Study: vegetarians less healthy, lower quality of life

[Harold Tuttle]

[Ben]

    "Three Donuts for the Elven-kings under the sky,
    Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
    Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
    One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
    One Donut to rule them all, One Donut to find them,
    One Donut to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
    In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie."

[Hutch]

Or you could eschew the nutritional fads and stick with a lifestyle of regular exercise combined with a diet of balanced proportions and proper serving sizes.  That kinda works too. 

Brad

You done quit preachin', and gone to meddlin'.

[Scout26]

Or you could eschew the nutritional fads and stick with a lifestyle of regular exercise combined with a diet of balanced proportions and proper serving sizes.  That kinda works too.  

Brad

Milo:  Whatchya readin', Opus?
Opus: An index to diet books. I figure if nothing else, I can improve my weight.
Milo:   How about eating less and exercise.
Opus:  Here's something! "The Broccoli-Broth and Bean-Bath Diet"!  Naw. Too weird. I need something basic.
Milo:  How about eating less and exercise.
Opus:  "Dr. Frank's Frog Legs, Figs and Flatulence Diet"! Whaddya think?!

I'm going with Opus: Dr Frank's Froglegs, Figs, and Flautance diet it is!!   I can't wait to see the look on my dietican's face when I tell her!!

[Ron]

Or you could eschew the nutritional fads and stick with a lifestyle of regular exercise combined with a diet of balanced proportions and proper serving sizes.  That kinda works too.  

Brad

I hardly think advocating a Mediterranean style of eating while being very aware of the glycemic load of your meals as being a fad. You sure you are quoting the correct person with your snark?

Over consumption of white flour and refined sugar are both sure fire ways to get fat. For "foods" that have very little nutritional value they are overrepresented in the typical diet, even some so called balanced diets.

If you want to be fat and enjoy all the fun of metabolic syndrome keep eating nutritionally deficient white flour products and sugar infused "food" as your primary sources of carbohydrates.

[Ron]

Here is what the Mayo Clinic has to say:

Benefits of the Mediterranean diet

Research has shown that the traditional Mediterranean diet reduces the risk of heart disease. In fact, an analysis of more than 1.5 million healthy adults demonstrated that following a Mediterranean diet was associated with a reduced risk of death from heart disease and cancer, as well as a reduced incidence of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases.

Notice where refined flour and sugar show up here on this food pyramid.


Read this link for the Mayo Clinics take on this fad diet.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801

[Brad Johnson]

Over consumption of white flour and refined sugar are both sure fire ways to get fat. For "foods" that have very little nutritional value they are overrepresented in the typical diet, even some so called balanced diets.

Overconsumption of any food will cause you to gain weight no matter how "un-white" or "un-refined".  It all still goes back to a balanced diet, regular exercise, and consuming fewer calories than you burn.

Brad

[gunsmith]

I've been eating high protein/low carb for a year.
I was also working out with weights pretty regularly, but stopped working out ( well, except for working in a warehouse and being on my feet/active a good portion of the day )
I did not gain any weight back even though I drastically reduced my workout for a couple of months, I ate A LOT ( I never take moderation to extremes )
However, I ate a lot of beef and veggies, for some reason I cant seem to have left overs. If I cook a pound of beef with veggies I'll eat the whole thing.
Yet I didn't gain any 

I stayed low carb, nearly ketogenic I guess except for I've given up bothering to count carbs/calories - I tried to be as low carb as I could while eating meat/veggies-only using coconut oil or butter to cook - eggs in the morning - basic paleo/caveman/wheatbelly book diet...

I can over eat and not gain weight, I do it all the time. I just don't ever eat wheat or grains or added sugar ...  for treats, when I can afford them, I eat Quest bars - though lately I've been giving in to dark choclate. I'm not to worried about it.

It's way, way, better than I used to be. 

[gunsmith]

It is "artificial" in the sense that it tastes sweet but does not contain glucose, or other "sugars".

Oddly enough it's not just a pleasure reaction but your body reacts in the same way as it would to sugar, only worse because there isn't any sugar.

Messing up the insulin system just leads to more weight gain 

?

Why did I lose fifty pounds? Why don't I gain it back? November 2012 I had close to diabetic blood glucose, Eater 2013 totally normal after using Stevia and eliminating wheat/ sugar from my diet.

I have not checked but I am sure my sugar level is normal.
This study indicates we are both kind of right,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900484/
 except I do not eat any wheat/potato or processed food - I cook for myself or eat swiss or cheddar for snacks ....
I'm not really worried, my weight has been stable for a year, and I can do almost as many pullups as I could in basic training in 1978.
Of course I can't do everything I could do then but I'mm really close to the same weight ( 140 ) as when I left bootcamp.
Not bad for a 54 yr old
 

[Tallpine]

Or you could eschew the nutritional fads and stick with a lifestyle of regular exercise combined with a diet of balanced proportions and proper serving sizes.  That kinda works too. 

