Cut back on GMO wheat to get healthier

[sdowney717]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/

I read his book and he says our diabetes and fat epidemic is mostly caused by starchy grains like wheat. And since it has become a GMO food, the wheat is unnatural, containing harmful chemicals and triggers immune responses in everyone. Affecting some worse than others as were not made to eat this genetically modified plant. His book really goes into a lot of detail and makes for an interesting read.
Kicking the wheat addiction though is not easy since so many processed foods have wheat cooked into them. Makes a lot of sense to me, and goes against what the marketplace is telling you is a health food. So if your fat and diabetic, etc..., think about it, it might be due to what your innocently been eating.

[Statia]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/

I read his book and he says our diabetes and fat epidemic is mostly caused by starchy grains like wheat. And since it has become a GMO food, the wheat is unnatural, containing harmful chemicals and triggers immune responses in everyone.

Sounds like a lot of baloney.

To start with, gliadin is not new, it has always been in wheat.
Secondly, according to the article, gliadin binds to opiate receptors, stimulating appetite.
(It's not actually gliadin itself, but peptides from digested gliadin, as proteins cannot be absorbed intact, nor pass the blood brain barrier. Also, in the binding assay, they needed 0,5mg of peptides to be equivalent to morphine 1 nM. In terms of concentrations in the brain, that is a lot, not likely to be achieved from nutrition)
Stimulation of opiate receptors does not lead to an increase in appetite. Most people on opiates have initial nausea, which reduces their appetite. There are opiate receptors in the GI-tract, but they are not involved in appetite, they regulate motility. That is why opiates cause constipation and we use loperamide for diarrhoea.

The problem with what we eat is not GMO. It is not wheat. It is not processed food. It is simple that we eat too much, and too much fat.

And then there is the general "genetic modification is evil" attitude that I find hard to swallow. Mankind has been involved in genetic modification for millenia. Only it is called crossbreeding, selection, etc. Basically a random and unpredictable, empiric process where we have little idea of what will come out, messing with a whole genome. Now you do it in a lab while wearing a white coat (only much more directed, driven by knowledge of what specific gene you are targeting) and all of a sudden it is scary and evil.

(Yes, Monsanto is evil. Using GM to put more poison in crops is bad. I'm just talking about health effects of GM on the food itself)

[mips]

I think it has to do with one of the seven deadly sins, gluttony.

That and all the processed/artificial crap people stuff their faces with.

[fdrake]

I kind of agree with both of you ..

@Statia
The vegetable that I used to grow in europe compared to the GMO's in the states are waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy better in taste.

also do not forget that GMO companies like "Monsanto" they actually "own" the food. You cannot grow theyr tomatoes without their permissions (without paying). It's very hard to control seeds especcially because the wind and insects moves the around. But if the company find few of your crops having the same genetics characteristics as theirs thenn you'll forced to pay. This is also killing genetic variation. We are doing the evolution not Nature..

check out some movies like Food inc.

[vasa1]

... Using GM to put more poison in crops is bad. ...
How is that done ???

[Paqman]

And since it has become a GMO food, the wheat is unnatural, containing harmful chemicals and triggers immune responses in everyone.

There have been tons of studies done on GM food, and the overwhelming evidence is that there's no risk. This kind of thing is just scaremongering. See also mobile phones, immunisations, power plyons, fluoridation, etc, etc.

I sometimes wonder if our lives have become so comfortable and safe we now have to invent things to be worried about.

[ajgreeny]

Sounds like Dr. William Davis is just another anti-GMO evangelist who sees things totally in black or white.

From a scientific point of view there is absolutely nothing wrong with GMO and GM crops, and all the fright stories of Franckenstein crops and plants is nothing more than scare tactics, largely from people who do not know enough about the subject the are talking about.

GM of a crop gives breeders and scientists a much quicker way of improving much about the main food crops of the world, and the outcome of it is generally going to be much more to the benefit of the whole population than to its detriment. Changing plant genomes with genetic modification is no different in reality to the normal method of plant improvement using standard breeding techniques.

At the end of the linked article is this section:-

Some health resources, such as the Mayo Clinic, advocate a more balanced diet that does include wheat. But Davis said on "CTM" they're just offering a poor alternative.
"All that literature says is to replace something bad, white enriched products with something less bad, whole grains, and there's an apparent health benefit - 'Let's eat a whole bunch of less bad things.' So I take...unfiltered cigarettes and replace with Salem filtered cigarettes, you should smoke the Salems. That's the logic of nutrition, it's a deeply flawed logic. What if I take it to the next level, and we say, 'Let's eliminate all grains,' what happens then?
"That's when you see, not improvements in health, that's when you see transformations in health."
That final sentence in red is true, but not I suspect in the positive way Dr Davis means; totally eliminate all grains from the human diet and a large percentage of the population would starve.

Not the health transformation most people would want!

[Lars Noodén]

How is that done ???

It's done by introducing genes that cause the plant to produce pesticides inside the plants own tissues. So instead of getting poison on the plant, you get it in the plant. Then you eat it.

http://npic.orst.edu/reg/pip.html

[sdowney717]

In essence, his book says the epidemic of obesity and diabetes is modern wheat.
Cut the modern wheat from the diet equals get healthy.

In his book, he also says that when cultures dont eat wheat, they are not overweight, not diabetic, and dont have acne.

When those cultures start eating wheat, they get fat, get diabetes, and get acne. And many other health problems. He says eating wheat initiates an auto immune response in all people, some very bad, some not so bad. He does say you may not even know your slightly ill all the time from eating wheat .

Ho says that in the 50's, people did not have these same health issues in today's numbers and it has only been the last 30 to 40 years when people started to eat more modern wheat that these epidemics happened.

[Paqman]

In essence, his book says the epidemic of obesity and diabetes is modern wheat.


OK, in science that's called a hypothesis. What you're supposed to do next is conduct a study to test your hypothesis and publish your findings. Then others critique your work and try to replicate your results. If everybody agrees with your hypothesis then you win, otherwise it's back to the drawing board.

Hypothesis > experiment > review > replication.

Be very wary of listening too much to anyone whose "scientific" method goes:

Hypothesis > book deal > profit!

[Linuxisfast]

I am an ex diabetic and I as well as many others have cut down on wheat to loose weight and loose diabetes so the book is on the dot about GMO wheat. I have also cut down on all refined flours, sugar and white rice, only grains like millet, barley, oats, buckwheat and plenty of veggies.

[Paqman]

I am an ex diabetic and I as well as many others have cut down on wheat to loose weight and loose diabetes so the book is on the dot about GMO wheat. I have also cut down on all refined flours, sugar and white rice, only grains like millet, barley, oats, buckwheat and plenty of veggies.

Controlling your diet is sensible (and essential) if you're already diabetic. No one is suggesting otherwise.

That doesn't mean that you can blame the rise in Type 2 diabetes on one type of food we're eating. As Statia says, the problem is that we're eating too much, and too many different bad things.

PS: an "ex" diabetic?

[sdowney717]

Controlling your diet is sensible (and essential) if you're already diabetic. No one is suggesting otherwise.

That doesn't mean that you can blame the rise in Type 2 diabetes on one type of food we're eating. As Statia says, the problem is that we're eating too much, and too many different bad things.

PS: an "ex" diabetic?

the author in the book claims diabetes is curable completely by cutting out modern wheat which then lowers your weight.
I have read when people loose the excess weight and get fit, (independent info not of this book) they can loose the need for any diabetes medication, so call this a cure why not? For type2 diabetics.

[mips]

That final sentence in red is true, but not I suspect in the positive way Dr Davis means; totally eliminate all grains from the human diet and a large percentage of the population would starve.


I can't live without beer!

[vasa1]

It's done by introducing genes that cause the plant to produce pesticides inside the plants own tissues. So instead of getting poison on the plant, you get it in the plant. Then you eat it.

http://npic.orst.edu/reg/pip.html
Genes mostly code for proteins and nucleic acids. I haven't come across genes that code for pesticides such as those sprayed on plants to prevent crop damage.

I'm wondering how many people contributing to this thread have a first-hand knowledge of GM.

[Paqman]

the author in the book claims diabetes is curable completely by cutting out modern wheat which then lowers your weight.


Excellent, another hypothesis. When he's published his results and his peers have agreed with him and confirmed his findings, then we should probably start listening to his ideas.

Until then, not so much.

That would be a pretty easy hypothesis to test actually. Let's hope he gets onto it. It would be one of the most important discoveries of recent times.



I haven't come across genes that code for pesticides such as those sprayed on plants to prevent crop damage.


Some plants produce their own pesticides don't they? Surely we're not talking about making a plant produce an artificial pesticide? It would be more feasible to have it produce a pesticide normally produced by another species wouldn't it?

[sdowney717]

Some plants produce their own pesticides don't they? Surely we're not talking about making a plant produce an artificial pesticide? It would be more feasible to have it produce a pesticide normally produced by another species wouldn't it?

I suppose some kind of mashup gene splicing can do that. If a plant starts making a pesticide, natural or man made, then it can be poisonous to eat. the pesticide will be inside the plant tissue, not just sprayed on the leaves.

I read that arsenic is in brown rice. Rice gets the arsenic from the ground. Someone tolde me the arsenic was put there by farmers as a pesticide. It may also be naturally in the ground.
https://www.google.com/search?q=brown+rice+arsenic&aq=f&oq=brown+rice+arsenic&aqs=chrome.0.57j0l3.4195&sugexp=chrome,mod=8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[QIII]

Just do this one thing and a complex cultural phenomenon will disappear completely!

Forgive me if I throw the BS flag on the field.

Maybe if Roman soldiers had eaten less wheat they would have crushed most of the known world. Oh, wait. They ate wheat as the main staple of their diet and did that anyway. My bad.

The whole "GM means poison" thing also bothers me. Anything domesticated and cross bred is GM.

Look at what we call corn in the Americas. Much of the world knows it as maize. It started out as a hard seed head an inch long. Now it is what would, in other cases, be called a genetic monstrosity.

Humans survived because they excelled at stuffing as many calories as they could into their faces during a time when that was what was needed to survive. When they developed a complex society that sheltered them from the storm of mere survival, the need for the caloric intake was diminished at the same time as calories became abundant. They have not, as yet, evolved past the genetic mandate to consume every calorie they can. Furthermore, those calories have become more and more empty as they have learned to better "process" their food by removing the nutritious components and leaving the more tasty and caloric ones.

We, like other mammals, are genetically predisposed to fatten ourselves against more difficult times -- but those don't come any more.

[KiwiNZ]

Food manufacturers do not put the food in ones mouth that is a personally controlled activity.

However if the billions are to be feed whilst agriculturally viable land shrinks the faster growing pest and drought resistant crops need to be developed.

[Bandit]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57505149/modern-wheat-a-perfect-chronic-poison-doctor-says/

I read his book and he says our diabetes and fat epidemic is mostly caused by starchy grains like wheat. .........

ALL Simple and Complex Carbs are bad for you as well as products high in starches like Potatoes. The reason behind this is simple. Your body turns those items into sugar for energy and if you don't immediately burns those foods off your body will turn right around and store those as fat. This constant tug of war on the body as it puts stress on major components like the pancreas. Often making the body unable to produce the insulin it needs or even making the body resistant to its own insulin. This is clearly common sense. But the FDA has been shouting this BS food pyramid crap for years and what you end up with is a unhealthy fat body like myself. It also doesnt help matters when you go to the grocery store all the foods high in starches and carbs are the most affordable while the healthier foods come at a much steeper price.

[Statia]

Genes mostly code for proteins and nucleic acids. I haven't come across genes that code for pesticides such as those sprayed on plants to prevent crop damage.

I'm wondering how many people contributing to this thread have a first-hand knowledge of GM.

There are plants who produce insect deterrents, like marigolds.
Their genes encode for enzymes, the enzymes produce what are called secondary metabolites. These secondary metabolites do not have a function in energy production or storage (hence their name), but often give some advantage to the plant, such as deterring pests.

