<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Astrogirl &#187; Sugar</title>
	<atom:link href="http://astrogirl.com/tag/sugar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://astrogirl.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:09:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Twinkie Diet</title>
		<link>http://astrogirl.com/2010/11/10/the-twinkie-diet/</link>
		<comments>http://astrogirl.com/2010/11/10/the-twinkie-diet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 23:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Diets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web log]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Calorie Restriction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Calories In = Calories Out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eat Less Exercise More]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ELEM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sugar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unconventional Diets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astrogirl.com/2010/11/10/the-twinkie-diet/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>On Monday, Tino shared an article with me about what will henceforth be known as the Twinkie Diet.  It was interesting, but I didn&#8217;t feel it was actually news.  I figured that the Calories-In=Calories-Out obsessed crowd would be all over it, and that Anthony Colpo would likely lead the charge.  He did [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Monday, Tino shared <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2" target="_blank">an article</a> with me about what will henceforth be known as the Twinkie Diet.  It was interesting, but I didn&#8217;t feel it was actually news.  I figured that the Calories-In=Calories-Out obsessed crowd would be all over it, and that Anthony Colpo would likely lead the charge.  He did <a href="http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=770" target="_blank">write something about it</a>, of course.</p>
<p>Today, I was happy to see that Stephen Guyenet (who&#8217;s one heck of a lot more interesting than Colpo) had felt that <b>he</b> had to <a href="http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/11/twinkie-diet-for-fat-loss.html" target="_blank">blog about it</a> due to the volume of email he&#8217;d gotten on the subject.</p>
<blockquote><p>The body can only maintain body composition in the face of a calorie deficit up to a certain point. After that, it has no choice but to lower fat mass. It will do so reluctantly, at the same time increasing hunger, and reducing lean mass***, muscular strength and energy dedicated to tissue repair and immune function. However, I hope everyone can agree that a sufficient calorie deficit can lead to fat loss regardless of what kind of food is eaten. Mr. Haub&#8217;s 800 calorie deficit qualifies.
</p></blockquote>
<p>So, definitely not a newsflash.  Guy eats a lot less for two months, guy loses weight.  This, however is more interesting:</p>
<blockquote><p>My hypothesis is that, in many people, industrial food and an unnatural lifestyle lead to gradual fat gain by dysregulating the energy homeostasis system. This &#8220;breaks&#8221; the system that&#8217;s designed to keep our fat mass in the optimal range. This system is not under our conscious control, and it has nothing to do with willpower. </p></blockquote>
<p>The fat among us are being told over and over that they are committing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins" target="_blank">two of the seven deadly sins</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Gluttony" target="_blank">gluttony</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Sloth" target="_blank">sloth</a>, and that that&#8217;s why they are fat.  </p>
<p>My theory is that eating nutritionally empty foods causes people to overeat.  Their bodies are still looking for <i>nutrition</i>, and if they are trying to get it out of Lucky Charms, they are going to eat a lot more calories in the process.  Eating a cereal bar and a glass of skim milk for breakfast is going to make you hungry again in short order.  Is that because it&#8217;s sugary?  If you don&#8217;t have reactive hypoglycemia, then I don&#8217;t think so.  It&#8217;s because it&#8217;s industrially processed fake food.  You can&#8217;t fool mother nature &#8211; your body knows that you need something more nutritious, so it&#8217;s going to drive you to eat more.  Can you get away with eating nothing but crap for a couple of months and lose weight?  Of course you can, but <i>what happens then</i>?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we&#8217;re never going to see a follow-up to this, I&#8217;m quite sure.  Will the professor gain weight back?  Will he continue to diet, but see his blood markers go the other way?  Has he ever dieted before, if no, then damn near anything would work anyway.  I will also note that I cannot find his blood glucose numbers on his <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Prof-Haubs-Diet-Experiments/152304481454281" target="_blank">Facebook page</a> or in the article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astrogirl.com/2010/11/10/the-twinkie-diet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stupid or Insane?  Does it Matter?</title>
		<link>http://astrogirl.com/2010/09/28/stupid-or-insane-does-it-matter/</link>