Brad

Except that it doesn't for people who have their system all messed up 

[brimic]

Here is what the Mayo Clinic has to say:Notice where refined flour and sugar show up here on this food pyramid.


Read this link for the Mayo Clinics take on this fad diet.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/mediterranean-diet/art-20047801

The American food pyramid isn't for health, its for keeping grain farmers in business.
Ethanol in gasoline isn't for the environment, its for keeping grain farmers in business.
See a pattern forming?

[Ron]

The food pyramid is gone and now the FDA has MyPlate.

They recommend only one quarter of your plate be grains and that half of all your grain consumption be whole grains.

As to your contention about the government recommendations being influenced by big ag lobbying; I've read about that back when MyPlate was first introduced. Apparently grains had an even smaller portion of the plate and they were only to be whole grains. Under pressure it was modified purportedly. I'm not sure if that is true or not. One would have to be a bit cynical and believe our government is corruptible to believe they would sell out the public's health for wealthy industries  <---me

Some folks at Harvard took issue with the FDA and published what they consider a better plate, one not influenced by the input of Big Ag and dairy.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/

  

[Ron]

Here is the Harvard Plate.

[Ron]

Overconsumption of any food will cause you to gain weight no matter how "un-white" or "un-refined".  It all still goes back to a balanced diet, regular exercise, and consuming fewer calories than you burn.

Brad

I'm not sure who you think you are arguing with. Nothing I've posted contradicts anything you've said.

Why you insist on downplaying the vacuousness of modern processed food is beyond me. I'm really surprised you haven't commented on the sensibleness of knowing the glycimic index and load of our meals. In my opinion that is what they should be teaching children in school regarding our diets. Of all people on this board I know you know all carbs are not alike.

Whatever, I've take this as an opportunity to convey good solid science based information on diet. Telling people to eat balanced meals does not convey specific knowledge. A lot of folks are still operating under the poor advice of the old food pyramid.

[RevDisk]

I did the low carb diet thing. Could call it paleo, Mediterranean diet, whatever. Lower carbs. Ye Gods of Ishtar, it was amazing. Lost weight, felt insanely better. Eating a meal was almost as refreshing as taking a nap, I'd always feel more energetic afterwards rather than get chow coma. Food was low fat meats, plenty of bacon and lots of leafy greens. I can make about a dozen types of chicken salads. Lower carb tortillas made the best bread replacement. If anyone tells you to eat no carbs, they're bloody insane. If you want to max out your carbs, use the glycimic index. Otherwise, just count and keep it relatively low.

Problems:
1. Eat plenty of fiber.   
2. Meat and fresh veggies are a lot more expensive than processed carbs.
3. Meat and fresh veggies are not remotely as shelf-stable as processed carbs.
4. Because of 2&3, low carb options are extremely less common to find at restaurants and other food locations outside the home.

It's not a bloody conspiracy. Processed carbs can sit on a shelf for weeks with no climate control, and they cost a fraction of meat/veggies. Ergo, they're used for everything possible. Except for home cooking, it's a pain to find low carb options on the go.

[Brad Johnson]

 vacuousness of modern processed food

"Processed".  The ultimate food non-term.

The terms "processed", "refined", etc., are ephemeral and bereft of objectivity.  They mean nothing without specification or context.  They are purely subjective descriptions without meaning to anyone except the utterer, reflecting no direct criteria of nutritional value.  They are terms used to conjure a mental image.  Nothing more.  Tagging a to a food as "processed" without specifics or context is no different than applying the term "assault" to a rifle simply because of its appearance.  It objectively describes nothing.  Pulling a radish out of the ground is a process.  Vegetable steaming is a process.  Broiling your chicken is a process.  Pureeing fruits is a process.  All the term means is that an action has been applied which results in a change from the item's previous state.  It does nothing to describe the action, or to address any inherent benefits/detriments.

Therein lies my beef (pun intended)... The use of pop-culture nutritional terms that do not convey objective nutritional data.  They only serve to inflame emotions or divert attention away from real nutritional importance and its effects on your particular lifestyle and dietary needs.  They are terms dealt up by nutritional doomsdayers which have, unfortunately, been bandied about to the point they have taken on the veil of legitimacy.

I'll use sugar as an example.  I constantly hear people extolling the virtues of raw sugar over white sugar.  One is an all-natural breath of life, the other will kill you dead, Dead, DEAD!!  Reality is that both are the same thing, a simple carbohydrate consisting of a combination of glucose and fructose.  The difference, the only difference, between raw and white sugar is a spin and rinse.  Raw sugar is placed in a centrifuge where the molasses is spun out and a water rinse applied.  What emerges is white sugar.  Same nutritional content.  Same fructose/glucose ratios.  If you really get nitpicky about it, you can legitimately say that raw sugar is worse for you than white sugar because some of the things that makes it taste good are, in high enough concentrations, carcinogenic.  In real life all this means is that you should watch your simple carbohydrate (sugar, in any form) intake and use it in limited measure as the calorie-dense foodstuff it is, maintaining a healthy balance against the remainder of your diet.

