I knew it was coming many years ago.

I know, they are only trying to save you from yourself. Its a good thing. It is for your benefit.

Someone out there thinks red meat is bad. Others think any meat is bad. Some think you should just eat tofu.

NEW YORK - Three years after the city banned smoking in restaurants, health officials are talking about prohibiting something they say is almost as bad: artificial trans fatty acids.

The city health department unveiled a proposal Tuesday that would bar cooks at any of the city’s 24,600 food service establishments from using ingredients that contain the artery-clogging substance, commonly listed on food labels as partially hydrogenated oil.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15020846/

I can see the headlines now.

"McDonald's Restaurant *Johns* Arrested For Eating Illegal French Fries"

Freedom Fries shall henceforth be named Freedom to Obey Government Fries

Well, there really is nothing redeeming about trans-fatty acids. They came about because CSPI and other organizations jumped onto the low-fat band wagon and demonized saturated fats, which are the natural and have long been part of the human diet. They wanted everyone to use vegetable based fats, if they used anything. Well, vegetable fats break down at relatively low temperatures and they go rancid quickly. So... to appease the food police, they figured out they could hydrogenate these vegetable fats.

So everyone went along happily until it was figured out that hydrogenated vegetable fat is actually WORSE for you health-wise than saturated fats ever were.

Trans-fat isn't natural. You're not missing out on anything if they ban it apart from cheap fabricated food substitute.

Here's an interesting article about transfats and how they came to be used in the UK: http://environment.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,1881919,00.html

You started this path when you let them ban smoking in restaurants.

Don't worry, you puling sheep, soon you'll be able to force everyone to eat drink and imbibe only what the State says they can.

You started this path when you let them ban smoking in restaurants.

Don't worry, you puling sheep, soon you'll be able to force everyone to eat drink and imbibe only what the State says they can.

Smoking in restaurants had a negative impact on the people who were subjected to the 2nd hand smoke. Trans fats only impact the people who are eating them. Two entirely different things.

Well, personally if someone is putting something toxic in my food, I at least want to know it is in there. Right now you have no idea whether you're eating TF's or not when you go to a restaurant.

Trans fats do not exist in nature, except in trace quantities. They are artificially produced by bubbling hydrogen into plant oils. Restaurants and processed food makers use them simply because they're cheap and chemically stable, not because of any redeeming value for the consumer. On the contrary, they cause serious health problems.

Banning trans fats is no different than banning any other toxin in your food, such as mercury or lead. It boggles my mind that <i>any</i> consumer would insist on letting food makers continue to poison their food with these substances.Smoking in restaurants had a negative impact on the people who were subjected to the 2nd hand smoke. Trans fats only impact the people who are eating them.Wrong. We taxpayers have to foot half of the $75 billion medical bill (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-health-spending-obesity_x.htm).Well, personally if someone is putting something toxic in my food, I at least want to know it is in there.Yes, we should at least have a federally imposed warning on the menu, as we do on packs of cigarettes. Once customers see what they're eating, the restaurants will naturally switch back to healthier oils.

Just look at how processed food manufacturers have been scrambling to rid their food of trans fats for the past few years because of the new trans fat labeling requirements. Go to a supermarket today and you'll have a hard time finding a bag of chips, cookies, or popcorn with trans fats (all will now use palm oil or some substitute), whereas five years ago they all had it.

Yeah, but it would be better if they had to mention it on the menu, or a sign on the front door, rather than ban it outright. Let the people decide for themselves. If enough people prefer not to eat trans-fats, the restaurants themselves might just stop using them.

I had the same argument with the smoking bans. I think it would be better overall if you let the restaurant and bar owners decide to allow smoking or not. If a bar, for instance, decides they want to allow smoking, they have to follow some extra regulations, maybe put in some special HVAC equipment, which of course carries some extra cost, but at least they are allowed to make the choice themselves. If a restaurant decides it's worth it, they will pay to make the changes. And let the people decide with their dollars what they want to do - advertising that you are a smoking or non-smoking establishment could both be beneficial to a restaurant.

If people want to continue to eat trans-fats, we should let them. I just think that it's funny that butter is actually better for you than margerine, now.

If people want to continue to eat trans-fats, we should let them. I just think that it's funny that butter is actually better for you than margerine, now.

e too :) . I love butter, but switched to margarine 'cause it was 'better for you'.

I agree that they should have to make it known to the consumer that their food maybe dangerous if consumed. I personally think it will have the same effect as putting a Surgeon General warning on the side of cigs. People know it's bad, but they really don't care.


Wrong. We taxpayers have to foot half of the $75 billion medical bill (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-health-spending-obesity_x.htm).

I'm pretty sure that if/when NY removes trans fats from it's food, everybody will become skinny. They definately won't get it from another source and continue to get fat. In fact, I think the government should regulate how many hours per day that we can watch tv because too much of that will cause obesity as well. I also think that they should mandate exercise. Where exactly do we draw the line?

I personally think it will have the same effect as putting a Surgeon General warning on the side of cigs. People know it's bad, but they really don't care.They <i>will</i> care, because there are many alternatives, which even taste better.
I'm pretty sure that if/when NY removes trans fats from it's food, everybody will become skinny. They definately won't get it from another source and continue to get fat.It's not just about being fat. Trans fats are toxic molecules that are foreign to nature, and they cause serious health problems.

To cite one of the many recent articles on this issue:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DietNutrition/tb/3093<b>Trans Fats Judged Major Villain in Cardiovascular Disease</b>

BOSTON, April 13 - Consumption of trans fatty acids raised lipid levels and increases the risk of coronary heart disease, sudden death from cardiac causes, and possibly diabetes, according to a review article.

The risk of coronary heart disease increased 23%, said the review in the April 13 issue of New England Journal of Medicine. Sudden death from a cardiac event was up 47% and tripled when evaluated for certain trans-fat isomers.

In fact, the adverse health effects of trans fatty acids, still dangerously high in the U.S., are far stronger on average than those of food contaminants or pesticide residues, which have received considerably more attention, said Dariush Mozaffarian, M.D., at the Harvard School of Public Health, and colleagues including Walter Willett, M.D., and Meir Stampfer, M.D.

The lines between what is foreign to nature and what isnt is a fairly blurry line.

Personally I don't care too much if they ban it since it doesnt seem to have redeeming qualities and causes problems.

If it was something like banning foods with high fat contents because dumb****s are too stupid to not eat at mcdonalds 7 days a week then i'd definately be against it.

Yeah, but it would be better if they had to mention it on the menu, or a sign on the front door, rather than ban it outright. Let the people decide for themselves. If enough people prefer not to eat trans-fats, the restaurants themselves might just stop using them.
I wouldn't object if the that was the case, and maybe a warning about what transfats do to you. Probably most people have no idea.


I just think that it's funny that butter is actually better for you than margerine, now.

Yeah, me too. :p We sure get yanked around in the name of science.

Trans fats do not exist in nature, except in trace quantities. They are artificially produced by bubbling hydrogen into plant oils. Restaurants and processed food makers use them simply because they're cheap and chemically stable, not because of any redeeming value for the consumer. On the contrary, they cause serious health problems.

Banning trans fats is no different than banning any other toxin in your food, such as mercury or lead. It boggles my mind that any consumer would insist on letting food makers continue to poison their food with these substances.Wrong. We taxpayers have to foot half of the $75 billion medical bill (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-26-health-spending-obesity_x.htm).Yes, we should at least have a federally imposed warning on the menu, as we do on packs of cigarettes. Once customers see what they're eating, the restaurants will naturally switch back to healthier oils.

Just look at how processed food manufacturers have been scrambling to rid their food of trans fats for the past few years because of the new trans fat labeling requirements. Go to a supermarket today and you'll have a hard time finding a bag of chips, cookies, or popcorn with trans fats (all will now use palm oil or some substitute), whereas five years ago they all had it.
Ok, since my original statement was regarding smoking being banned and how much different it was to make a trans fat ban, let me to try explain.

Obviously nobody refutes that 2nd hand smoke is harmful and is proven to cause a lot of problems including but no limited to cancer. By banning smoking in a public place it is directly effecting everybody's health who is no longer subjected to the smoke. Banning trans fat has no direct effect on anybody other than the person eating the unhealthy food. Banning trans fat will not lower healthcare premiums and it will not lower the $75B healthcare cost of fighting obesity. The same people are still going to be obese whether they eat trans fats or not. Banning trans fat will not make people skinny. Do you honestly think that banning trans fat is the magical cure for obesity? It's going to take more than that. What you are saying is that we should start forcing people to live a healthy lifestyle. In order for that $75B to be lowered, people are going to have to eat healthy and exercise. That leads to my original question. Exactly where do we draw the line?

Banning trans fat will not lower healthcare premiums and it will not lower the $75B healthcare cost of fighting obesity. The same people are still going to be obese whether they eat trans fats or not.Again: trans fats aren't just a fungible link in the "eat too much -> get too fat -> have heart trouble" chain. Trans fats themselves increase your risk of heart disease and other medical conditions, compared to other fats. (Read the study I posted.) Banning them <i>will</i> save lives and taxpayer dollars, unquestionably.What you are saying is that we should start forcing people to live a healthy lifestyle. That was my question. Exactly where do we draw the line?If food were contaminated with harmful E. coli, would you question its recall? How about water with toxic levels of mercury, lead, or arsenic? This is exactly the same thing: a toxin in your food.

It's not a lifestyle issue. The same junk food can be made without the toxin, as it was prior to the 1980s, and would likely taste much better. You will retain the inalienable American right to be a fat, gluttonous pig. Relax.

Comparing trans fat with E Coli is a bit steep when you are attempting to make an analogy. I also think we should just ban cigarettes and alcohol as well because they have no positive health benefits and cause all kinds of health problems. Think of all the money we would save if we didn't have to spend money on healthcare for people that have spent 50 years smoking. I also I am sick to death of paying my hard earned tax money on organizations such as AA that have to help these poor people kick the habit. If everybody just lived a perfect life like me then the world would be a better place (and I would save money on taxes).

Also, thanks for the childish remark about me being fat. I'm actually 5'10" 166 pounds. I just don't like it when people tell me what I can and can't do when it has little or no impact on them.

Personally I don't care too much if they ban it since it doesnt seem to have redeeming qualities and causes problems.

That hardly is a great qualifier for State intrusion into people's lives.

asturbation has no redeeming qualities and causes problems for many people, should the State ban it?

ost things that people do have no redeeming qualities and cause problems. Especially fun stuff(like masturbation).

Our legal system is practically all built on precedent. If you allow legal restrictions on one thing, there is nothing to prevent it from being applied equally to other venues of your lifestyle. And because it is precendent based, one oppression will undoubtedly result in one more oppression after that.

Masturbation has no redeeming qualities and causes problems for many people, should the State ban it?

ost things that people do have no redeeming qualities and cause problems. Especially fun stuff(like masturbation).

Our legal system is practically all built on precedent. If you allow legal restrictions on one thing, there is nothing to prevent it from being applied equally to other venues of your lifestyle. And because it is precendent based, one oppression will undoubtedly result in one more oppression after that.

Fun is a redeeming quality.... And relief of sexual tensions is something that is highly beneficial for the individual and society as a whole.

Masturbation has no redeeming qualities and causes problems for many people, should the State ban it?People masturbate as a substitute for sex. If you take it away, they won't have any substitute. (Besides, orgasm has many redeeming qualities.)

On the other hand, there are many substitutes for trans fats, that taste better and are better for the consumer. The formulas for your cookies, chips, crackers, and what not are being rapidly changed towards these substitutes right now, and you're probably unaware of it.Our legal system is practically all built on precedent. If you allow legal restrictions on one thing, there is nothing to prevent it from being applied equally to other venues of your lifestyle.Our <i>court</i> system is, not our <i>legal</i> system. Introducing legislation that bans trans fats will have <b>zero</b> precedential effect on any other type of substance.

I don't see a valid argument for allowing companies to sell us substandard food that damages our health when there are healthier, natural alternatives that we can easily afford. There is no benefit to taste or health or anything else to the consumer, only extra profit for the manufacturer who is using substandard materials to supply with a substandard product.

There might be an argument for letting manufacturers poison, injure, or harm their clients and making the sick people sue later, but I'd prefer the government to step in and prevent the sale of harmful products in the first place.

Introducing legislation that bans trans fats will have <b>zero</b> precedential effect on any other type of substance.
Except with regard to opinion.

If people(as in The People) find one removal of a freedom acceptable, they will find another acceptable, in the future. It is incremental.

For example:
The state mandates that restaurants have a separate smoking and non smoking section. All the time selling that it will only affect restaurants.
A year passes.
People are satisfied.
The state mandates that restaurants have a separate smoking and non smoking section with separated ventilation systems.
A year passes.
People are satisfied.
The state mandates that restaurants be non smoking.
A year passes.
People are satisfied
The state mandates that bars must be non smoking.
A year passes.
People are satisfied.
The state mandates that smoking outside can not occur within 40 feet of a building.
A year passes.
People are satisfied.
The state mandates that smoking outside can not occur on public property or in parks.
A year passes.
People are satisfied.
The state mandates that smoking can not occur in cars.
A year passes.
People are satisfied.
The state mandates that smoking by state employees can not occur at all, either on the job or off the job.
A year passes.
People are satisfied.
Etc., etc., etc.

Now you can say that each of these occurances were not directly caused by any of the former. But human nature being what it is, and the pattern well noted and obvious to anyone who looks at will see something different, there IS a precedent. State forced smoking sections in restaurants does NOT cause smoking bans in your car or homes, as you argue, but it does cause it.

Laws are only opinions backed by force, government force. Change opinions, laws will change, liberties are irrevocably lost. That is what I was saying in the other thread...Americans love giving away their freedoms. It always appears to be just somebody else's freedom at the time, but your freedoms will be traded away in due time.

Banning something is only effective in the long term if it has widespread public support. Social norms have made widespread banning of smoking in public places accepted.

