 |
|
Reply
| |
This is an important issue, but it's one that confuses a lot of people, especially most "experts," apparently. For example, a recent study found that a fat-rich soup as an appetizer led to people eating about 20 percent less calories:
QUOTE: ...When compared with the protein soup, the fatty soup significantly reduced the amount of caloric intake with the following meal in both lean (962.0 vs. 1,188.5 calories) and obese (1,331.9 vs. 1,544.6 calories) subjects. A similar reduction in caloric intake was noted in lean subjects eating in the social setting (1,555 vs. 1,825 calories), except that significantly more food was consumed in social sessions compared with the lab setting...
"In this study, we found that fatty soup as an appetizer reduces food intake by about 20 percent in both lean and obese subjects and may have a therapeutic potential for obesity," said Jiande Chen, Ph.D., of the University of Texas Medical Branch and senior author of the study... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070521141029.htm
However, other evidence makes it clear that if a soup rich in the common highly unsaturated oils is consumed, weight gain is to be expected. Thus, it appears that a soup made with coconut oil might be the best way to lose some weight safely. I found that on my current diet, I could gain or lose a few pounds quickly, by including sugar-rich items like cookies with the meal, or by eating things like dessicated coconut and banana instead. The meals all consist of high-quality protein, mostly cheese, millk, and/or boiled egg.
|
|
 First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
Reply
| |
Hans-
Most, but not all, fatty soups probably have cream added to them, which is not high in PUFA's. Again, like you usually say, a distinction is not made in the article though.
I sometimes like to make homemade soup, I use tomato, heavy cream, and pepper. This would be a fatty soup. I do not add any oils whatsoever. |
|
Reply
| |
I didn't know heavy cream was used in soups. Do you have a recipe you could post here? I would consider experimenting with a coconut oil based soup if I was over weight. I'd use curry powder, pepper, ginger, coriander, tumeric, garlic and onion powder, salt (of course), a little sugar, and potatoes cut into small pieces (after being boiled to soften). Dessicated coconut might work out well in that soup also. |
|
Reply
| |
Well my own personal recipe is this:
1 serving, so double, triple, or quadruple the recipe as you see fit.
1 large tomato
4 oz of heavy cream
1/4 tsp of salt
fresh pepper to taste.
Boil the tomato for about 1:30 seconds. Place in a bath of cold water, and then peel off the outer skin.
Take the peeled tomato and smash it up in a pot until liquidy. Heat the tomato to a boil.
Add pepper and heavy cream. Then eat. |
|
Reply
| |
I like to add very small amounts of things like garlic/onion powder, sweet basil, parsely, coriander, tumeric, and sugar to these kinds of recipes. Once you get the hang of it, you know what goes together and in what amounts. |
|
Reply
| |
Here is a post I wrote up for another newsgroup:
Title of the post: "Science writer blames obesity, disease on carbs."
This is the title of an article from www.newsday.com, and here is a
passage from that article:
"Imagine a world in which weight loss is as simple as dropping
carbohydrates from your diet. Imagine avoiding cancer, diabetes and
Alzheimer's by ditching cookies, cakes, flour and starches..."
As I said in other posts, this is not a claim that is consistent with
historical facts, including pre-WW II American diets and present-day
Amish diets. It is also inconsistent with the molecular-level evidence
and with the conclusions of scientific committees set up to examine
the evidence comprehensively (your library might have a copy of "Diet
and Health," by the National Research Council, which is an example of
this kind of endeavor). Moreover, I've been eating a diet rich in
"simple carbs" and sugar for several years now, and I'm about as thin
as I could be without looking ill. All of my "blood relatives," on
the other hand, are clearly overweight, and the only difference is
diet (none of us smoke, drink, or get very little sleep, for example);
they eat a UFA-rich diet and eat cooked meat, whereas I do not. My
diet is much richer in SFAs, at least relative to overall calories
consumed. I make no attempt to restrict calories or salt, but eat
what is tasty and satisfying (so long as it is very low in UFAs, and
while I consume gelatin, I don't eat "meat" otherwise).
And it's not difficult to find the studies pointing out that at least
some UFA-rich oils "improve feeding efficiency" in livestock animals,
meaning that they are fattened up by these oils. Coconut oil does the
opposite. As biologist Ray Peat has pointed out, this was discovered
before WW II. The only question I have in this context is, why do
people like Gary Taubes (this Newsday article is about a new book by
this person) either not know about such evidence or act like they
don't?
