down with a Coke is inadvisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods are not likely to be a leading cause of obesity,” the study said.
“This means that diets and health campaigns aimed at reducing and preventing obesity may be off track if they hinge on demonizing specific foods,” says David Just, professor and director of graduate studies in the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, and co-author of the study. “If we want real change we need to look at the overall diet, and physical activity. Narrowly targeting junk foods is not just ineffective, it may be self-defeating as it distracts from the real underlying causes of obesity.”
huh? what the hell is he babbling about?
.....dagone...............
[h=1]Soda and junk foods are not making you fat[/h]When it comes to healthy eating, there is no silver bullet.
Soda, candy and fast-food are often blamed for the rising rates of obesity in America and, while eating any one high-calorie or high-sugar food to excess is obviously unhealthy and will not help you lose weight, a major new study found that consumption of these foods is not related to Body Mass Index in 95% of the population. The report was published by the Food & Brand Lab at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “While a diet of chocolate bars and cheese burgers washed down with a Coke is inadvisable from a nutritional standpoint, these foods are not likely to be a leading cause of obesity,” the study said.
“This means that diets and health campaigns aimed at reducing and preventing obesity may be off track if they hinge on demonizing specific foods,” says David Just, professor and director of graduate studies in the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University, and co-author of the study. “If we want real change we need to look at the overall diet, and physical activity. Narrowly targeting junk foods is not just ineffective, it may be self-defeating as it distracts from the real underlying causes of obesity.”
huh? what the hell is he babbling about?
.....dagone...............
Ric I would love to see the results of a double blind study. For one month you take 200 people of same age, all who weigh 200 pounds. Give them all the exact same food and the exact same exercises each day. Except one difference. 100 people get real sugar. 100 people get aspartame subbed for all sugar. Does the aspartame group weigh more, less, or the same as sugar group at end of study?
Also conduct same study with one group allowed salt and the other only salt substitute. Now all we need to do is find 100 people to give up life for a month. Anyway I say the results are marginal. What do you say?
Also conduct same study with one group allowed salt and the other only salt substitute. Now all we need to do is find 100 people to give up life for a month. Anyway I say the results are marginal. What do you say?
what did you think of the vid, bro?...... So much nonsense out there that it makes the consumer confused; that's why I posted that Marketwatch article - can you believe they put that nonsense out there? Amazing. I'll answer your question, but I wonder how many over weight , chronically ill (diabetes, athersclerosis, hyperlipidemia ) people could benefit from Mr.Bailor's 21 day test (starts at the 47 minute mark); to JUST TRY IT. Re-check weight, blood work, cardiovascular risk profile post-trial . I believe the time frame should be extended days , tho, to say 90 days (3 mths); wants 3 months in a lifetime? His test is this; to eat
way way way more non-starchy vegetables (that is vegetables you could eat raw ,don't have to tho). For these to make 50% of your plate. In other words , NO SIMPLE CARBS
foods high in protein
whole food fats
not only will the weight pour off-- the foods will heal the system, therapeutic. The body will shed its sugar adaption (wants to run on sugar)
There is no consensus with the sugar substitutes , the data isn't overwhelming . Here are my thoughts.
The premise is to continue the sugar addiction but to use an alternative that isn't as caloric dense, resulting in weight loss. This is your query, what would happen after the end of the double blind trial. Becasue your trial is short, i think the aspartame group would weigh less. However, long term (which is the important part) neither group would get to a healthy body weight.
short term evidence;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24345988
Existing data are insufficient to clearly support or refute the effectiveness of substitution with NNS (non-nutritve sweeteners) as a means of reducing added sugar intake. It is important to not lose sight of the impact of incorporating NNS-containing beverages and foods on overall diet quality when assessing potential health benefits vs. risks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12324283
this is the closest i can find to your query;
Sucrose compared with artificial sweeteners: different effects on ad libitum food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation in overweight subjects.
