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

[kiran6680]

While I agree that lots of advice from the document seems questionable, these political documents are limited by their bosses and even if their authors know better, they cannot include some good stuff. Like the obsession with grains and carbohydrates. But we agreed on this thread earlier that no one knows the whole truth about nutrition due to extreme lack of research funds and open-mindedness in people about their food? Your post is a prime example of more misconceptions. One handled above about the sugar, grain, carbohydrate, diabetes concept. I'll just address one more, but there is more.

Excessive consumption of processed food = bad?

Not at all. Processing - cooking mostly, but peeling, cutting, beating, fermenting, pickling etc. is a great way to make food available, more nutritious and their nutrients more bioavailable. Probably the confusion comes from the new fangled term - ultraprocessed food (UPF). If people can agree about its definition, more people would agree that it's universally bad, but we are not there yet.

Not trusting doctors about nutrition is great. But a thread filled with so many misconceptions? And nutritionists as a whole profession so illiterate that they call 1000 calories as "1 Calorie", giving rise to a thousandfold confusion given the difficulty must humans face with capitalisation? No I'd go with a doctor.

Edit : and yes, the great ignorance of doctors about nutrition is acknowledged.

 

[ssslayer]

No advice here, but let's analyze that photo from several angles,

1. Most Indians, who are well-off, grew up eating the same diet from the photo. The majority of such 50+ YO are now either diabetic, pre-diabetic or at least cruising at 5%+ hba1c. Many of these people have never stepped inside a hotel, still they got the diabetes.

1990s was the time when Indians started the massive mission of incorporating junk foods in their already poor diets of sweetened chai, samosa, jalebi, fafda, vada paav, deep fried parathas. Cold drinks, biscuits, sweets, sweatmeats, bakery products, confectionaries, "chocolates", deep fried stuff... things that were occasional indulgence (once a month to be most optimistic) started becoming a weekly affair and then daily affair. Today those same 50-year-olds are having this stuff through the day (snacking).

I hardly remember anyone EVER filling half the plate with salads, veggies and fruits.
Mostly it used to be heaps of rice or racks of ghee laden rotis with some legume and spice infused water.

2. From the looks of it, it's at least 70% sugar (most of its coming from grains).

"Really?" Perhaps you meant carbohydrates, which also include sugars.
Big difference here, i am sure you are well versed with nutrition bio-chemistry and psychology.

3. About 80% of calories coming from carbohydrates. Some from fats and negligible from proteins. Whatever happened to keeping these things equal? Most of the human body is protein. When I'm looking at your beautiful eyes and skin @ibose, I'm looking at protein itself. Who will eat to replenish those protein levels? If someone ever had adopted cats or dogs, and fed them paid food, they would notice how nice and shiny their coats become. The same is also true for humans. Indians, who eat little protein, age like Tata indica. 30YO looks like 45YO.

Say I am 60 kg individual, how much protein is deteriorated per day?
How can I determine this rate?

Pets get shiny coats mainly because of vitamins and minerals.
The same goes for human beings. If skin, hair, nails etc is dull, check your diet/blood for deficiencies in vitamins and minerals.
Protein deficiency could also be a cause, but the above is more likely.

4. Diabetes, by definition, is the allergy to carbohydrates. So why force-feed so much carbohydrates?

Oh wait, so what really causes diabetes and how does it start and develop, and how can it be reversed? I hope we are talking about the Type-2

5. Another food for thought. About 60-70% of calories are coming from grains in the picture. But in a real regular Indian diet, about 95% of calories come from grains. Can anyone please let me know what animal in the nature eats that much of grain to survive? Most of the grains we eat today are not natural. They are not found in nature. They are rather mutant grade abomination developed in the labs which we dare to call food. Read wheat belly [I love wheat as much as the next guy but man it's beyound mutated like deadpool]

Mutant grade abomination? Nope, the genetically modified food stuff is not yet available.
What you might have meant is selectively bred. But that humans have been doing for everything around them for thousands of years. Grasses leading to cereal grains. Plants leading to vegetable. Flowering plants leading to fruits. Same experiments on the land animals for livestock and pets.
None of these are "unnatural".

