Well, for the proles anyway. The elites need the Wagyu steaks in order to better rule over us. We get tasty and nutritious soylent green (thanks, in part, to ObamaCare’s “End of Life Counseling Panels”).
I’m going to continue to try to kill myself with protine!!!
I’m 76 and still working hard at it!
What a bunch of CRAP!
Research paid for by PETA? Actually, the high carb diet gov’t has pushed on people has been a major cause of diabetes.
I am very suspicious. At 64 I still hit, long toss and pitch baseball (just to see how well within the zone I can slip it).
I start with Cherrios, a banana and blueberries....
I will never believe that.
SCIENTISTS say!!! Run for the hills. We’re all gonna die.
Another one of those government-funded research projects, no doubt.....
OMG, “too much” is bad. What a revelation.
Ever notice these bogus studies by so called experts come out when the gov wants to nudge you in a certain direction? Now that protein is getting higher and higher I guess they think we will switch to kale and away from meat since protein is bad for us anyway.
I recently read a study that stated and was backed up with indisputable numbers that Federal employees that wrestled alligators lived an average 8 years longer than those who did not and their sex drive was increased by 38%. The study also found that the alligator wrestling Feds were more likely to be promoted and that their coworkers, both male and female found them to be more attractive.
Yep. I read that and expect a shortage of alligators soon after this study is made public.
I eat 10:1. For every 10 calories. Eat 1g protein. Doesnt matter what type or source. Though I eat a lot of greek yogurt.
Talk about an exaggeration. Fact is: this diet has shown some noticeable health benefits. Protein is an essential nutrient.
Got it.
Too many people are figuring out how to get healthy. This has to stop.
Next up, looking both ways before crossing the street is harmful to children.
The following is an article by Karl Denninger, who, for the record, lives the protein - fat - veggie diet plus jogging lifestyle.
http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=228822
*****************************************************
Let The Debate On Diet Begin (But Don’t Lie)
This was sent “over the transom” to me a few days ago; I suppose it deserves some digital ink, mostly due to what is either raw ignorance or worse, intentional misdirection.
According to Dr T Colin Campbell’s new book The Low-Carb Fraud, giving up grains can mean putting yourself at a higher risk for heart disease, cancer and other regenerative diseases.
He says that not only are low-carb diets lacking in nutritional value, but they’re actually even worse than the standard American diet.
Oh really?
The problem, says Dr Campbell, who has 40 years’ experience in nutrition science, is that people who cut out carbs tend to load up on animal protein and fat, which heightens cholesterol levels, sometimes leading to disease.
Except..... that doesn’t happen in most people. Never mind that there’s this odd shift that happens when people want to malign a low-carb lifetyle — they intentionally twist the other two sources of energy around (note the “high protein”, which isn’t part of what I practice.)
And that’s the problem, in a nutshell, with this so-called “analysis.” It also forms the backdrop for those who argue for various sorts of things like this when it comes to “what to eat” which always seems to end in the same place — the pill bottle.
Let’s take the typical example. You go to the doctor and he doesn’t like your cholesterol levels. The “answer”, according to him, is for you to restrict animal fats and increase non-fat consumption. You do this, come back, and your numbers are either stable or worse. He now wants you to take a statin — forever.
The logical person would look at these results and stop the doctor right there, because he gave you a prescription, you followed it, and you didn’t get the results he wanted to see. Instead of asking “why not?” and expecting an answer before you go further his answer is for you to take a second prescription, this one a drug.
Unfortunately the standard 3-panel test doesn’t tell you what you need to know. In other words, it’s not diagnostic, but it’s sold and used that way. Specifically there are four types of LDL; one is benign at worst while the other three are of decreasing size and increasing danger.
Here’s the problem — eating low-fat, high-carbohydrate foods tends to be associated with shifts in LDL counts toward the small, dense and dangerous forms while eating saturated fats tends to shift the balance toward the large, fluffy form of LDL which is benign at worst and may even be protective.
The problem with the standard test is that it can’t differentiate between these four forms and what’s worse is that it doesn’t even accurately measure LDL to begin with unless your triglyceride level is within certain boundaries. If not then it’s inaccurate.
Then there’s another problem that arises with the “drug” recommendation — statins are not discriminatory. They interfere with the production and use of all cholesterol. That sounds good if you want to lower your gross cholesterol level, but that’s not what you want. The only form of cholesterol you want to lower is the small, dense LDL subtypes; the rest is not only ok for you it’s necessary for all sorts of biological processes in your body, including most-particularly brain function.
We also need to draw a distinction here with the word “diet.” A diet is something you do because you want to obtain a particular result, and then you change it when you’re done. A choice of lifestyle is something you do because you believe it will lead to a good result and you intend to keep it forever.
And by the way, contrary to Campbell’s and others assertions those of us (like myself) who are into the low-carb thing neither see this as a “diet” nor do we completely eschew carbohydrates. I eat all the green vegetables I want, as just one example, yet those contain carbohydrates. A nice big bowl of microwaved spinach cooked with butter or a bunch of broccoli often comprises my lunch.
