Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking

[Dreamwalker.]

Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking............................

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-meat-cheese-bad.html

Edited October 20, 2014 by Dreamwalker.

[bullit]

awesome

[Yeti101]

Also: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/low-carb-diet-may-shorten-your-life-study-finds/5299284

[ThunderIdeal]

I heard that one yeti. I'm not convinced by a mouse study, it doesn't seem to make sense that the carb diet would induce the least diabetes, and i wonder what types of fats, carbs and amino profiles were used (important stuff!). I feel that big food and agri corporations have a lot to gain by discrediting the low carb approach.

still, its an interesting result and the debate rages on i suppose.

[Distracted]

 

High protein diet not as bad for you as smoking

Wednesday March 5 2014

Smoked bacon: probably not as bad for you as smoking cigarettes

“People who eat diets rich in animal protein carry similar cancer risk to those who smoke 20 cigarettes each day,” reports The Daily Telegraph.

We have decades of very good evidence that smoking kills and – fortunately for meat lovers – this latest unhelpful comparison with high protein diets largely appears to be a triumph of PR spin.

The warning was raised in a press release about a large study which found that for people aged 50-65, eating a lot of protein was associated with an increased risk of dying.

However, the study, which assessed the diets of Americans in a single 24-hour period (rather than long-term), found in those aged over 65 that a high protein diet was actually associated with a reduced risk of death from any cause or from cancer. These differing findings meant that overall there was no increase in risk of death, or from dying of cancer with a high protein diet.

How much protein should I eat?

In this study, on average people ate 51% of their calories in the form of carbohydrates, 33% as fat and 16% as protein (11% animal protein). This is likely to be higher in fat and lower in carbohydrates than that recommended on the “Eatwell Plate” which shows the relative proportions of food that we should aim to eat.

And, in those aged over 65, a high protein diet was actually associated with a reduced risk of death from any cause or from cancer.

There are several reasons to be cautious when interpreting the results of this study, including that the researchers did not take into account important factors such as physical activity in their study.

The claim in much of the media, that a high protein diet in middle-aged people is “as dangerous as smoking” is unsupported.

We need to eat protein, we do not need to smoke.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the University of Southern California (USC) and other research centres in the US and Italy. It was funded by US National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, and the USC Norris Cancer Center. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Cell Metabolism and has been made available on an open access basis to read for free.

In general, reporting of the results of the study was reasonable. However, the prominence given to the story (which featured as a front page lead in The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian) in the UK media seems disproportionate.

The headlines suggesting a high protein diet is “as harmful as smoking” was not a specific finding of the study and could be seen as unnecessary fear-mongering. This is particularly of note given that the effects of a high protein diet were found to differ dramatically by age.

To be fair to the UK’s journalists, this comparison was raised in a press release, issued by the University of Southern California. Unfortunately this PR hype appears to have been taken at face value.

What kind of research was this?

This study looked at the relationship between the amount of protein consumed and subsequent risk of death among middle aged and older adults. It used data collected in a previous cross-sectional study and information from a national register of deaths in the US.

While the data used allowed researchers to identify what happened to people over time, this wasn’t the original purpose of the data collection. This means that some information on what happened to people may be missing, as researchers had to rely on national records rather than keeping close track of the individuals as part of the study.

What did the research involve?

The researchers had data on protein consumption for 6,381 US adults aged 50 and over (average age 65). They then identified which of these people died over the following 18 years (up to 2006) using national records. The researchers carried out analyses to see whether people who ate more protein in their diets were more likely to die in this period than those who ate less protein.

The information on protein consumption was collected as part the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). These surveys are designed to assess the health and nutritional status of people in the US. The participants are selected to be representative of the general US population. As part of the survey they reported their food and drink intake over the past 24 hours using a computerised system. The system then calculated how much of different nutrients they consumed.

Each person’s level of protein consumption was calculated as the proportion of calories consumed from protein. Protein intake was classed as:

• High – 20% or more of calories from protein (1,146 people)
• Moderate – 10 to 19% of calories from protein (4,798 people)
• Low – less than 10% of calories from protein (437 people)

The researchers used the US National Death Index to identify any of the survey participants who died up to 2006, and the recorded cause of death. The researchers looked at whether proportion of calories consumed from protein was related to risk of death overall, or from specific causes. As well as overall deaths, they were also interested in deaths specifically from cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes. The researchers also looked at whether the relationship differed in people aged 50-65 years, and older individuals, and whether it was influenced by fat, carbohydrate or animal protein intake.

