Go Back   Discuss Fitness > Nutrition and Supplementation > Diet and Nutrition

Diet and Nutrition Discuss the best diets for both losing and gaining weight. Sub forum: Related Recipes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19-Jan-04, 03:05 PM   #31
B.A.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: British by birth, Scottish by the grace of God.
Posts: 350
Make sure those olive and flax seed oils are cold pressed - "cold pressed" or "first pressed" on the label. Being high in poly unsaturated fats they rot/ turn rancid very quickly when exposed to heat.

- B.A.

*Edit: Whoops meant "olive and flax" not "oil and flax"

Last edited by B.A.; 19-Jan-04 at 03:21 PM.
B.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-Jan-04, 03:10 PM   #32
frankieny
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Age: 40
Posts: 4
k thanks ill pick some up later

frankieny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-Feb-04, 02:28 PM   #33
B.A.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: British by birth, Scottish by the grace of God.
Posts: 350
So who's the comedian that gave me red karma for this post/ thread

- B.A.
__________________
www.scottishstrongman.com
B.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-Feb-04, 07:05 PM   #34
arbit
Registered User
 
arbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,418
Why are corn/safflower etc oils bad? They are not hydrogenated.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
arbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Feb-04, 03:48 AM   #35
B.A.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: British by birth, Scottish by the grace of God.
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbit
Why are corn/safflower etc oils bad? They are not hydrogenated.
Polyunsaturated oils, such as corn, soy, safflower and canola , are the worst oils to cook with because they tend to become easily oxidized or rancid when exposed to heat from cooking. This results in the formation of damaging free radicals.

- B.A.
__________________
www.scottishstrongman.com

Last edited by B.A.; 29-Feb-04 at 08:33 AM.
B.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Feb-04, 05:46 AM   #36
arbit
Registered User
 
arbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Scoops
The above piece I hope will leave people in a position whereby they can classify fats as "good" or "bad" according to their own terms.
I'm confused
I'm not an expert in the field, and I'm afraid only a person in the field can go thru the research journals to find the truth.
There must surely be sites which refute http://www.westonaprice.org
Anyone??
The website duz certainly have one compelling argument: newer, highly processed oils have a greater chance of being bad-cerntainly coronary disease has gone up in the modern age which is when they were introduced. The older diet, was followed for a long time with no problem.
I dunno what to think.


B.A: Canola oil is NOT polyunsat, its mainly monounsat. Polyunsat oils do not form transfats during cooking(sayz on westonprice). The reasons it is supposed to be bad are different.

LadyC, comments?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
arbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Feb-04, 06:52 AM   #37
B.A.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: British by birth, Scottish by the grace of God.
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbit
B.A: Canola oil is NOT polyunsat, its mainly monounsat. Polyunsat oils do not form transfats during cooking(sayz on westonprice). The reasons it is supposed to be bad are different.
Polyunsaturated and monounsaturated based oils are now genetically altered/ modified to make them more resistant to heat and oxidation. This procedure puts these oils under the "processed" or "refined" category i.e. they are not a natural food group, thus we aren't designed to metabolise GM oils properly/ healthily. They are detrimental to our health and well being. *Natural* poly/ mono unsaturated based oils become rancid and undergo oxidisation when exposed to even moderate temperatures (such as when they are pressed), thus they become trans fatty acids when in the body (acids that we can't utilise). This is one of the reasons why you should select high quality "first pressed" or "cold pressed" vegetable oils, and avoid methods of cooking such as frying.

Canola oil originates from Rape Oil (or LEAR Oil), an industrial oil used for lubricating mechanical items, as a fuel source, in soap and as a synthetic base for rubber. However (and unsurprisingly), it does not make for a healthy food source i.e. it is actually toxic when ingested. There are numerous adverse side effects associated with the consumption of canola oils in rats (most food products are tested on animals such as rats) - it is high in glycosides (which inhibit enzyme function), it suppresses the immune system, and causes degeneration of the organs and particular glands (such as the adrenal and thyroid glands).

- B.A.
__________________
www.scottishstrongman.com
B.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Feb-04, 07:43 AM   #38
arbit
Registered User
 
arbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by B.A.
*Natural* poly/ mono unsaturated based oils become rancid and undergo oxidisation when exposed to even moderate temperatures (such as when they are pressed), thus they become trans fatty acids when in the body (acids that we can't utilise). This is one of the reasons why you should select high quality "first pressed" or "cold pressed" vegetable oils, and avoid methods of cooking such as frying.
Not to pick on details, but I dont think oxidation is the same as hydrogenation(which produces trans fatty acids)

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_you...transform.html
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
arbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Feb-04, 08:25 AM   #39
B.A.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: British by birth, Scottish by the grace of God.
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbit
Not to pick on details, but I dont think oxidation is the same as hydrogenation(which produces trans fatty acids)

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_you...transform.html
The higher the temperature the unsaturated oil is exposed to, the more oxidation it undergoes (double bonds in unsaturated fatty acids are broken down <exposed to air> and attach to an oxygen molecule). This causes the oil to become rancid, producing off-flavours and an undesirable colour (another artificial(s) that food companies add is colouring and flavouring so as to mask the affects of oxidation of the unsaturated oil).