		<comments>http://astrogirl.com/2010/09/28/stupid-or-insane-does-it-matter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:15:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agave nectar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health nannies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idiocy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nutrition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obesity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processed food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sugar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astrogirl.com/2010/09/28/stupid-or-insane-does-it-matter/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I cannot believe I&#8217;m about to link to the Huffington Post, but this article really gets to the meat of the so-called obesity epidemic.</p>
<p>In 1977 America changed its health advice. In a nutshell (or, more likely, an ADA approved Mars bar): Eat more starchy foods, eat more carbohydrates, saturated fats are bad. If that sounds [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I cannot believe I&#8217;m about to link to the Huffington Post, but <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-stoneman/post_868_b_720398.html" target="_blank">this article</a> really gets to the meat of the so-called obesity epidemic.</p>
<blockquote><p>In 1977 America changed its health advice. In a nutshell (or, more likely, an ADA approved Mars bar): Eat more starchy foods, eat more carbohydrates, saturated fats are bad. If that sounds like pretty good advice to you, then you don&#8217;t know enough about what you are putting into your mouth.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Your grandparents were raised in a generation aware that God&#8217;s supermarket was better than man&#8217;s. Saturated fat was a vital part of their diet. For them, obesity was not a common health problem. They were not suffering malnutrition in the fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K). Remarkably, you, dear Western reader, probably are.</p></blockquote>
<p>The 2010 Dietary recommendations are very much simply &#8220;meet the new boss, same as the old boss.&#8221;  It is total insanity.</p>
<p>I think the biggest danger out there is the foods with a health halo &#8211; too many people, even supposedly smart Whole Foods shoppers &#8211; fall for the idea that processed foods, if it fits their particular orthorexia, are healthy.  Evaporated cane juice and agave nectar are *still* sugar.  You might as well feed your kids HFCS for all the difference it makes.  Most fat-reduced dairy products are full of additives that, let&#8217;s face it, you don&#8217;t even KNOW WHAT THEY ARE!  But if Trader Joe&#8217;s or Whole Foods is selling it, you trust them that is must be OK.  </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t even get me started on the gluten-free junk food revolution.  It&#8217;s going to be the next giant money maker for the processed food industry.</p>
<p>I think I need one of those &#8220;bang head here&#8221; signs on the wall today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astrogirl.com/2010/09/28/stupid-or-insane-does-it-matter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Yudkin&#8217;s Low-Carbohydrate Diet</title>
		<link>http://astrogirl.com/2010/06/04/john-yudkins-low-carbohydrate-diet/</link>
		<comments>http://astrogirl.com/2010/06/04/john-yudkins-low-carbohydrate-diet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 13:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web log]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gary Taubes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Good Calories Bad Calories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Yudkin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low Carbohydrate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obesity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sugar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astrogirl.com/2010/06/04/john-yudkins-low-carbohydrate-diet/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been reading chapters of Good Calories, Bad Calories again, and I was finally moved to look for Dr. Yudkin&#8217;s books on Amazon.  His books Pure White and Deadly and Sweet and Dangerous cost way too much, but I did buy a copy of Eat Well, Slim Well.  </p>
<p>Normally, I love diet books [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been reading chapters of <i>Good Calories, Bad Calories</i> again, and I was finally moved to look for Dr. Yudkin&#8217;s books on Amazon.  His <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&#038;field-keywords=john+yudkin&#038;x=0&#038;y=0" target="_blank">books</a> <I>Pure White and Deadly</i> and <i>Sweet and Dangerous</i> cost way too much, but I did buy a copy of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Well-Slim-John-Yudkin/dp/0002163969/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1275657459&#038;sr=8-2" target="_blank">Eat Well, Slim Well</a>.  </p>
<p>Normally, I love diet books that are all about the meal plans, as this one is, but the recipes and meal plans were pretty disappointing.  I think, for my taste, the original Atkins book (1972) is better.</p>