In contrast, consider the futile attempt to ban alcohol during the Prohibition. There was widespread opposition to the ban, and it failed.

In contrast again, drinking and driving was socially acceptable, but isn't anymore. The strict drinking/driving laws are supported by most.

Banning trans-fat won't get much public attention. Unlike drinking and smoking, it's not addictive (I think). In my opinion, any trans-fat ban should be at the source. Ban the manufacture. Do it just like the ban on putting cocaine in Coca-Cola.

Banning something is only effective in the long term if it has widespread public support. Social norms have made widespread banning of smoking in public places accepted.

We don't know that yet. Its been less than a decade since the 'movement' began.

In contrast, consider the futile attempt to ban alcohol during the Prohibition. There was widespread opposition to the ban, and it failed.

I suspect the support for prohibition was probably on par or higher...considering it managed to pass the muster required to become a Constitutional Amendment, the single most difficult feat in the American government.

In contrast again, drinking and driving was socially acceptable, but isn't anymore. The strict drinking/driving laws are supported by most.

No, actually, it is solely because of the lobbying power of MADD. Very few people supported the most recent, and ridiculous, lowering of the BAL to .008%.

Drunk Driving laws are a perfect example of lobbying power gone mad(d).

We don't know that yet. Its been less than a decade since the 'movement' began.

Hmmm... I assumed that U.S. and Canadian anti-smoking legislation had roughly the same timeline, but perhaps not.

Smoking in the workplace, except in designated areas has been banned for about 20 years (it varies province to province). Smoking in public such as buses and subways has been banned for about 25 years. For airplanes it's about 20 years. Total smoking ban in restaurants is about 10 years old. Smoking ban in bars is only a couple of years old.

There has been very little public backlash except for the expected initial uproar.

I suspect the support for prohibition was probably on par or higher...considering it managed to pass the muster required to become a Constitutional Amendment, the single most difficult feat in the American government.

I don't really know much about public support for Prohibition in the U.S. I do know that many Canadians, including the Bronfmans (Seagrams) made their initial fortunes smuggling alcohol into the U.S. I also know that Prohibition was culturally unsustainable in the U.S. (a good thing, imo)

No, actually, it is solely because of the lobbying power of MADD. Very few people supported the most recent, and ridiculous, lowering of the BAL to .008%.

Drunk Driving laws are a perfect example of lobbying power gone mad(d).

I was quite surprised to learn that it was only last year that the last state passed legislation for the 0.08% max blood alcohol level. This has been law for about 20 years in Canada. The maximum allowable level in most provinces is actually 0.05%. This results in a 24-hour license suspension and is a civil offense. BAC above 0.08% while driving is a criminal offense.

There is little public sympathy for drunk driving in Canada. This opinion has been the mainstream norm for more than 10 years.

Hmmm... I assumed that U.S. and Canadian anti-smoking legislation had roughly the same timeline, but perhaps not.

Smoking in the workplace, except in designated areas has been banned for about 20 years (it varies province to province). Smoking in public such as buses and subways has been banned for about 25 years. For airplanes it's about 20 years. Total smoking ban in restaurants is about 10 years old. Smoking ban in bars is only a couple of years old.

There has been very little public backlash except for the expected initial uproar.



I don't really know much about public support for Prohibition in the U.S. I do know that many Canadians, including the Bronfmans (Seagrams) made their initial fortunes smuggling alcohol into the U.S. I also know that Prohibition was culturally unsustainable in the U.S. (a good thing, imo)



I was quite surprised to learn that it was only last year that the last state passed legislation for the 0.08% max blood alcohol level. This has been law for about 20 years in Canada. The maximum allowable level in most provinces is actually 0.05%. This results in a 24-hour license suspension and is a civil offense. BAC above 0.08% while driving is a criminal offense.

There is little public sympathy for drunk driving in Canada. This opinion has been the mainstream norm for more than 10 years.

That's because Canadians are sheep who've long been willing to allow their government to dictate to them how to live their lives. You give up whatever your government tells you to give up and ignore the rights of individuals to live as they see fit until such time as they have infringed upon another's right.

That's because Canadians are sheep who've long been willing to allow their government to dictate to them how to live their lives. You give up whatever your government tells you to give up and ignore the rights of individuals to live as they see fit until such time as they have infringed upon another's right.

Nahh.

The U.S. is slower and less able to accept appropriate social changes.

Too often, Americans focus on the rights of 'me' and ignore the rights of others. It comes from living in an egotistical, arrogant and self-centered society. The 'me first, damn the rest' is justified by waving the flag and pontificating about personal freedoms.

Examples -

Civil rights. If I want a segregated society, then I'll damn well have a segregated society.

Smoking. If I want to smoke somewhere, then I'll damn well smoke where I please. If you don't like it, then you can damn well go somewhere else.

Drinking and Driving. If I want to drink and drive, that's my own personal business. Tough luck if I happen to kill you and your family.

Don't worry... you'll catch up to Canada eventually. It justs takes a bit longer.

Oh nuts... I thought it was Friday afternoon.... ah well... I don't feel like editing. :)

Oh nuts... I thought it was Friday afternoon.... ah well... I don't feel like editing
Huh? What's friday afternoon have to do with editing? :)

I can see it now, Speakeasies that serve up bathtub Transfats. :P

Friday afternoons are for writing inflammatory posts. Something about the upcoming weekend that gets me aroused :) :) . I'm a day early.

Your Civil Rights analogy is directly opposed to the libertarian ideology I'm arguing for...your inclusion smacks of a giant straw man or idiocy. Either way. blah blah.

Smoking...yes, if you don't like that Bud's Bar and Diner permits smoking you can damn well go somewhere else and give your business to someplace that doesn't permit smoking. What right have you to dictate to Bud that he must ban smoking? Second hand smoke isn't particularly dangerous in the trace amounts people might inhale while sitting down to a drink or dinner.

Drinking and Driving: If you want to drink and drive you should be able to do so...with the understanding that if you violate a law while driving drunk you will be punished significantly more harshly. The current laws are punishing people because in driving drunk have the potential to perhap harm someone, not because they actually have harmed someone. It is a particularly disturbing trend which has promoted the further deterioration of personal rights in the face of intrustive powers of the state. Under the auspices of fighting drunk driving, the police now have the right and ability to stop you for virtually any reason they see fit and then search you and your vehicle.

Heaven help us if we ever catch up to Canada. American became great because we weren't sheep...

I don't think a thread truly reaches it's full potential until we start insulting Canada. Good times.

Hmmm... I assumed that U.S. and Canadian anti-smoking legislation had roughly the same timeline, but perhaps not.States in the U.S. vary widely. In California, smoking is banned in every public building, as well as outside, within a 20 foot radius of any public building. In restaurants and office buildings it has been banned for a long time, and in bars, since 1998. Practically, the only legal places to smoke here are in a private home and cars, and a car smoking ban (if children are present) is in the works. There has been little backlash to any of these suggestions, because we're not a tobacco state and smoking rates are extremely low.

There was a HUGE backlash to it when they banned it in bars in my city. Or rather, it was verbal backlash. There were a few bars cited for ignoring the ban at first. But then, non-smokers probably started coming back to bars and I think everyone won, except the nicotine addicts.

Banning smoking has been very nice for non-smokers. Its great not having to smell it on your clothes, in your hair and it has probably helped a lot of people realize they should quit. I know that the more anti-social smoking became the more I wanted to quit.

And I was even smoking menthols! (Which were recently found to be harder to quit).

When I went to Paris in 2000, I was expecting to step back into a time capsule with smokers everywhere. Very pleased to find out that they've implemented some smoking bans too.

Smoking...yes, if you don't like that Bud's Bar and Diner permits smoking you can damn well go somewhere else and give your business to someplace that doesn't permit smoking.Well, if you don't like our anti-smoking laws, you can damn well go to a different state.If you want to drink and drive you should be able to do so...with the understanding that if you violate a law while driving drunk you will be punished significantly more harshly.Yes, let's let each drunk moron kill a few innocent people before we step in. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>Under the auspices of fighting drunk driving, the police now have the right and ability to stop you for virtually any reason they see fit and then search you and your vehicle.No, they cannot. They can stop you if they suspect you're a drunk, but they can only arrest you if you are, in fact, drunk. Even then, there are limits as to what they can search in your car.

Personally, I find the drunk driving laws far too lenient. Drunk driving killed 16,694 people in 2004. If you're driving drunk, you should have your license revoked, permanently.

I don't think a thread truly reaches it's full potential until we start insulting Canada. Good times.

Could there be a corollary to Godwin's Law?

At some point a thread will result in insulting either Canada or America, at which point the discussion is essentially over.

Heaven help us if we ever catch up to Canada. American became great because we weren't sheep...

Better start praying then. The U.S. is certainly following Canada in terms of social changes such as smoking and drinking/driving. Some day you may even have Universal Health Care.

You might even change your mind on stem-cell research.

... but feel free to lead the world in trans-fat regulation :) .

And Tuda... with the magnificent disagreements we've had, I agree with you here.

Well, if you don't like our anti-smoking laws, you can damn well go to a different state.

If you're (insert unpopular sub-population here) you can damn well go to a different state!

/smirk.



Yes, let's let each drunk moron kill a few innocent people before we step in.

Yes! Because, by God, its more important to retstrain the government from making things illegal because they "might" cause damage. Until you've actually caused damage...you shouldn't be criminally liable!


<img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>No, they cannot. They can stop you if they suspect you're a drunk, but they can only arrest you if you are, in fact, drunk. Even then, there are limits as to what they can search in your car.

Actually, Tudamorf, the fact is that they can pretty much stop you at will because suspicion of inebriation is whatever the police officer says his suspicion was founded on. And no, the limits to police search in vehicles have been practically eliminated due to the wonderful War on Drugs. So between drunk driving and drugs the police can, and do, effectively stop your vehicle at will and search it.

Personally, I find the drunk driving laws far too lenient. Drunk driving killed 16,694 people in 2004. If you're driving drunk, you should have your license revoked, permanently.

Wrong. Catagorically.

Its more like six thousand. That number is 'alcohol related' which essentially means if anyone involved had even one drink. Not people who died as a result of a driver who was legally drunk.

If I rear end someone...and the victim of my negligence was drunk, while I was sober, it still counts towards that number of 'alcohol related' deaths.

There is also a lack of differentiation between accidents which were one vehicle and one victim accidents (ie, drunk driver running his car into a tree and killing himself).

There is a quote I dearly wish I could remember.

It had to do with dangerous legislation in the guise of being good for the public.

Drinking and Driving: If you want to drink and drive you should be able to do so...with the understanding that if you violate a law while driving drunk you will be punished significantly more harshly. The current laws are punishing people because in driving drunk have the potential to perhap harm someone, not because they actually have harmed someone.

Look at it another way. You need a license for the privilege of driving on public roads. You are breaching your license if you drive while drunk and that should be a punishable offence. The ambition of the license is to stop people who are not capable of controlling a vehicle from driving on the roads. Drunken drivers are typically not capable of controlling a vehicle.

So between drunk driving and drugs the police can, and do, effectively stop your vehicle at will and search it.Not unless you <i>are</i> drunk, as proven by a breath test or field sobriety test. And if you are drunk and driving, you <i>should</i> be arrested, searched, and punished, and your license <i>should</i> be revoked.If I rear end someone...and the victim of my negligence was drunk, while I was sober, it still counts towards that number of 'alcohol related' deaths.What makes you think the accident would have happened the same way if the victim were sober? A sober victim is more likely to spot a speeding, reckless Aidon and veer out of the way. A drunk victim is barely able to keep himself within his lane.There is also a lack of differentiation between accidents which were one vehicle and one victim accidents (ie, drunk driver running his car into a tree and killing himself).That drunk driver was most likely out of control, not suicidal. He needs our protection because his judgment is too poor to protect himself. (Yes, I'm pushing those libertarian buttons, I know.) And if he doesn't die, and requires $100K in medical care, guess who's likely to pay it?

Look at it another way. You need a license for the privilege of driving on public roads. You are breaching your license if you drive while drunk and that should be a punishable offence. The ambition of the license is to stop people who are not capable of controlling a vehicle from driving on the roads. Drunken drivers are typically not capable of controlling a vehicle.


That would be so, except that driving under the influence can end up as a criminal offense with jail time. Thus it is no longer simply an administrative issue of driving, but a criminal justice issue.

Driving drunk isn't just a matter of a few points on your license. You can go to jail.

Not unless you <i>are</i> drunk, as proven by a breath test or field sobriety test. And if you are drunk and driving, you <i>should</i> be arrested, searched, and punished, and your license <i>should</i> be revoked.

Wrong, Tudamorf. They can pull you over for suspicion of driving while under the influence. They can then cart you to the station for a breath test, which requires them to tow your vehicle and then "inventory" it (i.e. search it). Alternatively they can simply claim to have beleived they saw something potentially dangerous in the vehicle and then commence a search. You do not actually have to be drunk for any of these things to occur.

What makes you think the accident would have happened the same way if the victim were sober? A sober victim is more likely to spot a speeding, reckless Aidon and veer out of the way. A drunk victim is barely able to keep himself within his lane.

0.08% BAC is not "barely able to keep himself within his lane". That amount of inebriation is more along the lines of 0.15 to 0.25% BAC. Regardless of his inebriation, however, he should not be held responsible for my negligence in striking him from behind and failing to maintain assured clear distance. Nor should it be counted as an alcohol related death. Might have should have beens make poor reasoning for judicial measures.

That drunk driver was most likely out of control, not suicidal. He needs our protection because his judgment is too poor to protect himself. (Yes, I'm pushing those libertarian buttons, I know.) And if he doesn't die, and requires $100K in medical care, guess who's likely to pay it?

If he doesn't die and requires $100k in medical care, I'm guessing the insurance policy he's mandated by law to maintain will be covering most of it.

