In one para : what's wrong with our modern diet.

[kiran6680]

I have an alarm set which goes off every Saturday. It's my reminder to read health podcast notes and note down actionable items that I can start following. This is on top of the books that I read or spend time discussing these topics in forums (not TE of course).

And yet the misconceptions you have about carbohydrates, sucralose and diabetes are astronomical. The books you are "recommending" are getting a bad name by this.

My specialists love me because I talk to them in high technical language

They are laughing at you.

 

[lockhrt999]

And yet the misconceptions you have about carbohydrates, sucralose and diabetes are astronomical. The books you are "recommending" are getting a bad name by this.

They are laughing at you.

Oh there you are. I missed that pitch fork gang of TE. I can already hear "burn the witch".

Can't have proper discussion when people living on left side of dunning Kruger curve barge in.

 

[ssslayer]

Your point about junk food is very much valid, but I was talking about old people who have never eaten any of that junk food. Who never stepped into a hotel in their whole life and still, I see them grappled with diabetes.

I am interested in hearing what has changed for them, are you suggesting that the already traditional veg thali eating people have somehow increased their carbs further?
Or is it that they have increased their overall calorific intake (eating more and eating more frequently).

Umm… mate, you really should read that book. If someone is looking for facts, that book has plenty.

it has all the facts and researches you need

Does this book have references mentioned? Did you take effort to check few of the "facts". I am saying this because a huge section of popular writers mention references but either those are circular references (A refers to B, B refers to C, C refers to D, D refers to B) or dead ends (A refer to B, B refer to C, C did not refer to any experiment/study but just wrote an opinion) or false narrative (A refers to B however paraphrases something completely different from what B mentions).
Some of the people guilty of above technique:
Dr Anthony Chaffee
Prof Bart Kay
Nina Teicholz
Gary Taubes

Wheat grass found in nature thousands of years ago had 14 chromosomes. Today's wheat has 42 chromosomes. Lab or no lab, most of them were put in by us. 14 chromosome version is still grown in some parts of the Mediterranean region. But it tastes like crap.
Learnt this thing in a Clarkson's farm episode. You can't grow a modern wheat crop without actively feeding fertilizers. There's just no way. I had to double-check it, and it appears to be true.

Never knew we had genetic scientists and engineers back then in the neolithic ages.
And what exactly is the problem with fertilizers?

What do you mean by what? I did mention carbohydrates, didn't I? Diabetes is an allergy to carbohydrates. It's developed by eating carbohydrates excessively.

Say, I'm allergic to peanuts and consuming them gives me hives. If I stop eating peanuts, I don't get hives anymore. I know! mind-blowing, right?

In that case is obesity = allergy to calories? OR obesity = allergy to sugar?
If what you say is true then even 1 gram of carbohydrate should cause allergic reaction and inflammation.
And since many proteins are known allergens (our immune cell mistake many proteins as Virus or bacterial products), the only diet that is left is to eat is dollops of butter?

If you are 60 kg, there's at least 20-30 kg of protein inside your body (protein = muscles + skin, hair, fur + brain + all cells & their DNAs + hormones + tendons + ligaments + a third of all bones).

The human body usually needs about 10 grams of vitamins, minerals per day. Are you suggesting you can support that 20-30 kg of proteins inside your body by just eating 10 grams of vitamins and minerals per day?

Proteins are the basic building blocks. If they are the bricks and mortar of your house, then vitamins minerals will be like your wall paint. No amount of paint going to fix a broken wall.

I asked that for 20-30 kg of protein in my body, how much deteriorates daily. What does it deteriorate into? How is it excreted? Does the body recycle this deteriorated protein?
After doing all that balance, what is the net deficiency of protein that must be made up from external sources (like food). Is there any study done to ascertain these figures?

About pets, abroad, one will find even their strays have shiny coats. Their strays eat out of dumpsters like ours. Nobody is giving them vitamin mineral supplements.

I don't have a pet so can't carry out the argument. But your suggestion appears to be that desi pets are fed with under-proteined food and the branded pet food fills up the protein requirements, thus getting them good hair/fur/coat.
Gora Stray animals source their food from dumpsters and thus can get high-protein diet (left over from gora foods)?

Alright. A third it is. Still, I'd say, if we are gauging food by volume, veggies should be at least more than twice of all other foods combined. Only then can one get enough fiber, vitamins, and minerals.

Agreed, there is no ceiling to veggies intake, the more the better.

In wild, most monkeys are omnivores, they eat both plant based food and meat. They have big incisors for a purpose.

The purpose of big incisors is only one: sink into flesh and cause damage. Don't read too much into herbivore vs carnivore based on only this.
Do you think fighting within same species (males fighting for mating, control of resources/territory) is not a cause great enough for evolution?

Everyone likes crap on alternate medicine that comes under Ayush saying how crap they are. But most don't realise that Allopathy isn't pure science at all. It's like mix of 60% science with 40% of BS. And that BS is "well established, known" BS. And occasionally, it has done more harm.

