US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 47865 times.

OzarkTom

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #100 on: 26 Jun 2012, 01:43 pm »
Fat America is really a recent trend. When I was in college some 30 years ago, it was rare to see an overweight person. There was one fellow in my fraternity who had a bit of a beer belly, but everyone else was pretty slim. Being obese has become "normal" and that's really unfortunate. The healthcare and societal costs are enormous.

It was about 30 years ago, 1982, that the food companies and the Gov started advertising the low-fat diet so heavily. You now see the results. :(

schw06

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #101 on: 26 Jun 2012, 01:45 pm »
I am so glad I cam across this thread. As a physician, I am overwhelmed by the volume and magnitude of chronic illness I see every day and disappointed by my profession's attitude(in general) that there is a pill for every complaint. I don't necessarily blame them as there is little to no nutrition education in medical school and we are bombarded by medical industry professionals bringing us data on how their medications treat these diseases. An eye opening book is Eat to Live by Dr.Joel Fuhrman. It is an in depth look at the various components to nutrition and a summation of the data. I'm not certain he is 100% correct in his conclusions but a fantastic read for everyone. I would encourage every patient to let your doctor borrow it once you've completed it.
   There certainly is conflicting data and conflicting opinions on what is healthy and what is not. However, there really does seem to be overlap between most diet plans/lifestyles that refined sugars are evil. I am also really starting to believe that the predominance of Omega 6 oils is also a big contributor to the inflammatory process in our arteries promoting cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and cerebrovascular disease and would encourage you to look at the data and consider increasing Omega 3 intake (Fish, walnuts) and dramatically reducing Omega 6 oils(corn, soybean, sunflower).
   One topic that hasn't been discussed in depth is dairy products. I am dragging my heels on decreasing dairy consumption because I absolutely love cheese but consider this: We are the only species of mammal that consumes milk after infancy. If cow's milk is so good for you, why don't cow's continue to drink it? When you look at the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis, it's the countries with the highest per capita milk consumption (coincidence??). Also, the main protein in milk is what makes the glue that is used to stick the labels on beer bottles. Cows are fed hormones and antibitics frequently and that is passed in the milk...We haven't even discussed the potential health pitfalls (allergies, eczema, migraine headaches etc...). If you do stop drinking milk, be careful if you substitue soy or almond milk because they are loaded with Omega 6 oils so don't trade one problem for another.
   I am so thankful that my audio friends seem more in tune with this topic than a lot of my colleagues.

geezer

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 389
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #102 on: 26 Jun 2012, 02:12 pm »
Hear, hear.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11138
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #103 on: 26 Jun 2012, 04:23 pm »
A very interesting documentary that just played on BBC television in Britain.  Covers a LOT of the stuff discussed here.  I'm surprised how quickly this has hit the mainstream:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cD4CLSmIRQ

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11138
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #104 on: 26 Jun 2012, 04:50 pm »
I am so glad I cam across this thread. As a physician, I am overwhelmed by the volume and magnitude of chronic illness I see every day and disappointed by my profession's attitude(in general) that there is a pill for every complaint. I don't necessarily blame them as there is little to no nutrition education in medical school and we are bombarded by medical industry professionals bringing us data on how their medications treat these diseases. An eye opening book is Eat to Live by Dr.Joel Fuhrman. It is an in depth look at the various components to nutrition and a summation of the data. I'm not certain he is 100% correct in his conclusions but a fantastic read for everyone. I would encourage every patient to let your doctor borrow it once you've completed it.
   There certainly is conflicting data and conflicting opinions on what is healthy and what is not. However, there really does seem to be overlap between most diet plans/lifestyles that refined sugars are evil. I am also really starting to believe that the predominance of Omega 6 oils is also a big contributor to the inflammatory process in our arteries promoting cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and cerebrovascular disease and would encourage you to look at the data and consider increasing Omega 3 intake (Fish, walnuts) and dramatically reducing Omega 6 oils(corn, soybean, sunflower).
   One topic that hasn't been discussed in depth is dairy products. I am dragging my heels on decreasing dairy consumption because I absolutely love cheese but consider this: We are the only species of mammal that consumes milk after infancy. If cow's milk is so good for you, why don't cow's continue to drink it? When you look at the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis, it's the countries with the highest per capita milk consumption (coincidence??). Also, the main protein in milk is what makes the glue that is used to stick the labels on beer bottles. Cows are fed hormones and antibitics frequently and that is passed in the milk...We haven't even discussed the potential health pitfalls (allergies, eczema, migraine headaches etc...). If you do stop drinking milk, be careful if you substitue soy or almond milk because they are loaded with Omega 6 oils so don't trade one problem for another.
   I am so thankful that my audio friends seem more in tune with this topic than a lot of my colleagues.