6. Not enough green leafy vegetables in the picture. I don't think anyone will disagree with that observation.

Come on, I can see a large part (slightly more than 1/3rd of 400 grams) of greens there.

7. Excessive consumption of processed food = bad? Can we at least agree on that? But, has anyone realized, 90%+ of the regular Indian diet = processed food? [No longer talking about the photo] Most people don't know the definition of processed food. They think only McDonald's is the processed food. But, if we have to be right, one will find McDonald's burger is less processed than normal Indian diet. Calorically speaking, 90%+ calories come from roti, rice, and legumes. All of them, by definition, are processed food when they arrive at your kitchen counter-top ready for cooking (except a very few legumes who remain unprocessed until the cooking). If anyone didn't know, wheat = unprocessed, but wheat flour = processed food; brown rice = unprocessed, but white rice = processed food.

Yes, though let me agree this way.
It is not the processed food by itself that is bad. Whey protein is ultra processed. So is bran. And so are multi vitamins & mineral.
Let's take typical ultra processed food + add whey proteins + high amount of bran + fortified vitamins.
And we may chemically become equivalent to your ideal food (you haven't mentioned it yet, but I can guess).

The problem with ultra processed food is that:
a) we love to eat them in isolation, it is not fashionable (yet) to combine them to correct for macro and micro nutrient deficiencies which can be fixed like I mentioned above
b) our taste buds get overwhelmed with artificially enhanced mouthfeel, taste, aroma, sight (colors, shapes) and we end up eating far more than what our bodies require, in other words ultra processed food bypass the natural satiety circuit of our body
c) typically very low water content in food, not just affects the satiety, but also in general hydration levels and the effect on digestion, assimilation, mouth biome - leading to gut biome

8. Another funny angle, compare our top billionaires to billionaires from abroad. I'm sure our billionaires could afford a better diet. Our guy who got Hindenburg last year has an underdeveloped jaw like a child. The jaw remains underdeveloped if all one eats is processed food which is easy to chew and nothing of the real tough natural food.

Can't comment about Adanis and Ambanis, but a strong dental arch & jaws, and breathing, is indeed linked to chewing. However, if you are talking about Cindy Crawford Angelina Jolie like jawline - then we are talking about genetics here (bone shape, fat distribution, neck vs jaw attachments), not everyone is going to have it ever, whether they diet down to 5% body fat or they start chewing resistance training.

In any case, not to dilute your point, we should indeed, right from the beginning of the childhood inculcate eating the stuff which is hard to chew and takes long to break down. Unfortunately, all the idiot parents of this world want to chicken out and present the easiest to gulp down meals.
But I think that aspect can be countered by chewing gums. Make it fashionable and encourage kids to chew (and also to safely dispose - definitely not in someone's hair!)

 

[kiran6680]

Mutant grade abomination? Nope, the genetically modified food stuff is not yet available.
What you might have meant is selectively bred. But that humans have been doing for everything around them for thousands of years. Grasses leading to cereal grains. Plants leading to vegetable. Flowering plants leading to fruits. Same experiments on the land animals for livestock and pets.
None of these are "unnatural".

The terms "unnatural" and "mutant grade abomination" are not specific, falsifiable or concrete enough to really prove / refute anything about them. But as much as is possible :
1. The wheat and rice we have are "unnatural" in the sense that if you go in a random forest and just come across a grass variety with seed size, energy content or nutrient density (excluding fibre) of even half of typical commercial wheat / rice varieties, it will be a miracle.
2. Even in India, the stuff grown these days is definitely "mutated". Specific term used in development specific to India was radiation-induced erectoides mutants, since early 1950s. The father of the green revolution in India was a geneticist, who searched the world over for genes to use in India to solve the local problems. Mutagenesis and even the scary sounding "gamma gardens" were his playthings / subjects of interest.
3. In any case, a discussion about natural or unnatural is subject to the fallacy appeal to nature.
4. Just because something is done for thousands of years is also no proof of its acceptability / greatness.

 

[lockhrt999]

Not at all. Processing - cooking mostly, but peeling, cutting, beating, fermenting, pickling etc. is a great way to make food available, more nutritious and their nutrients more bioavailable.