Regardless, wherever did you get this silly notion that payment dictates the ability to run roughshod over personal rights? You cannot sell your rights nor can you buy my rights. The fact that you pay taxes does not give you the power to remove my rights.

It should take more than the simple fact that tax payers pay for some of the consequences to get us to permit the government the power to dictate our lives.

Some things are worth more than a few points of income tax.

That would be so, except that driving under the influence can end up as a criminal offense with jail time. Thus it is no longer simply an administrative issue of driving, but a criminal justice issue.

Driving drunk isn't just a matter of a few points on your license. You can go to jail.

The same is true of other forms of transport. Ship captains are criminally responsible for negligence and so are their crew, when it puts lives at risk. It is right for seamen. It is right for car drivers.

If he doesn't die and requires $100k in medical care, I'm guessing the insurance policy he's mandated by law to maintain will be covering most of it.

Wait, if he is law abiding why would he be drinking and driving in the first place? I'm surprised to hear that the limit is higher then 0.08% in other places too, I've always know it to be 0.08%. I think a major problem is that unless you have had a breathalizer several times you dont have a clue what 0.08 is and it becomes your impaired judgement telling you you're fine to drive.

There is no way in hell taxes and health care premiums are going to go down. You're used to spending that money and the insurance companies and goverment know it, they're not going to refund your money, they'll spend it on something else, like other attacking countries with oil or researching the effects of operations in space.

The same is true of other forms of transport. Ship captains are criminally responsible for negligence and so are their crew, when it puts lives at risk. It is right for seamen. It is right for car drivers.

aritime law is completely different.

Aside from that, what a ridiculous argument. "We're going to hold every driver of a four door sedan to the same level as the captain of a 5 million gallon oil tanker".

Aside from that, what a ridiculous argument. "We're going to hold every driver of a four door sedan to the same level as the captain of a 5 million gallon oil tanker".Drunk oil tanker captains don't kill ~17,000 people per year in the U.S., so who really ought to be held to the higher standard?

Drunk oil tanker captains don't kill ~17,000 people per year in the U.S., so who really ought to be held to the higher standard?

I agree that drunk drivers should be taken out of their car and shot, although it is worth noting that the captain of the exxon valdez was a drunk. (http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV57.html) Sad =\

I agree that drunk drivers should be taken out of their car and shot, although it is worth noting that the captain of the exxon valdez was a drunk. (http://www.adn.com/evos/stories/EV57.html) Sad =\

I just had this discussion over on my other board.
Otherwise I would engage you on such a silly thing.

Drunk oil tanker captains don't kill ~17,000 people per year in the U.S., so who really ought to be held to the higher standard?

Neither do drunk drivers.

If you're going to quote statistics, at least use real ones, for ****s sake.

Well, in 2004, just under 17,000 people *did* die in alcohol related crashes (16,694 - NHTSA, 2005). In that sense, his statistic is correct.

What he fails to report is that an additional 26,000 people died in car accidents that had nothing to do with alcohol (same source). In other words, most people who die in a car accident die because of a sober driver who is just a bad driver.

Driving while youre so drunk you cant drive safely is a big problem. Driving when youre not a good enough driver to drive safely at all is a far bigger problem.

Aside from that, what a ridiculous argument. "We're going to hold every driver of a four door sedan to the same level as the captain of a 5 million gallon oil tanker".

They're not held to the same account and you know it. They are comparable though as the results of the negligence are typically the same - accidents, death, and serious injury. I'd take a guess and say that the greatest cause of death by negligence in the US would be careless driving. Vehicles are just about the most dangerous, common civilian items we have. Being negligent in their use is not a trivial matter.

Well, in 2004, just under 17,000 people *did* die in alcohol related crashes (16,694 - NHTSA, 2005). In that sense, his statistic is correct.

Those numbers include when just passengers have had alcohol, and not drivers.
It includes accidents where sober drivers have hit drunk drivers.
It even includes sober drivers who have hit drunk pedestrians.
It includes single car accidents, where the drunk has hurt only him or herself.

If anyone at the accident scene, at all, had alcohol, they are included in that number.

In other words, most people who die in a car accident die because of a sober driver who is just a bad driver.I see, so because it's the #2 killer instead of #1, we should ignore it completely. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Well, in 2004, just under 17,000 people *did* die in alcohol related crashes (16,694 - NHTSA, 2005). In that sense, his statistic is correct.

Alcohol related doesn't mean that anyone involved was drunk. Only about 6000 people died as a result of a driver who was legally inebriated.

The other 11,000 fatal accidents just had someone involved who had a drink. It doesn't even have to be a driver of a vehicle. Just that someone in the accident had had a drink...and then its 'alcohol related'. Such bull****.

Alcohol related doesn't mean that anyone involved was drunk. Only about 6000 people died as a result of a driver who was legally inebriated.Looking at the 2005 statistics (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/AlcoholTSF05.pdf), <b>9,483</b> fatal accidents involved drunk <i>drivers</i>, out of 16,885 total fatal accidents (or 14,539 fatal accidents involving at least one legally drunk driver or nonoccupant). Even if you isolate just drunk drivers, the number is about 9,483 higher than it should be.The other 11,000 fatal accidents just had someone involved who had a drink.86% of fatal accidents involved a driver or nonoccupant that was legally drunk (BAC > 0.08%), not people who just "had a drink".It doesn't even have to be a driver of a vehicle.I see. So if you're staggering out of your bar at 2:00 A.M., run into oncoming traffic in a drunken stupor, and a conscientious driver swerves to avoid you, alcohol isn't to blame?

So if you're staggering out of your bar at 2:00 A.M., run into oncoming traffic in a drunken stupor, and a conscientious driver swerves to avoid you, alcohol isn't to blame?

That scenario has zero bearing on drunk driving discussion, at least honest discussion.

Less than 10k fatalities a year from drunk drivers...out of a population of 300 million.

ore people die from falling, annually, than from drunk drivers.

Hey, you know there's roughly 3000 fatalities annually which involve motorcycles, lets ban them.

Less than 10k fatalities a year from drunk drivers...out of a population of 300 million.What <i>is</i> your point exactly? That almost 10,000 deaths (and countless injuries and $100 billion in property damages and medical expenses) just isn't important enough to care about?More people die from falling, annually, than from drunk drivers.That's why we take so many precautions to prevent falling. Besides, how often does falling injure a third party?Hey, you know there's roughly 3000 fatalities annually which involve motorcycles, lets ban them.Motorcycles serve a useful purpose, which must be weighed against the risk. Drunk driving serves no purpose, so no risk is acceptable.

What <i>is</i> your point exactly? That almost 10,000 deaths (and countless injuries and $100 billion in property damages and medical expenses) just isn't important enough to care about?

I'm saying that it isn't nearly enough for the drastic damange which has been incurred on our liberties in the name of 'saving the children' from drunk driving.

We continue to hand over our protections from abusive governance in order to provide security for ourselves or children...not realizing that in the end, we are removing the only security that truly matters...the security to prevent an overly intrusrive and authoritarian state.

Ending 10k deaths and 100 billion in property damage is certainly not worth the notions that we've permitted, that the police can stop you at will...and that it is somehow better to legislate criminal justice on potentialities instead of actual malicious intent.

Drunk driving is nothing more than criminal negligence..and should, at best, be treated as an aggrevating circumstance to pre-existant law.

That's why we take so many precautions to prevent falling. Besides, how often does falling injure a third party?Motorcycles serve a useful purpose, which must be weighed against the risk. Drunk driving serves no purpose, so no risk is acceptable.

This is your fatal mistake. You seem to think that the people need to show an action serves a purpose in order for it to be legal. This is a most dangerous paradigm that run counter to the beliefs our nation was founded on, it is the sort of socialism which people ought truly be afraid of (not economic, but societal), where the state dictates what is good for the people. It is not the people which must show their conduct serves purpose, but the state which must show that any limitation on the conduct of the people provides such an overwhelming benefit to society, as to demand the imposition of said limit.

Drunk driving does not meet that standard.

I'm saying that it isn't nearly enough for the drastic damange which has been incurred on our liberties in the name of 'saving the children' from drunk driving.What damage? Your right to drive drunk? Driving is merely a privilege granted by the state; a non-right. Thus, I don't see how driving <i>drunk</i> can be a right.Ending 10k deaths and 100 billion in property damage is certainly not worth the notions that we've permitted, that the police can stop you at willThe police can stop you at will anyway, if they want to find an excuse. If it's not drunk driving, it'll be something else. You don't throw away a perfectly good law for fear that the police will abuse it. Rather, you work on policing the police.Drunk driving is nothing more than criminal negligence..and should, at best, be treated as an aggrevating circumstance to pre-existant law. No, it's kind of like those arab celebrations where they all fire their guns into the air. It's an obvious danger that's easy to prevent. I shouldn't have to wait for a falling bullet to kill someone before I put a stop to it.It is not the people which must show their conduct serves purpose, but the state which must show that any limitation on the conduct of the people provides such an overwhelming benefit to society, as to demand the imposition of said limit. Drunk driving does not meet that standard.If 10,000 jews were killed every year by arabs who were firing their guns in the air in celebration, would it meet the standard?

Originally Posted by Aidon
It is not the people which must show their conduct serves purpose, but the state which must show that any limitation on the conduct of the people provides such an overwhelming benefit to society, as to demand the imposition of said limit. Drunk driving does not meet that standard.

It patently does meet that standard. The overwhelming benefit is to save many innocent lives each year. There is no reason to tolerate drunk driving at all except to give an abuse of priviledge to reckless idiots who cannot control their indulgences.

There is no reason to tolerate risky behavior at all except to give an abuse of priviledge to reckless idiots who cannot control their indulgences.



Your argument can and should be applied to many other forms of risky behaviors, don't you think?

{Paraphrased} SO because its the #2 killer, instead of the #1, we should ignore it?
Now we are on the right track. No, we should absolutely not ignore it. But to dig a little deeper, what I am arguing is that the #2 reason is a subset of the number 1 reason.

People who have accidents while 'driving drunk' are bad drivers.
People who have accidents while 'driving sober' are bad drivers.
Good drivers avoid accidents.

The solution to traffic deaths is to ban bad drivers. Now you're laughing as you read this. Stop laughing. We already have in place a system designed to do this, as a mandatory part of driver licensing. It just does it ineffectively.

The most parsimonious solution to traffic accidents, and the one least injurious to personal liberty, is to increase the difficulty of driving tests until accident rates decline. It is not rocket science -- if we only give licenses to good drivers, accidents will decrease. If we define 'good driver' sufficiently, accidents will be nearly eliminated.

Instead, we license the bad drivers that are going to have accidents and arrest the 'drunk drivers' that were not. It is puritanical nonsense and nothing more.

God...

I've stumbled into Libertarian hell.

what I am arguing is that the #2 reason is a subset of the number 1 reasonIt's not. Drunk drivers aren't necessarily bad drivers, they're just drunk. They are often perfectly good drivers when sober.

Bad drivers typically include teenagers (especially male); people who, on the highway, talk on the cell phone with one hand while typing out an e-mail on their Treo with the other and steering with their knee; and old people who think they're driving down a country road in their first Model T.

I'm all for weeding out bad drivers -- even though driving is a necessity for many people -- but the only drunk drivers this will affect will be those alcoholics who can't show up for the driving test sober.

There is no reason to tolerate risky behavior at all except to give an abuse of priviledge to reckless idiots who cannot control their indulgences.

Your argument can and should be applied to many other forms of risky behaviors, don't you think?Not quite. The value of the risky behavior to the individual, in terms of his basic rights, must be weighed against the risk to society.

In the case of drunk driver, there is little value to the individual: he doesn't have a right to drive anyway, certainly not to drive drunk, and he has many simple alternatives. The risk to society is also very large. Thus, banning drunk driving is a good idea.

Now let's take an example from TDG archives, your proposal for an HIV+ leper colony. Here, the value to the individual of the right to life and freedom are very great, and the risk to society is small because they can control whether or not they get infected using very simple measures. Thus, your idea for a leper colony is a bad idea.

I think the point is that a driver who is a "good" driver when sober, is still a "bad" driver if they cant make good decisions about when they should or should not drive while under the influence.

A good driver knows his limits, regardless of his Blood Alcohol limits, and its unfair to those drivers that that decision making process is taken away from them and they are prevented from driving because of what the bad drivers do.

I would agree except that your really playing with other peoples lives by letting people be idiots, and sometimes you need to err on the side of safety.

Generally I'm ok with people being idiots, but generally speaking people being idiots tend to kill or injure themselves, which is a right I dnt think should be infringed, but drunk driver is often killing or injuring others, so I have less tolerance for it.

It's not. Drunk drivers aren't necessarily bad drivers, they're just drunk. They are often perfectly good drivers when sober.
I disagree entirely. I've never had an accident while drunk or sober. I know many people who have had both.

People who have accidents are bad drivers - its part of the definition. Thus, anyone who has an accident while drunk, is a bad driver. The question is whether people who have accidents while drunk also have on average more accidents while sober than non-drunk-accient drivers. I doubt either of us can find evidence on this one, since I doubt the study has even been done.

Additonally, a "one accident = no more driving" policy would work wonders, since many if not most people who get into accidents have previously gotten into accidents.

But yes, being a good driver definitely includes knowing when not to drive. Its just that this level of when not to drive is a highly personal level, not a one-size-fits-all level that the state can magically determine.
the only drunk drivers this will affect will be those alcoholics who can't show up for the driving test sober.
Thats good, because society has no reason to want to get rid of drunk drivers who arent going to get into accidents. Aside from puritanical nonsense.