Agreed with everything!  It's pretty clear that there were plenty of healthy native populations out there without these chronic diseases.  And they all prospered on wildly different diets.  Some at tubers, some ate coconut, some ate beef, or buffalo, some ate fish, all of them ate local vegetables and fruits.  What they did NOT eat were any foods containing refined grains or refined sugar.  Yet, in population after population, as soon as we pumped in these types of foods (ie, white man food), they became obese, diabetic, and got heart disease, often at rates HIGHER than what we have.  This happens consistently, and without exception.

I think we know why sugar is so bad (ie, it's treated like a toxin by the liver and can actually lead to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, along with dislipidemia and metabolic syndrome).  Buy why are grains so bad?  A cardiologist has actually investigated it extensively and reports what he found in this book - http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose-Weight-Health/dp/1609611543/ and he has a blog that he talks quite a bit about it and people can engage with him - http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/

But I'll sum up the book by posting what he put on his blog recently regarding the genetic modifications done to wheat in the 70s, his post was in response to someone saying that "Wheat Belly" was "just another low carb diet". 

Quote
“Wheat Belly is just a low-carb diet, another version of the Atkins diet.”

Hmmmm. Where to start?

If Wheat Belly were a diet, I would have called it The Wheat Belly Diet.” But it’s not a diet and I didn’t call it that. While a diet is indeed articulated, Wheat Belly is, first and foremost, about the changes introduced into modern wheat by the work of geneticists during the 1960s and 1970s, the same kind of research that led to the creation of Agent Orange, DDT, and other “better health through chemistry” types of efforts.

The failure of agricultural geneticists and agribusiness to ask questions about the suitability of a genetically unique crop means they unleashed a foodstuff on a public . . . with no understanding of its effects on humans who consume it. This unquestioned acceptance of chemistry and genetics was the modus operandi during the mid-20th century. Look at asbestos exposure, the widely-used insulation that now shows up as lung diseases, asbestosis and mesothelioma. Or the widespread application of brominated flame retardants, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs), in carpeting and mattresses, that triggers thyroid disease. How about bisphenol A, BPA, formerly used as an estrogen replacement in females, found to provide desirable hardening characteristics in polycarbonate plastics, but also yielding . . . estrogenic effects in humans using the plastics?

In other words, wheat is really part—though an awfully big one, also enjoying widespread endorsement by dietitians, nutritionists, physicians, and the U.S. government—of a broader problem. We now know that asbestos, PDBEs, and BPA have destructive effects on human health, thanks in part to 40 years of exposure on a large scale sufficient to witness the increased cancer, disruption of endocrine function, and 9-year old females with breasts and menstrual cycles. Yet wheat continues to enjoy its hallowed place in nutrition, praised by nearly all who offer nutritional advice.

Among the changes introduced into wheat by geneticists:

–Enrichment in the glia-alpha-9 genetic sequence that provokes celiac disease. Nearly absent from the wheat of 1950, nearly all modern semi-dwarf wheat contains this genetic sequence. Is it any wonder why the incidence of celiac disease has quadrupled?
–Gliadin is a more powerful opiate–The changes introduced into the gliadin gene/protein make it a more potent opiate. While the digestive byproducts of gliadin bind to the opiate receptors of the brain, they lack the pain-relieving and euphoric effects of heroin and morphine, but “only” provoke addictive eating behavior and appetite stimulation. People who consume wheat consume, on average, 440 more calories per day, 365 days per year.
–Changes in the lectin unique to wheat, wheat germ agglutinin, that is responsible for 1) direct intestinal damamge, and 2) a Trojan horse effect of helping foreign substances gain entry into the bloodstream. This is likely at least part of the reason why wheat-eaters experience more lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, polymyositis, type 1 diabetes in children, worse ulcerative colitis and Crohns, more Hashimoto’s thyroiditis: Foreign proteins gain entry to the various organs of the body and result in “autoinflammation.” Changes in wheat lectin may have also led to more effective blocking of the hormone of satiety, leptin.
–Changes in alpha amylase inhibitors–These are the most common sources of wheat allergies, e.g., wheat allergy in kids.