<p>Anyway, the introduction *was* interesting, and I&#8217;ve put up a <a href="http://astrogirl.com/images/Yudkin-Introduction.pdf" target="_blank">PDF of it</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>Here is a list of &#8220;unrestricted&#8221; foods: those, that is, which you don&#8217;t have to limit but which limit themselves.  They are meat, poultry, fish, eggs, butter, margarine, cream, leafy vegetables.  In addition, you should take between half and one pint of milk a day, up to half a pound of fruit, and up to two ounces of cheese.</p></blockquote>
<p>The margarine is not something anyone recommends now, but in 1982 (the copyright date), people were a lot more warm and fuzzy about it.</p>
<p>Anyway, I&#8217;m keeping an eye out for a cheap copy of <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pure-white-deadly-problem-sugar/dp/0706700406/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1275658436&#038;sr=8-1" target="_blank">Pure White and Deadly</a></i>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astrogirl.com/2010/06/04/john-yudkins-low-carbohydrate-diet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Low-Carb Diets and Metabolism</title>
		<link>http://astrogirl.com/2010/03/27/low-carb-diets-and-metabolism/</link>
		<comments>http://astrogirl.com/2010/03/27/low-carb-diets-and-metabolism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:30:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web log]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternate day diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Calorie Restriction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Calories In = Calories Out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evolutionary Diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[low Carbohydrate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Neanderthin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paleo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paleolithic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[primal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processed food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ray Audette]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sugar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unconventional Diets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[up down day diet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astrogirl.com/?p=570</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been seeing reasoned debate about the effect of long-term low-carb diets for a while now, but this last week, things kind of exploded into a yelling fest.</p>
<p>Within what I can only describe a mean-spirited and pointlessly rude blog post from Matt Stone, there&#8217;s one interesting nugget of possible truth:</p>
<p>“…remember that prolonged dieting (this one, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been seeing reasoned debate about the effect of long-term low-carb diets for a while now, but this last week, things kind of exploded into a yelling fest.</p>
<p>Within what I can only describe a mean-spirited and pointlessly rude blog post from <a href="http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010/03/poor-poor-jimmy-moore.html">Matt Stone</a>, there&#8217;s one interesting nugget of possible truth:</p>
<blockquote><p>“…remember that prolonged dieting (this one, low-fat, low-calorie, or a combination) tends to shut down thyroid function. This is usually not a problem with the thyroid gland (therefore blood tests are likely to be normal) but with the liver, which fails to convert T4 into the more active thyroid principle, T3. The diagnosis is made on clinical ground with the presence of fatigue, sluggishness, dry skin, coarse or falling hair, an elevation in cholesterol, or a low body temperature. I ask my patients to take four temperature readings daily before the three meals and near bedtime. If the average of all these temperatures, taken for at least three days, is below 97.8 degrees F (36.5 C), that is usually low enough to point to this form of thyroid problem; lower readings than that are even more convincing. It may be appropriate for those of you who fit these criteria to be prescribed thyroid by your doctor, and if so, a natural form of the hormone, which contains T3, is far superior to the most popular form of prescription thyroid, synthetic T4.&#8221;</p>
<p>-Robert C. Atkins
</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=FYXyQSK_yyIC&#038;dq=%22remember+that+prolonged+dieting%22&#038;ei=0zauS6mDEpSKygTHq42LDg&#038;cd=1">Google books</a> says it comes from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Dr-Atkins-M-D-Robert/dp/1567316409/tinotopia-20"><i>The Complete Dr. Atkins</i></a>.  Since I don&#8217;t own that, and I&#8217;ve never read it, that would explain why I&#8217;ve never seen this quote.</p>
<p><a href="http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/">Jimmy Moore</a> responded in the comment section of Matt&#8217;s site as well as on <a href="http://lowcarbmenu.blogspot.com/2010/03/march-24-2010-low-carb-menu.html">one of his blogs</a>.  Richard Nikoley of Free The Animal leapt to <a href="http://freetheanimal.com/2010/03/poor-poor-matt-stone.html">Jimmy&#8217;s defense</a>.  Matt has also <a href="http://freetheanimal.com/2010/02/richard-nikoley-has-a-low-body-temperature-and-edema-you-be-the-judge.html">previously said disparaging</a> things about Richard.</p>
<p>My concern about all of this is that vital information might be missed.  A lot of former low carbers or current paleo dieters *do* seem to have thyroid or metabolic issues of some kind.</p>