I disagree entirely. I've never had an accident while drunk or sober.Just because you haven't had an accident doesn't mean you weren't impaired. Not every drunk has an accident, every time. But the odds of getting into an accident, especially a fatal one, skyrocket when you're drunk (I can calculate the figures for you, if you like).Thus, anyone who has an accident while drunk, is a bad driver.I'm guessing you've never really been drunk then. Good walkers have a hard time walking while drunk, too.Additonally, a "one accident = no more driving" policy would work wonders, since many if not most people who get into accidents have previously gotten into accidents.What about people who get into one accident and then never get into another? If that figure is 90%, and yours is 10%, your logic would be off. Besides, a "one accident" policy is too strict. People aren't perfect robots; accidents happen.But yes, being a good driver definitely includes knowing when not to drive.That's silly. You don't have to have good judgment in life to be a good driver, and vice versa. Not to mention, while drunk you're in no position to judge your suitability to drive, unless you use an objective criterion (e.g., 3 drinks in 2 hours is too much).

I have been in 4 accidents(if you count the deer) while sober.

I have never been in an accident while drunk.

Calculate my odds for me please.

Here's an opinion from the foodie side of the fence. This would be a good thing. Not because it's government regulating whatever, but rather because non-TF foods taste f'ing better than this artificial crap ever did. As stated over and over in this thread already, TFs came about in the first place because some health numbnut didn't do their homework all the way and convinced people that these things are ok for you. Big money jumped on the bandwagon because it was cheap. It probably doesn't need to be banned, but damnit, butter needs to be apologized too.

I have been in 4 accidents(if you count the deer) while sober.
I have never been in an accident while drunk.
Calculate my odds for me please.How many miles have you driven in your entire life while sober? While drunk? Obviously people get into more accidents per year while sober, because people generally <i>are</i> sober most of the time.

What damage? Your right to drive drunk? Driving is merely a privilege granted by the state; a non-right. Thus, I don't see how driving <i>drunk</i> can be a right.

We've begun criminalizing potential danger, not actual criminal intent. DUI charges can be felonious and land you in prison...even if you didn't actually injure or attempt to injure anyone. Its ridiculous. That is the right we've given away.

The police can stop you at will anyway, if they want to find an excuse. If it's not drunk driving, it'll be something else. You don't throw away a perfectly good law for fear that the police will abuse it. Rather, you work on policing the police.

Absolutely wrong. Police abuse of a law is one of the first reasons for throwing away a law. Noone can police the police except the people...and the only way to do that is to limit their powers...not give them more powers "for the children".

No, it's kind of like those arab celebrations where they all fire their guns into the air. It's an obvious danger that's easy to prevent. I shouldn't have to wait for a falling bullet to kill someone before I put a stop to it.If 10,000 jews were killed every year by arabs who were firing their guns in the air in celebration, would it meet the standard?

...

Wow...that was one of the worst analogies I've seen in a long time.

Just because you haven't had an accident doesn't mean you weren't impaired. Not every drunk has an accident, every time. But the odds of getting into an accident, especially a fatal one, skyrocket when you're drunk (I can calculate the figures for you, if you like).I'm guessing you've never really been drunk then. Good walkers have a hard time walking while drunk, too.

I can blow several times the legal limit and still walk a straight line with ease and encounter only the usual amount of difficulty in reciting the alphabet backwards...but the fact that I could pass a field sobriety test easily will not save me from the drunk driving charge.

Surely you see the issue there?

We've begun criminalizing potential danger, not actual criminal intent.We criminalize potential danger all the time, in any circumstance where the risk/reward ratio is right. Drunk driving is one of countless examples of crimes that don't involve immediate harm to person or property. The "intent" we criminalize is your recklessness.DUI charges can be felonious and land you in prison...even if you didn't actually injure or attempt to injure anyone. Its ridiculous.Here in California, you will not serve any time for the first or second offense (an all too lenient policy, if you ask me). Only when you have multiple convictions do you start facing jail time. It's not as if the police can drag away an innocent citizen and cause him to be imprisoned for years.I can blow several times the legal limit and still walk a straight line with ease and encounter only the usual amount of difficulty in reciting the alphabet backwards.The fact that you know this makes me wonder whether you should be licensed at all. Do you honestly believe your driving is not impaired with 0.24% and above BAC?

We criminalize potential danger all the time, in any circumstance where the risk/reward ratio is right. Drunk driving is one of countless examples of crimes that don't involve immediate harm to person or property. The "intent" we criminalize is your recklessness.Here in California, you will not serve any time for the first or second offense (an all too lenient policy, if you ask me). Only when you have multiple convictions do you start facing jail time. It's not as if the police can drag away an innocent citizen and cause him to be imprisoned for years.The fact that you know this makes me wonder whether you should be licensed at all. Do you honestly believe your driving is not impaired with 0.24% and above BAC?

Impaired is a relative term.

y impaired is better than many people's dead sober. I stay in the lines, I break appropriately, I never run red lights or stop signs, and I stay a precise 3-5 mph over the limit (standard speed for ohio). I also tend to be able to maintain my balance, sing better, and maintain my ability to keep track of where the Black Bitch should be when playing hearts. Alcohol does not effect everyone the same way. It isn't even a matter of tolerance. Its just a matter of how a person is.

You demand an absolute standard for a relative effect, which boggles the mind. If a person is functional enough to pass a field sobriety test, why should they not be able to drive?

Sorry to hijack the thread back to the original topic, but here's something interesting about transfats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1886269,00.html
A recent scientific study demonstrates this with the finding that up to two-thirds of fat found in arterial plaques at autopsy in heart attack sufferers is trans fat. Trans fats are also particularly harmful to diabetics as they interfere with insulin receptors that are responsible for control of blood sugar. It has also been proven that consumption of trans fats increases the ratio of "bad" cholesterol in the blood, which is associated with an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and obesity. A worrying quality of trans fats is that their dangerous health effects take time to develop and are hard to detect until a disease condition arises - and we've all been eating these fats every day for years!

I cringe at media reports like this. It says *up to* two-thirds of fat found in arterial plaques at autopsy in heart attack sufferers is trans fat.

What does that mean? Were there 100 autopsies, where 99 showed showed 5% transfat and 1 showed 67% fat? What was the average? What was the range? What were the real numbers?

edia has a chronic penchant for focusing on the extreme. I have no doubt that trans-fat is bad for you, but sensationalizing it leaves me in the cold.

Hmmm... maybe I can find the actual study.

I know, I hate that sort of reporting too. I'd like to be told where the study was published and what it was called so I can look it up myself!

It might be this one, but I can't see the full text: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/354/15/1601

Yah, it don't help that one needs to buy a subscription to read if the article even has any stats, studies, or findings.

Just a follow up - the ban has been approved for NYC
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=7on_call&id=4824949

Just a follow up - the ban has been approved for NYC
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=7on_call&id=4824949Yep, and without much ado.

One by one, fast food companies nationwide are voluntarily removing it from their ingredient list, because they know they'll get the crap sued out of them if they don't, once the public finally grasps the truth.

Denmark (http://www.citynews.ca/news/features_4445.aspx) has banned trans fats for several years, without incident.

What is the controversy here, exactly? Make it a controlled substance and ban the manufacture, sale, or transportation of it. Except for possibly tobacco and alcohol, it's the most dangerous substance out there.

I wonder if this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfbTO0GlONU&eurl=) is fried in transfats? Seems like it really should be...

I wonder if this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfbTO0GlONU&eurl=) is fried in transfats? Seems like it really should be...Ah, Texas, the fattest state in the nation. A good starting point for staying fit is avoiding any food that's popular in Texas.

And yes, in cheap restaurants foods are typically deep fried in trans fats. Those hydrogenated oils are very tough, and why replace fresh oil daily in your deep fryer when you can reuse the same vat of hydrogenated oil for weeks or months at a time?

Big Brother and the boiling frog syndrome is alive and well.

And no one is really all that upset about it.

I guess that's part and parcel of being relieved of the weighty burden of liberty. Liberty is so messy and inconvienent, there are so many disadvantages, one of them being that many people don't do what they should. But not to worry, we can make them do what they should with benevolent regulations, formed with your good in mind, of course.

You'll do what's good for you, and like it. If you don't, you're an intolerant, ignorant, selfish slob who doesn't care how his/her behavior affects others or drives their insurance and medical rates up.

You don't want to be one of them do you? I thought not.

Big Brother and the boiling frog syndrome is alive and well.Part of the government's job is to keep the population safe from toxic substances, particularly in cases where the substance is never labeled.

If a company in your town were silently spewing toxic chemicals into your ground water and poisoning you, I bet you would drop the liberty speech and want the government to step in and stop it.

Trans fats are no different. They're toxic, totally unnecessary chemicals that silently kill people who don't even know it's in their food.

But people have been wanting trans fats instead of natural fats for years.

Consumer groups have sued fast food companies in the past because they were NOT using trans fats, and were actually using natural fats to prepare food.


Dude, you are talking about CRISCO.

ost people would prefer their cookies are made with shortening, rather than lard, most of the time.

Dude, you are talking about Margarine. It is not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

People have been conditioned to believe that margarine is better than butter(and its not) for decades.

And you NOW expect the restaurant industry to turn on a dime, AGAINST consumer will, and then fine them because they are providing what they have only been providing because of consumer requests?

This whole thing is absurd.

Crisco and almost all Margarines are trans fats. Getting people to realize that they are unhealthy is going to take some time, just like it took decades to convince them that they were better for them than natural fats.

It took the people who make Crisco(the prototype trans fat) almost a 100 years to get to universal acceptance, that shortening is better for you than natural fats in cooking and baking. It was introduced in like, 1911. And there are still a billion cook books which have it listed as the main fat ingredient in cooking, as opposed to natural. You wanna make those illegal too?

How about the chick who bakes some cookies or cake with Crisco, and brings them to work to share? You want to prosecute her for poisoning you with trans fats? Or are you going to be good with the one who brings in tamales slathered in manteca(lard) this holiday season?

Ah, Texas, the fattest state in the nation. A good starting point for staying fit is avoiding any food that's popular in Texas.
Technically, real Southern food should be cooked in lard - which, ironically is the substance that the trans fat oils were trying to replace.

Also, Texas is 6th fattest, you can look to Mississippi as the fattest, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana and Tennessee. The least obese state in the US is Colorado - which also has several of the counties which have the longest life expectancy average in the states. New York ranks very close to California, somewhere in the lower to mid 30's (for obesity, not life expectancy!)

And there are still a billion cook books which have it listed as the main fat ingredient in cooking, as opposed to natural. You wanna make those illegal too?No, just make the product illegal. It's not as if you have to change the recipe any, or even stray from the brand, as a non-trans-fat version of Crisco is now available.

The libertarians are just blowing smoke here. There's an easy alternative to the trans fat crisis, that is 100% invisible to the consumer. You don't have to convince consumers of anything, because they don't know anything to begin with. Just change the formula and be done with it.

I am not blowing smoke.

Just offering some perspective is all.

If you asked most people if they prefer their cakes made with shortening or lard, what would they choose?

If you asked most people what was more healthy, margarine, or butter, which would the pick?

I know that natural fats are better. Health wise and taste wise. But consumers don't. And they expect trans fats instead of natural fats even if they are ignorant to the fact that that is what they want.

It's Imperial!

Also, Texas is 6th fattestAmerican Obesity Association Report - Fattest Cities for 2005 (http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/cities.shtml)1. Houston, TX
2. Philadelphia, PA
3. Detroit, MI
4. Memphis, TN
5. Chicago, IL
6. Dallas, TX
7. New Orleans, LA
8. New York, NY
9. Las Vegas, NV
10. San Antonio, TX
11. El Paso, TX
12. Phoenix, AZ
13. Indianapolis, IN
14. Fort Worth, TX
15. Mesa, AZ
16. Columbus, OH
17. Wichita, KS
18. Kansas City, KS
19. Miami, FL
20 Long Beach, FL
21. Oklahoma City, OK
22. Tulsa, OK
23. Atlanta, GA
24. Charlotte, NC
25. Baltimore, MDFive Texan cities are in the top 14.

How do you make corn oil solid without hydrogenation?

I honestly have not researched how you can make Crisco non trans fat.

All hydrogenated oils are trans fats. If there is a process to make oil solid at room temperature without hydrogenation, I have not seen it yet.

Enlighten me.

I know that natural fats are better. Health wise and taste wise. But consumers don't. And they expect trans fats instead of natural fats even if they are ignorant to the fact that that is what they want.Forget the ignorant consumer. Just change the formula, and the consumer won't know the difference. Slap the label "shortening" and "margarine" on it, for all it matters. Those labels aren't necessarily synonymous with "trans fat," it's not fraud.

It might take years for the general public to grasp the danger, but there's no reason not to take action now to prevent more damage.How do you make corn oil solid without hydrogenation?You don't. You use naturally saturated fats, particularly the three popular plant oils (palm, palm kernel, and coconut), which are solid at room temperature. These were, in fact, the fats that were used in candy bars and such before the trans fat craze. Most of the processed food manufacturers that are switching over are using palm oil, and adding a bit of unsaturated oil (e.g., canola or corn) to soften the texture, if necessary.

Five Texan cities are in the top 14.
Great, five in the top 14, and still not the fattest state in the Union.

<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5536a1.htm?s_cid=mm5536a1_e">State-Specific Prevalence of Obesity Among Adults --- United States, 2005</A>
Among states in 2005, obesity prevalences ranged from 17.4% to 30.3%, and prevalence of extreme obesity ranged from 1.8% to 5.3%. During 1995--2005, obesity prevalence increased significantly (p<0.01) in all states. During 1995--2000, the number of states with obesity prevalence <20% declined from 50 states to 28 states (Figure). In 2005, four states (Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Vermont) still had obesity prevalences <20%, but 17 states had prevalences >25%, including three (Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia) with prevalences >30% (Figure).

That's from the CDC - my original #6th place ranking was actually from Trust for America's Health but it was a 2005 doc, apparently for 2006, Texas is ranked 10th by them now.

<a href="http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2006/Obesity2006Report.pdf">F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2006</a>
The percentage of obese adults exceeds 25 percent in 13 states -- an increase of three more states since last year.