Yeah, I emphasized on "Excessive" word. Not all processing is bad, I know that. But, I'm talking about 90%+ calories coming from food which was altered in a factory. For poor people, it's almost 99% of their calories come from factory-altered-food. The poorer one is, the less become their chances of eating non-processed food like vegetables and fruits.

The Biggest Diabetes Diet Myths

Navigating your way through the myths surrounding a diabetes-friendly diet can be tricky. Discover what’s fact and what’s fiction.

www.healthline.com

Let's start with only 2, shall we ? Reading the other "opinions", I feel we should open a separate thread for each ..sigh.. so so many ROFL funny myths to dispel .. so little time

Healthline is an SEO ho. SEO optimization matters to it more than anything else. If you have Ahrefs sub, you can reverse engineer them and you will find they go after each and every possible keyword there is. Do that and you will find many of its content are self contradicting. BTW, that nutritionist didn't write that article. They just lent out their names to increase Google EEAT signle (Expertise Experience Authority Trust). It was written by an SEO expert. I know this industry inside out.

I don't like traditional nutritionists, either . I have met way too many nutritionists, their advice is non-practical and too generic, like that Healthline article. Living healthy shouldn't be viewed as a treatment. Unfortunately, nutritionists or MBBS both prescribe it like it has to be followed for X number of days.

1990s was the time when Indians started the massive mission of incorporating junk foods in their already poor diets of sweetened chai, samosa, jalebi, fafda, vada paav, deep fried parathas. Cold drinks, biscuits, sweets, sweatmeats, bakery products, confectionaries, "chocolates", deep fried stuff... things that were occasional indulgence (once a month to be most optimistic) started becoming a weekly affair and then daily affair. Today those same 50-year-olds are having this stuff through the day (snacking).

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.

Nope, the genetically modified food stuff is not yet available.

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

None of these are "unnatural".

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.

Diabetes, by definition, is the allergy to carbohydrates.

Oh wait, so what really causes diabetes and how does it start and develop, and how can it be reversed? I hope we are talking about the Type-2

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?

Type-2 diabetes reversal:
Reversal is a strong word. People in type-2 have pancreas damaged beyond repair by actively eating stuff that they are allergic to. If by reversal, do you mean cure? Unlikely, unless you are very young who have some capacity to undo damage to the pancreas.

What about remission?
Sure! Why not? Stop eating carbohydrates and type-2 goes into remission. It's a "common side effect" suffered by people who go on diets like Atkins, keto, carnivore etc. Not only do they put their type-2 into remission but also get their hba1c under 5% without consuming a single metformin.

MBBS won't tell you this. They were never taught that. These people don't have time to read research papers unless those are pushed in their face by a pharma company who has them on commission. In any case, they wouldn't want their customers to know about it. Diabetes patients are good subscription business.

Pets get shiny coats mainly because of vitamins and minerals.
The same goes for human beings. If skin, hair, nails etc is dull, check your diet/blood for deficiencies in vitamins and minerals.
Protein deficiency could also be a cause, but the above is more likely.

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.

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.

Come on, I can see a large part (slightly more than 1/3rd of 400 grams) of greens there.

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.

The father of the green revolution in India was a geneticist, who searched the world over for genes to use in India to solve the local problems.

Man, he passed away recently and sadly, nobody noticed. I'll say he was the single most important person of the last century. He's the reason most of us, our parents and their parents "exist". If someone likes existing, they should thank him.

Before the green revolution, people couldn't afford to produce (rather maintain) a large number of children.
Before the green revolution, famine killed more than all the diseases combined. Food is something we take for granted today.
Thanks to him, we don't know famine today. Still, the govt's mindset is stuck to the 19th century. When I was in the school, we were given bags of rice every month. What! The Govt thought we were not getting enough calories? If anything, people are suffering from excess calories today.

The govt hardly knows what it's doing. If somebody wants to take nutritional advice from the Govt, sure, go ahead! The same govt handed out vitamin C to corona patients and suggested that we all should sleep on our stomachs. You are in good hands.

 

[ibose]

Healthline is an SEO ho. SEO optimization matters to it more than anything else. If you have Ahrefs sub, you can reverse engineer them and you will find they go after each and every possible keyword there is. Do that and you will find many of its content are self contradicting. BTW, that nutritionist didn't write that article. They just lent out their names to increase Google EEAT signle (Expertise Experience Authority Trust). It was written by an SEO expert. I know this industry inside out.

