"From the 'Settled Science' Files: USDA Nutrition Guidelines Upside Down"

Discussion in 'Test/Politics Board' started by T J, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    GOVERNMENT

    From the 'Settled Science' Files: USDA Nutrition Guidelines Upside Down

    New research finds that

    high carbohydrate intake
    is worse for one's health
    than a diet high in fats.


    Feb. 8, 2018

    [​IMG]

    Go ahead and put a slice of cheese on that burger.

    A recently published study in Lancet calls into question the long-running nutritional guidelines advocated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) since its formation in 1960.

    The study, which followed 135,335 people in 18 countries on five continents, found that

    “high carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of mortality,

    whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality.”

    It was also concluded,

    “Total fat and types of fat

    were not associated with cardiovascular disease,

    myocardial infarction, or

    cardiovascular disease mortality,

    whereas saturated fat had

    an inverse association with stroke.”

    The researchers suggest,

    “Dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.”

    This research seems to corroborate a 2010 study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that asserted,

    “There is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease.”

    Yet the USDA nutritional guidelines continue to promote the notion that a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet is healthier.

    Meanwhile, the obesity problem in America has only been getting worse.

    Of course, government-recommended dietary guidelines on food consumption may not be the primary culprit for America’s obesity epidemic, as lower average activity levels since the 1980s may be the greater cause. But

    the point is that the science is not settled on this issue, even though the USDA has projected it as such for decades.


    Might there be a lesson here for those who think “the science is settled” on global climate fluctuations?

     
    dailybuck777 and WeR0206 like this.
  2. Obliviax

    Obliviax Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Messages:
    77,476
    Likes Received:
    12,790
    several years ago, before anyone heard of adkins a friend had a heart attack. His doctor put him on a strict diet. No eggs. My friend loved eggs but the doctor said "one egg a month is one too many". My friend followed the diet to a T but his testing never improved.

    Finally, a friend told him about Adkins: low carb, high protein. He went on the Adkins diet for a month and tested great. He told his Dr about Adkins and the Dr said "whatever works".

    There is a book being pushed on NPR named "eat fat, get thin". I need to read that!
     
  3. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    +1. Ketogenic dieat (high fat, moderate protein, low carb, and eat as many veggies as you want) is the way to go.
     
    T J likes this.
  4. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    Suggestion -

    A better book might be

    "Fat for Fuel."


    The horrifically harmful, anti-science 1977 US Food Guidelines were inflicted upon the US and the world by (D) George McGovern's committee, vicious anti-Science Leftist Activist groups and of course the willing Left-Wing Media Cabal.

    The Leftists pushed their political agendas and ignored the published science that debunked their claims.

    Interestingly, the left's anti-science political extremist Climate Change hysteria, in many ways parallels the anti-science diet insanity they've inflicted on their ignorant liberal followers and the rest of the world.

    The Leftist's SAD anti-science, political hysteria may be linked to more major disease and early loss of life than any other cause in US history, all wars combined.

    ====

    Published research indicates that Adkins was correctly heading away from the SAD Diet, Standard American Diet.

    However where Adkins was not yet up to speed was on the types of fat and the problems of High Protein, which may actually be worse than the very serious problems of the High Carb diets. It's important to get updated on how each area creates major health problems, including cancer, as you learn better pathways for your health.

    There was a complicating factor with the Adkins approach. You can get into a fat burning mode with high protein diets and lose weight. It wasn't until later that the negative issues unfolded with excess protein.

    So your friend was likely helped by moving away from McGovern's and the leftists' SAD diet. Lowering carbs can significantly lower major disease factors.

    The new research documented in the new 2017 book above, is continuing to layout more optimal pathways for people, that go beyond Adkins, to accommodate the latest findings.

    Enjoy Obli!

     
    4 T J, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    Obliviax and WeR0206 like this.
  5. Obliviax

    Obliviax Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2001
    Messages:
    77,476
    Likes Received:
    12,790
    Great...thanks...overall, amazing that we have no real idea how to eat in 2018.
     