I am not sure what Allopathy stands for, but the modern medicine & surgery is based on the scientific method

Do you have any objections to this approach?
There is a constant evolution of knowledge about any subject, however at any point of time, whatever the scientific method lead to was accurate for the data that was available at that moment of time.

I am presuming that the below represents the 40% of the BS in "allopathy":

Let me give you a few examples that I can think of at this moment,

1. Allopathy still likes to go after cholesterol and saturated fat for cardiovascular disease. It's been a while that numerous scientific publications have proven neither of them do crap shoot for cardiovascular disease. It's "traditional" to go after them but it's "well established" and "known" that neither of them the real causes of heart attacks. A minimal percentage of people really benefit from statin (cholesterol inhibitor) drugs. But overall, statin drugs does more harm than good, as it throttles production of important hormones like cholesterol and, in-turn, testosterone [cholesterol is a precursor of testosterone and most of other important hormones] . Makes one less of a "Man" and halts the physical recovery and ages one faster. Either way, people taking statin still die of heart attacks. Science has "well established" for many decades now and it's pretty "known" that heart disease is an "autoimmune" disease. Like Type 1 diabetes, your body is attacking itself. One of the very well "known" cause is inflammation and eating inflammatory foods like carbohydrates and $hitty vegetable seed oil high in omega 6. If it has written 'good for heart' on the product, science has already proven that it's undoubtedly the polar opposite.

Care to cite randomized controlled trials establishing this bold part?
I am interested in going through them critically.

1. Again, about heart attacks, doctors "traditionally" suggest going easy on the heart after after the heart surgery. Science, on the other hand, has "well established" that doing so causes atrophy of heart muscles and one only gets the second attack sooner.

A person who has had surgery is because he's had a blockage (plaque built up) of >70% in one or more of the arteries supplying blood to heart pumping muscle. Large blockage = large chance of the clot forming around plaque, and breaking loose and jamming the blood vessels leading to tissue necrosis (stoppage of a part of heart). Now someone who has 70% blockage in one or two arteries, does have some arteries with 50% blockage, some with 20% and so on (which haven't been operated/bypassed yet). Doc's friendly advise exists only to save you from clots originating from these partially blocked arteries.
Your line of reasoning is that a person with broken knee should still continue jumping, running, climbing stairs, squatting because well ... exercise strengthens knees.

1. Already mentioned, vitamin C. I mean, there's not a single study proving its benefit on cold or corona. The Purest form of BS. There have been numerous studies on this matter, and all of them have "well established" that it hardly does anything. Somebody wrote somewhere that it might be helpful, and the bhondus doctors took it as a gospel.

Nowhere does modern medicine/nutrition/science asks people to overdo Vitamin C to improve immunity (can you show me any doctor's recommendation on this?). On the other hand it is non-scientific disciplines that encourage Amla, Lemon, Orange, Guava consumption (or their concoctions) to improve resistance to cold/flu.
Lack of Vitamins does make people susceptible to illness, but you can't overfill this tank to a superior immunity more than what your genetics offer.

Just go back 20 years. Doctors "traditionally" used to say only Gay people get AIDS and straight people are immune to it. Science "Well established" that it was never the case in the 90s itself. This also did much more harm than good. On similar lines, go back 50 years, black people were said to be "traditionally" immune to white people's disease because they are tougher and were never granted the same medical treatments. No real science ever established this as a fact.

Which medical science/scientist said the part in bold?

1. 1. All carbohydrates (except fibers) end up shooting your sugar (read "blood glucose" here). It makes no difference if that came from a substance that tasted sweet.

And is it a harmful thing? Why?

1. The sugar (read "the thing that makes your tea sweet" here) chemically known as Sucrose. The real sweetness comes from another compound called Sucralose. And, it's not even 0.1% of the sugar by weight. The sweetness compound Sucralose is indigestible like fibers which you urinate out (you don't urinate fiber BTW, you shit it.

Are you sure of the above? Sucralose is a synthetically generated compound that is 100 or 1000 times sweeter than sucrose. This means sucrose (made from cane juice) by itself is also sweet. Any evidence that sucralose is present in nature?

 

[TEUser2K1]

Water, chemical industries challenge Biden’s rule to restrict ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/4714548-drinking-water-pfas-forever-chemicals-utility-lobby-challenge/

The purpose of big incisors is only one: sink into flesh and cause damage. Don't read too much into herbivore vs carnivore based on only this.
Do you think fighting within same species (males fighting for mating, control of resources/territory) is not a cause great enough for evolution?

Meat eating accelerated face evolution

Meat eating accelerated face evolution

Eating raw meat and making stone tools may be behind the smaller teeth and faces of humans compared with their ancient relatives.

www.bbc.com

A Taste for Raw Meat May Have Helped Shape Human Evolution:
Stone tools might have let our ancestors more easily chew and digest meat, which in turn may have changed our teeth and jaws

A Taste for Raw Meat May Have Helped Shape Human Evolution

Stone tools might have let our ancestors more easily chew and digest meat, which in turn may have changed our teeth and jaws

www.smithsonianmag.com