And I am quite familiar with this diversionary tactic.

I don't like traditional nutritionists, either . I have met way too many nutritionists, their advice is non-practical and too generic, like that Healthline article. Living healthy shouldn't be viewed as a treatment. Unfortunately, nutritionists or MBBS both prescribe it like it has to be followed for X number of days

I am beginning to wonder now, no correct that - you do take your nutritional advice from ChatGPT . After all, its not a generic response each time but still sounds so practical.
On a serious note, you should really look beyond self research (it is dangerous and will surely lead to self harm at some point) - research papers, online studies and books. No one does any of those without any financial motive. And since everyone is in it for the money, you may as well try and find a decent nutritionist (they are rare but not extinct). Everyone's body and physiology is not the same, so the dietary requirements will vary. At the same time, it should go hand in hand with some form of exercise and good sleep.

 

[kiran6680]

Yeah, I emphasized on "Excessive" word.

I understand, one cannot worry too much about phraseology on TE, I was reacting to "Excessive consumption of processed food" . I now see that you meant " consumption of excessively processed food".

Man, he passed away recently and sadly, nobody noticed. I'll say he was the single most important person of the last century

Yeah, I'm a big fan. Unfortunately he did his work so perfectly, people keep insisting there was no mutation, or genetic engineering involved.

 

[lockhrt999]

And I am quite familiar with this diversionary tactic. Run instead of facing the facts. I don't mind.

I am beginning to wonder now, no correct that - you do take your nutritional advice from ChatGPT

Didn't want to advise on anything, but here it goes. Read that book I suggested. It's written like a 90s tele-commercial, ignore that bit. Read between the lines, it has all the facts and researches you need. One thing about this book is that it was written in American context, and they mostly consume wheat. We consume other grains too. Even though the author doesn't say that explicitly, the same principles are applicable to all grains.

That info will never go on the first page of Google. Because Google is highly specific about what it wants as first page content. Everyone's blaming SEO for bad google result quality, but the other side of the coin is also true. Google likes to see content in a certain way. If I write a web page with extremely accurate info, with 10s of MBBS and nutritionists in the author box, no way in hell I can beat Healthline. One can call it informational censorship.

So what does one do? You go to the source.

You read tons of research papers. Or, these researchers also have published books for us mere mortals in easy to understand language. You can read them.

Another book I'd suggest is Outlive by Peter Attia. These are a good place to start.

Here's the TLDR at the end of the post,

• Practicing doctors are like mechanics. They are good at fixing stuff, but that's the only thing they are good at. Don't ask them for driving advice. A lot of them either don't have a license or drive like bullock carts. In my observation, this profession has the most smokers of any profession. I wouldn't want to take lifestyle advice from them. Most of you don't know, but the specialists take a bigger cut from the pharma company for prescribing you their medication than what measly 500 you paid them.
• Researching doctors (includes PhDs) are like those engineers who work in the carmakers research division. Take advice from them. They not only know how to fix stuff but also understand why it went bad in the first place. They are doing the real science. They publish papers and have them audited by other fellow researchers. Unfortunately, there aren't that many of them. These doctors are the reason people like Amitabh Bachchan, Michael Schumacher, Donald Trump, Arnold etc aren't dead yet. They have bleeding-edge cocktail of cures and their methods aren't biased by pharma commissions. Normal doctors will also have the same tools for us, but with a delay of 20–30 years.

 

[ibose]

Take advice from them.

We have agree to disagree. I cannot imagine taking advice from folks who are experimenting. If I do end up as a lab rat (no one knows how many got sacrificed so that those "celebs" could live !) then I will not do it for free .
I am perfectly fine with the "traditional", "well established" and "known" research. Unlike Amitabh ji (no offence to him and his fans), I am not really looking for the fountain of youth and live 1000 years (or die immediately after taking the potion, who knows). Moreover, as I mentioned, no one can do any of what you mention as "bleeding edge" and "real science" without any financial support - it is always implicit if not explicit. So there will always be an inherent bias whether you like it or not.

 

[TEUser2K1]

Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?
Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions.

Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?

Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions.

www.nature.com

"The latest research, published on 4 May in Scientometrics1, looked at more than 2,000 biomedical papers that had a corresponding author based at a European institution and were retracted between 2000 and mid-2021."

To watch the watchmen, a fool's errand...

 

[ibose]

Read that book I suggested.

Another book I'd suggest is Outlive by Peter Attia.

The problem with all these self-help books is that they are not directed at "you and only you". After all they need to sell the maximum copies. Your body, physiology and genetics is unique. It is a dangerous fallacy to follow them without proper supervision and "traditional" expert oversight (not "cutting-edge", mind you). If you have access to such experts, then fine.

 

[kiran6680]

Researching doctors (includes PhDs) are like those engineers who work in the carmakers research division. Take advice from them.

The problems with that are :

1. I don't know any of them. They are much fewer, so a much larger portion of the world don't know any. By contrast, practicing doctors are much more numerous, so many people know one or more personally.

2. Researching doctors don't "consult", so when we don't know them personally we have no way of "taking advice".

3. Among the health care professionals like nutritionists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, etc. practicing doctors have the advantage of having the highest general intelligence, typically. This enables having a deeper conversation. They can even admit their own ignorance about nutrition, much better than others.

Nutritionists, on the other hand, typically fail medical entrance exams and can't qualify even for dentistry, physiotherapy etc. and only then opt for this line. This reflects in their shameless idiocy of calling 1000 calories as Calories : while the pronunciation of calories and Calories is identical. No discussion of any consequence can happen with people having such gross disregard for basic clarity of thought.

4. No one can read all the papers on this subject, even health care professionals. But reading a few meta studies is enough to show that sufficient research simply does not exist to conclude much about nutrition. Ideally the research should not only exist, but confirmed independently by another group of scientists. As @TEUser2K1 just posted, even the papers published are barely credible. So anyone pretending to give advice as a "professional" is just bluffing. We know certain things that are wrong - but we don't know what is right.

 

[lockhrt999]

I cannot imagine taking advice from folks who are experimenting. If I do end up as a lab rat (no one knows how many got sacrificed so that those "celebs" could live !) then I will not do it for free .

There must be misdirection from my side here. Apologies. By uncommon, I didn't mean unproven. I think my post gave the impression that these cures are some futuristic medications. Well, that's not the case. Allow me to explain.

I am perfectly fine with the "traditional", "well established" and "known" research.

There's a difference between traditional <> well established/known.

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.

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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. Govt saw on YouTube that somebody, sleeping on their stomach, increases their blood oxygen. The stupid bunch didn't think it might have looked like that because of altered blood flow in the hand. Still they mandated stomach sleeping in govt hospitals. Breathing while sleeping on the stomach is hard for many. This fcucking BS added to compromised lunges definitely killed some people in corona.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
6. Oh Sugar, don't even get me started on Sugar. I'm sorry, but I can't sugarcoat it anymore. This is the epitome of R'tardation. It's a lie in the plain sight. And, it's so stupidest and silliest of the lies that it's actually killing people, and that makes my blood boil.
   