You could introduce the genes from one plant into another to make it produce a deterrent. This is not easy however, as there usually is a series of steps (and thus enzymes and thus genes) to start from a primary metabolite (like glucose) and end up with the desired molecule. (Gah, I once had to learn those pathways... Shikimic acid!)
Nicotine is produced in Nicotiana tabacum, and is an excellent insecticide. Introducing it into apples however, does not seem like a good idea. (Nor is smoking N. tabacum leaves, but that's another story)

This is not the most common pathway in GM however.
The more common approach in GM (the Monsanto way) is to introduce an enzyme that breaks down a (synthetic) pesticide or insecticide. You can than spray lots of the chemical and weeds and/or insect pests will die. You might however end up with a crop with residues of pesticide, which could be detrimental to health.
So it is not the GMO itself that is unhealthy, it's the chemicals it allows to be used.

[Statia]

The vegetable that I used to grow in europe compared to the GMO's in the states are waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy better in taste.


Could be the soil, the climate, the water, the fertilizer... Not a very convincing argument.



also do not forget that GMO companies like "Monsanto" they actually "own" the food. If you read my post, you see that I did mention Monsanto as an evil corporation. I was referring to these business practices. Also see my other post here as to why their way of GM is potentially harmful.
But I maintain that GM in itself is not more dangerous than traditional methods of crop breeding and selection.

[BLOODBANKER]

I agree with Bandit - he said it very well. This topic hits me on personal level. I'm just a regular guy - working lots of hours, trying to eat right, getting some excercise -- and obese. I've always had a weight problem. -- Until I read this book. The Author brings together a lot of health and nutrition information thats been around for years. He backs it up with an extensive reference section in the back of the book from published scientific journals.

This book is like a light bulb moment. Finally-I got it. Take out of the book what you want and what works for you. To get an idea of the impact of this book on peoples lives - read the book reviews on Amazon.com. These people don't say what a wonderful, enjoyable book to read. They tell you how it changed their health and life. I am almost down to my ideal weight, when someone asks how I did it, I tell them "read the book".

[forrestcupp]

Sounds like a lot of baloney.

To start with, gliadin is not new, it has always been in wheat.
Secondly, according to the article, gliadin binds to opiate receptors, stimulating appetite.
(It's not actually gliadin itself, but peptides from digested gliadin, as proteins cannot be absorbed intact, nor pass the blood brain barrier. Also, in the binding assay, they needed 0,5mg of peptides to be equivalent to morphine 1 nM. In terms of concentrations in the brain, that is a lot, not likely to be achieved from nutrition)
Stimulation of opiate receptors does not lead to an increase in appetite. Most people on opiates have initial nausea, which reduces their appetite. There are opiate receptors in the GI-tract, but they are not involved in appetite, they regulate motility. That is why opiates cause constipation and we use loperamide for diarrhoea.

The problem with what we eat is not GMO. It is not wheat. It is not processed food. It is simple that we eat too much, and too much fat.

And then there is the general "genetic modification is evil" attitude that I find hard to swallow. Mankind has been involved in genetic modification for millenia. Only it is called crossbreeding, selection, etc. Basically a random and unpredictable, empiric process where we have little idea of what will come out, messing with a whole genome. Now you do it in a lab while wearing a white coat (only much more directed, driven by knowledge of what specific gene you are targeting) and all of a sudden it is scary and evil.

(Yes, Monsanto is evil. Using GM to put more poison in crops is bad. I'm just talking about health effects of GM on the food itself)I wish you could "like" posts on here.

The only people who need to really worry about wheat are people with Celiac disease or other gluten intolerances. As for the whole evidence from people losing weight, that's pretty ridiculous. Probably the biggest intake of carbs is coming from products made from wheat. If you cut out carbs, you're going to lose weight. But losing weight doesn't always mean getting healthy. I've known a lot of people who went on no carb diets. They lost weight fast, but it was also very unhealthy and debilitating.

I had diverticulitis really bad a couple of years ago. One of these people who are sucked in by the anti-wheat hype tried to tell me it was because I need to cut wheat out. No, it's because I had pockets in my intestines that got infected by food stuck in them. And that was likely caused by fats, not wheat. Guess what I have to do to keep it from happening again? I have to eat foods that are high in fiber, including whole wheat.

[Statia]

ALL Simple and Complex Carbs are bad for you as well as products high in starches like Potatoes. The reason behind this is simple. Your body turns those items into sugar for energy and if you don't immediately burns those foods off your body will turn right around and store those as fat.

This is an oversimplification. The body can turn everything you eat into glucose, its basic source of ATP (the ultimate energy carrier that is "burned" in your cells). This includes carbs of course, but also proteins and fats. All excess food can be stored as fat, not just fat, but carbs and proteins can be converted to fat as well.

There is some merit to the glycemic index theory, but in essence it all boils down to: do not eat more calories than your body burns, or the excess will be stored as fat.
The best way to lose weight is to combine a moderate reduction in intake of calories with an increase in physical activity.

I remember one skiing holiday. I would eat a warm calorie-rich meal twice a day, stuff like lasagnas with cheese, pastas. Drank a lot of beer in the evenings. Come back home, step on the scale: lost half a kilo in one week. Reason: the enormous amounts of calories burned by being on the slopes eight hours a day (compensating my lack of skiing technique with muscle action), keeping my body warm in the cold.

Or when I worked two jobs from 8 a.m. till midnight or later and one of the jobs was understaffed, with me doing three people's work on my own. Lost three kilos in a month.

[Linuxratty]

I agree with Bandit. I have been on a high fat low carb diet for half a year. I've lost weight and I'm no longer hungry like I was.
There is a lot of info out there on just how bad the carb heavy diet is for humans. Simply put, we did not evolve to eat such things.
Wherever the western diet is introduced, you see the same things happening to humans,obesity,diabetes,etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h0zD1gj0pXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMQKtvj1htU

[mJayk]

Just to the people who talk about research. There has only been ONE long term study of GMO it was in Spain google it, the results were terrible 80% increase in tumour growth. Every other study is short term (year or so) and means nothing unless you only read the headline.

[QIII]

... we did not evolve to eat such things ...

We evolved to stuff down our throats whatever we could keep down and not poison ourselves to get the calories we needed to survive -- and to support a huge brain that runs on glucose.

What we didn't evolve for is an environment where food was so abundant that it virtually shovelled itself into our mouths.

"This is bad for you" and "That is bad for you" is hokum. What is bad is that we don't have to get fat to survive lean times any longer, but our brain and physiology still compel us to behave that way.

It's not as simple as "Eat less".

Why has obesity grown when a Western diet is introduced? Because the people to whom it is introduced suddenly have more than they need and a brain that demands that the body keeps shovelling food.

Add to that genuine health issues like PCOS in women and obesity can be impossible to avoid for some.

What is interesting here is that it is the "fat ones" who are doing what we evolved to do: survive. The "skinny ones" would not have survived. They'd have starved when food got scarce and they had no reserve. The playing field has changed. It will take some time for us to modify our genetic game plan.

Should we be as fat as we are? Of course not. But since we aren't scrabbling for a meal and running away from things trying to fatten themselves by eating us, we don't burn it off.

This is not a matter of character or magical diet plans. This is a matter of an environment that has changed radically and how we, as an organism, will adapt to that. If those who were survivors in the old environment are eliminated because of the illnesses that accompany obesity, then they will not have been well suited to the environment and their genes will become extinct. Those who do not have the genetic propensity to gain weight will win out and leave a genetic legacy.

Hopefully, civilization doesn't subsequently fall apart and the skinny folk don't starve to death for lack of the society that made it possible for them to survive. Unfortunately, the ones who might have been better able to deal with that environment will have died long ago.

[BigCityCat]

Sounds like Dr. William Davis is just another anti-GMO evangelist who sees things totally in black or white.

From a scientific point of view there is absolutely nothing wrong with GMO and GM crops, and all the fright stories of Franckenstein crops and plants is nothing more than scare tactics, largely from people who do not know enough about the subject the are talking about.

GM of a crop gives breeders and scientists a much quicker way of improving much about the main food crops of the world, and the outcome of it is generally going to be much more to the benefit of the whole population than to its detriment. Changing plant genomes with genetic modification is no different in reality to the normal method of plant improvement using standard breeding techniques.

At the end of the linked article is this section:-
That final sentence in red is true, but not I suspect in the positive way Dr Davis means; totally eliminate all grains from the human diet and a large percentage of the population would starve.

Not the health transformation most people would want!

Yeh but all that death results in a lot of weight loss.

[BigCityCat]

Just a question. Asians eat a lot of rice. It's a staple of their diet. Yet as a population they are not over weight. I eat a lot of Jasmin rice and for an American I am under weight. I'm not sure I believe that rice is a major contributor to obesity. I think it ultimately comes down to high calorie, high fat diet with little to no exercise.

[Lemuriano]

Call me old fashion, but between Genetically modified organism (GMO) and the way nature intended, I choose the later one. Compare an organic apple with a regular one, meaning with pesticides, wax and GMO. The difference in taste is easy to recognize.

[Bandit]

I agree with Bandit. I have been on a high fat low carb diet for half a year. I've lost weight and I'm no longer hungry like I was.
There is a lot of info out there on just how bad the carb heavy diet is for humans. Simply put, we did not evolve to eat such things.
Wherever the western diet is introduced, you see the same things happening to humans,obesity,diabetes,etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h0zD1gj0pXk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMQKtvj1htU

Exactly..

While someone should not eliminate all carb foods from their diet as many are full of vitamins and minerals the body needs. Best bet is to eat lean meats and fiber rich vegetables. Moderate exercise while bothersome it may seem is also essential to human diet. We wasn't given two feet and legs to sit on our butts all day.

Last year alone I lost over 50 pounds, if anyone remembers me taking a break from the forums. Sadly I busted my knees up before I retired and gained back 20.. But going back on a proper diet and exercise soon as I get to the philippines in a month. This summer I will loose down to 160LBs and hit my 10% body fat mark I so desire again..

[LillyDragon]

Ah, this is why I enjoy reading threads about alarmingly false, fear mongering news. Glassing over the posts of people across the whole community who actually know what they're talking about; beating back the falsities with solid facts. > : D

*gets popcorn and hot chocolate*


I wish you could "like" posts on here.

The only people who need to really worry about wheat are people with Celiac disease or other gluten intolerances. As for the whole evidence from people losing weight, that's pretty ridiculous. Probably the biggest intake of carbs is coming from products made from wheat. If you cut out carbs, you're going to lose weight. But losing weight doesn't always mean getting healthy. I've known a lot of people who went on no carb diets. They lost weight fast, but it was also very unhealthy and debilitating.

I had diverticulitis really bad a couple of years ago. One of these people who are sucked in by the anti-wheat hype tried to tell me it was because I need to cut wheat out. No, it's because I had pockets in my intestines that got infected by food stuck in them. And that was likely caused by fats, not wheat. Guess what I have to do to keep it from happening again? I have to eat foods that are high in fiber, including whole wheat.

I wish I could like posts too, but who says you can't save your favorite forum posts in a text file? =P That's what I do for GameFAQs and these Ubuntu forums. It's nice having a large collection of witty responses and nuggets of wisdom to refer to in a jiffy.

Anyway, I found your post incredibly informative. More evidence that either the naturally or artificially bred forms of wheat aren't exactly killing us. =P

[Paqman]

Call me old fashion, but between Genetically modified organism (GMO) and the way nature intended, I choose the later one. Compare an organic apple with a regular one, meaning with pesticides, wax and GMO. The difference in taste is easy to recognize.

Taste is an excellent reason to choose one food over another IMO. GM-status isn't.

There's a lot of complete balls talked about food. There's a whole industry of pseudo-scientific BS-merchants with a vested interest in medicalising and complicating food, so that they can make a living dictating to us what we should and shouldn't eat.

What the actual science tells us to eat is simple: don't overeat, eat a bit of everything, cook from fresh, cut down on fat, salt and alcohol, eat lots of fruit and vegetables. But unfortunately such simple advice (while effective) won't keep the army of dubiously-qualified nutritionist hacks in Mercedes Benzes, so they have to concoct over-complicated fad diets and endless scare stories to keep us tagging along.

[mips]

Exactly..

While someone should not eliminate all carb foods from their diet as many are full of vitamins and minerals the body needs. Best bet is to eat lean meats and fiber rich vegetables. Moderate exercise while bothersome it may seem is also essential to human diet. We wasn't given two feet and legs to sit on our butts all day.