Eliminating wheat is about undoing all these effects, effects that have broad implications for human health across an astounding number of health conditions.

So is Wheat Belly just another low-carb diet? Hardly.

Wheat Belly is an exposure of the destructive changes introduced into wheat by unwitting geneticists during an age when such things were unquestioningly viewed as scientific progress. It is an accusation that Big Food, likely aware of these phenomena for 25 years or more, has quietly put these effects to use, especially appetite-stimulation, to increase revenues. And it is an exposure of the incredible ignorance (collusion?) of official government agencies, such as the USDA, FDA, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who tell us to eat more “healthy whole grains,” then watch healthcare expenditures and American waistlines explode . . . then blame the disaster on our gluttony and sloth.

And, oh yes, there is a diet to follow, too.

That's cool stuff for the science type people (like me). 

Mikeinsacramento

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #105 on: 26 Jun 2012, 05:15 pm »
A very interesting documentary that just played on BBC television in Britain.  Covers a LOT of the stuff discussed here.  I'm surprised how quickly this has hit the mainstream:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cD4CLSmIRQ

Couldn't get past the title.  If you're fat, it's nobody's fault but yours.  I (52) work out six days a week.  Sometimes twice per day.  My Wife (46) works out more than I do.  She and I don't go on cruises for vacation.  We backpack in the Sierras. 

When my Kids hit six years old, they were required to participate in year-round competitive sports.  They took to swimming.  My oldest (24) was a college All-American, youngest (16) is swimming 50 miles per week in the Summer.  Her challenge is trying to consume enough calories to support  training. 

When I come in from running in 100 degree heat, the last thing I want to consume is a bunch of fat. 

Lifestyle dictates diet.

Anyone who says "no pain no gain" is a fallacy, is either misinformed or a loser.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11138
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #106 on: 26 Jun 2012, 05:47 pm »
Yes, the standard "eat less and move more" argument.  Usually uttered by people who have NEVER been seriously overweight for any significant length of time. 

You don't think that overweight people try to exercise and diet?  Man, there is a shitload of money spent in this country on diet and exercise.  And yet we, as a nation, get fatter and fatter.  In fact, the data I've seen shows that we spend MORE time exercising now than we ever have in the past.  Plus, that is the same advice people have been getting for 30 years.  How's that working out so far? 

A better approach is to address hunger.  Because it is a broken hunger mechanism (combined with a broken fat metabolism), which drives obesity.  Your fat is just stored energy.  You should be able to live off that stored energy with very little hunger (it's how we survived famines and ice ages in the past).  But in obese people, there bodies do not "see" the fat, their bodies are "blind" to it. 

Every meal we eat, about half the calories are used for energy by the body immediately - this is for things like keeping our heart beating, our lungs breathing, our brains working, etc...  We can only use half the calories up front like this.  The 2nd half of the calories get shuffled off to our fat cells for temporary storage.  After 2 hours, what SHOULD happen (and does happen in healthy people), is the body simply releases those fat calories so we can make it another 2 or more hours before needing food again.

In people that gain weight, this DOES NOT happen.  They get to the 2 hour mark, the body doesn't see the stored fat calories, but it still needs energy to run.  So it sends out hunger signals.  Because your heart, brain, lungs, cells, all need energy to run.  So you eat again.  And half the calories get used immediately by your body, the other half go to your fat cells.  And the cycle repeats. 

THIS is how people gain weight.  Now, tell me how "eating less and moving more" is gonna address these metabolic issues?

Atlplasma

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 963
  • Just off the boat
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #107 on: 26 Jun 2012, 06:00 pm »
Couldn't get past the title.  If you're fat, it's nobody's fault but yours.  I (52) work out six days a week.  Sometimes twice per day.  My Wife (46) works out more than I do.  She and I don't go on cruises for vacation.  We backpack in the Sierras. 