   
   1. Let's take a few steps back and understand how "English" works. In English, words have multiple meanings. When they found the "God" particle a few years ago, the expected meaning was "particle which was the most responsible" but conveniently many people took it as their <insert your religious figure here> created that particle.
   2. When science talks about sugar, medically it means "blood glucose". Everyone, repeat after me "Sugar means Blood f'ing glucose". Okay, I don't mean it like blood is making love to glucose. "Blood glucose" is a single term. It certainly never meant that sweet thing you put it in your tea.
   3. It's okay if normies like us don't know that distinction, but for f's sake, these days doctors themselves are forgetting that distinction. If it's not R'tardation, then what is it?
   4. I used sugar as "blood glucose" before.
   5. Avoiding the sugar "that makes your tea sweet" hardly changes much for your blood glucose, as you weren't eating kilos of it.
   6. 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.
   7. 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. I thought clearing that out was necessary otherwise some keyboard warrior might come after me these days). Sucrose is the main part of sugar and it's the main carbohydrate and it spikes your "blood glucose" like all other sugars like lactose(sugar from milk), glucose(sugar from grains), fructose(sugar from fruits), maltose(sugar from honey), dextrose (sugar from wheat) (they all rhyme) Notice that not all of them are sweet. Sweetness is not an inherent property of sugars. Anyway, these are scientific names of carbohydrates which are not starch or fibers. Starches also increase your sugar ("blood glucose") BTW.
   8. Sugar ("the thing you put in tea") is like Smoking Cigarette. People use sugar for its sweetness that comes from sucralose, like high coming from smoking. But end up consuming sucrose which has no taste value and only spikes your sugar ("blood glucose"). It's very well like putting tar in your lungs by smoking. One might as well just use sucralose alone and avoid sucrose or any other ...ose carb altogether. The metabolism can be trained to not have insulin spiked after consuming just the sweetener compound. Anyway, it's a matter for other time.
   9. In the end, for body it hardly makes any difference if the sugar (read "blood glucose" wala meaning) is coming from sugar, fruite, grains or other crap. They all end up shooting up your sugar ("blood glucose").
   10. It's ridiculous that people swap their table sugar with jaggery saying that it's not sugar. They are both sugar. Carb = sugar (except fibers). That practice hasn't cured anyone's diabetes and it never will.
   11. More problematically, many doctors don't understand that distinction. How can the world has come to this? It's beyond me.

Feels like I should make it clear this was not a personal attack on any member or their beliefs. If somebody wants to take the offense, some doctors federation should take it. They deserve it for misleading the people.

 

[ibose]

There must be misdirection from my side here. Apologies. By uncommon, I didn't mean unproven. I think my post gave the impression that these cures are some futuristic medications. Well, that's not the case.

Researching

bleeding-edge

carmakers research division.

Anyways ..

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.

Ok, so we have moved from Nutrition to Medicine. Thankfully the nutritionist, we consult with, knows the meaning of the terms - sugar, sucrose and the other roses, jaggery, carbohydrates, etc. etc.

Sucralose

By the way Sucralose is a synthetic compound, and based on various "research", is also bad if not worse.

I will see myself out.

 

[rootyme]

I am a monke and like all my fellow monke I eat raw straight from the trees. Not much to worry, just eat and jump. Life is simple.

 

[ibose]

raw straight from the trees

Veg ? Then watch out .. here comes @lockhrt999 with the protein ..

 

[TEUser2K1]

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

 

[jiith77]

@lockhrt999 Any reading material that can be suggested for point 1 & 2

 

[lockhrt999]

Ok, so we have moved from Nutrition to Medicine.

We were talking about malpractice in the medical industry. My point was we shouldn't Godify doctors.

4. No one can read all the papers on this subject, even health care professionals

You can expect health care professionals are the last people to read papers. They ain't got no time. When that friend of mine died recently (his PC is in TE trade section), I saw the workings of multiple Govt hospitals. It was hard for our friend to get assessed by a doctor. Sitting there waiting and just to told to go someplace else. I saw that, for 90% of their time, doctors are merely writing something. They fear audits, so they are always scribbling something. They hardly get to spend 10% of their treating patients. I'm not joking when I say that these guys are writing a full Game of Thrones book every two days.

Coming back to your original point. No, we can't read all the data. It's not possible. But if our health really mattered to us, it's in our best interest to spend some time doing our due diligence. And, you don't technically "waste" time doing that. You add 10-20 years to your life, which makes it well worth your time. 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).

You and ibose both are also right about that we can't afford the best of the industry pros. If we can't understand their research papers, we can at least read their books. We can listen to their podcasts. And BTW, both books I mentioned are written by practicing doctors.

So, what can one do? [Advices suggestion incoming.]

• At least have a basic idea of the problems you are suffering from. Know the basics of your body and foods. We, culturally, have made this knowledge as taboo, which is wrong. And it only benefits the medical industry.
• When you want to see a doctor, prefer the one who entertains your questions and guides you thoroughly. Plenty of doctors don't like patients who have done some homework. They like their patients dumb AF. This kind works like mechanics, they just want to fix the car and get the customer out of the door asap. Avoid this kind.
• When I go to see my specialists, I usually have blood reports ready even before they ask me. I typically have some idea the kind of treatment I might receive. My specialists love me because I talk to them in high technical language. They talk to me as if they were speaking to a fellow professional. You have to find this kind.
• When I search for a professional, I avoid the one have thousands of reviews on Google map. Those are extra commercial kind who run OPD in a big hospital with long queues. Avoid them.
• Even the time of the day and week will make a lot of difference in the quality of the treatment you will get from the same doctor. Go during weekday afternoon when they are most relaxed.