The interesting part of changing what you eat as a lifestyle choice is that your body knows how to regulate its caloric intake and expresses that in hunger. “Highly-available” carbohydrates including sugars and starches, along with processed oils (that would be nearly all of them that don’t come from animals) appear to tamper with that regulatory mechanism; that is, they make you hungry long before you would otherwise be. That’s not good as having to fight what your body is telling you to do all the time is a recipe for failure.
What I’ve found is that when I changed what I eat not only did I lose the excess weight as my body approached a natural mass the loss of weight slowed and then stopped. But I didn’t change how or what I eat during that time, nor have I since. In addition as my exercise level varied wildly my body mass did not change; this winter, for example, it has been kinda nasty in this part of the country and so I have run much less than usual — yet I haven’t gained so much as one pound. It certainly appears from the empirical evidence in this sample size of one that my body knows how to regulate its food intake all on its own — provided that what I put down the pie hole doesn’t screw up that regulatory mechanism.
So here’s the challenge, in a nutshell. The only way you’re going to know whether you’re actually at risk from your cholesterol levels is to have the entire profile run — not the standard three-panel LDL/HDL/Trig test. That profile is quite a bit more expensive as a test, and you might have trouble getting your health “insurance” to cover it. If you let your doctor run the other one, however, you are polluting your medical records with “information” that is not predictive of your risk of coronary disease and strokes yet it WILL be used in the future to claim you are at such risk and thus lead to recommendations that may do nothing or even harm you.
The salient question becomes if you cut out all the processed carbs and, while eating liberally from selections like green vegetables while the bulk of your caloric intake is from fats and then protein (in other words, from a caloric perspective your intake looks like fats->protein->carbohydrates) what change occurs in that full cholesterol profile? The fact that your LDL number from the three-panel test goes up or down is meaningless unless you know the sub-type breakdown, and since we know that carbohydrates tend to promote the bad form of LDL while suppressing the good, and vice-versa when you take in saturated fats, the gross number alone is not only meaningless it may be exactly backward.
The other problem that is often overlooked is that systemic inflammation appears to be far more-important than cholesterol in any form when it comes to heart disease. That is rarely tested for directly, but it should be. The issue with testing for inflammation is that if you find a problem there (e.g. c-Reactive Protein is elevated) it doesn’t tell you where the inflammation is or why it’s happening. But IMHO that should be the start of any such inquiry as the body’s reaction to inflammation is to try to isolate and attack it; we all see how our body reacts to insults of this sort when we get a splinter in our finger. If the locale of the inflammation includes your arteries you have a problem!
Finally there is an matter of individual variation in metabolic process. No two of us are exactly alike and we don’t respond the same way. There are multiple drugs for various conditions for exactly this reason; one drug will work well in one person but not in another, and often doctors don’t know why (and neither does anyone else.) If they could predict otherwise accurately they wouldn’t have to try various things; we’d always get it right on the first shot.
So if you’re being challenged by your body mass or cholesterol numbers first get enough information to know whether you actually have a problem — and that you cannot learn from the “standard” 3-panel cholesterol test. If the issue is body mass consider what works for a lot of people, which is high saturated fat, moderate protein and low carbohydrate as a choice for nutrition. If you’re concerned that this will trash your cholesterol numbers (and there are plenty of people who will claim it does) get the full particle assay (NOT the standard three-panel test) of your cholesterol along with a check of your CRP level and A1C first, make the change in what you eat, wait three months and then re-test. If your small, dense LDL numbers go the wrong way and CRP and/or A1c rises then that’s not the right pathway for you.
In short there’s little argument among the medical profession that it is the small, dense LDL that’s a problem and that large, fluffy LDL is fine. In addition there’s little argument that elevated CRP levels are always bad. Finally, when it comes to blood glucose the gold standard is the A1c test which measures your average blood sugar control over time; 4-5.6% (some sources say under 6%) is normal; over that is bad and most sources agree that a reading over 6.4% indicates diabetes.
Any doctor that tells you that you shouldn’t eat a high-fat, moderate-protein and low-carbohydrate diet when he or she sees a positive change in those three markers as a consequence of doing so needs to be directly challenged on whether their recommendation has a scientific backing or whether their recommendations are driven by something else. Never mind that if you drop 20lbs at the same time I suspect that will also get their attention.
After all, the reason they started down this line of inquiry in the first place was that they didn’t like those cholesterol numbers and your body mass — right?
Arctic explorers and early western pioneers lived successfully for months on a high fat/high protein diet. In the Arctic, it would be something like seal meat, in the west pemmican (buffalo meat + fat).
So I’m calling this “study” bogus.
In a related study, scientists have also discovered that those who consistently breathed oxygen had a 100% mortality rate!
I simply don’t believe “studies” anymore. They rarely account for significant variables, and almost always support the preconceived notion of the Lefty “scientist”.