When my Kids hit six years old, they were required to participate in year-round competitive sports.  They took to swimming.  My oldest (24) was a college All-American, youngest (16) is swimming 50 miles per week in the Summer.  Her challenge is trying to consume enough calories to support  training. 

When I come in from running in 100 degree heat, the last thing I want to consume is a bunch of fat. 

Lifestyle dictates diet.

Anyone who says "no pain no gain" is a fallacy, is either misinformed or a loser.

No offense, but different strokes for different folks. I was a hardcore runner in college and maintained 3 percent body fat. In many ways I also was not in particularly good shape. I don't exercise much now but am more focused on overall health. The Atkins-style plan my wife and I are trying is a bit of an experiment. Before I got into it, my GP took a blood draw to give us a baseline. (My number are always good to excellent.) And I'll go back in July and see what kind of affect eating lots of fat, meat, and leafy vegetables is having on my body.

Big weight loss isn't my goal. I'm more interested in trying to avoid or delay the cancer that seems to latch on to almost everyone in my family.

Stay tuned...

wushuliu

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #108 on: 26 Jun 2012, 06:12 pm »
Couldn't get past the title.  If you're fat, it's nobody's fault but yours.  I (52) work out six days a week.  Sometimes twice per day.  My Wife (46) works out more than I do.  She and I don't go on cruises for vacation.  We backpack in the Sierras. 

When my Kids hit six years old, they were required to participate in year-round competitive sports.  They took to swimming.  My oldest (24) was a college All-American, youngest (16) is swimming 50 miles per week in the Summer.  Her challenge is trying to consume enough calories to support  training. 

When I come in from running in 100 degree heat, the last thing I want to consume is a bunch of fat. 

Lifestyle dictates diet.

Anyone who says "no pain no gain" is a fallacy, is either misinformed or a loser.

Sorry, as the saying goes you're entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts.

wushuliu

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #109 on: 26 Jun 2012, 06:23 pm »
No offense, but different strokes for different folks. I was a hardcore runner in college and maintained 3 percent body fat. In many ways I also was not in particularly good shape. I don't exercise much now but am more focused on overall health. The Atkins-style plan my wife and I are trying is a bit of an experiment. Before I got into it, my GP took a blood draw to give us a baseline. (My number are always good to excellent.) And I'll go back in July and see what kind of affect eating lots of fat, meat, and leafy vegetables is having on my body.

Big weight loss isn't my goal. I'm more interested in trying to avoid or delay the cancer that seems to latch on to almost everyone in my family.

Stay tuned...

I just got the Taubes book as well as checking out the Wheat Belly. I do not eat sugary foods as a general rule but am slightly overweight with high blood pressure. I have met people who have cut out wheat from their diet and all of them mention rapid weight loss and increased energy. As of two weeks ago I started reducing grain-based carbs and carbs in general, while increasing safe fish and meats and vegetables (luckily I like most vegetables). One of the things I took away from Taubes is once you significantly reduce grain-based carbs (and carbs in general) you are no longer bound by calorie restriction or fat intake (within reason obviously). However, since refined carbs create hunger cravings, once you reduce them... you don't get as hungry. Already I am losing weight and my blood pressure has been lowered. Unfortunately I took a 4 day vacation to Sequoia National Forest and pigged out at the local Black Bear Diner because I LOOOOOVE Black Bear. Luckily we only get to one about once every 2 years.  :D

Not enough attention is paid to the danger of the carbs we eat. Sugar is an easy bogeyman but the crap carbs are even more ubiquitous and addictive and I think a lot of people would rather be a health risk than cut them.  My gf also works for the diabetes division of a prominent medical technology company (if you're a diabetic you probably use their devices) and she's also been a great resource as to how dangerous carbs are to the body's insulin management.

DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4344
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #110 on: 26 Jun 2012, 06:27 pm »

THIS is how people gain weight.  Now, tell me how "eating less and moving more" is gonna address these metabolic issues?