Rank State Percentage Adult Obesity Three-Year
Combined Data (2003-2005)
Including Confidence Intervals
1 Mississippi 29.5% (+/- 0.9)
2 Alabama 28.7% (+/- 1.1)
3 West Virginia 28.6% (+/- 1.0)
4 Louisiana 27.4% (+/- 0.9)
5 Kentucky 26.7% (+/- 1.0)
6 Tennessee 26.6% (+/- 1.1)
7 Arkansas 26.4% (+/- 0.9)
8 (Tied) Indiana 26.2% (+/- 0.8)
8 (Tied) South Carolina 26.2% (+/- 0.7)
10 Texas 25.8% (+/- 0.8)

But people have been wanting trans fats instead of natural fats for years.

Consumer groups have sued fast food companies in the past because they were NOT using trans fats, and were actually using natural fats to prepare food.


Dude, you are talking about CRISCO.

ost people would prefer their cookies are made with shortening, rather than lard, most of the time.

Dude, you are talking about Margarine. It is not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

People have been conditioned to believe that margarine is better than butter(and its not) for decades.

And you NOW expect the restaurant industry to turn on a dime, AGAINST consumer will, and then fine them because they are providing what they have only been providing because of consumer requests?

This whole thing is absurd.

Crisco and almost all Margarines are trans fats. Getting people to realize that they are unhealthy is going to take some time, just like it took decades to convince them that they were better for them than natural fats.

It took the people who make Crisco(the prototype trans fat) almost a 100 years to get to universal acceptance, that shortening is better for you than natural fats in cooking and baking. It was introduced in like, 1911. And there are still a billion cook books which have it listed as the main fat ingredient in cooking, as opposed to natural. You wanna make those illegal too?

How about the chick who bakes some cookies or cake with Crisco, and brings them to work to share? You want to prosecute her for poisoning you with trans fats? Or are you going to be good with the one who brings in tamales slathered in manteca(lard) this holiday season?

Crisco != Lard! Lard is lovely natural saturated fat from animals. From around the kidneys of pigs, I think. Its rendered down to just fat. There are other sources too, coconut oil, palm oil and a few others. But groups like the CSPI took out against saturated fats back in the 90's and got the public all worked up over them and manufacturers switched to hydrogenated vegetable oils because they were being told vegetable oil was healthier than saturated fats. Which is another lie because actually getting too much Omega-6 fatty acid in relationship to Omega-3 is not a good thing. But that's another story.

If Crisco truly were lard I'd be buying it. But it is just hydrogenated vegetable oil.

Wow, the south seems to have the obesity awards all locked up. No wonder though, my brother tells me they deep fry everything.

I've lived in pretty much every major area of the US (except the midwest, but I've visited a lot), and I'm sure it is a lot about the food you grew up with, but I gotta say that I do enjoy Southern food much more than most regional cuisines I've had in the US.

Southern food isn't bad just because they deep fry everything, but also because it was a much poorer society. While the choice cuts got sent up North for a huge markup, most Southerners had to figure out how to make tendons, tails, intestines and all those left over bits taste good. Much of the recipes out of that era did include deep fat frying or slow cooking in its own fat for the better part of a day. Add to that, the fact that many of the cuts were fattier than the leaner prime muscle mass cuts, well pig cracklin' for all! Deep frying even have some supporters who say that if done right, deep fat frying actually doesn't add a lot of extra fat (I think Alton Brown is actually one of the ones who said this), but the problem is that many homes and eateries allow the oil to gradually warm up with the food or overload the fryer, thereby lowering the oil temperature, and forcing the food to sit longer in the oil/fat.

The Deep Fried Mars Bars, Twinkies, Oreos and now <a href="http://www.wftv.com/foodnews/9789814/detail.html">Coke</a>? (No really, go look, it even has a picture.)

Yeah, well I can't explain that one. I can at least say that it started as fair food, and I could see eating that once a year - heck every time I go to any sort of carnival I miss funnel cakes - but as a every day desert? Bleargh.

Lard though... lard is good. Real butter is good. Real raw sugar is good.

Yeah, I've already admitted to myself that I will probably be one of those people who die in their 60's due to heart disease, but I'm ok with that. Quite honestly I'd rather eat my red meat and fried foods for 60 years than survive on grass and leaves for 100 years. I'm very sure that not having kids or being a prime source of income supporting a spouse is a very big factor in this lifestyle as well. If I kick the bucket, I make my beneficiaries rich and that's enough for me - no other "won't live to see them grow up" type regrets.

Hypothetically yes, if surviving on fish didn't cost like 100x's more than meat, I'd love being able to follow just a strict Japanese diet (been there, done that, loved it) of fish and rice, but as farm raised fish seems to have a ton of mercury now; thereby making wild caught the only real source of fish, well, fish every day (even a cheap fish like mackerel) just isn't an option.

It isn't the bad meat choices making southerners fat, it's the extremely high carb diet with the addition of deep frying everything. Everything is breaded, starchy as hell and then deep fried to boot. They dump gallons of sugar into their tea, they eat biscuits and corn bread like mad.

Slow cooking, roasting, bbq that's not the thing making southerners fat.

I intentionally buy those cheap cuts because nothing tastes better than a roast with a lot of connective tissue that has been cooking all day, and finally the connective tissue turns into gelatin and it is glorious. But I don't eat the starchy/sugary stuff and I haven't had any problems controlling my weight since I gave all that stuff up.

Crisco != Lard

I thought I was quite clear on that. Even repeating the difference.

Crisco was and is the replacement for cooking with lard(or even bacon grease) for almost 100 years. Crisco is not lard, but most people will tell you that Crisco is better to bake or fry with than lard, and healthier for you too.

the public all worked up over them and manufacturers switched to hydrogenated vegetable oils because they were being told vegetable oil was healthier than saturated fats.
Exactly.

http://www.enchbyench.com/angie/shortningbread%5B1%5D.mid
Shortenin' Bread

Get out the skillet, get out the lead,
ammy's gwine to make a littl' shortenin' bread.
That ain't all she's gwine to do;
ammy's gwine to make a littl' coffee too!

ammy's little baby loves short'nin', short'nin',
ammy's little baby loves shortenin' bread.
ammy's little baby loves short'nin', short'nin,
ammy's little baby loves shortenin' bread!

Three littl' children, lyin' in bed,
Two was sick, the other most dead!
Send for the doctor, the doctor said:
"Feed those children on Short'nin Bread!"

ammy's little baby loves short'nin', short'nin',
ammy's little baby loves shortenin' bread.
ammy's little baby loves short'nin', short'nin,
ammy's little baby loves shortenin' bread!

I stole the skillet, I stole the lead,
I stole the girl that makes Short'nin Bread;
Got caught with the skillet, caught with the lead,
Caught with the girl that makes Short'nin Bread.

ammy's little baby loves short'nin', short'nin',
ammy's little baby loves shortenin' bread.
ammy's little baby loves short'nin', short'nin,
ammy's little baby loves shortenin' bread!

Got caught with the skillet, caught with the lead,
Caught with the girl that makes Short'nin Bread.
I paid six dollars for the skillet, six for the lead;
I spent six months in jail eatin 'Short'nin Bread!

Yeah, I've already admitted to myself that I will probably be one of those people who die in their 60's due to heart disease, but I'm ok with that.But I'm not. And I'm the one who's going to have to pitch in for your diabetes treatment, your quadruple bypass, your Lipitor. Whether through Medicare or through increased insurance cost, it's going to come out of my pocket, one way or another. Fat people don't just keel over out of the blue, they develop a cluster of expensive symptoms that can last for decades.

If you want to slowly kill yourself and die a pitiful lingering death, have at it, but don't force me to pay for it.

Incidentally, your description of Southern foods is one of the most disgusting things I've read on this board. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif> How one manages to shovel such garbage down one's throat and not instinctively vomit -- let alone repeat the process three times a day -- is beyond me.

Quite honestly I'd rather eat my red meat and fried foods for 60 years than survive on grass and leaves for 100 years.You'll feel differently when you are 60. Instead of living an active lifestyle and enjoying all the things you used to enjoy, you'll be a pill-popping invalid who's on a first name basis with most of your local hospital's staff, and you'll regret it.

It's not just a question of dropping dead one day, there are serious quality of life (and financial) issues at stake.

it's the extremely high carb dietAtkins is so 2004. Haven't you realized by now that's it's a fraud?

Carbohydrates aren't inherently bad. It's the type of carbohydrates that matters. Only refined starches (e.g., white flour) and sugars (e.g., white sugar and high fructose corn syrup) are empty calories that will spike your blood sugar levels and make you fat. Unfortunately, Americans can't get enough of this junk.

Atkins is so 2004. Haven't you realized by now that's it's a fraud?

Well, not really.

But most people have been so conditioned by a 'low fat diet' that they think that it like that.

A low carb diet does not work until you get under 60 grams of CHO a day. Or less.

If you are above that threshold, you really will get no results or weight loss.

If you maintain, under that level, you will, or might.

It is not the same deal. Even though people think that it is.

For example:
I can expect to be more healthy if I cut my fat intake from 300 grams to 100 grams a day. I just can.

But if I cut my CHO intake from 300 grams to 100 grams, I should expect to see no difference in my overall weight. I need to get lower. Until I get under my bodies threshold level(which is usually close to 60), I should not expect to see any real changes in my overall health(or weight). And an Adkins style diet, can send me into Ketosis, as well(but some advocates say that is a good thing).

Carbohydrates aren't inherently bad.
No, they are not.

It's the type of carbohydrates that matters.
No, not really. Not in terms of what you are talking about.

Only refined starches (e.g., white flour) and sugars (e.g., white sugar and high fructose corn syrup) are empty calories that will spike your blood sugar levels and make you fat.
No, not really.

They are empty calories, that is to say that they have no nutritional value other than the sugar, for the most part. But all carbs get turned into glucose eventually, before you body can use the chemicals.

And ask Pan, she is intolerant of wheat protein, gluten....ask her if she can eat white bread without reaction. Even refined products are not completely pure(carbs or sugars).

Unfortunately, Americans can't get enough of this junk.
Yes, very much really.

But all carbs get turned into glucose eventually, before you body can use the chemicals.That's true of any food you eat that is used for energy. It's irrelevant. What is relevant is what happens in between.

A low carb diet does not work until you get under 60 grams of CHO a day. Or less.That's a good way to mess up your body, not to lose weight.

Not only isn't there evidence that "low carb" diets work, there is definitive evidence that they don't work in the long term. It was just a stupid dieting fad from the 70s that was revived to raise some temporary cash from ignorant fat Americans.

Americans really are funny. They're so desperate to find the magic pill that does the job for them, they lose sight of all common sense.

That's a good way to mess up your body, not to lose weight.
Of course. You essentially have acetone running through your veins. But you do lose weight.

Not only isn't there evidence that "low carb" diets work, there is definitive evidence that they don't work in the long term.
I know that the diets do cause weight loss. The long term issues have to do with compliance. People love carbs, we are instinctively drawn to sugars. Sugars taste good for a reason.

It was just a stupid dieting fad from the 70s that was revived to raise some temporary cash from ignorant fat Americans.
I first heard about the chemistry of this stuff in the early 80s. It did not have a name attached to it, but I do remember reading and thinking about the issue. That if you starve yourself of just sugar only, that you body will not only convert fats to sugars, but that that conversion was energy INefficient, and thus weight reducing. That was a long time ago, though.

Americans really are funny. They're so desperate to find the magic pill that does the job for them, they lose sight of all common sense.
Hunger is pain. Pain hurts. Common sense notwithstanding.

Oh please, Tuda, you can take your "I'll be paying for your everything" attitude and shove it. Quite frankly I plan on being retired by the time I'm 55 (aiming towards 50 and currently on track to do so - go go 15% returns) and having more than enough money to support myself and whomever I plan on spending my life with. Point is, when I'm ready to kick the bucket, I will still be one of those people paying taxes on my interest generating accounts and dividend stocks and thereby paying for everyone else who leeches off the government. Meanwhile, me and my retired arse will be sitting on a beach in the middle of no where with full medical coverage (the expense of which is already budgeted under my planned retirement) and contemplating things like changing my citizenship over to one of the zero-income-tax Caribbean micro-nations.

So by then, maybe when I'm 60 years old, lying on the beach under a cancer-causing sun with no SPF cream, drinking Pina Coladas with extra rum and sugar, eating nothing but jerked pork and lard fried bananas - yes, by then, maybe I'll consider changing my lifestyle to eating nothing but rabbit food, watching my carbs, wondering how many calories or grams of sugar are in food_item_x.

But, probably not.

But you do lose weight.You will lose weight on any diet where your caloric intake is lower than your daily requirement. You do this by taking in fewer calories, consuming more, or both. There's no reason to resort to bizarre, unhealthy macro-nutrient ratios when a balanced diet will help you lose weight and stay healthy.

I'm really amazed at how Americans manage to obfuscate such a simple truth, just so they can have an excuse to shovel garbage down their throats.

yes, by then, maybe I'll consider changing my lifestyle to eating nothing but rabbit food, watching my carbs, wondering how many calories or grams of sugar are in food_item_x.I'm amazed that Americans really believe that maintaining a healthy lifestyle involves eating "rabbit food," watching carbs, or counting calories. No wonder they constantly find more excuses not to do it.with full medical coverage (the expense of which is already budgeted under my planned retirement)What do you think happens when your insurance company has to pay $250K for your quadruple bypass, and you've only paid them $15K? That's right, <b><i>I</b></i> and the other healthy people have to make up for the difference.

Unless you are paying for your health care directly out of your pocket, the rest of us are paying for your mistakes. That is one of the reasons insurance costs have been skyrocketing: too many fat people with too many treatable conditions putting a burden on the insurers.

Oh, and if you're counting on 15% returns for the next couple of decades, I'd think up a Plan B if I were you. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

You will lose weight on any diet where your caloric intake is lower than your daily requirement. You do this by taking in fewer calories, consuming more, or both.