Hydrogenation is where the double bonds of these unsaturated oils are broken down so that additional hydrogen atoms can be added, thus stopping/ slowing down the affects of oxidation when exposed to moderate to high levels of heat over X amount of time, making the oil more stable.

*Natural* unsaturated oils become *bad* for us when they have been exposed to heat (such as in frying or when they are being pressed - usually as a result of the heat produced from the friction created) due to oxidation. They are bad because they contain high amounts of damaging free radicals, though are also bad as they contain numerous artificials to mask the revolting colour and flavour.

*Artificial* "unsaturated" oils are bad for us as the have undergone hydrogenation to prevent/ slow down oxidation of the oil from occurring when exposed to heat (as they are more stable). Converting the natural cis double bonds to a trans form (so that additional hydrogen can be added) results in trans fats being produced, a "food product" that is unnatural and very unhealthy for humans.

This is why the product of modern/ commercialised mass-produced, processed oilseed is unhealthy for us - loaded with artificials, free radicals and trans fats (or a combination of some or all of them).

- B.A.
__________________
www.scottishstrongman.com

Last edited by B.A.; 29-Feb-04 at 08:28 AM.
B.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Feb-04, 09:48 AM   #40
2Scoops
Registered User
 
2Scoops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbit
There must surely be sites which refute http://www.westonaprice.org
Some sites, though well-meaning, can pedal some dangerously misleading information. Have a look at www.quackwatch.com - the aim is not to believe everything you read - that doesn't mean you automatically dismiss all alternative ideas but just to think critically about each and judge them on their merits.
2Scoops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-Feb-04, 07:00 PM   #41
arbit
Registered User
 
arbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Scoops
Some sites, though well-meaning, can pedal some dangerously misleading information. Have a look at www.quackwatch.com - the aim is not to believe everything you read - that doesn't mean you automatically dismiss all alternative ideas but just to think critically about each and judge them on their merits.
I cood not find any oil info on that site. The only relevant conclusion from one of their articles:
"Vegetarianism based on sound nutrition principles can be a healthful choice, but neither vegetarians nor omnivores have a monopoly on healthful eating. Vegetarians are just as diverse in their health status as are nonvegetarians. Similar health benefits can be gained from both well-selected omnivorous and vegetarian diets."

I agree the only way to judge a theory is by its results. But there so many vested interests involved, citattions come out in a distoted way. I get the feeling the only way left is to look at the journals myself.
Regarding soy: I had a chinese roomate who parctised in chinese traditional medicine. He confirmed that asian people dont eat a ton of soy products. Its considered inferior to meat.

Both B.A and 2scoops: If I were to start looking at journals, where shood I start? Any references? I'm at a university so I can prolly accessthe journals. This can be one of my summer projects.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
arbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-04, 07:02 AM   #42
2Scoops
Registered User
 
2Scoops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 201
It's probably easier to seek out individual articles rather than a specific journal. Try medline with a few relevant keywords.

That said, different journals have a different "impact" or respect in professional circles so try a google search on that too.
2Scoops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-04, 11:09 AM   #43
CJNY
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 917
If you're not used to it, be forewarned: Reading and interpreting nutrition journals is fraught with difficulty, even for trained scientists. Some commonly encountered problems:

A surprisingly large number of studies draw conclusions that are not adequately supported by the results. There are many reasons for this, but one of the most common is confusing correlation with causation. For example, it is true that the Japanese tend to eat a low-fat diet and also have low incidence of heart disease. Even though concluding that these two facts are related is a big leap that hasnít stopped people from leaping. There are an infinite number of other possible explanations for the relative cardio health of Japanese Ė genetics, lifestyle, etc. One sees this kind of very poor analysis often in published studies.

Another variation on this problem might be termed the substitution problem. Letís say you wanted to determine the optimal level of fat in the diet. Sounds simple enough: feed people diets with different levels of fat and somehow measure their health. But if you remove fat from the diet you have to decide what you are going to replace it with (or whether you are going to replace it at all). You wonít know whether the change you find is the result of eliminating fat or increasing something else. Many studies of dietary cholesterol (on both sides of the question, interestingly) have this problem.