It does. When I was younger I participated in many sports and stayed in good shape. In my early 30's I finished school and got a corporate job, gained some weight... up to 35 lbs overweight.  :duh:

Since then, I have gotten into mt. biking pretty seriously. What I have found is that mt. biking has significantly changed the way my body stores and releases energy. At first, your body will send out hunger signals after a bit of exercise and it is a struggle to maintain a sustained effort as your blood sugar drops and you "bonk" unless you eat frequently. Over time, my body has become able store and release energy in a more linear fashion and now I rarely have much variation in blood sugar, even when I've been climbing for hours without much food. My body is far better at maintaining a sustained physical effort than it has ever been, and IMO it is certainly possible to train your body's metabolism.

DaveC113

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4344
  • ZenWaveAudio.com
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #111 on: 26 Jun 2012, 06:30 pm »
Taubes's position seems to have a lot of overlap with the "paleo diet," whose foundation is detailed in two interesting books: The Paleo Answer, by Loren Cordain (2012); and The Paleo Solution, by Robb Wolf (2010).

I can't believe it took this long to get to the Paleo diet. It basically says all the things that Tyson brought up in this thread about diet and the true cause of diet based disease in the modern world. Well worth checking out for those interested in this topic.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11138
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #112 on: 26 Jun 2012, 07:41 pm »
Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not anti-exercise.  In fact I exercise 7 days a week, and twice a day on some days.  And I've gone from 210lbs to 169lbs and maintained that weight pretty easily.  I weighed 165 in college as a football athlete.  So I feel pretty good about that, now that I'm 40 :)

I think exercise does help with weight and health.  But the question (to me) is WHY does exercise work?  The standard answer is that it "burns calories".  But if you look at how many calories are burned during exercise, it's pretty small compared to the # of calories in our food. 

A big clue comes from the A to Z Diet Study conducted at Stanford recently.  They divided up their obese subjects into 4 groups, one for each diet - Atkins, Traditional, Ornish, Zone (ATOZ).  They followed them for several weeks to note what happened.  The Atkins group as a rule did the best.  Which was a big surprise to the guy running the study, since he is a lifelong vegetarian.  But that's not what was the most interesting thing.

The most interesting this was this - they measured people's insulin sensitivity for the study.  Every diet group had people that were insulin sensitive, and people that were insulin resistant.  The insulin resistant people did great on the Atkins diet, but did terrible on the other diets.  And the insulin sensitive people did well on the other diets, but not as well on the Atkins diet.

To my mind, this is the key - are you insulin sensitive, or insulin resistant?  If you are sensitive, then cutting calories and exercising works for you just fine.  If you are insulin resistant, it does not.

So, how does one go from insulin resistant to insulin sensitive?  Well it's been known for a while that exercise increases insulin sensitivity.  And that junk carbs (refined grains and sugars) reduce insulin sensitivity.  So, exercise is good because it helps get insulin working right.  But it won't be able to overcome a diet of refined carbs and sugar, at least not for most people.  Cutting out the grains and sugars and doing regular exercise is the key.  And it has to do with hormones, not with calories. 

viggen

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #113 on: 26 Jun 2012, 07:42 pm »
Question:  Is wheat/glutton bad because it is genetically mutated? 

As far as I know, there's no mutated stuff in Europe.  So, it's ok to eat say imported pasta from Europe?  Not even sure that is available... but hypothetically speaking.

Also, Bud is bad but Heineken is good?

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11138
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #114 on: 26 Jun 2012, 07:46 pm »
All grains are bad, and wheat is the worst.  Old wheat, new wheat, makes no difference. 

Note, I am not saying "low carb" is the way to go.  I think rice and potatoes (especially sweet potatoes), carrots, fruits, peas, and nuts are all fine.  These are fairly high carb foods but I believe they are perfectly OK to eat.  That's because they are not TOXIC like wheat.  To me, it's not low carb vs high carb, or even low fat vs high fat.  It's toxic foods vs healthy foods.  Just don't eat toxic foods. 

django11

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1094
  • Canuckistani
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #115 on: 26 Jun 2012, 07:55 pm »
Not to be pedantic but someone had me confused.   So:

Glutton : One who over-indulges in and over-consumes food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste.

Gluten:  A substance present in cereal grains, esp. wheat, that is responsible for the elastic texture of dough.

viggen

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #116 on: 26 Jun 2012, 08:07 pm »
Not to be pedantic but someone had me confused.   So:

Glutton : One who over-indulges in and over-consumes food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste.