As Fyyr as already pointed out, this is the standard line the AMA feeds everyone, as well as the "food pyramid". It may work, but it's not the only way to lose weight, though for some incomprehensible reason, the AMA and established medical bureaucracy hates anything that challenges their preconceptions.

You can also lose weight by consuming only certain types of complex carbohydrate and fats, because of the metabolic pathways the body must use to convert these into glucose, you can eat more than you physically burn by your outward activity level.

i.e. you could sit at rest for 16 hours a day, burning 150 calories an hour, eat 3000 calories, and if those calories were in the form of say fat, or highly complex carbohydrates, your body would have to work twice or three times as hard to convert them into a useable form of energy for your cells, thus even though you seem to be defying the law of conservation of energy and mass, you aren't. The extra activity simply is on the molecular level, and is not perceptible or measurable by the standard nutritionist/dietary formulae, and also, as a bonus, no running on treadmills at the local YMCA.

Here's a link to a former Atkins nutritionist nurse, who separates the hype and myth from the facts quite well.

http://coolnurse.healthology.com/diet/diet-information/article1451.htm

The major problem with living in America is trying to get food that hasn't been tainted with:

brown sugar,
corn syrup,
honey,
molasses,
maple syrup,
high-fructose corn syrup,
dextrin,
raw sugar,
fructose,
polyols,
dextrose,
hydrogenated starch,
galactose,
glucose,
sorbitol,
fruit juice concentrate,
lactose ,
brown rice syrup,
xylitol,
sucrose,
mannitol,
sorghum,
maltose,
or
malitol.

Or some variety of wheat, corn, flour, breading, bean, potato, rice, or any other low fiber vegatable.

Too much processing, not enough simplicity.

If anything in the ingredient list sounds like your high-school chemistry teacher would use it, don't put it in your mouth, save it for the lab.

You included sugar alcohols in your list.

Those are not the same as sugars.

You can also lose weight by consuming only certain types of complex carbohydrate and fats, because of the metabolic pathways the body must use to convert these into glucose, you can eat more than you physically burn by your outward activity level.You're referring to the thermic effect of food, which is the extra energy required to digest it. Fats can be absorbed easily and require nearly zero energy to digest, proteins are the hardest to the digest (I've seen numbers from 10-30%) and carbohydrates are in the middle. Of course, the actual number is a complex figure depending on the content of the total meal and the person involved.

While this sounds good in theory, in reality the thermic effect is only a tiny variable in the diet, greatly overshadowed by the basic principles that Americans simply refuse to accept.and if those calories were in the form of say fat, or highly complex carbohydrates, your body would have to work twice or three times as hard to convert them into a useable form of energyFat is the easiest to absorb, so you're way off there.

And "complex" versus "simple" is an irrelevant distinction for carbohydrates. Some "complex" carbohydrates (such as refined starches) have a very high glycemic index, meaning they raise your blood sugar very easily and rapidly, whereas some "simple" carbohydrates (e.g., fructose) have a very low glycemic index.a former Atkins nutritionist nurse, who separates the hype and myth from the facts quite wellAnyone with the label "Atkins" is, by definition, either an idiot, or a con artist with an agenda. I wouldn't trust any Atkins representative to separate hype and myth from fact, when it is their job to create hype and myth and repress fact so that they can make money selling their overpriced candy bars and shakes.The major problem with living in America is trying to get food that hasn't been tainted with: ....I don't eat any significant quantity of those things, except to the extent they're present naturally in foods (e.g., fructose, glucose, and sugar alcohols in fruit). It is actually quite easy not to eat them: just don't buy processed junk food.Or some variety of wheat, corn, flour, breading, bean, potato, rice, or any other low fiber vegatable.Beans, whole grain rice, potatoes (whole, with skin), and whole grain flour are actually very good sources of fiber and nutrition. <b>IF</b> you eat them whole, not just the refined starchy portion.

Sugars are less expensive to convert to ATP(energy).
Fats are more expensive to convert to ATP, and are able to be stored more efficiently. But reveal more ATP per gram than the other nutrients.
Proteins mostly use anabolic metabolism pathways, and when forced to use proteins catabolically(energy), it is very expensive calorically. And usually does not noticeably take place unless a person puts his or her body into starvation mode.
Which is exactly what the diets hope to do.

I can use the 4, 4, 7, 9 rule of course, but that comes from pure chemical calorimetry. It generally does not take into consideration metabolism in animals/humans. So it is more of a guideline.

Which is exactly what the diets hope to do.And fail. Because theory aside, the actual effect is minimal. The numbers are just too small when you compare it to the big numbers such as total intake and total metabolic rate.

3 years ago, I honestly believed like you do.

But I have seen enough cases where the diets succeed now(or to date), I am less of a skeptic.

Where they do fail, it is invariably with non compliance. But that is the problem with any dietetic regimen.

I know I could not relinquish carbs, myself. I have resolved myself to more exercise and ways of cutting calories. Because I love carbs. I would be a failure on a low carb diet. I would be non compliant.

But I have seen enough cases where the diets succeed now(or to date), I am less of a skeptic.How do you know they would not have succeeded had they followed a normal diet plan? Anyone who generates a caloric deficit is going to eventually lose weight, it's simple physics.

There were a number of studies done in recent years on Atkins showing that, compared to a regular diet, it provided no long-term benefit. I'm sure I can dig them up if someone is interested. But last year's bankruptcy of Atkins says it all.

How do you know they would not have succeeded had they followed a normal diet plan?
One can never know. That is generally up to compliance though, if there are people who prefer eating only proteins and fats, and can stick to it, those people will find success. I could not do it myself, but I mentioned that.

Anyone who generates a caloric deficit is going to eventually lose weight, it's simple physics.
Chemistry, really, not physics. And this a no brainer. Don't mean that it works for all people.

There were a number of studies done in recent years on Atkins showing that, compared to a regular diet, it provided no long-term benefit.
I would like to see 'em.

I'm sure I can dig them up if someone is interested. But last year's bankruptcy of Atkins says it all.

I am always interested in new knowledge. Companies go bankrupt all the time, and says nothing other than they have been costing more to run, than they make.

You're referring to the thermic effect of food, which is the extra energy required to digest it. Fats can be absorbed easily and require nearly zero energy to digest, proteins are the hardest to the digest (I've seen numbers from 10-30%) and carbohydrates are in the middle. Of course, the actual number is a complex figure depending on the content of the total meal and the person involved.

While this sounds good in theory, in reality the thermic effect is only a tiny variable in the diet, greatly overshadowed by the basic principles that Americans simply refuse to accept.


Wrong. Do you even understand how fat catabolism works? Let me pull down my medical texts. Quickly skimming the chapter on energy and cellular metabolism, do you know that while glucose can easily be stored as triacylglycerol, only the backbone glycerol portion of the fat molecule can be converted into glucose? The 3 fatty acids that are linked to the glycerol molecule can be used to power ATP formation, but the chemical steps used to strip carbon atoms off the fatty acid to make acetyl coenzyme A are irreversible. So the end result of a high fat, no sugar diet is plenty of ATP, but very little excess glucose to be converted back over to fat. In fact, the dietary ketogenic state induces the body to begin burning its own reserves of triacylglycerol (fat).

If you really want to learn about the chemical pathways of fat, carbohydrate, and glucose, you could always find a recent edition of Vander, Sherman and Luciano's Human Physiology: The Mechanisms of Body Function, which is what I have in front of me. I have the 5th edition, though, and I think they're on the 9th.. or whatever.

If you don't intake anything but fat and protein and complex carbohydrate, the effect is not minimal. The tricky bit is you can't have any sugars or simple carbs whatsoever. Not even trace amounts.

In this study

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.html

by Harvard's School of Public Health's Nutrition, the low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period.

Sadly, you are very, very wrong on this particular issue.

Anyone with the label "Atkins" is, by definition, either an idiot, or a con artist with an agenda. I wouldn't trust any Atkins representative to separate hype and myth from fact, when it is their job to create hype and myth and repress fact so that they can make money selling their overpriced candy bars and shakes.

Your reading comprehension is either extremely poor, or you arrogantly knee-jerked on the word Atkins, and dismissed the link without even clicking through and reading it. She's a former Atkins employee. She disagreed with some things Atkins was espousing and that's why she left (such as all-you-can-eat bacon for one).

You speak as if you know. You do not. I do. I went from 239 to 205 on a low-carb ketogenic diet, kept it off since 1997 and I read and fully understood the metabolic pathways processes behind the concept. Quit spewing the AMA mind pablum that's being spoon fed to you on nutrition, dieting, and weight loss.

And fail. Because theory aside, the actual effect is minimal. The numbers are just too small when you compare it to the big numbers such as total intake and total metabolic rate.

Fail to put the body in starvation mode? Guess again, I did it, have done it, and am continuing to do it since 1997. See the above link for "the too-small numbers". I can't understand why you can't see past the conventional party line on this issue.

I'm almost ready to believe that your mind is not just closed on this subject, but hermetically sealed. If you want to continue to believe in your ill-placed infallibility on this subject and that of what the AMA establishment continues to tell you, go right ahead. For bonus deaths and loss of toes and legs, be sure to tell all your diabetic friends and family that adhering to the low-fat, high carb way of dieting will work for them, no matter how hungry they become, or how badly they crave foods. (neither of which happen while on a high-protein, low-carb ketogenic diet)

You included sugar alcohols in your list.

Those are not the same as sugars.


And Fyyr, sugar alcohols, in my experience, while being mostly undigestible by the GI tract, do have an effect (reduced the ketones in my personal experience and testing), which is a key factor to the ketogenic diet. I know that traditional medical wisdom is that ketosis has negative connotations when referring to diabetics, but dietary ketosis is not the same, and does not have the same deterimental effects on the body that diabetic ketosis does. ( your aforementioned comment on acetone in the blood is not quite accurate, for example. If instead, it was a wry reference to high concentrations of the aforementioned acetyl-coenzyme A that will naturally result from fat catabolism rather than carbohydrate or sugar catabolism, then I get it.)

Before I started this diet, I did my due diligence, and could only find solid medical Medline articles which stated that a high protein, low carb diet excerbated renal diseases, and were the primary source material used by medical professionals whenever they voiced an objection to the diet to me directly, and I insisted on seeing scientific research backing up "what they heard".

As you know, and as was drilled into me in my human physiology classes, you cannot take the converse of a biological effect and claim it to also be true, i.e. because high protein diets aggravate existing kidney disease, it does not follow that high protein diets would cause kidney disease. I found that some doctors, surprisingly, are guilty of this leap in correlation/causation. Did they forget what they were taught in college and medical school?

I am fairly certain that if this diet caused real measurable acetone to form in the arteries of ketogenic dieters it would have been extensively reported in the medical journals.

The biggest problem with DKA is not the ketones, per se, it is the acid levels that they produce.

When you get your blood pH down to 6.9(acid) or whatever, you are going to be killing your cells.

Those dead cells release all kinds of stuff, that your body is not prepared for, including more acid.


edit:
your aforementioned comment on acetone in the blood is not quite accurate, for example
Acetone is the prototype ketone, there are millions of isomers and variations, of course. I know what you are saying, and you are correct. I was trying to be simplistic.

And I am sure that Vander, et al is on their Tenth Edition.

I have Ninth, and its old.

In this study

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/10.23/03-lowcarb.html

by Harvard's School of Public Health's Nutrition, the low-carbohydrate dieters lost more weight than low-fat dieters despite eating 25,000 extra calories over a 12-week study period.The key phrase being <b>12-week study period</b>. Atkins is well known to cause accelerated weight loss (mostly water) in the first months compared to regular diets. That says nothing about its long-term viability.You speak as if you know. You do not. I do. I went from 239 to 205 on a low-carb ketogenic diet, kept it off since 1997 and I read and fully understood the metabolic pathways processes behind the concept. Quit spewing the AMA mind pablum that's being spoon fed to you on nutrition, dieting, and weight loss.It's great that you're maintaining a healthier weight, no matter how you got there. But that doesn't mean it's the only way, or even the most effective way.

As I said, just about any diet, including Atkins, will work if the caloric balance is right. The issue is how much you want to screw up your body in the interim.If you want to continue to believe in your ill-placed infallibility on this subject and that of what the AMA establishment continues to tell you, go right ahead.By the way, my opinions on this subject have nothing to do with the AMA recommends. I don't even know what they recommend. I don't completely agree with the USDA recommendation either, but it's a hell of a lot better than what most Americans eat.

I would like to see 'em.http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/1/43Assuming no change from baseline for participants who discontinued the study, mean (SD) weight loss at 1 year was 2.1 (4.8) kg for Atkins (21 [53%] of 40 participants completed, P = .009), 3.2 (6.0) kg for Zone (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P = .002), 3.0 (4.9) kg for Weight Watchers (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P < .001), and 3.3 (7.3) kg for Ornish (20 [50%] of 40 completed, P = .007).

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/18/studies_say_atkins_diet_a_short_term_fix/Two new studies have found that the Atkins low-carbohydrate diet outperforms traditional low-fat diets in the short-term, but offers no weight-loss advantage over more conventional diets after one year.

The findings buttress previous experiments that found the wildly popular diet to be a short-term fix that in the long-term is no better than more conventional approaches.A couple more links:

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/34/Atkins_Comes_in_Last_for_Long-Term_Weight_Maintenance.htm

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=54494-low-fat-diet

I'm amazed that Americans really believe that maintaining a healthy lifestyle involves eating "rabbit food," watching carbs, or counting calories. No wonder they constantly find more excuses not to do it.What do you think happens when your insurance company has to pay $250K for your quadruple bypass, and you've only paid them $15K? That's right, <b><i>I</b></i> and the other healthy people have to make up for the difference.

Unless you are paying for your health care directly out of your pocket, the rest of us are paying for your mistakes. That is one of the reasons insurance costs have been skyrocketing: too many fat people with too many treatable conditions putting a burden on the insurers.