Overweight subjects who consumed fairly large amounts of sucrose (28% of energy), mostly as beverages, had increased energy intake, body weight, fat mass, and blood pressure after 10 wk. These effects were not observed in a similar group of subjects who consumed artificial sweeteners.
the artificial group wins , Scott
here's another study that supports;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2006.00564.x/abstract
the question becomes though, what happens long term? do the artificial sweeteners just confuse the body? will the body be able to AUTO-CONTROL its glucose levels or will these artificial sweeteners fuck up the system? if that answer is yes, then these sweeteners should be used for short term; aid the individual in weight loss and slowly ween off daily sugar amounts. I see value in that. What do the studies tell us?
animal studies suggest there IS A DANGER in fucking up the body's ability to auto-regulate sugar with long term use of these sugar substitutes. Ouch
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060008
We have suggested that based on Pavlovian conditioning principles, consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners could result in sweet tastes no longer serving as consistent predictors of nutritive postingestive consequences. This dissociation between the sweet taste cues and the caloric consequences could lead to a decrease in the ability of sweet tastes to evoke physiological responses that serve to regulate energy balance. Using a rodent model, we have found that intake of foods or fluids containing non-nutritive sweeteners was accompanied by increased food intake, body weight gain, accumulation of body fat, and weaker caloric compensation, compared to consumption of foods and fluids containing glucose.
yikes!!!!!!
in other words, the rodents homeostatic system that allows it to auto-regulate its serum glucose levels BROKE with use of the sugar-substitute. It ended up GAINING weight........dagone........
i don't understand your salt test? testing for what?
how about a pipe test?.......
. So much nonsense out there that it makes the consumer confused; that's why I posted that Marketwatch article - can you believe they put that nonsense out there? Amazing. I'll answer your question, but I wonder how many over weight , chronically ill (diabetes, athersclerosis, hyperlipidemia ) people could benefit from Mr.Bailor's 21 day test (starts at the 47 minute mark); to JUST TRY IT. Re-check weight, blood work, cardiovascular risk profile post-trial . I believe the time frame should be extended days , tho, to say 90 days (3 mths); wants 3 months in a lifetime? His test is this; to eatway way way more non-starchy vegetables (that is vegetables you could eat raw ,don't have to tho). For these to make 50% of your plate. In other words , NO SIMPLE CARBS
foods high in protein
whole food fats
not only will the weight pour off-- the foods will heal the system, therapeutic. The body will shed its sugar adaption (wants to run on sugar)
There is no consensus with the sugar substitutes , the data isn't overwhelming . Here are my thoughts.
The premise is to continue the sugar addiction but to use an alternative that isn't as caloric dense, resulting in weight loss. This is your query, what would happen after the end of the double blind trial. Becasue your trial is short, i think the aspartame group would weigh less. However, long term (which is the important part) neither group would get to a healthy body weight.
short term evidence;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24345988
Existing data are insufficient to clearly support or refute the effectiveness of substitution with NNS (non-nutritve sweeteners) as a means of reducing added sugar intake. It is important to not lose sight of the impact of incorporating NNS-containing beverages and foods on overall diet quality when assessing potential health benefits vs. risks.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12324283
this is the closest i can find to your query;
Sucrose compared with artificial sweeteners: different effects on ad libitum food intake and body weight after 10 wk of supplementation in overweight subjects.
Overweight subjects who consumed fairly large amounts of sucrose (28% of energy), mostly as beverages, had increased energy intake, body weight, fat mass, and blood pressure after 10 wk. These effects were not observed in a similar group of subjects who consumed artificial sweeteners.
the artificial group wins , Scott
here's another study that supports;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2006.00564.x/abstract
the question becomes though, what happens long term? do the artificial sweeteners just confuse the body? will the body be able to AUTO-CONTROL its glucose levels or will these artificial sweeteners fuck up the system? if that answer is yes, then these sweeteners should be used for short term; aid the individual in weight loss and slowly ween off daily sugar amounts. I see value in that. What do the studies tell us?
animal studies suggest there IS A DANGER in fucking up the body's ability to auto-regulate sugar with long term use of these sugar substitutes. Ouch
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20060008
We have suggested that based on Pavlovian conditioning principles, consumption of non-nutritive sweeteners could result in sweet tastes no longer serving as consistent predictors of nutritive postingestive consequences. This dissociation between the sweet taste cues and the caloric consequences could lead to a decrease in the ability of sweet tastes to evoke physiological responses that serve to regulate energy balance. Using a rodent model, we have found that intake of foods or fluids containing non-nutritive sweeteners was accompanied by increased food intake, body weight gain, accumulation of body fat, and weaker caloric compensation, compared to consumption of foods and fluids containing glucose.
yikes!!!!!!
in other words, the rodents homeostatic system that allows it to auto-regulate its serum glucose levels BROKE with use of the sugar-substitute. It ended up GAINING weight........dagone........
i don't understand your salt test? testing for what?
how about a pipe test?.......