Last year alone I lost over 50 pounds, if anyone remembers me taking a break from the forums. Sadly I busted my knees up before I retired and gained back 20.. But going back on a proper diet and exercise soon as I get to the philippines in a month. This summer I will loose down to 160LBs and hit my 10% body fat mark I so desire again..

This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Noakes) is pretty well respected internationally,

http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/General/15-742,78341.asp
http://www.health24.com/fitness/Diet_Supplements/16-481-512,73175.asp
http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/lifestyle/tim-noakes-offers-help-to-food-addicts-1.1405700#.UOPs9-nCQXA
http://www.runnersworld.co.za/nutrition/novel-dietary-ideas/
http://www.mh.co.za/nutrition/healthy-eating-tips/the-tim-noakes-diet
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-21-00-is-tim-noakes-the-malema-of-medicine
http://www.jaquelineduncan.co.za/2012/10/letter-to-prof-noakes/

[Grenage]

I don't know why wheat has become some sort of similar villain of late; moderation in all things, but compared to how much bread our forefathers ate, the average modern person eats barely any.

Personally, I'll polish off a 1kg loaf over 2-3 days. I don't eat rick foods or sauces, I don't eat meat (I don't think it's bad for one, in moderation), and I eat a lot of vegetables/pulses.

People need to use common sense, and stop looking for quick and easy solutions for everything. Many westerners live very sedate lives - it's surprising how little you need to eat when you sit on your *** all day.

[Ji Ruo]

I don't eat rick foods or sauces

Well each to their own. But personally, I'm never gonna give them up, never gonna put them down, never gonna run around and dessert them.

http://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

[haqking]

eat what you like.

"healthy eaters" still get cancer, hit by cars, heart attacks.

"unhealthy people" still live to 90, run marathons, smoke 40 a day.

If you eat more than you burn you will put on weight/fat.

You are here for a good time not a long time, enjoy it.

If you pay attention everyday to what we should and shouldnt eat and do then everyday you will have to change your habits and redo your shopping.

My Grandad ate crap his all life, drank whisky everyday, smoked 40+ a day from 14 years old and spent most of his youth bare backed in the desert exposed to the sun, he died in his late 90's from old age

Peace

[Grenage]

eat what you like.

"healthy eaters" still get cancer, hit by cars, heart attacks.

"unhealthy people" still live to 90, run marathons, smoke 40 a day.

If you eat more than you burn you will put on weight/fat.

You are here for a good time not a long time, enjoy it.

If you pay attention everyday to what we should and shouldnt eat and do then everyday you will have to change your habits and redo your shopping.

My Grandad ate crap his all life, drank whisky everyday, smoked 40+ a day from 14 years old and spent most of his youth bare backed in the desert exposed to the sun, he died in his late 90's from old age



There are always exceptions, and while I agree that people should generally eat what they like, that only goes so far. I'm sure at least 50% of smokers die from a smoking-related ailment, and I'm pretty sure nothing good comes from weighing three times more than the ideal.

There's living life, and there's flagrant disregard for it.

[ajgreeny]

This guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Noakes) is pretty well respected internationally,

http://www.health24.com/dietnfood/General/15-742,78341.asp
http://www.health24.com/fitness/Diet_Supplements/16-481-512,73175.asp
http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/lifestyle/tim-noakes-offers-help-to-food-addicts-1.1405700#.UOPs9-nCQXA
http://www.runnersworld.co.za/nutrition/novel-dietary-ideas/
http://www.mh.co.za/nutrition/healthy-eating-tips/the-tim-noakes-diet
http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-21-00-is-tim-noakes-the-malema-of-medicine
http://www.jaquelineduncan.co.za/2012/10/letter-to-prof-noakes/

I haven't wasted a lot of time reading every last detail of those linked articles, but it seems clear that not even one of them is a properly refereed scientific study. They are all more like magazine articles

I shall carry on exactly as I have always done, eating a healthy mixed diet including something from all of the main food-groups. Humans evolved as omnivores, not as a species which should avoid one of the main food groups, and in pre-history I suspect there were more grains and plants eaten than meat, which had a habit of running away when you tried to catch and kill it.

[Paqman]

eat what you like.

"healthy eaters" still get cancer, hit by cars, heart attacks.

"unhealthy people" still live to 90, run marathons, smoke 40 a day.


Hmm. Betting your life on being an outlier is not a great strategy.

However, I do agree with your no-stress attitude to food. I don't think there's anything to be gained from complicated high-tech fad diets. Relax, enjoy good food and drink, just don't overdo it.

Like most things in life, it's the middle way that's best in the end.

[Linuxisfast]

Controlling your diet is sensible (and essential) if you're already diabetic. No one is suggesting otherwise.

That doesn't mean that you can blame the rise in Type 2 diabetes on one type of food we're eating. As Statia says, the problem is that we're eating too much, and too many different bad things.

PS: an "ex" diabetic?

I don't have sugar anymore, that makes me an ex diabetic. I also didn't take any medication, only herbs and Ayurvedic meds and rigorous exercise. Also the trend of wheat eaters being diabetic is not a suggestion, its an epidemic here in India. Those who have eliminated wheat have had many positive results including weight loss, abdomen fat loss.

[Linuxisfast]

ALL Simple and Complex Carbs are bad for you as well as products high in starches like Potatoes. The reason behind this is simple. Your body turns those items into sugar for energy and if you don't immediately burns those foods off your body will turn right around and store those as fat. This constant tug of war on the body as it puts stress on major components like the pancreas. Often making the body unable to produce the insulin it needs or even making the body resistant to its own insulin. This is clearly common sense. But the FDA has been shouting this BS food pyramid crap for years and what you end up with is a unhealthy fat body like myself. It also doesnt help matters when you go to the grocery store all the foods high in starches and carbs are the most affordable while the healthier foods come at a much steeper price.

100% correct and turning Vegan helped me rid of my sugar. Now I take raw and brown sugar in moderation but I have no issues with excess sugar.

[Grenage]

100% correct and turning Vegan helped me rid of my sugar. Now I take raw and brown sugar in moderation but I have no issues with excess sugar.

Hardcore :)

I like eggs too much, and it makes eating out a pain in the ***.

[Linuxisfast]

Hardcore :)

I like eggs too much, and it makes eating out a pain in the ***.

If you like eggs, try and make them real free range, not only do they taste way better, they have more omega 3 and far less cholesterol.

[Grenage]

If you like eggs, try and make them real free range, not only do they taste way better, they have more omega 3 and far less cholesterol.

The Asda chain here sells free-range organic eggs, and they taste awesome, compared to the regular free-range offerings.

[Linuxratty]

and to support a huge brain that runs on glucose.


This huge brain of ours can run just as well on ketone bodies and that's how our species survived brutal winters,etc.
Mine is running on ketones right now.
When I say we did not evolve to eat high carb foods such as wheat,oats,etc. if you look far enough back in history, you will see we mainly lived on fruit,when we could find it,berries,mushrooms, meat and green plants.

We did not have corn and other grains. While these new "foods" have been around for quite some time, we have not evolved to deal with them,nor have other species.

Corn, and other grains are used to fatten geese and cattle and they fatten us as well. In the grocery story it's proclaimed that cattle and chicken are grain fed,like that's a good thing. It's not.

The hflc diet and the paleo diet work so well for us because we are removing from our diet the carbohydrates and sugars we simply do not need,And nor do our pets, yet you see corn and wheat in dog foot,rabbit food,cat food, bird food,hedgie food,etc. No wonder our pets develop kidney and liver problems and become obese,but I digress.

The fat that comes with meat is the fat we evolved to eat.
The Eskimos did not have cancer,heart disease or diabetes and they lived mainly off a meat/high fat diet...Ok,they didn't till they got introduced to the high carb,high sugar western diet.

[haqking]

The meaning of life right on a plate

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/12/article-1315820670527-0DD7BA1600000578-408043_636x563.jpg

[Grenage]

The Eskimos did not have cancer,heart disease or diabetes and they lived mainly off a meat/high fat diet.

That is one hell of a statement, and one I suspect couldn't be backed up. Cancer pre-dates man, unsurprisingly.

My ancestors never had cancer or diabetes - mostly because such things weren't easily diagnosed. They died of natural causes, undoubtedly brought about by heart disease, cancer, brain haemorrhage....

[forrestcupp]

Well each to their own. But personally, I'm never gonna give them up, never gonna put them down, never gonna run around and dessert them.

http://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQLol. I nominate this for Post of the Year, folks! I'm not the only one who thought of Rick Astley, only I wouldn't have worded a reply as well as you did. :D


The meaning of life right on a plate

http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2011/09/12/article-1315820670527-0DD7BA1600000578-408043_636x563.jpgExactly! I'd rather enjoy life for 70 years than to suffer through 100 years of unenjoyed misery. ;)

The only things he is missing are syrup and sausage gravy.

[Paqman]

The Eskimos did not have cancer,heart disease or diabetes

I thknk you'll find they did, although it's likely the rates were lower, for one really good reason: these kinds of diseases afflict us proportionately higher now precisely because we're so much healthier. In the past people didn't live long enough to die of cancer, heart disease or diabetes.

These are all diseases of old age and abundance, so it's hardly surprising that they didn't figure highly in populations that lived short lives of hardship. Average human life expectancy has doubled in the last 150 years, and as a result we're dealing with different health problems now. That's a good thing, not a bad one.

[Linuxisfast]

The Asda chain here sells free-range organic eggs, and they taste awesome, compared to the regular free-range offerings.

When I was not a vegan, I would get it from the rural areas and like the wild boar, the free range eggs and hens would taste superb.

[QIII]

Linuxratty, I suppose I will just simply have to disagree with you. If our forebears had found grain in sufficient quantity, they would have eaten it. They did make it abundant between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago and for millennia it was the staple of the diet of the peoples from which our Western culture arose. We didn't evolve to not eat wheat.

Humans evolved to be indescriminate, opportunistic omnivores. We are in the company of such elegant animals as the bear, the pig and the rat.

If the "paleo diet" is wonderful, then it is something for people to look into. However, they should take care to prepare their wills early, since their average lifespan (if they are one of the lucky few who make it to breeding age to begin with) will be roughly 20 and they will be fantastically ancient if they reach 40.

[monkeybrain2012]

I don't think there is actual health risk, but there may be unknown ecological impacts that need investigations (e.g bug resistance crops may kill off insects that perform some useful functions and upsetting balance of the ecosystem etc). Someone made a good point about patented seeds and Monsanto, in other words, the control of food supply by a handful of multi-nationals (kind of like proprietary softwar except more serious, so not surprising Bill Gates' foundation is partnering up with Monsanto to "solve" Africa's food problem)

[QIII]

I certainly agree that the actual, and grave, dangers are environmental and socio-economic in nature.

[Statia]

If you like eggs, try and make them real free range, not only do they taste way better, they have more omega 3 and far less cholesterol.

Wishful thinking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031244/Free-range-eggs-nutritious-battery-alternatives-claims-study.html

[Statia]

Call me old fashion, but between Genetically modified organism (GMO) and the way nature intended, I choose the later one. Compare an organic apple with a regular one, meaning with pesticides, wax and GMO. The difference in taste is easy to recognize.


I am pretty sure an organically grown GMO apple will taste just as great and be just as healthy. And why would a "regular" apple be GMO anyway?
And don't forget, if there is one crop that has been genetically engineered for centuries, it is apples. Only the first few centuries the genetic engineering wasn't done in the lab, but by cross-breeding and selecting.

[mips]

That is one hell of a statement, and one I suspect couldn't be backed up. Cancer pre-dates man, unsurprisingly.

My ancestors never had cancer or diabetes - mostly because such things weren't easily diagnosed. They died of natural causes, undoubtedly brought about by heart disease, cancer, brain haemorrhage....

There are pockets of civilisation where certain diseases like cancer & heart problems are unknown. Has a lot to do with genetics, there's a village in Italy somewhere where heart or coronary diseases are unheard of yet some of the people have high high cholesterol etc. Then there is also a village where instances of hemophilia affects most of the inhabitants.