Oh, and if you're counting on 15% returns for the next couple of decades, I'd think up a Plan B if I were you. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>
Wow, your beliefs are so outdated it's scary.

Do you actually believe that when an insurance company pays for services rendered that they actually pay the same amount that you or I would get billed for? Wake up. Do you actually believe that an Ace Bandage costs $40 just because it's from the hospital - or that it costs $500 just for you to step through the Hospital door to speak to an intern? Hate to break it to you, Tuda, but it's people like me who pay for medical insurance either through our company or privately who keep the cost of medicine down. You can thank the liberals who demand free health care for everyone regardless of legal status for jacking up the cost of your medical care in this country. Why the hell should anyone pay hundreds a month for health insurance when they can get some of the best care in the world by strolling into your local emergency room with zero ability or intention of paying. In fact, it's my fat and completely healthy a$$ paying my taxes and health insurance that's paying for the non-insured's checkups, drugs and medical care, not the other way around.

As for my retirement plan, 15% is not an unattainable goal, if I actually cared enough to micro-manage my account, you can easily pull 20% or more per year. However, to set your mind at ease (because I know you're interested), my various retirement plans (three different plans by three different companies) have forecasting tools which allow me to make sure that I can weather out a high, medium or low market - and while retiring on a 4% return per year would result in a very frugal retirement - and probably retiring at 55 or 58 instead of 50 - I will still have seven figures in the bank by then (yes, with inflation calculated in).

And once I'm done working, if my <i>chosen</i> retirement lifestyle just happens to be lying in a hospice bed with soft-serve ice cream IV'd directly into my veins, so be it - I'm happy with that. However, if it came down to being hooked up 24/7 in order to survive or just to breathe, well I am a very firm believer in the right to self-terminate - not suicide as in blowing your brains out, but hell, if your body says it's time for organ_a to fail, it's time for organ_a to fail.

Do you actually believe that when an insurance company pays for services rendered that they actually pay the same amount that you or I would get billed for?Of course not, they usually pay a specially negotiated rate. However, that's irrelevant. They still pay a hell of a lot more than you put in, and that cost is spread over all the insureds.Hate to break it to you, Tuda, but it's people like me who pay for medical insurance either through our company or privately who keep the cost of medicine down.No, it's insurance companies that keep it down, because they're cheap bastards, not you. However, it's a false sense of economy, since the hospitals just up the rates to compensate for the discount they'll have to give. No one really pays the "full" rate; the uninsured are billed that, but the hospital never actually expects to receive it.In fact, it's my fat and completely healthy a$$ paying my taxes and health insurance that's paying for the non-insured's checkups, drugs and medical care, not the other way around.Uninsured people are a totally different category. Stop dodging the issue: even though they cost me money, so do insured fat people.As for my retirement plan, 15% is not an unattainable goal, if I actually cared enough to micro-manage my account, you can easily pull 20% or more per year.If you could "easily pull 20% or more per year," you would probably be richest and most successful financial advisor on Earth. You could forget about retirement, and join a brokerage firm earning 8-figure salaries. In reality, the average return on stocks is 10%, and a very experienced trader might hope to get 2% more on average through a lot of luck and effort.

Just because the market has done well in the past few years, yielding you great returns, doesn't mean such returns are guaranteed. Those same volatile holdings that netted you 15%+ returns for the past years are also the most likely to crash hard in the upcoming years. And, as you near retirement, you will undoubtedly switch to more conservative investments, lowering your return further.my various retirement plans (three different plans by three different companies) have forecasting tools which allow me to make sure that I can weather out a high, medium or low marketI'd be very interested in seeing the tool that nets you a 20% return while allowing you to weather any market. I could sell it and make a fortune.

What the hell are you talking about, "Dodging the issue"? Fact is that I put in thousands of dollars a year in health insurance through my company, which puts in a substantial amount themselves to subsidize the cost. Fact is, when I go to my General Practitioner for a yearly physical and other misc checkups, shots, vaccinations, even various "what the hell is wrong with me" checkups, I'm not spending $200/mo worth of expenditures on doctors - especially not when you consider that prescriptions are usually on a separate cost plan. Going to the doctors’, sitting in the waiting room for 30 minutes, seeing the doctor and telling him/her your symptoms for twenty minutes does not cost the doctor $350, even if they give you that mystical $40 band aid. $150-350 is the average cost for an uninsured person to walk into my doctor’s office and pay cash for an appointment. You can go cheaper by going into one of those walk-in clinics (not the free ones) – those are usually around $50-100, but with the understanding that it’s first come, first serve, and you will not have a “regular doctor”.

Trust me, I know how much various general medical costs range from, my parents did not work for a company which supplied health care, so anytime the schools demanded that I get an eye exam, physical, vaccination or whatever, it was cash only with my family. I also got to take a ride in an ambulance once when I cracked my head on the basketball court (12 yr old girl + 19 yr old charging inattentive male basketball player = 12yr old getting introduced to floor hard). To get put on a stretcher, wearing a nifty and amazingly uncomfortable neck brace, riding to the hospital without the “woo-woo’s” going off (sirens :P), one x-ray and doctor’s visit in the Emergency Room (after an obligatory 2hr wait, of course) and the bill came to somewhere around $1500. After all was said and done, I got to sit on a stretcher for somewhere around 3hrs total, one X-Ray, saw a paramedic (EMT) for a 30min ride, and got to see the doctor for about 15min total. So for $1500 I got told, “You’re fine, try to take it easy.” Not even a bandage.

y roommate’s kids have parental coverage, and one of the kids got to take a similar ride over the summer holiday (the kid fell off his bike and hit a lawn – yes, a lawn) and the cost for Empire Blue Cross, Blue Shield, for the exact same treatment (ambulance ride, emergency room – but he even got a tetanus booster and a band aid) was like $550.

Fact is, every year I pay for medical coverage that I do not use. Medical coverage is much like auto insurance – you pay for services that you never hope you have to use, but when you do have to use it, it will be there. Meanwhile the insurance company should be investing your money in order to be able to cover any future large claim that you might put in, in the future. If your insurance company cannot make a profit while getting only your general premiums and investing them, then they go bankrupt. The insurance companies are not the ones that are driving the cost of medical coverage up – if it were, then no hospital or doctor in the United States would want an insured person as a patient, because according to you, they’re losing money by servicing those people. And we all know that’s not true.

As for stocks and a 10% return, well if you’re only hoping to get 10% out of your stocks, then you’re a lot more laid back about it than I am. I look for high performers because it is at this time in my life when I can afford the most risk. If I lose $50-100k in my retirement fund right now because of shifting or bear markets, it’s a lot better than losing the same amount when I’m 50yrs old. And if your broker is only getting you returns that are generating 10% or less in your retirement funds, well it’s time to find a new broker, because a monkey could get you that much by playing the margins. Course I probably don’t know anything about the returns market because I only work for Morgan Stanley’s IT department. It’s not like they give free classes to their employees or anything.

I look for high performers because it is at this time in my life when I can afford the most risk.You mean, you look at past high performers, or do you have a crystal ball to see future high performers?

Everyone looks for future high performers. The problem is, in the end it's just a poorly educated guess.

The big name full service brokers in particular like to screw the consumer by churning accounts to rack up expenses. They know that returns are variable, but expenses are guaranteed income (for them).If I lose $50-100k in my retirement fund right now because of shifting or bear markets, it’s a lot better than losing the same amount when I’m 50yrs old.You say "now" as if to imply that "later" it will automatically bounce back and give you wonderful returns. How long have you been doing this, exactly?

Fact is that I put in thousands of dollars a year in health insurance through my company, which puts in a substantial amount themselves to subsidize the cost.That insurance sounds enormously expensive. Still, if you add up all your payments, and compare it against the cost of a major operation in your 50s or 60s due to poor diet and lifestyle, the insurance company loses out.

As the obesity crisis spirals out of control, the insurance companies are forced to increase their premiums to anticipate your quadruple bypass operation. And the healthy people have to bear the burden of that expense.The insurance companies are not the ones that are driving the cost of medical coverage upNo, they're driving it down. I thought we just agreed on that point a few posts ago.

Oh well, I guess the healthy people are just suckers then, cause they're gonna pay for me and my arse to get fat while they sit there and ho-hum about it and blame their problems on the woes of the world. Yes it's so simple, of course we should hand the reigns of the world over to these non-obese people, because obese people are what's causing the world's ills today. Well, those obese people and those darn fornicating ones producing children like rabbits. Well I guess the good news is that the obese people will help balance out the breeders because with the rate obesity is spreading, well, obese people will be the majority, and then, since we just all apparently die off early (granted, apparently we also cost multi-millions of dollars each to do so), well maybe our death rate will balance out the birth rate.

Yes, of course, it all makes sense now.

/sarcasm

See you on my beach in 25 years. I'll make sure to request that I have a permanent IV, oxygen and full time nurse on hand, billed to the insurance company, of course.

Oh well, I guess the healthy people are just suckers then, cause they're gonna pay for me and my arse to get fat while they sit there and ho-hum about it and blame their problems on the woes of the world.Unless we rise up and revolt against you. We should do it while the odds still make it possible, two fat people to every one of us right now. We do run faster, though. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

Or maybe, insurance companies will wise up and start charging exorbitant rates to fat people, just as they do now for smokers.well maybe our death rate will balance out the birth rate.Unfortunately, fat people tend to live to reproductive age, so it doesn't end up that way. <img src=http://lag9.com/biggrin.gif>

Except that it's easier to prove that weight gain is due in large part to genetics, thereby it becomes discrimination to attempt to charge overweight people more for insurance. Besides, there's quite a few fat lawyers out there, many of them in Congress.

That's a good way to mess up your body, not to lose weight.

Not only isn't there evidence that "low carb" diets work, there is definitive evidence that they don't work in the long term. It was just a stupid dieting fad from the 70s that was revived to raise some temporary cash from ignorant fat Americans.

Americans really are funny. They're so desperate to find the magic pill that does the job for them, they lose sight of all common sense.
Explain that to North American indians like the Chippawa in N. Minnesota, the African Masai, the Artic Innuit who all eat low carb diets and have traditionally. Put them on a high carb, American diet and they end up with obesity and diabetes.

No diet works if you go back to how you were eating before. But I've known quite a few people who have lost 100+ pounds on the diets, and maintained the loss. Myself, I've lost 35 pounds and maintained it for the last 5 years.

And if you want to consider how healthy such a diet is, you might start reading Nutrition and Metabolism (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/).
Research
A Paleolithic diet confers higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure than a cereal-based diet in domestic pigs
Tommy Jönsson, Bo Ahrén, Giovanni Pacini, Frank Sundler, Nils Wierup, Stig Steen, Trygve Sjöberg, Martin Ugander, Johan Frostegård, Leif Göransson, Staffan Lindeberg
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:39 (2 November 2006)

Uncoupling proteins, dietary fat and the metabolic syndrome
Janis S Fisler, Craig H Warden
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:38 (12 September 2006)

Low carbohydrate diets improve atherogenic dyslipidemia even in the absence of weight loss
Richard D Feinman, Jeff S Volek
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:24 (21 June 2006)

A low-carbohydrate diet may prevent end-stage renal failure in type 2 diabetes. A case report
Jørgen Vesti Nielsen, Per Westerlund, Per Bygren
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:23 (14 June 2006)

Low-carbohydrate diet in type 2 diabetes. Stable improvement of bodyweight and glycemic control during 22 months follow-up
Jørgen Vesti Nielsen, Eva Joensson
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:22 (14 June 2006)

Very-low-carbohydrate diets and preservation of muscle mass
Anssi H Manninen
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:9 (31 January 2006)

Effects of a carbohydrate-restricted diet on emerging plasma markers for cardiovascular disease
Richard J Wood, Jeff S Volek, Steven R Davis, Carly Dell'Ova, Maria Luz Fernandez
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:19 (4 May 2006)

(From just the first and a half page)

Then there's this guy's investigative reporting: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/interviews/taubes.html

I could bury you up to your neck in research in the last 5 years about the healthiness of a low-carb way of eating. It doesn't get reported much because the media fell in love with fat being evil.

I was utterly shocked to learn the average American eats 400-500 grams of carbohydrates every day. Unreal!

Except that it's easier to prove that weight gain is due in large part to genetics,And I suppose you have an explanation for why those genes just suddenly became active in only the past few decades, when the obesity crisis began.

Perhaps genetics will determine whether you'll be obese or morbidly obese, but except in cases of bizarre medical conditions, every person on this planet can maintain a healthy weight.

Of course, they have to actually take responsibility for their actions, and not blame it on genetics or look for magic pills. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif>

Put them on a high carb, American diet and they end up with obesity and diabetes.The key word being <b>AMERICAN</b>, not "high carb". The problem is that the carbohydrate-rich foods that Americans consume are garbage, not that the carbohydrates themselves are bad.

Of course if your diet is 60% white flour, sugar, white rice, and high fructose corn syrup, you're far more likely to get fat. But replace those with whole grain flour, brown rice, and fruit and you get an entirely different picture.

Human civilizations all over the world have been eating carbohydrate-rich diets for millennia, since the advent of agriculture. There was no obesity crisis. We didn't need Atkins, for all those thousands of years.

Yet, only in the past 30 years or so, obesity (and its attendant diseases -- type II diabetes, heart disease, etc.) have spiraled out of control in America. And as other countries pick up American eating habits, they start to develop the same problems. And all of a sudden, we have people telling us how we should abandon thousands of years of conventional wisdom and buy their magic pill.