    T J likes this.
  6. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    Good overview WeR0206.
    (Note: May want to be careful about unlimited veggies, as all veggies are not created equal.).

    Please consider an additional step.

    That is, to consider a Cyclical Ketogenic process. Turns out via newer research, it is important to understand that our bodies developed through periods that normally included both Feast and Fast.

    A couple things

    A) To get amazingly important health benefits, we may need to cycle, instead of staying constantly in Ketosis.

    B) In addition, if the body stays in constant Ketosis, it actually changes over time, decreasing how the body responds.

    Again, it appears via new research, that Cyclical Ketosis is more in line with how our bodies may help to optimize health for many people. The body expects and may actually work better when going through the cycles. Some targeted health benefits appear to kick-in when entering Ketosis and other benefits accrue when transitioning out.

    This is an area of unfolding research and understanding, so we will see how it develops.

    Appreciate your comments WeR0206.
     
    6 T J, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  7. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Appreciate your comments as well. What you just described above is kind of what I've settled on. I cycle into ketosis a few times a year but when I'm not, I still try to avoid sugars since I used to have a bad sweet tooth and try to do some intermittent fasting. Dr. Berg has some good info on ketosis and IF on his youtube playlists.

     
    T J likes this.
  8. Nittany.Lion

    Nittany.Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,633
    Likes Received:
    857
    Whatever the right balance of carbs fats proteins is, calorie count is still the most important factor. If your ideal calorie intake is 1800 (with the "perfect" balance and not result in weight gain) and you eat 2500 calories you'll still gain weight and increased weight will lead to health issues. So eating 2500 calories with the perfect balance is worse than eating 1800 calories with an imperfect balance.
     
    nittnee likes this.
  9. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    Great - Thanks WeR0206!
    Will look at your linked info.

    Intermittent Fasting and actual controlled Fasting, in various forms, are likely to be parts of future healthcare regimens for many people.
     
    WeR0206 likes this.
  10. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    Bull-oney!

    The old "Calories In, Calories Out" mantras are a big part of the problem. It's a case of more anti-science dogma that got spread by those who had various agendas, who had no clue what they were talking about.

    That works in a Petti dish in the lab, but it does not take into account how are bodies actually work.

    By following that and similar "seemingly reasonable, but inappropriate" guidelines, you can turn a nation from low to moderate obesity in the 1970s, to the Overweight and Obesity Epidemics and major diseases epidemics we have today. That's generally what happened.

    Of course the numbers today are even higher.

    [​IMG]

    Anti-science dogma got brainwashed into the public by McGovern's committee report, leftist political action activities and the corrupt Leftist Media. They viciously attacked any scientists who objected to their dogma on scientific grounds. The Leftist political hit squad Cabal also viciously attacked major corporations and organizations, forcing them to adopt their False, BS "Settled Science", which was of course NOT backed by proper research.

    To be clear, objecting to your statement is not advocating unlimited eating. The problem is, per modern medical research, that the old "Calories In-Calories Out" is an inappropriate guideline for proper management and for creating more optimal health for most individuals.

    ====

    It's alot like the problem of simplistic, anti-science, CO2 CAGW hysteria. It too is not properly grounded in reality, while it is being pushed by extremist anti-science political and agenda-driven groups for power, among other things.

    The Radical Leftists know their followers won't challenge their anti-science hysteria claims, no matter how much the science doesn't support their extremist, emotion-driven, anti-science, exaggerated and false claims.
     
    10 T J, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    The Spin Meister likes this.
  11. Nittany.Lion

    Nittany.Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,633
    Likes Received:
    857
    nice rant......
    your rant is simply an anti-science opinion, this nation's obesity problem is caused by over eating and inactivity not by an imbalance of caloric intake (don't twist my words to suggest it OK to eat 1800 calories of sugar)..... it's just common sense
     
  12. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    False Nittany.Lion -

    You don't have a frickin clue.​

    LOL - You're just documenting that you are closed-minded, brainwashed to STOP THINKING and to mindlessly repeat mantras that are not backed by medical science.