Gluten:  A substance present in cereal grains, esp. wheat, that is responsible for the elastic texture of dough.

Gluten turns you into a glutton.

Just read the "new wheat" contains stuff that makes food addictive.

viggen

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #117 on: 26 Jun 2012, 08:09 pm »
All grains are bad, and wheat is the worst.  Old wheat, new wheat, makes no difference. 

Note, I am not saying "low carb" is the way to go.  I think rice and potatoes (especially sweet potatoes), carrots, fruits, peas, and nuts are all fine.  These are fairly high carb foods but I believe they are perfectly OK to eat.  That's because they are not TOXIC like wheat.  To me, it's not low carb vs high carb, or even low fat vs high fat.  It's toxic foods vs healthy foods.  Just don't eat toxic foods.

But, new wheat is supposed to be much worse than old wheat?

Quote
This new modern wheat may look like wheat, but it is different in three important ways that all drive obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia and more.

    It contains a Super Starch -- amylopectin A that is super fattening.
    It contains a form of Super Gluten that is super-inflammatory.
    It contains forms of a Super Drug that is super-addictive and makes you crave and eat more.

The Super Starch

The Bible says, "Give us this day our daily bread." Eating bread is nearly a religious commandment. But the Einkorn, heirloom, Biblical wheat of our ancestors is something modern humans never eat.

Instead, we eat dwarf wheat, the product of genetic manipulation and hybridization that created short, stubby, hardy, high-yielding wheat plants with much higher amounts of starch and gluten and many more chromosomes coding for all sorts of new odd proteins. The man who engineered this modern wheat won the Nobel Prize -- it promised to feed millions of starving around the world. Well, it has, and it has made them fat and sick.

The first major difference of this dwarf wheat is that it contains very high levels of a super starch called amylopectin A. This is how we get big fluffy Wonder Bread and Cinnabons.

Here's the downside. Two slices of whole wheat bread now raise your blood sugar more than two tablespoons of table sugar.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/wheat-gluten_b_1274872.html

wushuliu

Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #118 on: 26 Jun 2012, 08:16 pm »
Good stuff Tyson!

Unfortunately I don't think white rice makes the cut due to the processing and starch. Which sucks cause I love rice, but I definitely ate too much of it.

Tyson

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 11138
  • Audio - It's all a big fake.
Re: US Food Consumption - Data, Trends, and Analysis
« Reply #119 on: 26 Jun 2012, 08:21 pm »
Yes, it is an opiate.  The Gliadin breaks down into exorphins and that crosses the blood-brain barrier and binds to the opioid receptors in our brain.  It is literally ADDICTIVE.  Don't believe me?  Tell someone to give up wheat and watch how PISSED OFF or indignant they get.  They refuse to even consider the idea.

Even more telling - if you go cold turkey on wheat, most of the time you will have WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS.  Headache, nausea, flu like symptoms, negative emotions, they will manifest during the first week or 2 without wheat. 

I went wheat free because I have heart disease and it is a fact that grains and sugar drive up small LDL, which is highly highly atherogenic, and that's the pattern of dislipidemia that I have.  And it worked, my cholesterol numbers all snapped into line when I stopped eating that crap.  I was able to go off Niacin entirely and cut my Crestor in half.

But the surprising thing to me was my GERD when away (I'd already had 1 endoscopy and was told I'd be on Protonix "for life").  I'm off Protonix now, and no recurrence of GERD. 

I also lost weight without changing anything in my exercise routine.  Sense of smell got better, as did my sense of taste.  And my seasonal allergies are reduced by about 70% I'd say. 

Blood pressure dropped (off Metoprolol XL now!!). 

And fasting insulin went from 95 (getting into the pre-diabetic range) to 73.  I no longer get sleepy or groggy after meals, I don't feel the need to snack all the time, and I sleep a lot better. 

I'm not the only one.  I've convinced a few friends to try it out as well and they all report marked improvements in similar areas. 

But, it doesn't matter.  People are addicted to wheat, because it's an opiate.  I can talk until the cows come home and they will simply make of excuses to not even TRY.  I think on a subconscious level they know that giving it up would be very unpleasant for a while, just like smokers do.