<p>Jenny, who runs diabetes update, talked about why low-carb <a href="http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-weight-loss-stops-on-long-term-low.html">stopped working for her</a>.  The whole piece is worth reading, but here&#8217;s the introduction:</p>
<blockquote><p>The enthusiasm for the low carb diet as a weight loss diet arises in the first few weeks and months when most people experience dramatic weight loss.</p>
<p>What rarely gets mentioned&#8211;especially in the miracle weight loss books&#8211;is that very few low carb dieters ever get to their weight loss goal, especially those who start out with a lot of weight to lose. </p>
<p>I am enthusiastic about the power of carb restriction to lower blood sugar to normal or near normal levels. I am not as enthusiastic about low carbohydrate dieting as the solution to tough weight loss problems. </p>
<p>Because even the online low carb community tends to believe that people who stall out are &#8220;not doing the diet right&#8221; and respond to stall posts with that assumption, most people who do stall out long term leave the discussion boards, leaving only those who have succeeded to greet the newbies.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;d like to point out that &#8220;not doing it right&#8221; is *exactly* what the purveyors of conventional wisdom spew at fat people trying to lose weight.  If eating less and exercise is not working, then clearly, you aren&#8217;t doing it right.  Or you&#8217;re lying about what you&#8217;re eating and your workout schedule.  I think these amount to the same thing, but &#8220;you aren&#8217;t doing it right&#8221; is a lot nicer than &#8220;you&#8217;re a liar&#8221;.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve seen many of the same complaints on BBSes like <a href="http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/">Low Carb Friends</a> and <a href="http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php?">Active Low-Carbers</a> and even on <a href="http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/">Atkins Diet Bulletin Board</a>.  People will complain (almost exclusively women, though this may be a function of the boards themselves rather than an indication that all the people having the problem are women) that they can&#8217;t lose weight unless they cut calories to 1,400 or even lower, and generally, they do this by eating very low carb because they aren&#8217;t (as) hungry that way.  This does not seem to get them anywhere either, and most low carb books I&#8217;ve read (and I&#8217;ve read a lot of them) indicate that counting calories is a bad idea.  While they admit that it&#8217;s possible to eat too much, they recommend you don&#8217;t count calories, but because almost everyone tracks their carbs in something like <a href="http://fitday.com">Fitday</a>, they always know what the calorie count is.</p>
<p>Atkins says that if you have a lot of weight to lose, it&#8217;s OK to stay on induction a long time.  So, people stay on induction a long time because, in their minds, they have a lot of weight to lose.  At some point, their weight loss becomes negligible.  They either add a lot of cardio at this point, or get very strict about what they are eating.  The Atkins book says that after induction, you should be adding carbs back at the rate of 5g per week until you don&#8217;t lose weight any more, then back off a little.  There&#8217;s a &#8220;carb ladder&#8221; that indicates the order.  The <a href="http://www.atkinsdietbulletinboard.com/forums/">ADBB</a> folks who have made goal by following the instructions in the book always push for this, but I think it scares people to think they will stop losing weight, gain weight or even go on a carb binge, so they don&#8217;t do it.</p>
<p>In Lyle McDonald&#8217;s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Ketogenic-Diet-Complete-Dieter-Practitioner/dp/0967145600/tinotopia-20"><i>The Ketogenic Diet</i></a> he has a section on hypothyroid and euthyroid stress syndrome that contains this sentence:  &#8220;The decrease in T3 due to hypothyroidism must be contrasted to the decrease seen during dieting or carbohydrate restriction.&#8221;  Basically, that the decrease in T3 is a known issue with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet">ketogenic</a> diets (Atkins is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipolysis">ketogenic</a> diet).</p>
<p>Any diet of sufficient length and restriction will slow the metabolism.  It seems to take longer on a low-carb diet than a straight-up low-calorie diet, and it&#8217;s possible that alternate day diets or calorie cycling might be an even better option, but I think what a lot of low-carbers (Atkins and lwo-carb Paleo Dieters alike) are experiencing is an evolutionary adaptation that makes complete sense once you see it from the right angle.  I think that it handily explains the idea of the <a href="http://www.low-carb.com/onegoldenshot.html">Atkins &#8220;One Golden Shot&#8221;.</a></p>
<p>In my next blog post, I&#8217;ll try to give the right angle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astrogirl.com/2010/03/27/low-carb-diets-and-metabolism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yet Another Treatise Against Agave Nectar</title>
		<link>http://astrogirl.com/2010/02/03/yet-another-treatise-against-agave-nectar/</link>