    LOL - Gee - What's the chance?

    Brainwashed liberals who falsely attack the messengers and who are too ignorant, illogical and anti-science to even try to step into the 21st Century of modern science and medical research.
     
    12 T J, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  13. Nittany.Lion

    Nittany.Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,633
    Likes Received:
    857
    blah blah blah..... obesity is THE bigger problem, obesity is driven more by caloric intake and activity more so than the caloric makeup (all other things being equal).... period. end of story.
     
  14. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    False Nittany.Lion -

    Your kind of ignorant blustering, of inappropriate, anti-science mantras are what got us into many current problems.

    But suit yourself Nittany.Lion.
    Stay ignorant.
    Inflict whatever harm you want onto yourself and your family.
    Your choice, in what should be a free country.​

    Just don't inflict your anti-science ignorance onto others.

    You are posting like you are just a non-thinking follower, who is brainwashed to never examine the actual science and to throw emotional hissy fit attacks, when your fantasies are confronted by reality.

    It's no surprise that Radical Leftists have manipulated liberal "Useful Idiots" with false, inaccurate notions for generations.

    Unfortunately - It's not uncommon with significant science breakthroughs, that many who are too set in their ways, will just die off in ignorance. They will die believing old notions that future generations will find quaint and funny. Future generations will laugh about how "people back then" didn't change, even when the research showed they were wrong.

    History repeating itself.
     
  15. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    You're forgetting that not all calories are created equal:
    -Burning carbs/sugars results in more "exhaust" in the form of free radicals than burning good natural fats i.e. burning carbs will kill you faster.
    -Fats are a more efficient fuel source since they have 9-10 cal/gram while Carbs are 4cal/gram. There's no such thing as an essential carb. You're body can create all the glucose it needs from protein via gluconeogenesis.
    -burning carbs decreases your body's production of its most powerful natural antioxidant/detoxifier/ant-inflammatory called glutathione.

    Dr Jeff Volek and Dr. Stephen Phinney have done some excellent research on the benefits of low carb/high fat diets:
     
    15 WeR0206, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    T J likes this.
  16. Nittany.Lion

    Nittany.Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,633
    Likes Received:
    857
    You're too pig headed and arrogant to understand the point. I'm not arguing what is the best diet, I even agree that higher fat, higher protein, lower carb diet is the better diet. That doesn't mean that USDA diet recommendations are bad or unhealthy. The main cause of obesity is overeating, that's just common sense, if you overeat with either recommendation you will gain weight (I know there are other factors but that's why I said "with all other things being equal" in my earlier post).

    If you don't see this you can't be helped.
     
  17. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    False -

    That doesn't mean that USDA diet recommendations are bad or unhealthy.

    Quick side note - Sorry, but the USDA guidelines have been deadly wrong for decades. You can't even open your eyes to see the new research in the OP that documents that the US Guidelines are 180 degrees wrong, in the wrong direction. They couldn't be much more deadly than they have been for decades.

    Nittany.Lion - Stop flapping your fingers for a moment and try what may be an alien concept - Think!

    What you are saying is nothing new.
    In fact, it is quite old.

    Consider for a moment that what you say is "common sense" is NOT how the body works.

    Consided that I gave you specifics, which acknowledged that in a Petri Dish in a lab, you can calculate the amount of calories in a pound of fat, when it is burned. That works. That's true.

    But that is NOT the simple answer for how our bodies work.

    There-in lies the problem.

    I can guarantee you that I can take two diets with the exact same calories and get most people (not all) to gain weight with one option and lose weight with another option.

    SAME Calories. Directly opposite results.

    Why?

    Because the biochemistry and the metabolic functions for losing weight and gaining weight are the key. Get them wrong and you change key functions, that block "calories" from burning, and/or they can be triggered to be stored as fat, thus increasing fat weight. Get them right and you unlock the pathways that allow fat to be burned for fuel.

    In fact, to go further, your idea that exercise is required to lose weight is also an inadequate old notion. That's part of the old calories in - calories out motion.