The analyses took into account factors (confounders) that could influence the results, including:

• age
• ethnicity
• education
• gender
• "disease status"
• smoking history
• participants’ dietary changes in the last year
• participants’ attempted weight loss in the last year
• total calorie consumption

The researchers also carried out studies to look at the effect of protein and their building blocks (amino acids) in yeast and mice.

What were the basic results?

On average, the participants consumed 1,823 calories over the day:

• 51% from carbohydrates
• 33% from fat
• 16% from protein (11% from animal protein).

Over 18 years, 40% of participants died; 19% died from cardiovascular diseases, 10% died from cancer, and about 1% died from diabetes.

Overall, there was no association between protein intake and risk of death from any cause, or death from cardiovascular disease or cancer. However, moderate or high protein consumption was associated with an increased risk of death related to complications associated with diabetes. The authors noted that the number of people dying from diabetes-related causes was low, so larger studies were needed to confirm this finding.

The researchers found that results for death from any cause and from cancer seemed to vary with age. Among those aged 50-65, those who ate a high protein diet were 74% more likely to die during follow up than those who ate a low protein diet (hazard ratio (HR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.97). People in this age group who ate a high protein diet were more than four times as likely to die from cancer during follow up than those who ate a low protein diet (HR 4.33, 95% CI 1.96 to 9.56).

The results were similar once the researchers took into account the proportion of calories consumed from fat and carbohydrates. Further analyses suggested that animal protein was responsible for a considerable part of this relationship, particularly for death from any cause.

However, the opposite effect of high protein intake was seen among those aged over 65. In this age group high protein intake was associated with:

• a 28% reduction in the risk of death during follow up (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94)
• a 60% reduction in the risk of death from cancer during follow up (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71)

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers concluded that low protein intake during middle age followed by moderate to high protein consumption in older adults may optimise health and longevity.

Conclusion

This study has found a link between high protein intake and increased risk of death among people aged 50-65, but not older adults. There are some important points to bear in mind when thinking about these results:

• The human data used was not specifically collected for the purpose of the current study. This meant that the researchers had to rely on the completeness of, for example, national data on deaths and causes of death. This may mean that deaths of some participants may have been missed.
• Information on food intake was only collected for one 24-hour period, and this may not be representative of what people ate over time. Most people (93%) reported that it was typical of their diet at the time, but this may have changed over the 18 years of follow up.
• The researchers took into account some factors that could affect results, but not others, such as physical activity.
• Although the study was reasonably large, numbers in some comparisons were relatively low, for example, there were not many diabetes-related deaths and only 437 people overall ate a low protein diet. The broad confidence intervals for some of the results reflect this.
• Many news sources have suggested that a high protein diet is “as bad for you” as smoking. This is not a comparison that is made in the research paper, therefore its basis is unclear. While we do need some protein in our diets, we don’t need to smoke, so this is not a helpful comparison.
• While the authors suggested that people eat a low protein diet in middle age and switch to a high protein diet once they get older, it is not possible to say from the study whether this is what the older participants actually did, as their diets were only assessed once.
• Ideally the findings need to be confirmed in other studies set up to specifically address the effects of higher protein diets, particularly the strikingly different results for different age groups.

While certain diet plans, such as the Atkins diet or the “caveman diet” have promoted the idea of eating a high-protein diet for weight loss, relying on a single type of energy source in your diet is probably not a good idea. Consumption of some high-protein foods such as red meat and processed meat is already known to be associated with increased risk of bowel cancer.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/high-protein-diet-may-be-harmful-for-middle-aged.aspx

[-YT-]

I Remember Bear (Owsley Stanely) was always a proponent of an all protein-primarily meat diet, no doubt he woulda clung on another 20 years or more if it wasnt for that car accident

[waterboy 2.0]

^ I just read a post on a forum put up by Bear, it is an interesting take on things. Thanks for raising it YT.

I don't necessarily agree with all his points, but its food for thought (pardon the pun), I am more aligned to hunter gathering....than hunter alone.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=287013&page=1&pp=15

I am suspicious the study is being used for an agenda.... but hey I'll eat most things...lol

[rigger]

The problem with some of these studies is they can't draw a definite conclusion. I believe this was correlational research and unfortunately sometimes the researcher has a motive to prove on thing or another. for example they may be involved with a vegetarian/vegan group etc.

I think all this study says there could be a danger but they don't know for sure.

Processed fatty meats such as hot dog, Meat pies, Macdonalds can be dangerous in large quantities. but a good cut of meat should be ok as part of a balanced diet.