Certain 'races' are more prone to some diseases than others. you will find certain cancers quite prolific in some segements of society while in others it's a rare occurrence. Over here for example diabetes & heart related problems are very common in Indian communities and it's largely due to inbreeding back in the day. Obesity for example is very prolific in African people eating western take away crap. Same goes for HIV, there are people that are tolerant of the virus and don't regress once they have it.

[QIII]

Many apple trees are chimeric monstrosities anyway. Branches from a variety that produces a more desirable apple are often grafted on to varieties that are known to be more resistant to disease or infestation.

[Statia]

Many apple trees are chimeric monstrosities anyway. Branches from a variety that produces a more desirable apple are often grafted on to varieties that are known to be more resistant to disease or infestation.

Exactly. Genetic engineering, yet no one cares. Do the same in a lab with test tubes and all of a sudden it is scary, unethical, unhealthy, etc.
The stupidity of such reasoning (if you can call it that, since not much reason is involved) keeps baffling me.

[forrestcupp]

I am pretty sure an organically grown GMO apple will taste just as great and be just as healthy. And why would a "regular" apple be GMO anyway?
And don't forget, if there is one crop that has been genetically engineered for centuries, it is apples. Only the first few centuries the genetic engineering wasn't done in the lab, but by cross-breeding and selecting.

I agree that most GMO produce is not harmful, but it's not necessarily just as tasty. Remember the recent story about how they have genetically modified tomatoes to be beautiful and colorful at the expense of taste?

I don't have any problem with hybrids, but the talk of splicing animal genes with plant ones just scares me.

[ajgreeny]

Exactly. Genetic engineering, yet no one cares. Do the same in a lab with test tubes and all of a sudden it is scary, unethical, unhealthy, etc.
The stupidity of such reasoning (if you can call it that, since not much reason is involved) keeps baffling me.
I'm getting baffled about which side of the fence you are sitting, but if you think grafting of apple scion varieties to rootstocks is genetic engineering, you are totally wrong!

That is not genetic engineering or anywhere near it. It is simply taking advantage of the ability of some varieties of apple rootstock to limit the size of the tree that grows from it and to increase the tree's resistance to certain diseases after grafting. All the various apple rootstocks that are used commercially and all the scion varieties grown commercially as well, were produced by normal breeding techniques; GMO has not been used for that purpose.

I do wish people who make comments about such things as GMO would do a bit more research before making many of their statements that are basically untruths. This is the old problem of FUD about things that most people simply do not understand properly.

[Statia]

I don't have any problem with hybrids, but the talk of splicing animal genes with plant ones just scares me.

You do know that you are a hybrid yourself? There are viruses that upon infection splice their DNA into yours and never leave.
You know that your mitochondria (which have their own DNA) quite like once were bacteria that started co-habitating with animals?

On the tomatoes, yes, that is one example. But I'm pretty sure crops could be modified for better taste as well. We've been doing it for centuries with traditional methods (ever tasted a wild strawberry?), we can and will and probably are doing it with the latest techniques as well.

[Statia]

I'm getting baffled about which side of the fence you are sitting, but if you think grafting of apple scion varieties to rootstocks is genetic engineering, you are totally wrong!


OK, grafting is not genetic engineering. Wrong example.
But selective pollination, cross-breeding, selection, etc are all methods of genetic engineering.

[QIII]

A great part of the purpose of grafting is actually to preserve the genetic properties of the scion.

The point was more one of the Frankenstein nature of the horticulture of apples. There's a reason I referred to chimera.

I have to wonder whether those wealthy enough to buy apples in China 4000 years ago had misgivings when their apple growers started doing that. Pretty radical stuff.

[ajgreeny]

A great part of the purpose of grafting is actually to preserve the genetic properties of the scion.

The point was more one of the Frankenstein nature of the horticulture of apples.

I have to wonder whether those wealthy enough to buy apples in China 4000 years ago had misgivings when their apple growers started doing that. Pretty radical stuff.
No, the genetic properties of the scion, and the rootstock, are preserved by vegetative propagation once the varietal characteristics of each have been produced to the breeder's satisfaction in the normal way. The scion varieties could be propagated on their own roots and grown without grafting onto a rootstock variety, but that would remove some of the tree size control available by using different rootstock varieties.

Incidentally, natural sports of varieties of apples, along with just about every other crop plant have occurred, and still occur, with no input from the growers, and those sports are sometimes subsequently propagated. Is that GMO?

[QIII]

No, the genetic properties of the scion, and the rootstock, are preserved by vegetative propagation once the varietal characteristics of each have been produced to the breeder's satisfaction in the normal way. The scion varieties could be propagated on their own roots and grown without grafting onto a rootstock variety, but that would remove some of the tree size control available by using different rootstock varieties.

I'm tracking, ajgreeny. I am quite aware that the properties of each are achieved prior. I don't think I implied otherwise. And yes, at the point when the scion is grafted to the rootstock the scion itself is genetically preserved independently of the rootstock, although its progeny can certainly be propagated in the normal fashion or further altered. The scion does not, itself, become somehow genetically sullied. Again, I don't believe I implied otherwise.

The scion taken from Variety A will continue to produce Variety A apples even when grafted to Variety B rootstock. That's the point.

I'm not arguing with you and I am certainly NOT saying that is genetic modification. I specifically referred to chimera.

[Linuxisfast]

Wishful thinking:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031244/Free-range-eggs-nutritious-battery-alternatives-claims-study.html

Nope logical thinking. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs.aspx

[Linuxisfast]

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gmo-toxins-are-nearly-all-pregnant-women-fetuses

The study, "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec", was published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The authors, Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc, examined the blood of 30 pregnant women and 39 nonpregnant women. All births associated with the study were considered normal; babies were at normal birth weights and considered healthy.

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/content/study-finds-link-between-gmos-and-current-health-care-crisis

These distorted, allergy causing, “engineered” grains are being used to create foods that we eat everyday; bread, cereals, chips, crackers, pastry, seasonings, even some packaged chip products contain gluten. BioAcoustic Biology matrix correlations revealed how thoroughly our health is being negatively influenced by these genetically modified foods (GMO’s).

[Statia]

.All births associated with the study were considered normal; babies were at normal birth weights and considered healthy.



Like I said, it's not the GMO's themselves that are bad, it's the consequence that they allow the use of pesticides.
However, no effects here apparently.



These distorted, allergy causing, “engineered” grains are being used to create foods that we eat everyday; bread, cereals, chips, crackers, pastry, seasonings, even some packaged chip products contain gluten. BioAcoustic Biology matrix correlations revealed how thoroughly our health is being negatively influenced by these genetically modified foods (GMO’s).

Yes, gluten can cause allergic reactions in some. What does that have to do with genetic engineering? Gluten is a naturally occurring protein in wheat.

[Statia]

Nope logical thinking. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs.aspx

Science does not work with logical thinking to reach a conclusion a posteriori. It works with experiments to verify hypotheses. Why would "logical thinking" predict free-range eggs are nutritionally better?
So, we have one study saying free range is better, one that doesn't.
So the preliminary conclusion is: we don't know yet, more research needed.
Maybe some free-range are better, some are the same.
Variations therefore could be attributed to another factor than being free-range.

BTW: I remember reading once that free-range eggs actually had higher cholesterol content, because free-range chicken eat more worms.

[Bandit]

I haven't wasted a lot of time reading every last detail of those linked articles, but it seems clear that not even one of them is a properly refereed scientific study. They are all more like magazine articles

I..............

HFLC Diets are getting more attention, but just because they look like gimmick articles on the sun daily doesn't mean they don't hold merit. Take a look at the current food pyramid diet we are on now. Since it started we went from 3 million people world wide with diabetes to over 30 million alone here in the United States. Body fat in countries like the US that went by this guideline have seen a 30% increase in over weight people. They also claimed Fatty food like bacon leads to high cholesterol and heart disease. Twenty five years later and non stop scientific research still have not proven there is a single shred of evidence linking the two.

Lets just point out simple math. I mentioned Lean Meats in my previous post. Reasoning behind this is for people trying to loose weight. Cards take 4 calories for gram to burn off, same for proteins. However it takes 9 calories to burn off a single gram of fat. Does this mean fat is bad, heck no. Fat is essential for the body as well as your mental health. Your body needs a certain amount based on your size to function properly. Anyone here ever went on a low fat diet and hard hard time concentrating on work, homework or anything thought intensive? Fat is essential for proper brain activity. Also ever went on a low fat diet and experienced constant dry skin? Fat consumption is key for keeping healthy skin as well as also slowing the digestive system down so you can process the foods you eat better.

Now I remember one member posting about his doctor putting him on a high fiber low far diet for his digestive health. Hey I am no doctor, but one persons health problem doesn't represent the majority of people. Myself personally wouldn't eat whole grain wheat for fiber unless its in my sub sandwich, but fibrous veggies like broccoli and asparagus can serve the same purpose and are much healthier alternatives.

I basically believe in a Cave Man style of diet. Eat veggies that are fibrous, eat lots of fish other meats in a balanced way. Some people believe this means no dairy, but I find that just crazy as milk is good for you and cheese makes everything taste good.. :)

[Bandit]

......

BTW: I remember reading once that free-range eggs actually had higher cholesterol content, because free-range chicken eat more worms.

I wouldn't doubt that they don't have more cholesterol, but point being if your eating healthier and sticking to something like a HFLC diet, chances are your probably not sensitive to cholesterol anyway. Leaving the point mute. However, one should listen to their doctor and do what he or she says.

[Linuxisfast]

Science does not work with logical thinking to reach a conclusion a posteriori. It works with experiments to verify hypotheses. Why would "logical thinking" predict free-range eggs are nutritionally better?
So, we have one study saying free range is better, one that doesn't.
So the preliminary conclusion is: we don't know yet, more research needed.
Maybe some free-range are better, some are the same.
Variations therefore could be attributed to another factor than being free-range.

BTW: I remember reading once that free-range eggs actually had higher cholesterol content, because free-range chicken eat more worms.


Then as per your THINKING, the study clearly shows the advantage of free range eggs and of course, anyone who has tasted true free range eggs will never ever go back to poultry eggs.

[sdowney717]

HFLC Diets are getting more attention, but just because they look like gimmick articles on the sun daily doesn't mean they don't hold merit. Take a look at the current food pyramid diet we are on now. Since it started we went from 3 million people world wide with diabetes to over 30 million alone here in the United States. Body fat in countries like the US that went by this guideline have seen a 30% increase in over weight people. They also claimed Fatty food like bacon leads to high cholesterol and heart disease. Twenty five years later and non stop scientific research still have not proven there is a single shred of evidence linking the two.


I think that evidence pretty much shows the truth of the grain fed beef and poultry argument applies to people as well. Which is making them fat, then that makes you sick.

Medical professional attitudes take a while to change. But you can modify your behavior and likely live a better healthier life before modern medicine acknowledges common sense. In a way, modern medicine is biased towards keeping you alive but also keeping you sick to keep fueling the medical industrial complex and agricultural interests. We live longer but we also live sicker and foods play a big part in your health. Those who are healthy eating what they wish, may poo-poo talk like this. But when your ill and sick and dying from chronic diseases, you will start to think differently.

[forrestcupp]

You do know that you are a hybrid yourself? There are viruses that upon infection splice their DNA into yours and never leave.
You know that your mitochondria (which have their own DNA) quite like once were bacteria that started co-habitating with animals?That's a lot different than stories of genetic engineers injecting rat genes in soybeans and chicken genes in corn. (http://rense.com/general44/cell.htm) I wouldn't be surprised if it's BS, but the thought of that stuff scares me.


On the tomatoes, yes, that is one example. But I'm pretty sure crops could be modified for better taste as well. We've been doing it for centuries with traditional methods (ever tasted a wild strawberry?), we can and will and probably are doing it with the latest techniques as well.I agree. You don't have any farther to look than the hybrid sweet corn they have out now. I'm just saying that it's not always going to be as tasty because taste isn't always what they are shooting for.

[sdowney717]

That's a lot different than stories of genetic engineers injecting rat genes in soybeans and chicken genes in corn. (http://rense.com/general44/cell.htm) I wouldn't be surprised if it's BS, but the thought of that stuff scares me.


Wheat plants walking and squawking.
Or how about wheat plants growing odd animal fleshy parts.