Look, I'm not knocking your dietary choices.  If it works for you, go for it.  I only ask that references be nutritionally objective, not pop-culture.

Brad

[Ron]

I've posted links to the Mayo Clinic and Harvard School Of Public Health that support my contentions.

When I say refined or processed flour apparently everyone except you seems to know what that means. Same for refined sugar vs natural sugars (as found naturally occurring in some food we eat ). Both of these have adverse effects on our blood sugar levels as compared to whole foods (on average). Once again, having some knowledge of the glycemic index will allow you to know how large a portion of a particular whole grain (or refined flour product) you can consume with your meal without adversely spiking your blood sugar. This is knowledge that has been around for a while now and diabetics have been using this knowledge for years now.

The only one not attempting to be precise is you. I've clarified my position very clearly with links to what I've embraced as the most scientific up to date knowledge on the subject.

You have sat on the sidelines nay saying me in particular for some reason, providing nothing more than generalities.

[zxcvbob]

that Mayo report did not look very scholarly to me.  Maybe it's okay for its intended audience, but I wouldn't use it as a reference.

[Brad Johnson]

Same for refined sugar vs natural sugars (as found naturally occurring in some food

There is no difference between "natural" and "refined" sugar other than concentration per unit volume.  Refined cane or corn sugar is just the plant juice with the water boiled out, then the remaining solids centrifuged, rinsed, ground, and bagged.

As to the refined vs. whole foods affect on blood glucose, it has nothing to do with how "refined" they are.  There are natural foods which will make your BG spike just as hard as "processed" foods.  It all has to do with carbohydrate content, where the carbohydrate falls on the scale from simple to complex, and the amount ingested over time.  A glass of all natural no-sugar-added OJ has almost the same simple carbohydrate content as a can of soda, thus the same effect on BG as soda.  Again, has nothing to do with process or refined, just carbohydrate type and content.

Sugar, in any form regardless of natural or "refined", is the simplest of carbohydrates.  Flour/potatoes/etc are some of the more complex.  The simpler the carbohydrate the faster the body converts it into glucose.  That's why diabetics are cautioned to eat regularly, in moderate amounts, and with an eye on both ends of the carb scale.

Breaking things down to their nutritional essentials eliminates the hype, hysteria, and inconsistent pop-culture terminology.  It also makes for a much more accurate measure of a foodstuff's dietary impacts and how you can use it to your advantage.

Brad

[Tallpine]

It also matter what you eat with what.

[Ron]

that Mayo report did not look very scholarly to me.  Maybe it's okay for its intended audience, but I wouldn't use it as a reference.

At the time I didn't realize folks would question an editorial published by The Mayo Clinic. The studies are numerous on the health benefits of adopting a Mediterranean style of eating. The Wiki page has links to around a dozen peer reviewed studies on the various benefits.

If you are curious about those studies here is the Wiki page that has the links to the preponderance of studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet

Myself I'm not a huge fan of fish so my diet is similar but not pure. The principles behind the "diet" are easy to understand and I substitute non Mediterranean style foods and recipes regularly. More and more as mentioned I've tried to pay attention to the glycemic load of my meals. The Wiki article on that subject contains the links to the peer reviewed studies on the health impact of controlling your blood sugar.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load

Finally on the subject I've found that not being absolutist or beating myself up for the occasional doughnut at work has allowed me to maintain a healthy regular diet. My weight loss has been gradual and consistent. Just as Brad recommended regular exercise has been part of that lifestyle change.

It also matter what you eat with what.

For sure, that is also the distinction between glycemic index and load. The index rates individual items and the load is the total of the meal. The synergy of foods together alters their effect.
 

[RevDisk]

The synergy of foods together alters their effect.

Wait, wut?

[Balog]

Wait, wut?

I believe that the body metabolises sugar differently based on the total composition of the meal it is a part of, esp the fiber content?

[Tallpine]

I believe that the body metabolises sugar differently based on the total composition of the meal it is a part of, esp the fiber content?

Different foods kick in different digestive reactions.

I'm not really up on this but ladypine ("grumpy lady"    ) has researched a lot.  She's finally found some principles that seem to be working.

I've always been able to eat about anything and stay thin.  But we been eating mostly whole grains at home for 30+ years now.  I like them better; can't stand white flour crap.

[Ron]

Wait, wut?

Foods when combined properly may be able to provide more benefits than when eaten alone. It is known that some fat in a meal helps proper absorption of certain nutrients for example.

Another is there is some evidence that walnuts mitigate some of the effects of eating a high fat meal. Walnuts have been promoted as heart healthy and it turns out that not only are they healthy alone but they may limit the bad effects of a high fat meal.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109706019127