Its hard to commit either way yet as there is benefits to eating meat as well as down sides.

[ThunderIdeal]

there's no money in promoting vegetarian diets. if anybody was offerning money for a study with this exact outcome, i'm thinking food manufacturers and fast food and grain and legume producers... because people switching to low carb diets stop eating a lot of the food that normal australians/americans (well, a lot of the food that anyone eats, not including eskimos)

didn't bear just eat liquified red meat? i doubt that could possibly be ideal, it at least should include oily fish.

i'm gonna link you folks to what is, i believe, the most popular diet/health blog on the interweb. so many of these diet ideologies are only partially sound in and balanced in their reasoning. i've found marksdailyapple.com aka primalblueprint.com to be balanced, flexible, believable and based on science. yes it's a low carb ideology, (i've actually asked mark sisson to comment on the mouse study), the reasoning for everything is explained and reasoned, with options for different people, so whereas paleo dieters used to always say 'milk is for babies', as though that is thoughtful and reasoned argument, marks daily apple takes a look at the pros and cons, makes astounding realisations like 'hang on, wouldn't a predator eat the milk if it took down a lactating mother?' AND doesn't presume to know precisely how hunter gatherers lived.

you'll see what i mean i think, if you check it out.

i've gotta admit, as a vegetarian, non-processed meats are starting to look like the good guy when it comes to healthy eating, compared to the carb, lectin and phytate-rich diets that allowed our population to explode beyond what it was limited to when we were hunter gatherers.

Edited March 9, 2014 by ThunderIdeal

[theuserformallyknownasd00d]

Don't Muslims incorporate something like this into their diet? I have a few mates I haven't seen in a while but they always used to rant about the chemical breakdown of cheese and meat, hence why (some) Muslims don't do it? I dunno, I'm probably remembering it all wrong

[Nailthesnail]

someone said to me that cheese is like actual addicting or something and there's bad toxins in it. I am vegan and cannot have any of that shit or else my skin goes crazy. It's pretty bullshit what they put in all the vegetarian foods very good point thuder

[rigger]

I generally just try to eat as little pre packaged food as possible because there is a lot of additives which add up (no pun intended). If I can I try to get organic as it can be held to stricter product testing. I try to eat a variety of foods so as to meet as many requirements as I can. I generally feel better when I do this mainly digestively but I do feel a bit more tired if I have eaten poorly for a few days also.

Unless you are intolerant of something most natural foods have benefits for the body and mind. Even saturated fats play an important hormonal role.

Edited March 9, 2014 by rigger

[-YT-]

TI, notsure if it was meat shakes or not, no doubt someone with better info can chime in, just thought it was worth mentioning as he seemed to be in a fairly good shape for his age etc. think he did mention eating butter/cheese and potatoes aswell.

Did view a doco on sbs last year i think about that town in japan where the average life expectancy was around 100? they were eating alot of veges/greens and seafood.

isnt the all protein bug diet ecologically sound and healthy at the same time!

[ThunderIdeal]

i think a few people said they try to eat maximum variety? while that's a lot better than no variety, it's not the smartest way to go about achieving the best possible nutrition.

some foods are mildly detrimental in one or two ways, while at the same time sustaining you. some foods just don't offer anything that you can't get more efficiently from other foods. the simplest example of this is fruit. fruit has lots of sugar, many fruits offer very little considering the amount of sugar those nutrients are mixed with, i'd say the majority of fruit aren't worth eating if there are better foods available, however they can be rich in antioxidants. if you can afford to eat berries, you get the strongest possible antioxidant source from a fruit, all in a tiny meal without much sugar. another easy example, potatoes. potatoes aren't just carbs, they're surprisingly nutritious, and all those carbs may be appropriate before/after heavy exertion, maybe essential if you're training for endurance or trying to burn fat with 40+ minute trauma sessions (cardio sessions). however if you're willing to take so many carbs on a given day it might as well come from sweet potato instead, which matches everything in the potato plus quite a bit more, all with a lower GI index. don't take this is expert advice but if you dish up one peice of potato and one peice of sweet potato, for variety, you've done yourself no favours.

don't get me started on saturated fats. ok i'm started. unless i'm missing something, an OUTDATED, FLAWED UNDERSTANDING of cholesterol is still the approach you see everywhere. the very short explanation is that cholesterol actually improves artery health, its certain types of cholesterol which are dangerous, so do we find healthier fat sources? no, we try to eliminate fat from the diet and run a generic test on levels of (good? bad?) cholesterol and if the levels of (good? bad?) cholesterol are high the doctor tells us we're in deep shit and you should take some drugs to fix it (the drugs aren't even very effective).