Someday maybe they will try to make you eat plants which have animal proteins incorporated. It does become rather messy and who knows what unintended consequences for your health. But likely not good seeing the history of what they say is good, then bad, then good. They just dont know, but they say they know. As it is, you buy processed foods for convenience and in a way, your a guinea pig for the industry, a way of testing to see how much money they can wring from you versus your health.

[mips]

Wheat plants walking and squawking.
Or how about wheat plants growing odd animal fleshy parts.


If they can make a plant grow bacon then I want some in my garden!

[QIII]

I'll have a row of bacon, a row of eggs over easy and a row of biscuits and gravy.

[forrestcupp]

If they can make a plant grow bacon then I want some in my garden!

Ha, ha. Me too. :)

[Paqman]

I don't have any problem with hybrids, but the talk of splicing animal genes with plant ones just scares me.

As mentioned above, you might be surprised where your genes come from.

It used to be thought that animals and plants only passed genes to their offspring, but we now know that there's a lot of what's called horizontal gene transfer. Nature swaps genes between completely unrelated species all the time. There's snake DNA in cows, for example. Not because a snake and a cow once got it on, but because some vector like a virus shifted the genes from snake to cow.

Pretty much everything that seems weird and scary in modern genetic engineering (transgenes, cloning, etc) has actually been going on in nature for billions of years.

[ajgreeny]

Don't forget that when we talk of genes there really is no difference between genes from plants and genes from animals. The sequence of amino acids is what makes the difference, and the amino acids are exactly the same in all genes from bacteria to humans.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code for the details if you still think that wheat or even human genes are special; they're not, they're all the same.

[houseworkshy]

It's very difficult to pin down the source of health problems in humans for several reasons;-
For every human cell in the area occupied by a human body there are ten non-human cells, so we are more like a walking coral reef from a biological point of view than a discreet entity.
Many of the non-human cells in our body can use methods other than hereditary decent to transmit genes, bacteria for example can swap genes by rubbing up against each other.
A lot of gene modification is done by our environment, both radiation and viruses can cause mutation in DNA, in fact viruses depend upon mutating host cells in order to propagate as they can't self replicate independently. This may even be a driving evolutionary force; Darwin s 'survival of the fittest' depends upon differences between individuals in order to work. As an aside the increase in mutagens in our environment may put humans at serious evolutionary disadvantage, some bacteria can have three generations an hour and so cope with many threats by mostly dying but having survivors, even if it's only a tiny percentage of the original population, evolving out of it. Hominids take far too long to reproduce in our new mutagen accelerated environment to take advantage of this method.
Now that the human genome has been mapped we discover that DNA is less of the story than we had expected, RNA, gene switching and whatever else it is we don't yet know also need to be mastered before we can take full advantage of gene manipulation and gain the huge benifits we hope this technology will bring.
There is also some self inflicted confusion with respect to GMO and non-GMO testing. Many or the GMO trials have been with crops which are grown in the open air and harvested after pollination, fruits and grains are both examples of such crops. As many idiotic experiments like this have already been carried out how can we be sure that any "non-GMO" organisms really are still unmodified?
There are also too many blanket views against or in favour of GMO's which ignore the fact that genetic modification is a tool set which is used in many many different tasks. If it was oil painting and the objection was obscenity would one talk about the tubes of paint, turpentine, linseed oil, brushes, knives and blank canvas as being obscene or otherwise. The only blanket argument which makes sense is that we don't yet know enough to fiddle in the open environment. It seems likely that we don't as we don't understand our environment fully enough, we are discovering new lifeforms almost as fast as we are causing extinctions and as mentioned above humans are symbiotic beings living in a complex environment which is largely unknown to us and upon which we depend.

In terms of diet humans are omnivores but not carnivores, our intestines are too long for continual carcass consumption; carnivorous mammals of the same weight have short intestines so that meat can be excreted before the toxins, such as uric acid can cause harm. Though we can eat meat, we do have small canines to help us do it, we are not adapted to make it a daily habit. In the temperate zones meat used to be a way to get through winter, in the tropics it was eaten after a big kill. Daily meat eating is fairly new and dependent on industrial scale animal rearing and the ability to cook various parasites, like worms and harmful bacteria, to death first. The point I'm using meat to demonstrate is that human diets have been changing for a long time. They will have to continue to change as our population grows we simply don't have the land area to grow animal feed crops instead of human food crops. In the book "Diet for a small planet" I read that the protein return ratio with the least efficient livestock ( some breeds of cattle ) was as bad as 20 to 1, in other words one needed to feed the equivalent of 20 human meals of grains/pulses to the animal in order to get 1 human meal of meat back. To be fair that was the worst case, some fish can actually yield over 80% of the proteins fed to them back as edible flesh. I've read elsewhere that genetic modification has improved this ratio in farmed salmon. Perhaps we could someday come up with an unusually sedate bovine so we don't have to dose them with steroids and sedatives to accelerate weight gain. we already have the six week chicken; egg to adult in six weeks, and if you don't mind the extra weight being water with a little bit of pig there's a commonly used method to plump them up a bit before sale.
As to flora we can protect tomatos from frost damage with the addition of some cold water fish DNA, add sight preserving and rickets preventing vitamin’s to rice, make legumes behave like nuts so we can spray fields with defoliants to kill weeds whilst the legume is as resistant to the spray as a tree would be. GMO's may simply be another change but it is a very fast one. It could have many other benefits too, we already use adapted microbes to refine gold and clear up some forms of pollution, some day perhaps we could use genetically modified organisms to get the plastic out of the sea without killing the plankton for example.
In short I don't think blanket opinions about GMO's are appropriate, it's a tool in it's very early stage of development, and I don't have enough information to make specific judgements within the field. The main dangers seem to be that the technology is being implemented for commercial reasons before anyone fully understands it and that one group of humans will deliberately use it against another group of humans in one of the hierarchical conflicts the hominid species typically engages in. If an infectious pathogen which kills either humans directly or something they depend on does get into the wild by accident or design and it's terminator gene doesn't work on 100% of the organisms that will be the end of the last of the hominids.

[forrestcupp]

In terms of diet humans are omnivores but not carnivores, our intestines are too long for continual carcass consumption; carnivorous mammals of the same weight have short intestines so that meat can be excreted before the toxins, such as uric acid can cause harm.That's why I eat potatoes, too. :)

[Bandit]

In terms of diet humans are omnivores but not carnivores, our intestines are too long for continual carcass consumption; carnivorous mammals of the same weight have short intestines so that meat can be excreted before the toxins, such as uric acid can cause harm. ......

Very true, one should always take in enough fiber to keep the flow going. Speaking of Uric Acid, LOL I ended up eating to much meat few weeks ago and the Uric Acid along with the fridged cold caused arthritis to flare up in my big toe as Gout.. OUCH.. I should have eat more fibrous veggies.. :(

[Mikeb85]

GMO foods are not necessarily bad, and certainly wheat isn't either.

What is bad is the over-consumption of processed foods, many of which just happen to be made with wheat. Carbohydrates such as wheat, corn and potatoes are perfect for making snack foods because of the way they can be modified to produce a multitude of shapes and textures.

There really aren't any studies or tests that conclusively prove either wheat or GMO grains are bad, since there are so many other factors involved, and creating a control group is problematic.

Many people who claim to be better off without wheat are not only eliminating wheat from their diet, but also many of the questionable processed foods they were eating, which is good, but not for the reasons they believe. Wheat also often gets replaced with simpler carbohydrates, which are more pleasurable to eat, but worse for your health (too many simple carbs will spike your sugar levels, which introduces a whole new bunch of problems).

The only real health secret is to eat lots of 'real' food - ie. you buy raw products, process them minimally, and eat them. And of course variety.

[sdowney717]

You can't eat any non GMO wheat today. Wheat is all GMO designed, so its fair to call it GMO wheat.

That author has made several points about it being different enough from 40 years ago that it affects your bio chemistry in a more negative way than the old wheat.

[Statia]

Interesting post on Slashdot today:


"Former anti-GMO activist Mark Lynas, who opposed genetically modified food in the 1990s, said recently, at the Oxford Farming Conference: 'I want to start with some apologies. For the record, here and upfront, I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment. As an environmentalist, and someone who believes that everyone in this world has a right to a healthy and nutritious diet of their choosing, I could not have chosen a more counter-productive path. I now regret it completely. So I guess you'll be wondering — what happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/03/mark_lynas_environmentalist_who_opposed_gmos_admit s_he_was_wrong.html).' To vilify GMOs is to be as anti-science as climate-change deniers, he says. To feed a growing world population (with an exploding middle class demanding more and better-quality food), we must take advantage of all the technology available to us, including GMOs. To insist on 'natural' agriculture and livestock is to doom people to starvation, and there’s no logical reason to prefer the old ways, either. Moreover, the reason why big companies dominate the industry is that anti-GMO activists and policymakers have made it too difficult for small startups to enter the field."

[Statia]

You can't eat any non GMO wheat today. Wheat is all GMO designed, so its fair to call it GMO wheat.

That author has made several points about it being different enough from 40 years ago that it affects your bio chemistry in a more negative way than the old wheat.

Yes, and the author is wrong on several points. Stop spreading this technofobic disinformation.

[Statia]

In a way, modern medicine is biased towards keeping you alive but also keeping you sick to keep fueling the medical industrial complex

Riiiiighhhttt....

[forrestcupp]

Interesting post on Slashdot today:

Wow.

[Bandit]

Riiiiighhhttt....

Serious moment here. Would you expect a drug dealer to tell you the drugs you buy are designed to keep you hooked so you keep coming back to spend more money? It's not good business to cure you. Think about it.....

[sdowney717]

Due to modern medicine tech, we live longer BUT we live sicker.

http://news.yahoo.com/sick-world-live-longer-more-pain-illness-170119642.html

The most powerful Medical interests are mostly monetary. Money is the only reason new technologies are persued. You can throw in empathy and compassion to make it feel better.

[Statia]

Serious moment here. Would you expect a drug dealer to tell you the drugs you buy are designed to keep you hooked so you keep coming back to spend more money? It's not good business to cure you. Think about it.....

Sigh...

The reason we have so many drugs that don't cure but only alleviate symptoms is not because an evil medical-industrial complex wants to keep extorting money from us.
The reason is we still know so little about the exact molecular and genetic causes of diseases. A lot of our medicine is in a certain sense hopelessly primitive. Take chemotherapy against cancer for instance. It's like using an atomic bomb to get rid of a mosquito. Instead of just targeting the tumour, we poison all the cells in the body (especially the fast dividing once) in a very crude way by alkylating the DNA. In one or two centuries time, mankind will look upon our medical practice like we look at Medieval practices like blood-letting.
Or let's look at diabetes type II. Untreated diabetes will cause an early death from cardiovascular disease and cancer rates have been shown to be increased with 50-100% in diabetics as well. Research has shown that in newly diagnosed diabetics an intensive program of exercise and diet could make them euglycemic again. However, most people are not able or willing to make those life-style changes. For those people there are drugs available, cheap and safe (metformin and sulfonylureas). Those drugs do not cure the diabetes, but regulate blood sugar and lower morbidity and mortality.

If there was a medical conspiracy too keep us hooked, then why:

- Are there antibiotics? New ones are still being developed and introduced to the market. They cure infections, so bad business.
- Are there vaccinations? They prevent disease, even worse business model.
- Why is there a lot of research into gene therapy? The first application of gene therapy just got FDA approval. They fix certain conditions, again a bad business model

Instead of believing all kinds of crackpot conspiracy theories, get some facts straight and use your common sense.

[Lars Noodén]

There are two factors, government funded research and private, for-profit big pharma. Don't conflate them.

Vaccines were known to be unprofitable for a while, though that might have turned around:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20877-vaccines-enjoy-a-healthy-return.html

Same for antibiotics. The profitability of treating symptoms rather than effecting a cure is well known.

[Gremlinzzz]

:popcorn:GMM
genetically modified mosquitoes
A British company, Oxitec, has come up with a plan to control the bugs and combat dengue fever. Its scientists have designed genetically modified mosquitoes that have one mission - to kill off the rest of their species.

These mosquitoes are created by injecting mosquito eggs in the lab with a killer gene. It produces a protein called tTA, which stops the mosquitoes' cells from turning on other genes which are essential for the bugs to survive.