    You can create dozens of pounds of weight loss per individual with virtually no exercise. Why? Because you can manipulate the metabolic functions that drive both weight gain and weight loss, without drugs or exercise.

    ===

    I know that you are totally clueless and worse, you do not want to learn.

    But consider for one moment one unique example, which flies in the face of your total calories mantra. Not saying this is part of a meal plan. It's just an example you might understand, that breaks your claim. Once your claim is shown to be breakable, perhaps you'll try to open your mind and learn the modern science.

    Here goes.

    Let's say "A" consumed 2000 calories in the form of bread and pasta.

    "B" consumes the same amount of 2000 calories in the form of whole corn kernels off the cob, without chewing well.

    The bread and pasta is likely to be mostly broken down into blood glucose (sugar).

    The corn will have a different result, in some fashion. For those who have consunmed corn-on-the cob quickly without much chewing, they often find whole and partially digested corn coming out the other end. So the net result is different, even though the calories are the same.

    Well, you might say. That's not a good example, because in fact the calories burned are not the same. The cellulose shell on the corn blocked digestion and absorption of some calories.

    Great! That's what I want you to understand.

    Now consider that there are very powerful, dominating internal biochemical and metabolic functions that don't involve corn, but they can also have a blocking effect on burning fuel for energy, or the storage of fuel as body fat. Those aren't constants. We can modify them to help do the work we want done.

    Same general concept.

    Calories are NOT the prime factor.

    The prime factors include Different Kinds of fuel being used and then very critically - what happens to the fuel inside the body.

    ---

    Note: That does NOT say that you can eat unlimited amounts of food. It says that diets and the USDA guidelines have failed for decades, because their assumptions were wrong and they were not properly using internal biological processes needed to get the sustainable results they wanted.

     
    The Spin Meister likes this.
  18. Nittany.Lion

    Nittany.Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,633
    Likes Received:
    857
    Of course you'll use extremes for an example....

    The USDA daily grain recommendation for a males 31-50 yo's who aren't active is 7 ounce equivalents
    Here's a sampling of 1 ounce equivalents (some whole wheat required)
    1 slice of bread
    1 cup of cereal
    1 4.5" pancake
    1/2 cup of rice
    1/2 cup of pasta
    1/2 english muffin
    1 6" tortilla
    3 cups of popcorn

    For a sample daily intake of 1 cup cereal (breakfast), 2 slices of bread (w/lunch), 1-1/2 cup of rice (w/dinner), and 3 cups of popcorn (snack) .... this would equate to about 600 calories of grains/carbs per day.
    New diet recommendations, iirc, are 20-40 grams of carbs per day, which would equate to about 200 cals, if you think that 400 cal difference (vs 400 cal of meat) would create health problems or lead to obesity over a lifetime of proper eating, I'd say you're a crazy lunatic.

    USDA recommendations didn't fail because no one used them for a lifetime
     
    18 Nittany.Lion, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  19. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204

    All you are demonstrating is that you don't understand the new science and you apparently can't comprehend the concept.

    You are ignorant.
    You are fighting to stay ignorant.
    So stay ignorant!

    Free country!

    -----

    Meanwhile as always, medical science moves forward.

    It continues to address new understandings like important core metabolic functions.

    It focuses on the largely untapped foundations for better health, lower disease risks and longevity, that are not part of the politically driven, bureaucratic government guidelines.

    Cheers!


     
  20. Nittany.Lion

    Nittany.Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,633
    Likes Received:
    857
    Nice punt
     
  21. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    You have a source for where your getting your USDA numbers? The current mainstream guidelines call for WAY more than 20-40 grams of carbs per day. They call for 60-70 percent of your calories to come from carbs so for a 2000 cal diet thats well over 1000 calories/day from carbs, which equates to more than 250 grams of carbs/day (carbs have about 4cal/gram)

    20-40 grams of carbs per day would actually be considered a low carb diet which is not what current guidlines call for. Think of what makes up the bottom of the food pyramid, it’s carbs.