rigger, it sounds like you've got a healthier-than-normal diet, and a better-than-normal approach, but that's exactly what i was talking about earlier with diet ideologies that sound good and have certain benefits but aren't rigorous. mike dolce for example, best in the world at what he does (helps UFC fighters cut before they weigh in, gets their fat percentage and weight perfect with minimal detriment, muscle loss etc) but his food recommendation centres around what he calls 'earth grown nutrients'. okay so you eat natural food, nothing processed, no jars of stuff with questionable preservatives, you collect, kill or maim parts of nature (organic grown if possible) and eat them. obviously if you can do that, that's an epic achievement and you'll be healthier for it.. unless....... unless you forget that the purpose of eating is getting nutrients, not avoiding pollutants. everyone has their own little diet quirks, lets say you don't eat greens, you seriously should be finding out what you're missing out on and how to fill the gap with something that you're willing to eat. i'm sure most vegetarians took the effort to learn what their diet might be lacking and how to make up for it (just a few things, trickier for vegans). it's funny to think that i've been quizzed (with a little malice/intolerance) by so many people over the years 'how do you get your protein' when

the majority of the time people who feel the need to probe/attack an unusual diet know jack shit about food, and rely on an abundance of meat to cover most of their nutritional bases.

yeti, it's pretty easy to see why okinawans would have good nutrition if that is their diet.

assuming they eat rice too, rice is pretty good for a grain, far better than wheat and the rest. if they don't eat rice, all the better, proving once and for all that low carb is the ultimate diet for longevity and karate-battles.

greens and vegetables: people, eat your fucking greens and vegetables. NO, not potato chips with green tomato sauce!

seafood (probably including seaweeds): okay, it's possible for your diet to have an optimal balance of omega 3, 6 and 9 fatty acids without seafood (hint: 6 and 9 abundant in vegetable oils, never let yourself be sold on a product because of 6 and 9 which are only throwing the balance further away from optimal). possible but not going to happen by accident. even so, plant sources usually only contain the omega 3 ALA when what you really want, NAY, WHAT YOU REALLY NEED to be shoveling into your body for the rest of your days is DHA and EPA, and almost all sources come from the ocean: krill oil, fish oil or DHA extracted from algae. just to clarify, ALA is good too! but you can only convert a small amount into epa and dha each day, ive read different things but i think you simple can't make enough epa/dha from an ALA diet, so don't be fooled into thinking flaxseed or chia holds a candle to the sources i just mentioned, they come at an omega 6 cost unlike the fish/krill/algae capsules (remember you'll almost always be getting too much 6 and 9 for the healthiest ratio) they're far better than nothing but you don't want to settle for 'better than nothing' do you? of course you don't, considering that these essential fatty acids contribute to so many different tissues in the body. deficiency is widespread, many of us have probably been deficient much of our lives unless. i ate fish once in a few weeks growing up and all through my twenties as a total vegetarian i never ate an egg much less fish. eggs, particularly from hens that had the chance to eat insects, could have been my one measly source of DHA. i reckon i could eat a

i highly doubt a bugs-only diet would be at all healthy, for neither quality of nutrition nor quality of life!! but you know, in my research i didn't come across a single thing about eating bugs.

i just learned that the range of foods eaten by the inuit, and the way they are prepared, actually gives them access to all of the essential shiznit. they can't get alot of the beat phytochemicals and marginal stuff like benefits from herbal tea, plus their liver is larger due to being in constant permanent ketogenisis (i wonder if it grows larger during life or is larger due to genetics). there are some complexities involved, so this doesn't mean you can go on a seafood diet and have good nutrition. they do alright considering, they live about 10 years less than people with a more diverse diet, but now that they have more access to fruit and veg their longevity is on the rise.

