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. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