Interestingly, in this same major, New York City area newspaper, there
was an article a while back that contained a relevant statement:
""Most of the corn and soybeans used to fatten cows, pigs, and
chickens..." Newsday newspaper, May 4, 2005.
And of course there is the old saying about the farmer's corn-fed
daughter, meaning an overweight one. Again, I find it amazing how no
"expert" in the mainstream media is even mentioning this point, which
is clearly the best explanation of the "obesity epidemic," considering
how soybean oil consumption rose tremendously since the early 1960s
and canola has had a similar rise since the 1980s. |
|
Reply
| |
Here are three posts of mine from another newsgroup (all from the same thread):
"People's intake of fatty acids -- which have been linked to
cardiovascular disease and other conditions -- can be substantially
affected by changing the type of vegetable oil they use, according to
researchers at the University of Illinois and Pennsylvania State
University.
Substituting canola oil and canola-based margarine for vegetable oils
and spreads, such as corn, cottonseed and soybean, "increases
compliance with dietary recommendations for saturated fatty acid,
monounsaturated fatty acid and alpha-linolenic acid," the researchers
write in their study of data from nearly 9,000 U.S. adults.
According to the researchers, switching to canola-based products 100
percent of the time would decrease adults' saturated fatty acid intake
by up to 9.4 percent; increase their intake of monounsaturated fatty
acid by 27.6 percent; and increase their alpha-linolenic acid intakes
by 73 percent. Total consumption of calories, total fat and
cholesterol would not change..."
So, because they saw "links" due to their own faulty assumptions and
illogical classification schemes (calling oxysterors "cholesterol" and
lard a "saturated fat"), they now want you to switch away from what
they used to call heart-healthy polyunsaturates to what they now call
heart-healthy monounsaturates, but they never explained what was wrong
with their initial claim. Canola appears to be at least as
biochemically unstable as the omega-6 rich oils, (assuming they are
all of the usual, highly-refined grade). The only interpretation that
makes sense, down to the molecular level, is the one involving free
radical activity and biochemical stability. You can do your own
experiment to see how dangerous canola oil is. Simply buy several
mice and feed half of them a diet rich in canola oil. Give the other
half fresh coconut oil instead of the canola oil. See what happens.
You can also put some canola oil in a dish and let it sit there for a
few days. Do the same thing with other oils of your choice. See
which ones start to smell and taste rancid the quickest, and which
ones start to get "tacky" and harden up quickest. These are the fat
sources to avoid, not the ones with the "links" the "experts" think
they see.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071001102430.htm
Post #2:
And notice what is stated at the end of this "report:"
"The study was supported by the U.S. Canola Association."
Post #3:
One thing my several investigations have taught me is that it's so
common for "experts" to complicate matters when things are quite
simple. With nutrition, the one huge mistake is ignoring the basic
biochemistry that is undeniable. That is, there is no reason to
consume a biochemically unstable oil when you don't need to - oil
painters have known for hundreds of years that you must use the highly
unsaturated oils for this very reason. The free radical activity
allows the painting to "dry" within a reasonable amount of time - some
even put their paintings out in the sun when they wanted quicker
"drying." Having arachidonic acid or other VLCPUFAs in your LDL makes
it much more likely to get attached by macrophages, leading to
atherosclerotic changes in blood vessels, for example. It's a
straightforward lipid peroxidation hypothesis of the relationship
between diet and "disease," and very easy to test. All the existing
evidence is consistent with this hypothesis, unlike any other
hypothesis (often, "experts" don't seem to even care if there are
experiments that directly contradict their claims), and yet it gets
almost no "mainstream media" coverage. Instead, there are the usual
"debates" between Ornish and Atkins advocates, for example, both of
which give dietary advice that can be very dangerous in the context of
the lipid peroxidation hypothesis. |
|
Reply
| |
"...obese mice (ob/ob) fed a diet high in PUFA gain more weight than those fed a low PUFA-containing diet. Furthermore, enhanced expression of the ob gene was shown in normal rats weaned to a high fat diet, relative to those weaned to a low fat diet (Rousseau 1997)..."
Source: The Journal of Nutrition Vol. 128 No. 6 June 1998, pp. 923-926.
On the internet: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/128/6/923 |
|
|
First
Previous
2-8 of 8
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to Nutrition