Edited March 9, 2014 by ThunderIdeal

[-YT-]

cmon man ant salad! cricket burgers, snail soup, witchy grub spread etc

But yeah i dont really profess to know a great deal on nutrition mostly i just wanted to point out there is a great many deal of people abiding by various lifestyle and food choices which seem to work for them and their situation ie the longevity of peoples from differing cultural back grounds in regards to food - greeks, japanese, esikmo etc

Okinawa was the place i was thinking of, man i suck at remembering stuff like that

[ThunderIdeal]

i can't differentiate between you (yt) and yeti and you both have such old memberships it'd be wrong to ask one of you to alter your name

yeah well, you're right, there is that. it's like what is the healthiest food when you're lost in the bush starving? whatever food you can get your desperate mitts on.

i think this low carb thing could be important though, i'd put money on it but it's too early to call it. there's a clear point where human diets switched from very low to very high in carbohydrates (which gave us a reliable way to survive winters, famines and plagues, rapidly expand our population, and feed specialists because each farmer could grow surplus), too recently to hope for much adaptation in our genetics (although ya never know, lactose tolerance is probably a very simple mutation but it's managed to spring up in different times/places independently all in a few thousand odd years.

i think a lot of business stand to lose a lot of profit if low carb takes off, more than you'd think because it's really a total overhaul of civilisation as we know it!!!! low carb folk not only don't crave sugar, which is added to virtually everything that everyone else is eating, but they don't crave food in general, by comparison a carb eater is ravenous and never really satisfied, and eventually suffers the side effects of using an energy source constantly which we only had occasionally for the last xx0,000 years.

sugar is a filthy drug and we all get hooked on it from childhood, grandparents buy kids bags of lollies for the disproportional amount of love they get in return and maybe think (lollie tastes good, child enjoys, child is appreciative towards me, child gives me their time/attention) which is very close but the sweetness of lollies is fairly irrelevant (can you name many artificial sweeteners that taste nice but aren't, metabolically speaking, just a rejigged version of sugar?). if you followed me around giving me lines of cocaine i'd soon decide that having you around is of foremost importance, wouldn't matter if the cocaine tasted like lollies, or cocaine, because as most of us can appreciate, a little bit of chemical readjustment is worth tolerating tastes that cannot be described with words. none of us are terribly conscious of what's going on, we enjoy lollies more than dinner, we enjoy games more than being kicked and spat on, we grow up and enjoy cocaine more than laundry detergent, things are good or bad based on associations we've made, investigating why things are good and bad seems unlikely to lead to a re-evaluation and we might not imagine at a young age that things we like or dislike, seek or avoid, can be taken advantage of "yeah man it's twenty bucks more now, still want it?". by the time you've got a handle on addiction, on wants and needs, excess, impulses, urges, the grass is always greener.... it's too late to throw food in the same bucket as smoking, seeking sugar hits was hardwired before you even formed memories and abstaining from sugar is about as tempting as abstaining from water. imagine if we were all taught to smoke as soon as we can raise hand to mouth, how much of a fundamental part of civilisation smoking would become. i could throw out some loose ideas about how that creates a constant atmosphere of jonesing and horde/consume to survive, teaches everybody how to seek fulfillment of their desires rather than contemplating them and maybe subduing them, maybe that's a bit out there for some but food companies at least have undeniably got us by the nuts and yeah, they might use fat and salt because they taste good, they might optimise their recipes to turn people into addicts with opioid-cheese, flavour enhancers and whatever else their billions of research dollars came up with, the same way tobacco companies honed the tobacco cigarette into a snare, but i believe sugar and similar products do most of their work for food manufacturers and fast food which is why KFC isn't that far ahead of a preschool lemonade stand, if KFC offered the ketosis meal deal with rosewater drink, you'd probably just go straight to the lemonade stand. by the time you've got a handle on addiction, on wants and needs, excess, impulses, urges, the grass is always greener.... it's too late to throw food in the same bucket as smoking, seeking sugar hits was hardwired before you even formed memories and abstaining from sugar is about as tempting as abstaining from water.

there's a whole bunch of stuff about insulin, diabetes, leptin resistence and inflammation, anyone who is interested can read for themselves at marksdailyapple.com or elsewhere, what you need to know, to understand why a low carb society would be a different animal, is that while carbs can provide more peak energy, they put your energy levels in constant flux (heard of a food coma?) and can eventually lead you to all kinds of fucked up, maybe you just get fat, maybe inflammed, or maybe you get adrenal burnout and insulin resistance(type 2 diabetes), oh and the hormone that makes you feel satisfied with what you've eaten? leptin, you could become totally resistant to it too. consuming and burning fat doesnt effect insulin and isn't subject to any kind of flux. after a few weeks to adapt to the change and reach full fat-burning capacity you can create a certain amount of energy constantly from consumed and stored fats, so things like very long hikes and non-endurance exercise you can handle, you can skip a meal without feeling hungry, you are now a fat-burning beast, and if you need to go for a 90 minute jog you will "hit the wall" sooner than a carb eater but guess what? you can just eat some carbs for your jog! best of both worlds, although i don't even want to concede that as an advantage of carbohydrates because these endurance activities are rough on the body, they aren't health activities so its not really a health advantage to carbs, but yes, you can push the limit of energy output further with carbs but in fact a certain type of fat you can buy produces a similar kind of energy to carbs and i think theres a newer and even better carb-like fat that i don't know about.