• Any reading material that can be suggested for point 1 & 2

  Read Outlive, you'll get more pointers in that book.

 

[PunkX 75]

There must be misdirection from my side here. Apologies. By uncommon, I didn't mean unproven. I think my post gave the impression that these cures are some futuristic medications. Well, that's not the case. Allow me to explain.


There's a difference between traditional <> well established/known.

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.

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.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. Govt saw on YouTube that somebody, sleeping on their stomach, increases their blood oxygen. The stupid bunch didn't think it might have looked like that because of altered blood flow in the hand. Still they mandated stomach sleeping in govt hospitals. Breathing while sleeping on the stomach is hard for many. This fcucking BS added to compromised lunges definitely killed some people in corona.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
6. Oh Sugar, don't even get me started on Sugar. I'm sorry, but I can't sugarcoat it anymore. This is the epitome of R'tardation. It's a lie in the plain sight. And, it's so stupidest and silliest of the lies that it's actually killing people, and that makes my blood boil.
   View attachment 198293
   1. Let's take a few steps back and understand how "English" works. In English, words have multiple meanings. When they found the "God" particle a few years ago, the expected meaning was "particle which was the most responsible" but conveniently many people took it as their <insert your religious figure here> created that particle.
   2. When science talks about sugar, medically it means "blood glucose". Everyone, repeat after me "Sugar means Blood f'ing glucose". Okay, I don't mean it like blood is making love to glucose. "Blood glucose" is a single term. It certainly never meant that sweet thing you put it in your tea.
   3. It's okay if normies like us don't know that distinction, but for f's sake, these days doctors themselves are forgetting that distinction. If it's not R'tardation, then what is it?
   4. I used sugar as "blood glucose" before.
   5. Avoiding the sugar "that makes your tea sweet" hardly changes much for your blood glucose, as you weren't eating kilos of it.
   6. 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.
   7. 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. I thought clearing that out was necessary otherwise some keyboard warrior might come after me these days). Sucrose is the main part of sugar and it's the main carbohydrate and it spikes your "blood glucose" like all other sugars like lactose(sugar from milk), glucose(sugar from grains), fructose(sugar from fruits), maltose(sugar from honey), dextrose (sugar from wheat) (they all rhyme) Notice that not all of them are sweet. Sweetness is not an inherent property of sugars. Anyway, these are scientific names of carbohydrates which are not starch or fibers. Starches also increase your sugar ("blood glucose") BTW.
   8. Sugar ("the thing you put in tea") is like Smoking Cigarette. People use sugar for its sweetness that comes from sucralose, like high coming from smoking. But end up consuming sucrose which has no taste value and only spikes your sugar ("blood glucose"). It's very well like putting tar in your lungs by smoking. One might as well just use sucralose alone and avoid sucrose or any other ...ose carb altogether. The metabolism can be trained to not have insulin spiked after consuming just the sweetener compound. Anyway, it's a matter for other time.
   9. In the end, for body it hardly makes any difference if the sugar (read "blood glucose" wala meaning) is coming from sugar, fruite, grains or other crap. They all end up shooting up your sugar ("blood glucose").
   10. It's ridiculous that people swap their table sugar with jaggery saying that it's not sugar. They are both sugar. Carb = sugar (except fibers). That practice hasn't cured anyone's diabetes and it never will.
   11. More problematically, many doctors don't understand that distinction. How can the world has come to this? It's beyond me.

Feels like I should make it clear this was not a personal attack on any member or their beliefs. If somebody wants to take the offense, some doctors federation should take it. They deserve it for misleading the people.

You must be a fun sight at a doctor's office

 

[ibose]

We were talking about malpractice in the medical industry. My point was we shouldn't Godify doctors.

I understand and share you concerns but that was not the topic we started with and is not the topic of this thread either. You would really want to create a separate thread for that.