When looking at diet studies one would be well advised to question how similar the group under examination is to yourself. Many studies use people who are not at all typical of the general population. College students and the elderly are common subjects. Weight loss studies (and, yes, a startlingly large percentage ignore fat versus lean weight) often use very obese subjects. The less you resemble the test group the more you need to worry about the relevance of the results.

An implicit assumption of many diet studies is the mistaken notion that there is a single right answer. The best diet for a couch potato is not likely to bear much resemblance to the optimal strategy for an active athlete. It probably seems obvious to many of the readers of this forum that the diet requirements of various types of athletes (bodybuilders versus powerlifters versus distance runners) is not even the same and yet this fact seems to elude many researchers. Also, because the human body is so adaptable, almost always, though, there is more than one way to achieve a desired goal.

Diet studies are plagued by poor study designs. For just one example, the diet that people ate before the study was begun is well known to have an effect on the results and yet this fact is often overlooked. Most often no information is provided on this point. There are many other similar and common flaws.

The practical and ethical considerations of experimenting on people are a real challenge and, given these difficulties, the state of nutrition research is understandable, perhaps even excusable. Researchers assume the journals will be read by other researchers, people trained to recognize the shortcomings and who will know how to interpret their implications. Caution is strongly advised.

Iíve spent a lot of time reading journal articles. My conclusion is that nutrition journals are almost a complete waste of time for the average fitness enthusiast. You can learn far more from experimenting on yourself and keeping careful track of the results. After all, how important can any change be if it doesnít produce a noticeable improvement?
CJNY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-04, 12:29 PM   #44
B.A.
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: British by birth, Scottish by the grace of God.
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbit
Both B.A and 2scoops: If I were to start looking at journals, where shood I start? Any references? I'm at a university so I can prolly accessthe journals. This can be one of my summer projects.
Good points CJNY.

I feel that a basic, sound understanding of chemistry and (human/ animal) biology will help you to interpret advanced data that you read such as an actual nutrition study or journal - I recommend the book "Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism; 3rd Edition" not because it deals with modern issues such as Atkins and low-fat dieting, but because it is an objective scientific text that does not commit itself to any one argument, but does give an objective narrative of any modern dietary/ nutritional issues that it does happen to touch upon when expanding on human metabolism/ biochemistry points.

To give you an example; how can one discuss *bad* and *good* oils/ fats if they are unfamiliar with terms such as "oxidation", "double bonds" and "hydrogenation"? I myself in the past would enter arguments about what oils/ fats are good when I had no basic understanding/ knowledge of the biochemistry involved.

Before tackling modern nutritional issues, or even modern training issues, look into the very basic "science" of the topics. Learn about the digestive process and enzymes and how different food groups are metabolised in our body. People majoring in Nutrition or whatever don't actually attend lectures where the professor says "ok folks, we'll be discussing Atkin's today, vegetable oils tomorrow and the weightwatchers diet the day after that" - instead it's all basic science such as "the role of enzymes in the metabolisation of protein from when it enters your mouth to when it enters your muscle cell" or "the gross and microscopic anatomy and physiology of the duodenum/ small intestine".

A nutritional study, however simple is may appear, is still IMHO considered an advanced piece of text as there is alot of basic science behind the theory that the individual puts forward.

- B.A.
__________________
www.scottishstrongman.com
B.A. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-Mar-04, 03:23 PM   #45
IronMan
Registered User
 
IronMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by CJNY
You can learn far more from experimenting on yourself and keeping careful track of the results. After all, how important can any change be if it doesnít produce a noticeable improvement?
Great advice! :
__________________
Train the body as it truly is: one, flexible piece!

IronMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
aerobic exercise, animal products, athletic performance, average joe, body fat, breast cancer, calorie dense, cardiovascular exercise, coconut oil, college student, dietary cholesterol, dietary fat, distance runner, excess calories, fat diets, fatty acid, fatty acids, fish oil, fish oils, flax oil, flax seed, flax seed oil, google search, green vegetables, health benefits, healthy eating, heart attacks, heart disease, high cholesterol, high level, high levels, high quality, highly processed, human body, hydrogenated oils, lean weight, low cal, low calorie, muscle cell, natural foods, partially hydrogenated, physically active, saturated fat, scientific studies, sesame oil, short period, solid food, soy products, trans fat, trans fats, unsaturated fat, unsaturated fats, vegetable oil, vegetable oils, vegetarian diet, weight lift, weight lifting, weight loss, workout shake

 
You may also search for:

People searched for this, also searched for these:

is hmr any good
gnc good or bad
gnc zma any good?
NO2 good?


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Sponsor Our Community

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 AM.


vBulletin ©2004 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2004 DiscussFitness.com