    TJ and I are saying fats need to make up most of your calories (fats on bottom of pyramid) while carbs/sugars should make up the top with proteins in the middle.
     
    21 WeR0206, Feb 8, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
    T J likes this.
  22. Nittany.Lion

    Nittany.Lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,633
    Likes Received:
    857
    I said 20-40 grams for the "new" diets, meaning the low carb high protein diets similar to Adkins.... maybe that wasn't clear.

    I got the other info directly from USDA https://www.choosemyplate.gov/grains
     
  23. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    Excellent video WeR0206!

    It's going to be way over the heads of average viewers, but for those who listen through it, they may be able to grasp some of the summary information.

    Often times it is enough for some folks to get the overview and bottom line info, as long as they know the detail is there to back it up.

    This is vitally important info. Too bad we are at the early awkward stage stage of guideline transformation, where the average doctor is too often clueless. It is going to take a lot of training to overcome decades of terribly harmful, deadly medical and nutrition advice that harms so many hundreds of millions of people.

    Thanks again for the link WeR0206.

     
    WeR0206 likes this.
  24. LafayetteBear

    LafayetteBear Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    20,886
    Likes Received:
    6,837


    Leave it to Dr. Cut & Paste to come up with a political angle and (surprise!) blame the "vicious anti-Science Leftist Activist groups and Left-Wing Media Cabal." for making Americans fat. Who knew that Teej's fellow hillbillies were taking their dietary marching orders from the Lefties? Teej, your fat problem lies between your ears.
     
  25. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    You’re welcome! It’s definitely a little more into the weeds for most folks but it’s good to have those details in case people ask.

    Here are some less technical videos on keto.

    Dr. Westman Q&A on the basics of keto:


    Dr. Phinney a little more in depth talk on keto:
     
    T J likes this.
  26. rumble_lion

    rumble_lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    856

    Tj's nutritional advice is comical at best. Just put extra cheese on your burger to lose weight be healthy!

    Go ahead and put a slice of cheese on that burger.

    Jesus if eating cheeseburgers made you healthy we would be the healthiest country in the world by a mile instead of fattest.
     
  27. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    The key to losing weight is limiting insulin. Insulin doesn’t allow your body access to its fat reserves. Fat is insulin neutral. So if you remove the bun and add some cheese yes that would help you lose weight assuming you are removing carbs/sugars from the rest of your meals on a consistent basis.

    How many people eat cheese burgers without the carbs from the bun, sugary ketchups, and sodas??
     
  28. rumble_lion

    rumble_lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    856

    ahh yeah, cheese is a health food now. Good lord.
     
  29. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Good lord you are ignorant. Processed cheese isn’t healthy but natural cheese especially from pasture raised/grassfed cows is very healthy if your body can handle dairy. Its loaded with essential fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K as well as important minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium. It’s literally a multivitamin/multimineral... But I’m sure you already knew that right?
     
    The Spin Meister likes this.
  30. rumble_lion

    rumble_lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    856
    Oh my gosh I think you are on to something! It's the darn soda causing the explosion of obesity in the US not the cheese!

    [​IMG]

    But sugary soda sales peaked in the US around 1997.....

    [​IMG]

    While cheese consumption has continued to increase....

    [​IMG]

    But hey, who cares about facts! Eat more cheese!
     
  31. rumble_lion

    rumble_lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    856

    Good lord you are ignorant. Processed cheese isn’t healthy but natural cheese especially from pasture raised/grassfed cows is very healthy if your body can handle dairy.


    80% of dairy are not raised grassfed. 70% of the worlds population is lactose intolerant.


    Its loaded with essential fatty acids, fat soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K as well as important minerals such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium. It’s literally a multivitamin/multimineral... But I’m sure you already knew that right?


    Yeah, it's cornucopia of health! You can even get your antibiotics from it.

    Milk shipments are tested for six of the most widely used antibiotics, and any truckload that tests positive is rejected. So when cows are treated, farmers discard their milk for several days until the residues disappear.

    Yet a new report from the Food and Drug Administration reveals that a few farmers are slipping through a hole in this enforcement net. These farmers are using antibiotics that the routine tests don't try to detect, because the drugs aren't supposed to be used on dairy cows at all.