say most of us go low-carb, that doesn't mean less softdrink, that means softdrink is the first on a long list of things that you abstain from the majority of the time, and maybe watch your portion when you do decide to engage your sweet tooth instead of overindulging. everyone is going about their day, they drive past a bakery, no temptation to buy any kind of pick-me-up, something to fill the hole or brighten the moment. you walk into supercheap auto, they dont even have a fridge with drinks anymore because nobody needs a sugar hit to buy new wiper blades or a box of fuses. you go to the supermarket hungry and buy pretty much exactly what you needed, maybe eat some of the nuts in the car instead of coming out with chocolate, ice coffee or a croissant. maybe even alcohol (unmixed, unsweetened alcohol) is less tempting, i'm not sure because alcohol is metabolised differently but i can imagine that the calorie hit in alcohol sometimes adds to the temptation if you're having an energy slump. these examples are a bit sloppy but i'm describing freedom from the very first thing your enslaved to, it's a fast enjoyable hit and as a child you will take whatever means necessary to get it, you all climbed to the top of the cupboard and got into the white sugar and got your ass kicked and probably tried it again the next day. like all fast enjoyable hits it quickly becomes an unenjoyable burden that you could carry around for decades before you crack the shits and quit with enough determination and wisdom to quit for good, well thats how you quit the cigarette habit you took up in high school. nobody thinks of sugar as one of their addictions, it's consumption is too commonplace, and you don't really get much of a narcotic effect, you just eat stuff because your hungry and that stuff had sugar in it, and if you get fat and decide to slim down then you can buy all of the low-fat, no-fat, fat-burners and fat-blockers and hey, you won't even have to buy a seperate item to get some sugar in ya, because its probably already in all of the diet food you just purchased. that's pretty handy, you can lower you caloric intake for some temporary weight loss while fundamentally you still have profitable health issues, you still do the same shit each week, buy the same shit, line the same cunts pockets. you've found the bandaid aisle, now with sugar.

people just don't like processed foods that aren't sweetened, think of real greek yoghurt, it's the last yoghurt your tastebuds would choose because it's the only one without sugar. sweeteners *could* be useful to help you kick the sugar IF you REALLY investigate the fate of your chosen sweetener in the body, how it gets metabolised into how many calories etc, because hooking into any sweetened food can instantly stall/reverse your weight loss. i think the best thing about sweeteners is the label becomes much more complex. say you've got a bar with 0.5g of carbs, 0.3g of that is sugar, maybe you check the fat and decide its low calorie, its very low in carbs, looks good, but on a seperate line in the nutritional analysis is some sugar alcohol. erythritol 8g. is that like 8 g of sugar? 0r 0.08? is it like 5g of fructose? the bar will probably taste pretty good, probably cost five times what uncle toby's would charge for a sugar meusli and sugar bar in the other aisle, is it actually going to be better than the sugar bar? could it be worse? don't just assume that an overpriced bar in the health aisle is somehow superior to the camouflaged sugar in the other aisles, unless you can actually make sense of the information on the label.

yeah, they've got us all fucked alright which is of course how everyone will want to keep it, even Mr. supercheap auto benefits and retail in general, because when people wander into shops with a vague sense of yearning they might walk out with an impulse buy (and a refreshment)

Edited March 9, 2014 by ThunderIdeal

[Electro Gypsy]

Meat and cheese may be as bad for you as smoking............................

"In a new study that tracked a large sample of adults for nearly two decades, researchers have found that eating a diet rich in animal proteins during middle age makes you four times more likely to die of cancer than someone with a low-protein diet—a mortality risk factor comparable to smoking"

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-meat-cheese-bad.html

great.. so i am twice as likely to die as the two times before. i really need to get on that eliptical

[ThunderIdeal]

as promised, mark sisson's response

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-a-high-protein-diet-really-as-bad-for-you-as-smoking/#more-47833

[cactuscarl]

I hate statistics

I read somewhere that 1 in 4 ppl die of cancer and since eating meat or cheese makes you 4 times more likely to get cancer if you eat meat or cheese you are 100% going to die of cancer.

I eat cheese meat and smoke I'm screwed lol.