The resulting GM male mosquitoes are then released into the wild to breed with non-GM females, producing offspring genetically programmed to die well before reproductive age.

The company says that as the number of GM males introduced into an environment increases, the lower the chances the non-GM males have of breeding with non-GM females, until eventually the mosquito population can be effectively eliminated.

sounds like a good idea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19091880

[Statia]

T The profitability of treating symptoms rather than effecting a cure is well known.

True. But I maintain that is mostly a side effect of our limited knowledge and ability than a global conspiracy. People that maintain otherwise probably also believe that the oil companies have plans for cars that drive a million miles on a gallon of water in their secret cellars and Philips an everlasting light bulb.
Occam's razor.

[sdowney717]

:popcorn:GMM
genetically modified mosquitoes

The company says that as the number of GM males introduced into an environment increases, the lower the chances the non-GM males have of breeding with non-GM females, until eventually the mosquito population can be effectively eliminated.

sounds like a good idea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19091880

I dont see how this can accomplish eliminating mosquitos.
Maybe reduce their numbers.
The offspring die off. So the GMO organism dies off leaving normal mosqutios to keep breeding.

[Lars Noodén]

True. But I maintain that is mostly a side effect of our limited knowledge and ability than a global conspiracy. People that maintain otherwise probably also believe that the oil companies have plans for cars that drive a million miles on a gallon of water in their secret cellars and Philips an everlasting light bulb.
Occam's razor.

On the government funded side of things, yes clearly. On the big pharma side of things, no conspiracy is needed either. It's simple economics. they do whatever pays the bigger returns.

[somrita]

A proper diet with adequate activity will keep in shape.Too much of soft drinks,chips,french fries should be avoided.Whether you eat rice or wheat,it's not important.Everything should be kept within limits

[Statia]

On the government funded side of things, yes clearly. On the big pharma side of things, no conspiracy is needed either. It's simple economics. they do whatever pays the bigger returns.

And still they are doing research in actually curing or preventing disease. Why? Because that also makes economic sense. The patents on their current non-curing, symptom-alleviating drugs will expire anyway some day. Even if they would make miracle pills that would cure a disease, they still could earn enough money on it. The world population is already huge, it is increasing, it is getting more prosperous and getting older. There will be enough market to make one-time drugs profitable. Best existing example: vaccines.

[haqking]

A proper diet with adequate activity will keep in shape.Too much of soft drinks,chips,french fries should be avoided.Whether you eat rice or wheat,it's not important.Everything should be kept within limits

Indeed. Everything in moderation, apart from excess, excess should never be done in moderation or it defeats the object and the gratification you get from self indulgence.

Talking of which it is time to go get a 10 piece bucket from KFC ;-)

[Statia]

Talking of which it is time to go get a 10 piece bucket from KFC ;-)

Family buckets from KFC are not called that way because they feed a family, but because they contain one ;-)

[sdowney717]

the reality is they just dont bother making certain drugs because they either cant make money or dont make enough.

This is a business, not a charity.

Even if your a government would you fund it? They dont fund it.



Experts fear shortage of 'unprofitable' cancer drug
Published: 18 Nov 12 14:40 CET | Print version

German cancer experts are warning of a looming shortage of one of the most widely used drugs to treat the disease – because pharmaceutical companies say it is not financially worth their while to make it any more.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20121118-46239.html#.UOmHe2KGiXc

And this from a socialized medicine economy.

I have read somewhere, there is a benefits number threshold measured in affected people below which they will not research or make drugs. It might be if under a million people would be helped they wont bother trying much, but if 10 million then they will. But here even if 100 million people will benefit they still wont do it because not enough cash is produced.

[haqking]

Family buckets from KFC are not called that way because they feed a family, but because they contain one ;-)

Who mentioned family, it is for me ! ;-)

[Gremlinzzz]

I dont see how this can accomplish eliminating mosquitos.
Maybe reduce their numbers.
The offspring die off. So the GMO organism dies off leaving normal mosqutios to keep breeding.

:popcorn:Maybe but doing something is better than doing nothing against disease carrying mosquitoes. plus the human population is growing,we need food to feed them ,so if crops can be modified not to fail.that's a good thing.

[Gremlinzzz]

:popcorn:
The World Health Organization says dengue ranks as the most important mosquito-borne viral disease in the world. In the last 50 years, incidence has increased 30-fold.It is now endemic in Puerto Rico and in many popular tourist destinations in Latin America and South East Asia.

West Nile virus was first identified in Africa in the 1930s, before spreading out from there and appearing in North America in 1999. It is now widely established from Canada to Venezuela.
Continue reading the main story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19091880

Climate change and globalisation could be major factors behind the increase in mosquito-borne diseases in the US and elsewhere.

Walter Tabachnick, director of the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory at the University of Florida, says warmer and wetter conditions can make it easier for some mosquitoes to multiply and spread disease.
we have to try something

[haqking]

:popcorn:ahhh,we have a expert.
The World Health Organization says dengue ranks as the most important mosquito-borne viral disease in the world. In the last 50 years, incidence has increased 30-fold.It is now endemic in Puerto Rico and in many popular tourist destinations in Latin America and South East Asia.

West Nile virus was first identified in Africa in the 1930s, before spreading out from there and appearing in North America in 1999. It is now widely established from Canada to Venezuela.
Continue reading the main story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19091880

Climate change and globalisation could be major factors behind the increase in mosquito-borne diseases in the US and elsewhere.

Walter Tabachnick, director of the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory at the University of Florida, says warmer and wetter conditions can make it easier for some mosquitoes to multiply and spread disease.
so i will ask the expert,what shall we do nothing?

I have asked for my post to be removed.

I usually avoid these types of discussion, I should of known better.

Peace

[Statia]

the reality is they just dont bother making certain drugs because they either cant make money or dont make enough.

This is a business, not a charity.
.

So? What is your point?
If businesses operate at a profit they go bankrupt and no news drugs will be produced at all.
How evil, to make sure you don't go bankrupt.
Also, ever heard of orphan drug tax incentives?

Oh, and besides that:
http://www.fingal-independent.ie/local-notes/msd-mark-minitriumph-in-river-blindness-battle-3275371.html

MSD is not making money on that.

[AM Ramakrishnan]

firstly, I would like to ask: what does GMO wheat has to do with Ubuntu? Secondly, I would say GMO wheat was made so that while it probably has some unknown and damaging side effect, for a lot of people it is better than starving. If there is a famine in a country the government probably thinks giving a 40-year old man who would, if well fed, live to a hundred, some slightly poisoned food so that, while he would die at sixty, he would live for 20 years instead of starving to death at forty. However, that is no excuse in the US when the majority of people can afford to buy more expensive non-GMO products.

[haqking]

firstly, I would like to ask: what does GMO wheat has to do with Ubuntu? .

nothing to do with Ubuntu.

This is the Community Cafe Sub-Forum


The Community Cafe The Community Chat area is for lighthearted and enjoyable discussions, like you might find around a water cooler at work.

Almost any non-tech-support topic may be discussed here. Discussions on religion and politics are not allowed. These two topics have caused serious problems in the past and are now forbidden topics in the forums. Please find another venue to exercise your freedom of speech on these topics. Any topic or discussion that causes problems or drama will be closed. This area is intended for fun and community building, not arguments. Please take those elsewhere. Thanks!

[sdowney717]

firstly, I would like to ask: what does GMO wheat has to do with Ubuntu? Secondly, I would say GMO wheat was made so that while it probably has some unknown and damaging side effect, for a lot of people it is better than starving. If there is a famine in a country the government probably thinks giving a 40-year old man who would, if well fed, live to a hundred, some slightly poisoned food so that, while he would die at sixty, he would live for 20 years instead of starving to death at forty. However, that is no excuse in the US when the majority of people can afford to buy more expensive non-GMO products.

yes, recent news articles coming out saying we live longer, but we also live sicker.

I have heard that increased affluence in India is fueling a diabetes epidemic. they eat more western diet and get sick.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/25/diabetes-epidemic-western-fast-food

Diabetes epidemic affecting 350m – and western fast food is to blame
• Lancet study shows diabetes now a major health problem
• Number of people with disease has doubled since 1980

What they dont want to admit is it is the new GMO grains, you cant eat non gmo grains. I suppose some is better than others. I have heard bad things about gmo wheat, and not much about corn.

Grain fed beef, poultry and now fat people eating too much grains.

[Paqman]

yes, recent news articles coming out saying we live longer, but we also live sicker.


Forget the news, they rarely report accurately on science. Have you got an actual evidence-based source to back this claim up?

Because it seems like a bit of a contradiction in terms to me. If there was a group of illnesses that were causing widespread chronic illness that wasn't fatal they would still show up as a decrease in general life expectancy in a large population. Chronic low-leve illness will reduce your lifespan, as it will leave you at higher risk of other more immediately fatal things.

I know a lot of people like to cling to the idea that everything in the world is getting worse all the time, but health is one of the things that has been getting demonstrably better for some time now. I think people forget how badly off our ancestors were even as recently as the early 20th century. We've come a long way.

[t0p]

Years ago, when there was debate in Britain whether to allow GM crops to be grown, there was a lot of talk about whether GM food would be bad. Some people said it'd be ok, others said how would we know? in a few years time we might discover it's done something bad and it'd be too late. Remember, this wasn't too long after the BSE (mad cow disease) problem in Britain, so people were very edgy about food issues. I mean, cows (herbivores) had been fed meat-derived feeds (including cow brain), so people would be worried.

At the time, it was decided to allow controlled test plantings but not major scale sowing. I don't know if that's changed now. But anyway, a big issue was about unethical practices by Monsanto etc in developing countries. Farmers there had been given GM seed, which produced big hardy crops (built-in pesticides etc). But the farmers were not able to put seed aside to sow the next year because they had been modified to be sterile: ie the first generation of seeds was ok but future seeds would not grow. So the farmers were put in a position where they had to buy more seeds. Many farmers had put all their resources into the GM grain, so they were now in a bad position. Farmers felt that they had been cheated by the GM producers. It was believed these practices caused some suffering.

So, there are a lot of anti-GM campaigners who know the GM crops are "bad" but perhaps don't know where the "badness" lies. So maybe they wrongly believe GM foods are bad for consumers.

I know this doesn't address the topic of whether eating GM wheat is unhealthy. I just thought I'd throw this aspect into the mix, see what folk think?

[AM Ramakrishnan]

I have heard that increased affluence in India is fueling a diabetes epidemic. they eat more western diet and get sick.

I agree entirely with that part of your post. The western diet of today is quite inferior to most native diets around the world. That said, only the more affluent can eat a western diet. Vegetarianism is really what kept the majority of Indians in good health.

[AM Ramakrishnan]

nothing to do with Ubuntu.

This is the Community Cafe Sub-Forum
I understand now. Thanks!

[Bandit]

Let me be honest here. A person can only blame the food he or she eats for so much. But you want to know what is to blame in the world fattest country.. (see below)

http://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/08/06/10/47/2008_cadillac_escalade_esv-pic-42553.jpeg


THATS RIGHT!! Cars in general are to blame. The US is the most dependent country on the planet. There are few cities were public transportation is sufficient enough to make owning a car or truck an option here. More so here in Mississippi were I currently live. The city I live in or closest to does not even have cross walks to cross a road. You must own a car or get ticketed for jay walking.

When the FDA came up with that half cooked food pyramid they did do a lot of research on trying to balance food diet for everyone. Yes they tried, but what they failed to understand in many countries don't own a car, drive to Cosco or Walmart, make 15 laps around the parking lot with the a/c on waiting for a parking spot just few feet from the door. Most countries that eat lots of carbs like Rice use this method of transportation.. (see below)

http://www.abroadlanguages.com/learn/japanese/img/tokyo_by_xjustliketherainbowX.jpg
That rights, those people tend to walk more. They don't have or don't use automobiles that often. Go over seas to most asian countries. Cars are a luxury not an necessity. The difference is instead of driving to go get your groceries on average once a week. They walk 1 or 2 times a day to the market and travel anywhere from 1 to 5 miles a day on foot. That why they can eat a plate full of rice and weigh far less..

So I blame lack of public trans for the biggest impact on the US for people being fat. We have essentially raised our children to be naturally lazy. Thus we be getting fatter..