		<comments>http://astrogirl.com/2010/02/03/yet-another-treatise-against-agave-nectar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:32:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Diets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web log]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agave nectar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fructose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sugar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astrogirl.com/2010/02/04/yet-another-treatise-against-agave-nectar/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>That stuff is fuckin&#8217; poison for your liver, people.</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That stuff is <a href="http://www.crossfitinvictus.com/blog/2010/02/wednesday-february-3-2010/" target="_blank">fuckin&#8217; poison</a> for your liver, people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astrogirl.com/2010/02/03/yet-another-treatise-against-agave-nectar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Component Analysis</title>
		<link>http://astrogirl.com/2009/11/19/component-analysis/</link>
		<comments>http://astrogirl.com/2009/11/19/component-analysis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Nicole</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web log]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ancel keys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[component analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Diet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obesity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Seven Countries Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sugar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://astrogirl.com/2009/11/19/component-analysis/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been working my way through a lecture called Sugar: The Bitter Truth, and Ancel Keys&#8217; Seven Countries Study came up. The discussion at hand was about the fact that the conclusions drawn were clearly incorrect and that its data could not easily easily be subjected to regression analysis because it pre-dates computers. This doesn&#8217;t [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been working my way through a lecture called <a href="http://podcast.uctv.tv/mp3/16717.mp3" target="_blank">Sugar: The Bitter Truth</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys">Ancel Keys&#8217;</a> <a href="http://www.epi.umn.edu/research/7countries/overview.shtm" target="_blank">Seven Countries Study</a> came up. The discussion at hand was about the fact that the conclusions drawn were clearly incorrect and that its data could not easily easily be subjected to regression analysis because it pre-dates computers. This doesn&#8217;t matter much in this case, because it fails the main test &#8211; it does not predict the future. We&#8217;ve <a href="http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=14392" target="_blank">followed the advice</a>, and wound up fatter and sicker than ever. (The freshest data I can get is 1998.)</p>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="300" style="border-collapse: collapse;table-layout:fixed">
<col width="75" />
<col class="xl25" width="75" span="2" />
<col class="xl24" width="75" />
<tbody>
<tr>
<td height="13" width="75"></td>
<td class="xl26" align="right" width="75">1977</td>
<td class="xl26" align="right" width="75">1998</td>
<td class="xl27" width="75" align="right">Change</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="13">Calories</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">1,878</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">1,938</td>
<td class="xl24" align="right">3%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="13">Protein</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">72</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">67</td>
<td class="xl24" align="right">-8%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="13">Fat</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">81</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">71</td>
<td class="xl24" align="right">-15%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td height="13">Carb</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">219</td>
<td class="xl25" align="right">265</td>
<td class="xl24" align="right">17%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>We eat 3% more calories than we did before conventional wisdom started striking us over the head with the idea that eating saturated fat is akin to worshipping satan, but you can see where the changes are. We eat less meat and less fat and as a result, we eat more carbohydrates. A <a href="http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5" target="_blank">lot of this</a> is in the form of what the USDA calls &#8220;fruit drinks and ades&#8221; and some more of it is from soda, but we do eat 10% more fruits and vegetables (mostly because we eat more *fruit*) and grains (44% more than 1977). We consume 47% less whole milk than in 1977 and 230% more skim milk (no one drank skim milk before, apparently). We have shifted 50% of our meat consumption from red meat to poultry and fish.</p>
<p>We did what we were told to do, and low and behold, the future was NOT sunnier. The future is instead full of fat Americans. Poor people and children are even fatter and sicker as a group then Americans on the whole. Kids, of course, eat a lot more government provided meals via WIC and <a href="http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2009/11/17/school-lunch-inspection/" target="_blank">school lunch programs</a>. If Keys was right, we should not have wound up where we are today.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.iateapie.net/reviews/archives/2005/04/dannon_light_n_1.php" target="_blank">This yogurt is part of the problem</a>:</p>