    The FDA looked for 31 different drugs in samples of milk from almost 2,000 dairy farms. About half of the farms — the "targeted" group — had come under suspicion for sending cows to slaughter that turned out to have drug residues in their meat. The other farms were a random sample of all milk producers.

    Just over 1 percent of the samples from the "targeted" group, and 0.4 percent of the randomly collected samples, contained drug residues. An antibiotic called Florfenicol was the most common drug detected, but 5 other drugs also turned up. Perhaps most disturbing: None of the drugs that the FDA detected are approved for use in lactating dairy cows.
    Everyone knows that pus is healthy! That's why the US allows the highest amount of it in milk in the world! #1 baby , MAGA!

    An indicator of the quality of milk is the somatic cell count (SCC). Somatic
    cells are body cells, including leucocytes (white blood cells). The number
    of somatic cells increases in response to pus producing bacterium like
    Staphylococcus aureus, a cause of the painful disease mastitis.

    The SCC is quantified as cells per ml.

    General agreement rests on the values of less than 100,000 cells/ml for
    uninfected cows and greater than 300,000 for cows infected with significant
    pathogens.

    The average SCC during 2000 for the U.S. was 316 000.

    The U.S. has the highest upper limit for SCC (750 000 cells/ml) of the
    entire major developed dairy producing countries of the world. The E.U., New
    Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, and Norway all accept 400 000 SCC as the
    upper limit and New Zealand may consider adopting 300 000 cells/ml in the
    future. Canada has now agreed on 500 000 SCC throughout all of the provinces
    and is already investigating the possibility of going to 400 000 cells/ml.

    Bulk tank SCC are also used as an indicator of hygienic conditions of milk
    production and particularly in the E.U.. In general, the hygienic conditions
    on farms producing low SCC milk are more desirable than conditions on farms
    producing high SCC milk.

    Increased SCC increases the risk of residues and potential pathogens and
    their toxic products in the milk supply.

    29.5% of the herd test days taken for the U.S. are over the 400 000 E.U.,
    New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, and Norway SCC limit for food use.

    In Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia over
    half the herd test days are over this limit.​
     
  32. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    So now you're trying to correlate the rise in obesity with the consumption of cheese? Wow, talk about missing the mark. You seem to miss the fact that the sharp rise in obesity in the late 70's was right at the same time the "eat lots of carbs" food pyramid was pushed out to the masses.

    I never said soda was the main driver for obesity, it's carbs/insulin, soda is just ONE thing that can cause a spike of insulin. I brought up soda in the example of a burger since most people when they eat a cheeseburger aren't doing it in a low carb fashion. It doesn't matter if people reduce soda but continue to pack tons of other carbs into their diet.

    The facts are found in the dozens of scientific peer reviewed studies that show a high carb/low fat diet is less healthy than a low carb/high fat diet. Insulin is a doubled edged sword not only does it prevent your body from accessing its fat reserves but it also drives your body to store more fat.

    It's extremely hard to lose weight when you constantly have insulin in your system. You know how we know that? From studies that compared weight loss between different diets (low carb/high fat vs. low fat/high carb, etc.). The low carb diet folks lose significantly more weight even though the calorie intake is the same between the groups.

    Also note that eating lots of fats with lots of carbs is NOT healthy.
     
    32 WeR0206, Feb 9, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
  33. WeR0206

    WeR0206 Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,930
    Likes Received:
    5,967
    Grassfed cheese isn't that hard to find. The problem is that most people are ignorant of the difference/benefits of grassfed vs. grain fed. If you buy organic grassfed dairy products then all of the concerns you pointed out are taken care of. I do agree that eating the antibiotics and other chemicals are bad (they are found not only in dairy but meat and other products), that's why you need to buy organic.

    This whole discussion and focus on cheese is a distraction. There are other kinds of healthy natural fats than grassfed cheese if that isn't available to you or if one is lactose intolerant: extra virgin first cold pressed olive oil, extra virgin cold pressed coconut oil, cold pressed avocado oil, grass fed ghee (has no lactose), etc.