[Paqman]

The city I live in or closest to does not even have cross walks to cross a road. You must own a car or get ticketed for jay walking.

That's mental on a whole bunch of levels. How can it be illegal to cross a road?



So I blame lack of public trans for the biggest impact on the US for people being fat.

It's also a major contributor to this alarming statistic:

[Grenage]

Admittedly you can get some decent exercise just by walking, but anything more than a short distance takes a fair amount of time. In the eyes of many it breaks down to saving time, rather than effort.

Walking just one hour a day, rather than driving 5-10 minutes, consumes 22 waking days per year.

[Paqman]

Admittedly you can get some decent exercise just by walking, but anything more than a short distance takes a fair amount of time. In the eyes of many it breaks down to saving time, rather than effort.

Walking just one hour a day, rather than driving 5-10 minutes, consumes 22 waking days per year.

Driving in a congested city isn't exactly quick either. Try adding up the number of days a year you can spend stuck in traffic if you feel like making yourself cry.

I lived in London for a few years. The public transport there is good enough that for a lot of people owning and using a car is more pain than it's worth. I really enjoyed not owning a car for those years.

[Grenage]

I lived in London for a few years. The public transport there is good enough that for a lot of people owning and using a car is more pain than it's worth. I really enjoyed not owning a car for those years.

That's a fact! I used to spend a lot of time in London, and I only ever drove there once, on Christmas day. Driving there is usually more effort than the alternative.

It's a little different down here in Portsmouth; a bike is handy, though.

[Bandit]

That's mental on a whole bunch of levels. How can it be illegal to cross a road?

Because not only is it illegal, its not safe to cross at any hour of the day. Most of the roads are all 4 lanes (2 one direction, 2 the other) and are heavily congested and driving very fast. Cars are such a dependency here that we actually buy our children one by 16 so that they can get around without having to use parents vehicle. Now there are a few cross walks, but those are very few and normally only consist in college campuses or around court houses. Which is why all those hot girls I grew up with in high school got big ole jiggly rolls now.

[Statia]

Forget the news, they rarely report accurately on science. Have you got an actual evidence-based source to back this claim up?


I know a lot of people like to cling to the idea that everything in the world is getting worse all the time, but health is one of the things that has been getting demonstrably better for some time now. I think people forget how badly off our ancestors were even as recently as the early 20th century. We've come a long way.

You are quite right to point out that "the news" is hardly an accurate source for science and health news.
On the one hand we are seeing (more) disease that we did not have thousands of years ago, but that is mostly because of increased life expectancy. In the Stone Age, at forty you were old. You would die of starvation, infection or trauma before you grew old enough to get cancer. Not enough food to get diabetes. Hypertension is partially a natural compensation mechanism: as you get older, arteries lose elasticity and pressure is increased to maintain adequate perfusion.

Even in the last few decades, great progress has been made, mainly in preventive medicine. Forty or fifty years ago, someone aged 70 or 80 was really old, I mean old and frail. Now there are so many healthy and fit people that age. For a large part that can be attributed to our ability to manage (not cure!) a couple of "killer" conditions: diabetes type II, hypertension, angina pectoris and to some extent congestive heart failure.

[monkeybrain2012]

Admittedly you can get some decent exercise just by walking, but anything more than a short distance takes a fair amount of time. In the eyes of many it breaks down to saving time, rather than effort.

Walking just one hour a day, rather than driving 5-10 minutes, consumes 22 waking days per year.

Biking.. roller blading...

BTW I lived in Barcelona for a few months people there seem to be quite fit. One reason I think is that elevators are not common in apartments (maybe 5-6 storey or taller) so most people are used to walking up and down a few times a day with grocery and what not unless you live on the ground floor. :)

[monkeybrain2012]

Because not only is it illegal, its not safe to cross at any hour of the day. Most of the roads are all 4 lanes (2 one direction, 2 the other) and are heavily congested and driving very fast. Cars are such a dependency here that we actually buy our children one by 16 so that they can get around without having to use parents vehicle. Now there are a few cross walks, but those are very few and normally only consist in college campuses or around court houses. Which is why all those hot girls I grew up with in high school got big ole jiggly rolls now.

They could build a tunnel or a bridge across the road, very common in high density cities in Asia.

[AM Ramakrishnan]

How is that done ???
We don't know. That is why people are worried. If scientists or government officials knew what was wrong they could start regulating companies like Monsanto. No one knows everything about the genome of any organism that we eat. We might just changed one gene, but we don't know the repercussions of that act.

[Bandit]

They could build a tunnel or a bridge across the road, very common in high density cities in Asia.

We do good to get the pot holes filled around here.. Were the poorest state in the union.

[Statia]

No one knows everything about the genome of any organism that we eat.

And that is true for 99% of what you eat, regardless if it is GMO or not.

[leclerc65]

Thru instinct, innate intelligence... whatever you call it (Buddhism calls that buddhi), it takes thousands of year for animals, man included, to adapt to the suitable food of each species - which the GMO scientists want to do in a few decades.
The hawthorn fruits look so beautiful and tempting, but do you see any birds touching them ?

[DeusExM1]

Interesting to know if this guy is right or not. A lot of people are discrediting him just because it goes against what they wish to believe.

This man is a physician. That means he went to 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, did 3 years of general residency (prolly working 70-80 hrs per week), and then did 3 years of cardio residency. He knows the human body inside and out, dissected real cadavers etc... This isnt joe schmo trying to get popularity and some fast money. Also please look up cardiologist salary (hint its north of 300,000 per year). I doubt this man is just trying to money grab.

I wouldn't dismiss him so quickly. Although i do agree that results should be verified.

I am originally from europe and one thing that i noticed is that when you eat food in europe you stay hunger free for a very long time. In america, after you eat, you are perpetually hungry. As a result, people here are insane about food, always talk about food, and always think about food. In europe its not like that.

I recently went back for a vacation and noticed the exact same effect. Eating a normal meal kept me hunger free for more than half the day. Coming back to USA, and I was constantly snacking and eating things because I was always hungry.

My family has long suspected that they put some kind of a poison into food here to make everyone hungry. I have been thinking about this for years. It is possible that its simply part of our diets due to being incorporated into GMOs.

I have no bias or agenda against GMOs or anything of that kind. But there is a sharp increase of diabetes and other conditions in the united states. Sure, some of it can be attributed to bad habbits and lazy lifestyle...

But that hunger. Hunger that wont go away... i experience it here every day and it is definitely not normal.

If you ever have a chance to go to a less developed country (try eastern europe)... eat their food for a few weeks. You will see what i mean.

[KiwiNZ]

Interesting to know if this guy is right or not. A lot of people are discrediting him just because it goes against what they wish to believe.

This man is a physician. That means he went to 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, did 3 years of general residency (prolly working 70-80 hrs per week), and then did 3 years of cardio residency. He knows the human body inside and out, dissected real cadavers etc... This isnt joe schmo trying to get popularity and some fast money. Also please look up cardiologist salary (hint its north of 300,000 per year). I doubt this man is just trying to money grab.

I wouldn't dismiss him so quickly. Although i do agree that results should be verified.

I am originally from europe and one thing that i noticed is that when you eat food in europe you stay hunger free for a very long time. In america, after you eat, you are perpetually hungry. As a result, people here are insane about food, always talk about food, and always think about food. In europe its not like that.

I recently went back for a vacation and noticed the exact same effect. Eating a normal meal kept me hunger free for more than half the day. Coming back to USA, and I was constantly snacking and eating things because I was always hungry.

My family has long suspected that they put some kind of a poison into food here to make everyone hungry. I have been thinking about this for years. It is possible that its simply part of our diets due to being incorporated into GMOs.

I have no bias or agenda against GMOs or anything of that kind. But there is a sharp increase of diabetes and other conditions in the united states. Sure, some of it can be attributed to bad habbits and lazy lifestyle...

But that hunger. Hunger that wont go away... i experience it here every day and it is definitely not normal.

If you ever have a chance to go to a less developed country (try eastern europe)... eat their food for a few weeks. You will see what i mean.

"Poison in the food to keep you Hungary" , ummmm no.

[Paqman]

This man is a physician.

<snip>

I wouldn't dismiss him so quickly.


The argument from authority isn't a good basis for determining the validity of science. Having letters after your name and a white coat doesn't make you inherently trustworthy, ethical, or an authority on everything.


Although i do agree that results should be verified.

That's more like it!

What this guy should do is publish his actual studies in a good scientific journal, where his methods and findings can be discussed, and others can try to replicate them.

Until then, what he's saying counts for nothing. It doesn't matter how many letters you have after your name, or how long you spent in school. What matters is that you're applying proper scientific rigour, and allowing your highly knowledgable peers to critique your work.

One should be very, very sceptical of anybody peddling "scientific" breakthroughs through the mass media and book deals. That's not how real science is done. Do yourself a favour and set your BS filters up to maximum when you encounter anybody who works this way.

[DeusExM1]

"Poison in the food to keep you Hungary" , ummmm no.

have you ever eaten normal home made food in other countries other than the united states? For that matter have you eaten food made IN the united states? Do you have a basis for comparison?

[KiwiNZ]

have you ever eaten normal home made food in other countries other than the united states? For that matter have you eaten food made IN the united states? Do you have a basis for comparison?

Yes, I travel extensively and often the only difference is menu and in the case of the US the level of wastage.My food requirements do not change.

[DeusExM1]

Yes, I travel extensively and often the only difference is menu and in the case of the US the level of wastage.My food requirements do not change.

How long do you travel for? Which countries specifically do you visit? What kind of food are you eating (homemade vs restaurants vs junk food/ frozen food). Are you paying attention to how much you actually eat?

Have you visited less developed countries? Because if you are traveling among industrialized nations that are likely to be using the same food source/type then obviously you wouldnt see any difference.

I am interested in hearing an answer to these questions... Because among my family 20 people moved from eastern europe to the united states.. and we ALL noticed a big difference in food consumption (and ultimately our weights). With no change in eating habbits mind you (always home made food).

[KiwiNZ]

How long do you travel for? Which countries specifically do you visit? What kind of food are you eating (homemade vs restaurants vs junk food/ frozen food). Are you paying attention to how much you actually eat?

Have you visited less developed countries? Because if you are traveling among industrialized nations that are likely to be using the same food source/type then obviously you wouldnt see any difference.

I am interested in hearing an answer to these questions... Because among my family 20 people moved from eastern europe to the united states.. and we ALL noticed a big difference in food consumption (and ultimately our weights). With no change in eating habbits mind you (always home made food).

USA
Indonesia
Bosnia
East Temor
Sinai
UK
Australia
China
Fiji
Samoa
Italy
Germany
France
etc etc etc

Longest time 8 months

If you have travelled from a colder climate to a warmer climate and have not adjusted your food intake to take into account the less energy required for body heat generation you will put on weight .

[leclerc65]

Are you paying attention to how much you actually eat?

When I travel I always eat less because of stomach problems. It takes a while for my body to adapt. When or if it does, the trip is almost over.
I believe your observation is correct, but I would blame it on more refined carbohydrates used in well developed countries. GMO effect ? I don't know, but it's very possibe.
People who are used to tasteless products (white sandwich bread for example) tend to eat more.

[Paqman]

In my experience the main difference between food in the US and elsewhere is just portion size.

Protip: if the restaurant gives you an insane amount of food, you don't have to clear your plate. They won't be offended.

[DeusExM1]

USA
Indonesia
Bosnia
East Temor
Sinai
UK
Australia
China
Fiji
Samoa
Italy
Germany
France
etc etc etc

Longest time 8 months

If you have travelled from a colder climate to a warmer climate and have not adjusted your food intake to take into account the less energy required for body heat generation you will put on weight .

I doubt its the climate change which is the issue. Thermogenesis uses as much energy as it needs automatically
(brown fat in the neck region). Plus, every time I travel to europe for vacation I go in the summer time when it is nice and warm. And I have noticed the same effect every time.

However, every person is very different and reacts differently to different stimuli. Drugs, food, and other environmental factors may affect people in different ways. Even our physiology is much different than you would expect (people are missing muscles, arteries which should be there dont exist, but extra ones which should not be there actually do exist), etc...