<p align="center"><img src="http://astrogirl.com/images/dannonfiber.jpg" width="250" height="151" alt="dannonfiber.jpg" /></p>
<p>People who are healthy and therefore eat a healthy diet eat more fiber, therefore we will be healthier if we eat more fiber. Why would we think this is true? We eat more fiber than we used to &#8211; fruit and grains (whole or not) both contain fiber. We also eat 14% more legumes and 17% more nuts and seeds than we did in 1977, so there&#8217;s more fiber there too&#8230;and yet we still aren&#8217;t healthier.</p>
<p>I will posit that people with more fiber in their diet are healthier because they also happen to be eating <b>less food out of boxes, bags and cans</b>. Once you take foods apart into components to process them, they taste worse because they lose their more subtle flavors, so salt and sugar are added to make them palatable again. Most grain products lose virtually all their fiber during the process. Processed food has very little fiber because that makes it spoil faster. Even 100% whole grain breads have added sugar (well, high-fructose corn syrup anyway) because it retards spoilage.</p>
<p>The solution is <b>always</b> to add more of some magical component, in this case, fiber.</p>
<p>Look at olive oil, for instance. We were told that the <a href="http://www.mediterraneandiet.gr/health.html" target="_blank">Mediterreanan Diet</a> is very healthy and since they eat a lot of their fat in the form of olive oil, having us switch to more olive oil is healthy. This data comes largely from the Seven Countries Study, but what you <b>don&#8217;t know</b> is this: <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPHN%2FPHN8_06%2FS1368980005000881a.pdf&amp;code=b4b3d88d1f8769ea9a5cdd4ecca8b84c" target="_blank">60% of the study participants</a> [<i>warning! PDF!</i>] were members of the strict Greek Orthodox Church that prescribes almost 180 days of fasting per year. This was the easiest way I could make my main point here: they follow a <b>system</b> through their culture and lifestyle, and eating more olive oil, fish and yogurt doesn&#8217;t even come close to emulating that.</p>
<p>We often hear about the &#8220;<a href="http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/personalities/roundtable_the_french_paradox.php" target="_blank">French Paradox</a>.&#8221; While I like wine as much as the next girl, I really doubt an entire country is being protected from heart disease because they drink more wine than we do. French culture has a system of eating that values culture and tradition. If you check that article, you&#8217;ll find that most of the French women questioned claim they just eat less, ultimately. That may be true, but their meal size and order is actually quite different from ours.</p>
<p>They start their days earlier than we do, and they eat a Continental Breakfast. That term separates it from the idea of an English Breakfast, which is a closer to what Americans consider to be traditional breakfast. When you&#8217;re offered a &#8220;free&#8221; Continental Breakfast in a hotel in the U.S., it&#8217;s generally of much lousier quality than what a French person would be willing to eat, but in any case, they eat early and their pastries are smaller. The French eat their largest and most leisurely meal at lunch time, and that&#8217;s <b>not</b> the middle of the afternoon. If you don&#8217;t eat when you&#8217;re supposed to eat, you aren&#8217;t eating because restaurants close in the afternoon. The French eat slower, take food more seriously and eat a smaller dinner. They certainly eat fewer processed foods than we do, and as a result, that breakfast contains butter, not some ersatz-low-cholesterol-processed-crap that you&#8217;d find at a Residence Inn. Lunch isn&#8217;t a microwaved Lean Cuisine, and it also includes wine. Americans don&#8217;t drink at lunch, for the most part, but maybe a glass of wine at lunch reduces stress in the afternoon.</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t discount *any* of these things. Getting up early and eating lunch on time probably play a part too.</p>
<p>Adding red wine is not going to help all by itself. Switching out olive oil for butter isn&#8217;t going to make much difference, and adding fiber for the sake of fiber is not going to help either. Eating less saturated fat hasn&#8217;t caused us to get thinner &#8211; it&#8217;s had the opposite effect. Taking whole milk away from children over two (yes, that&#8217;s what the government says is good and proper) seems to have the opposite effect.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re told that we are just not following the USDA recommendations perfectly <b>enough</b>. We&#8217;re always told the next component change will make the difference. Kids cereals are now having whole grains added because they can be made palatable and be preserved by the buckets of sugar that are already in there. So, conventional wisdom says that kids will be <b>healthier</b> just because they eat more fiber. I can hardly wait to see the results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://astrogirl.com/2009/11/19/component-analysis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