    The main point is: low carb/high fat diets are WAY healthier than low fat/high carb and way easier to lose weight on. There's hard data to prove it if you take your head out of your ass for 10 seconds.
     
  34. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    WeR0206 - Just understand -
    Rumble is an ignorant troll. He has no background in medicine or science, he can't read science charts and he has no idea about cause and effect.

    Worse, you can explain things to him and provide him details and he is not capable of understanding even the basics.

    Rumble is a classic troll, who is brainwashed to mindlessly attack and try to get people off topic, especially when it's clear that the left has caused major problems.
     
    WeR0206 likes this.
  35. rumble_lion

    rumble_lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    856

    Eating a bunch of fat and cheese is not healthy. You may lose weight if you force your body into ketosis but it's certainly not healthy.

    You don't need to drink any milk at all in fact you will much healthier if cut milk out of your diet. Cheese is concentrated milk. It takes something like 8 pounds of milk to make one pound of cheese.

    Oh yeah, don't forget the massive amount of salt in cheese.

    Cheese might be one the single worst foods you can put into your mouth.

    Cheese is great if you are a baby cow, but an adult human? No way.

    Low fat high vegetables/fruits is a much healthier diet.
     
  36. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    LOL - rumble the bumbling idiot is so hilariously stupid, it's fun to watch him completely miss the issues in articles and fly off into his loony liberal Lah-Lah Land.

    It's no surprise that Liberals are so screwed up and incapable of rational analysis. They can't even focus on the key items in new published research, by one of the world's top medical journals.

    rumble the cheese headed clown.
    Funny funny stuff!!
     
    WeR0206 likes this.
  37. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    Meanwhile back in reality...


    A recently published study in Lancet calls into question the long-running nutritional guidelines advocated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) since its formation in 1960.

    The study, which followed 135,335 people in 18 countries on five continents, found that

    ---> “high carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of mortality,

    ---> whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality.”
    It was also concluded,

    ---> “Total fat and types of fat

    ----> were not associated with

    cardiovascular disease,

    myocardial infarction, or

    cardiovascular disease mortality,

    ---- > whereas saturated fat had

    ---> an inverse association with stroke.”
    The researchers suggest,

    “Dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.”
     
    37 T J, Feb 9, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
    WeR0206 likes this.
  38. rumble_lion

    rumble_lion Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    856

    Hey teeeej did happen to notice who sponsored your high fat is good study?


    (with major contributions from AstraZeneca [Canada], Sanofi-Aventis [France and Canada], Boehringer
    Ingelheim [Germany and Canada], Servier, and GlaxoSmithKline), and
    additional contributions from Novartis and King Pharma

    Hmmmm, now how would these companies profit from telling people that eating a lot of fat is good for you? I'm sure these companies are all about telling people how to eat healthy do they don't need high blood pressure medicine, insulin, blood thinners, etc., etc.
     
  39. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    LOL - Rumble the bumble is for higher mortality, high stroke rate and anti-science claims that have been failing for 40 years.

    high carbohydrate intake
    is worse for one's health
    than a diet high in fats.



    This research seems to corroborate a 2010 study published in the

    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that asserted
    ,

    ---> “There is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease.”

    Yet the USDA nutritional guidelines continue to promote the notion that a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet is healthier.

    Meanwhile, the obesity problem in America has only been getting worse.

     
    39 T J, Feb 9, 2018
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2018
    WeR0206 likes this.
  40. T J

    T J Well-Known Member
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    93,617
    Likes Received:
    5,204
    Fats, Unlimited?
    2015 Dietary Guidelines May Lift Restriction On Fats


    The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommends dietary fat no longer be limited

    Contrary to both the 2005 and 2010 guidelines, this latest committee has found "no health benefit" in limiting dietary fat.

    After years of scorn, fats

    — essential to health, high in calories, and categorized as five unique types

    — have regained their largely positive reputation.

     

Share This Page