I would not be surprised if whatever is in the food is affecting people in different ways. You may be lucky to be not affected, or maybe you just have a very fast metabolism. Doesnt hold true for the rest of the population however, as indicated by the rates of obesity and diabetes.

There are other factors which contribute a lot to the issue (sedentary life style, increased portions, general choice of junk food, mating too old - makes it harder for women to lose fat gained during pregnancy). However, i firmly believe that there is something in the food which causes an increase in the appetite during the day. The effects this doc describes are exactly what I (and my family members) have felt over the years. A need to eat which returns quite often. And im not alone here. Growing up in the US educational system I have observed my classmates talk about food very often, and eat consistently even during classes. Essentially they snack during class and eat during lunch. In European schools this doesnt happen because the food is filling.

I chose my wording poorly in my previous post. I dont believe its a poison and I dont believe its use is intentional. Im not for conspiracy theories here. I do believe that there is some causative agent within the diet, due to unforeseen and unintended consequences of the modernized way of food production.

Also i am not saying what this man is saying is 100% true. Just that we shouldnt dismiss it so easily. There is an alternative explanation which i would be more inclined to agree with... and that is that the food produced in the US is very high in empty calories. The nutritional value is low because of how the food is prepared and processed. The human body gets hungry because it feels the need for nutrients, not so much calories. If you eat food which is high in calories but low in nutrients, you will always be hungry and put on a lot of weight. Thats my take on what is happening in industrialized nations.

[KiwiNZ]

I doubt its the climate change which is the issue. Thermogenesis uses as much energy as it needs automatically
(brown fat in the neck region). Plus, every time I travel to europe for vacation I go in the summer time when it is nice and warm. And I have noticed the same effect every time.

However, every person is very different and reacts differently to different stimuli. Drugs, food, and other environmental factors may affect people in different ways. Even our physiology is much different than you would expect (people are missing muscles, arteries which should be there dont exist, but extra ones which should not be there actually do exist), etc...

I would not be surprised if whatever is in the food is affecting people in different ways. You may be lucky to be not affected, or maybe you just have a very fast metabolism. Doesnt hold true for the rest of the population however, as indicated by the rates of obesity and diabetes.

There are other factors which contribute a lot to the issue (sedentary life style, increased portions, general choice of junk food, mating too old - makes it harder for women to lose fat gained during pregnancy). However, i firmly believe that there is something in the food which causes an increase in the appetite during the day. The effects this doc describes are exactly what I (and my family members) have felt over the years. A need to eat which returns quite often. And im not alone here. Growing up in the US educational system I have observed my classmates talk about food very often, and eat consistently even during classes. Essentially they snack during class and eat during lunch. In European schools this doesnt happen because the food is filling.

I chose my wording poorly in my previous post. I dont believe its a poison and I dont believe its use is intentional. Im not for conspiracy theories here. I do believe that there is some causative agent within the diet, due to unforeseen and unintended consequences of the modernized way of food production.

Also i am not saying what this man is saying is 100% true. Just that we shouldnt dismiss it so easily. There is an alternative explanation which i would be more inclined to agree with... and that is that the food produced in the US is very high in empty calories. The nutritional value is low because of how the food is prepared and processed. The human body gets hungry because it feels the need for nutrients, not so much calories. If you eat food which is high in calories but low in nutrients, you will always be hungry and put on a lot of weight. Thats my take on what is happening in industrialized nations.

I manage my food intake to account ambient temperature, level of physical activity, advancing age etc etc .

[forrestcupp]

have you ever eaten normal home made food in other countries other than the united states? For that matter have you eaten food made IN the united states? Do you have a basis for comparison?You know he lives in New Zealand, don't you?



I am interested in hearing an answer to these questions... Because among my family 20 people moved from eastern europe to the united states.. and we ALL noticed a big difference in food consumption (and ultimately our weights). With no change in eating habbits mind you (always home made food).So you're saying that since you moved to the US, you feel like you need to eat more food, yet you're cooking the exact same things you did in Europe, and not eating any junk food?

There are a lot of things that could contribute to that other than secret chemicals in the food. Are you more physically active now than you were in Europe? Are you more or less depressed than you were there? Is there more sunlight where you live now than where you are from? Do you feel healthier and less sickly than you were in Europe? Is there any chance you may have picked up a parasite somewhere?

There are tons of things it could be. When you hear about symptoms for things, it's pretty easy to assume that's what the problem is.

[DeusExM1]

You know he lives in New Zealand, don't you?

So you're saying that since you moved to the US, you feel like you need to eat more food, yet you're cooking the exact same things you did in Europe, and not eating any junk food?

There are a lot of things that could contribute to that other than secret chemicals in the food. Are you more physically active now than you were in Europe? Are you more or less depressed than you were there? Is there more sunlight where you live now than where you are from? Do you feel healthier and less sickly than you were in Europe? Is there any chance you may have picked up a parasite somewhere?

There are tons of things it could be. When you hear about symptoms for things, it's pretty easy to assume that's what the problem is.

1. Yes.
2. No. Its the food. Like i said my personal opinion is not that its GMO but rather that the nutritional content of food prepared in industrious nations is rather poor... Which leads to increased hunger and higher caloric intake.

[KiwiNZ]

1. Yes.
2. No. Its the food. Like i said my personal opinion is not that its GMO but rather that the nutritional content of food prepared in industrious nations is rather poor... Which leads to increased hunger and higher caloric intake.

New Zealand is not a third world country in fact we are quite advanced we have automobiles and flush toilets.

What you are talking about does not occur here or anywhere I have been.

[DeusExM1]

New Zealand is not a third world country in fact we are quite advanced we have automobiles and flush toilets.

What you are talking about does not occur here or anywhere I have been.

I do not understand your first statement. Where did I imply New Zealand is a third world country? you are clearly misunderstanding what I intended to say.

"What you are talking about does not occur here or anywhere I have been."

And we can agree to disagree on the second point. You cant state that with any degree of authority or certainty just because you haven't experienced the effects personally.

[KiwiNZ]

I do not understand your first statement. Where did I imply New Zealand is a third world country? you are clearly misunderstanding what I intended to say.

"What you are talking about does not occur here or anywhere I have been."

And we can agree to disagree on the second point. You cant state that with any degree of authority or certainty just because you haven't experienced the effects personally.

You are making huge assumptions based on personal experience.My statements have been due to personal and professional experience.

You stated "food prepared in industrious nations is rather poor" New Zealand is an "industrial" nation our food quality is very high

[Bandit]

New Zealand is not a third world country in fact we are quite advanced we have automobiles and flush toilets.

LMAO :)



1. Yes.
2. No. Its the food. Like i said my personal opinion is not that its GMO but rather that the nutritional content of food prepared in industrious nations is rather poor... Which leads to increased hunger and higher caloric intake.

This statement could hold some merit so I can not discount what your saying.

Now IMHO from myself traveling all over the world, and I have. I spent almost 7 years in the Navy. Small time, many places quickly.. That said, I still have friends that were born and lived here in the US and then moved over seas. 9 out of 10 lost weight while still eating normally and still drinking. On the same token, my wife is Filipino and we have many friends that have moved from the Philippines to here in the US. 9 out of 10 of them get fat.. Even my wife says its the food here.

We both believe this so much, its one of the major contributing factors that helped us decide on moving to the Philippines to live there.

Now it may not be all about the food. Yea the food we will be getting is no doubt fresher and most caught or locally grown. But the culture also contributes to loosing weight. Walking more like stated in one of my previous post is one of them. Here in the US we having to many so called comforts per se that just aid to our laziness.

[Lars Noodén]

GMO is too general a description for a very wide range of possible changes. If the changes are benign, then the results will be ok. If the changes introduce toxins, then the result will be, of course, toxic.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512008149

I guess it all depends on who is deciding what changes to the genome are to be made, which in turn depends on what their motivations are.

[forrestcupp]

1. Yes.
2. No. Its the food. Like i said my personal opinion is not that its GMO but rather that the nutritional content of food prepared in industrious nations is rather poor... Which leads to increased hunger and higher caloric intake.I still think it's things other than the food. And if it is differences in the food, it's not because they intentionally put some chemical in there to keep you hungry. In fact, I've heard more conspiracy theories about buffet-style restaurants putting chemicals in their food to make you fill up faster so you don't eat as much of their food.



Now it may not be all about the food. Yea the food we will be getting is no doubt fresher and most caught or locally grown. But the culture also contributes to loosing weight. Walking more like stated in one of my previous post is one of them. Here in the US we having to many so called comforts per se that just aid to our laziness.Exactly. It's the cultural and environmental differences, which is what I was pointing out earlier. As much as I love my country, we're a bunch of lazy apples here. We'll drive to the post office two blocks away, and then drive back to the fitness center a block from our houses to walk on a treadmill in some dark room with a TV in front of us.

[HermanAB]

Cutting back on wheat in general will make you healthier. Less carbs is better, period. It doesnt matter whether it is GM or not. Wheat is mostly carbs with a tiny little bit of protein. That is however a lot better than rice which is practically 100 percent carbs.

[sdowney717]

Cutting back on wheat in general will make you healthier. Less carbs is better, period. It doesnt matter whether it is GM or not. Wheat is mostly carbs with a tiny little bit of protein. That is however a lot better than rice which is practically 100 percent carbs.

yes very true just cut back AS I suggested in the title.
You can not eat a NON GMO wheat today, it is all GMO wheat that you eat.

Can you imagine if the author's allegations were proven true what it would do to the agri industrial complex? This would be like saying cell phones cause brain cancer. Things like this are things no one wants to open the door and publicly admit any veracity. So go by common sense. Cut back on what they say are 'HEALTHY GRAINS' and then get healthier. Eat like the caveman diet, more meat, more fat, more butter, more eggs, less grains, less sugar, less processed food.

Grain fed beef and poultry, well they do that to fatten them up for slaughter.

[KiwiNZ]

yes very true just cut back AS I suggested in the title.
You can not eat a NON GMO wheat today, it is all GMO wheat that you eat.

Can you imagine if the author's allegations were proven true what it would do to the agri industrial complex? This would be like saying cell phones cause brain cancer. Things like this are things no one wants to open the door and publicly admit any veracity. So go by common sense. Cut back on what they say are 'HEALTHY GRAINS' and then get healthier. Eat like the caveman diet, more meat, more fat, more butter, more eggs, less grains, less sugar, less processed food.

Grain fed beef and poultry, well they do that to fatten them up for slaughter.

Eat like a caveman and die at 20

[Bandit]

Exactly. It's the cultural and environmental differences, which is what I was pointing out earlier. As much as I love my country, we're a bunch of lazy apples here. We'll drive to the post office two blocks away, and then drive back to the fitness center a block from our houses to walk on a treadmill in some dark room with a TV in front of us.

Sooo true.. :lolflag:

[sdowney717]

HaHa, the idea is gaining traction!

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/gluten-free-whether-you-need-it-or-not/


Eat no wheat.

That is the core, draconian commandment of a gluten-free diet, a prohibition that excises wide swaths of American cuisine — cupcakes, pizza, bread and macaroni and cheese, to name a few things.

For the approximately one-in-a-hundred Americans who have a serious condition called celiac disease, that is an indisputably wise medical directive.


One woman’s story of going gluten-free.

Now medical experts largely agree that there is a condition related to gluten other than celiac. In 2011 a panel of celiac experts convened in Oslo and settled on a medical term for this malady: non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

and


Dr. O’Bryan has given himself a diagnosis of gluten sensitivity. “I had these blood sugar abnormalities and didn’t have a handle where they were coming from,” he said. He said a blood test showed gliadin antibodies, and he started avoiding gluten. “It took me a number of years to get completely gluten-free,” he said. “I’d still have a piece of pie once in a while. And I’d notice afterwards that I didn’t feel as good the next day or for two days. Subtle, nothing major, but I’d notice that.”

I have cut significantly back on of wheat and have noticed this also. Perhaps due to chronic low level inflammation of eating wheat, you get used to the blah feeling.

[houseworkshy]

When talking of eating wheat it is also worth mentioning how it has been processed. Is it whole grain, white, brown or malted? That is also a factor as the presence of husk, soluble fiber, and wheat germ, a highly nutritious food, could easily be as important as whether the crop was gmo or not when determining it's food value.