It doesn't take a genius to see the pattern: American processed foods and the American sedentary lifestyle are causing the obesity crisis. Not your clever technical explanations for why eating a diet that's totally unnatural for the species will make you thin. Put down the Nutrition & Metabolism journal and use your common sense for just one minute.A Paleolithic diet confers higher insulin sensitivity, lower C-reactive protein and lower blood pressure than a cereal-based diet in domestic pigsOink. Though, a paleolithic diet is not a low carb diet; it's just a pre-agricultural diet, that doesn't include common grains. It does include healthy amounts of fruit/berries, vegetables, and leaves, which provide carbohydrates. It can be quite healthy, if you get the mix right.Uncoupling proteins, dietary fat and the metabolic syndromeI let my subscription lapse. What does this say?Low carbohydrate diets improve atherogenic dyslipidemia even in the absence of weight lossSo? People who eat a healthy balanced diet don't have these problems to begin with.A low-carbohydrate diet may prevent end-stage renal failure in type 2 diabetes.Type 2 Diabetes was very rare before the onset of the obesity crisis. In developing countries that haven't adopted an unhealthy American lifestyle, it's virtually unknown.

If you eat a healthy diet, you won't have to worry about what kind of diet improves your Type 2 Diabetes, because you won't have Type 2 Diabetes.I could bury you up to your neck in research in the last 5 years about the healthiness of a low-carb way of eating.Please, show me just ONE article proving that, in a healthy individual, your Atkins crap is healthier than my version of a healthy diet (NOT the "American" diet you keep going back to). Facts, not speculation.

We have all said that the diets are not for everybody.

OMG, Pan and I agree on something, how long has that been since that last happened?

Of course if your diet is 60% white flour, sugar, white rice, and high fructose corn syrup, you're far more likely to get fat. But replace those with whole grain flour, brown rice, and fruit and you get an entirely different picture.You'd get a somewhat different picture, but not an ideal picture. Still too high in carbohydrates except for the most physically active people. If you're eating 1000 calories a day in carbohydrates then unless you're SO active you're burning all that extra glucose off, you're body is going to have to pump out a large amount of insulin to handle it. The longer you do it, the more insulin resistant you get, until your metabolism can't handle it any longer. Then you get Type 2 diabetes and, if you're really unlucky, you might even get Type 1.5 diabetes (both Type 2 and Type 1).

Human civilizations all over the world have been eating carbohydrate-rich diets for millennia, since the advent of agriculture. There was no obesity crisis. We didn't need Atkins, for all those thousands of years.Agriculture hasn't been wide-spread globally all that long. Around 3,000-7,000 years. Some places still don't have much agriculture. Did you ever wonder how people living in the Artic circle managed to survive? They don't eat any starches. They might have access to berries part of the year. The rest of the time it is basically fish, seals, caribou, elk, whatever else they can catch. They basically have no such thing as heart disease. Any Nomadic culture had absolutely no access to grains, only fruit occassionally when it was in season. Only tubers when they run across them. Native Americans like the Chippiwas lived on game, fish, berries (in season), and wild rice (in season).
asai people probably have the highest intake of animal fat in the world, but abnormalities on electrocardiography were far less frequent than in Americans and raised atherosclerotic lesions were rare.4 Mortality from coronary heart disease in southern India was seven times higher than in the north and the age at death 44 years compared with 52, although people in the north ate 19 times more fat, mostly animal fat, and also smoked much more.4http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7331/238

Yet, only in the past 30 years or so, obesity (and its attendant diseases -- type II diabetes, heart disease, etc.) have spiraled out of control in America. And as other countries pick up American eating habits, they start to develop the same problems. And all of a sudden, we have people telling us how we should abandon thousands of years of conventional wisdom and buy their magic pill.There was a very steep curve in the obesity epidemic just about the time low-fat diet hits.

Though, a paleolithic diet is not a low carb diet; it's just a pre-agricultural diet, that doesn't include common grains. It does include healthy amounts of fruit/berries, vegetables, and leaves, which provide carbohydrates. It can be quite healthy, if you get the mix right.I let my subscription lapse. What does this say?So? People who eat a healthy balanced diet don't have these problems to begin with.Type 2 Diabetes was very rare before the onset of the obesity crisis. In developing countries that haven't adopted an unhealthy American lifestyle, it's virtually unknown.
It is considered a low-carb diet. Without eating grains and starches you'll have a pretty difficult time coming up with more than maybe 100g of carbs daily. If you're trying to lose weight on a Paleo diet, you cut back on the fruit.

If you eat a healthy diet, you won't have to worry about what kind of diet improves your Type 2 Diabetes, because you won't have Type 2 Diabetes.Please, show me just ONE article proving that, in a healthy individual, your Atkins crap is healthier than my version of a healthy diet (NOT the "American" diet you keep going back to). Facts, not speculation.
Well actually, I agree. If you eat a healthy diet, you're not eating many carbohydrates.

But I realize you're talking about Atkins, one of many low carb diets out there. But sure, why not? Atkins is a healthy diet if you practice it as the man suggested. Berries, plenty of non-starchy vegetables, meat, dairy products. In a recent survey of low carb dieters, most of them at substantially MORE vegetables after they started eating low carb than before.

It used to be that diabetes was a disease of the elderly, because it took that long for the insulin metabolism got worn out. Diets were lower in calories, lower in carbohydrates and people were more active. But the scale shifted to around middle age, people started getting pre-diabetes or insulin resistance. Now it is children and teenagers.

The problem is that carbohydrates were meant to be rare in the human diet. We're programed to LOVE them and crave them. They're excellent for packing on the fat to help you get through lean times. But what isn't excellent is that they're now cheap and incredibly plentiful and they form the basis of most people's diet.

If your triglycerides are getting high, your blood pressure nosing it's way up, your belly increasing in girth, you've probably got the beginnings of a metabolic disorder called insulin resistance and the end result will be diabetes and heart disease. The very best way to reverse that course is to adopt a low-carb way-of-eating permanently.

I let my subscription lapse. What does this say?
Nutrition and Metabolism is an open access journal, you can read it.

As far as low carb diets compared to low-calorie or low-fat diets... Lets see, so many studies to choose from... How many do you want me to blast at you?

Comparison of isocaloric very low carbohydrate/high saturated fat and high carbohydrate/low saturated fat diets on body composition and cardiovascular risk (http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/7)
Noakes M, Foster PR, Keogh JB, James AP, Mamo JC, Clifton PM
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:7 (11 January 2006)

Very-low-carbohydrate diets and preservation of muscle mass
anninen AH
Nutrition & Metabolism 2006, 3:9 (31 January 2006)
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/9

Then this one was pretty big news at the time
Study: Low-Carb Diet More Effective Than Low-Fat Diet (http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=7598)DURHAM, N.C. -- People who followed a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet lost more weight than people on a low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie diet during a six-month comparison study at Duke University Medical Center.

Low-Carb Diets May Reduce Coronary Disease Risk in Women (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/547506)

Conclusions: Compared with a low-fat diet, a low-carbohydrate diet program had better participant retention and greater weight loss. During active weight loss, serum triglyceride levels decreased more and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level increased more with the low-carbohydrate diet than with the low-fat diet.
(http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/140/10/769)

As far as it being... "water weight", thanks for the chuckle. I'll have to tell my friend who lost almost 200 pounds of water weight.

If you're eating 1000 calories a day in carbohydrates then unless you're SO active you're burning all that extra glucose off, you're body is going to have to pump out a large amount of insulin to handle it.Not all carbohydrates trigger a large insulin response. In fact, it is mostly the American junk carbohydrates that do so. Fructose doesn't even need insulin; it's metabolized directly by the liver.

I am just one of possibly billions of people who are living proof that you are absolutely, positively wrong that a 60% carbohydrate diet will necessarily make you fat.Agriculture hasn't been wide-spread globally all that long. Around 3,000-7,000 years.Try 11,500 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture). And for 11,470 of those, we humans were fit and trim on a high carbohydrate diet. We didn't need Atkins. We didn't need the Journal of Nutrition & Metabolism.

Please, tell me how we pulled that off.Did you ever wonder how people living in the Artic circle managed to survive? They don't eat any starches.The fact that they manage to survive without grains doesn't mean that they wouldn't survive if they had grains. The human body can adapt to all sorts of diets and survive, even extremely stupid diets such as Atkins.Well actually, I agree. If you eat a healthy diet, you're not eating many carbohydrates.I eat a healthy diet, and a lot of carbohydrates. I am even a vegetarian, something that makes you Atkins fools cringe, yet I'm in better shape than any low-carb dieter that I've ever seen. And I don't walk around all day dizzy and weak from lack of energy.

With all your citations, you have still failed to prove to me that a 60% carbohydrate diet is unhealthy. Probably because, it isn't.The problem is that carbohydrates were meant to be rare in the human diet.Prove it.They're excellent for packing on the fat to help you get through lean times.No, fat is excellent for packing on the fat. It's absorbed more easily, and contains over twice the energy per gram.If your triglycerides are getting high, your blood pressure nosing it's way up, your belly increasing in girth, you've probably got the beginnings of a metabolic disorder called insulin resistance and the end result will be diabetes and heart disease. The very best way to reverse that course is to adopt a low-carb way-of-eating permanently.No, the best away is to stop shoveling American processed foods down your throat. Not "low carb," not "low fat," just healthy and balanced. Have you tried that approach?

I suppose I'm living proof, then, that a diet full of "American junk carbohydrates" won't necessarily make you fat either, even when combined with a sedentary lifestyle. :P

(I was physically fit as a child, largely due to gymnastics twice a week for a number of years. Maybe there were some long lasting benefits to that?)

I suppose I'm living proof, then, that a diet full of "American junk carbohydrates" won't necessarily make you fat either, even when combined with a sedentary lifestyle. :P
Well, there are psyiological oddities out there. :p I remember some studies done on some people, their actual body temperature raises when they overconsume. They never get fat. Other people fidget so much they burn off a lot of calories. I wish I could acquire that habit!

Then again, it is possible to look skinny, yet have a lot of visceral fat around your organs. Not a good thing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220596.stm

Actually, Pate Fois gras is all about having a fatty liver. They stuff corn into ducks and it causes them to store fat in their liver. Something that is being replicated in humans all the time on high carb diets. Fatty liver disease without ever taking a drink of alcohol.

Wait I am getting here that someone thinks there were no fat people before 1970?

If the explanation is that some oddities exist but wasn't the norm then I am also seeing it argued that no oddities may exist now that cause people to be overweight but isn't the norm.

Not all carbohydrates trigger a large insulin response. In fact, it is mostly the American junk carbohydrates that do so. Fructose doesn't even need insulin; it's metabolized directly by the liver. Right but a diet high in fructose is asking for liver disease.

I am just one of possibly billions of people who are living proof that you are absolutely, positively wrong that a 60% carbohydrate diet will necessarily make you fat.Try 11,500 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture). And for 11,470 of those, we humans were fit and trim on a high carbohydrate diet. We didn't need Atkins. We didn't need the Journal of Nutrition & Metabolism.
Right, but those people were probably burning up glucose as they were eating it. I don't know of many people that actually physically work from sun-up to sun-down or beyond any longer. The industrial revolution changed all the rules. But even so, how healthy were people eating those diets? The ancient egyptians ate a pretty high carb diet and died of the same diseases we have, cancer and heart disease. Yet you can still, to this day, go visit people eating their native low carb diets and they don't have heart disease.
Please, tell me how we pulled that off.The fact that they manage to survive without grains doesn't mean that they wouldn't survive if they had grains. The human body can adapt to all sorts of diets and survive, even extremely stupid diets such as Atkins.I eat a healthy diet, and a lot of carbohydrates. I am even a vegetarian, something that makes you Atkins fools cringe, yet I'm in better shape than any low-carb dieter that I've ever seen. And I don't walk around all day dizzy and weak from lack of energy.
Funny, I don't walk around all day dizzy and weak either. Where are you digging up these myths? I don't get that afternoon slump that carboholics do either. But man, if I get a dose of starch or sugar, I'm going to need a nap. I know low carb vegetarians. I think they must eat a lot of soy, which is quite low carb in addition to all the many low carb vegetables available and even a few things like berries.

With all your citations, you have still failed to prove to me that a 60% carbohydrate diet is unhealthy.
Well, I think you've only got to look at what happens to populations of indigenous people when they're exposed to the products of modern agriculture for that answer. They become diabetic and subsequently fat. They start dying from diseases that their people never had before like heart disease.

Probably because, it isn't.Prove it.No, fat is excellent for packing on the fat. It's absorbed more easily, and contains over twice the energy per gram.No, the best away is to stop shoveling American processed foods down your throat. Not "low carb," not "low fat," just healthy and balanced. Have you tried that approach?
There was a significant correlation between the low-fat diet fad and a startling uptick in obesity in America. It makes sense. Eating carbohydrates causes you to produce insulin to take the glucose out of your blood and store it as fat. That causes a quick decrease in blood glucose which kicks off hunger. So the more carbs you eat, the hungrier you get. At least eating protein and fat keeps you feeling full longer. Fat keeps your stomach from emptying so quickly and so reduces the glycemic load of carbohydrates.

Just look at how full you get from eating a piece of cheesecake versus eating a wheat based cake. I once tried to eat 75% of my calories from fat, no carbs. I couldn't consume anywhere NEAR the number of calories I was targetting. I just got so full, and stayed that way.

If you don't eat much carbs you have to burn dietary and stored fat for energy. The process is pretty inefficient, far less efficient than burning glucose. Your body is also quite capable of turning dietary protein into the small amount of glucose you actually need to power those cells that run directly off glucose. You need about a tsp of glucose per day, but like I said, the body can handle that.

A low carb diet works in a number of ways. First it keeps you full longer so you aren't prompted by blood sugar dropping to eat. So you naturally eat a little less. Secondly we're less efficient at converting fat and protein to energy than we are carbohydrates. Thirdly, the diet tastes pretty good. Fat and protein are tasty. So dieting-wise, a low carb diet wins handly. People have good results, especially if they're insulin resistant, and the diet is pretty easy to stick to, compared to high carb/calorie restricted diets which just make you hungrier.

Finally, they're healthier for the heart and may actually be protective from cancer. Guess what cancer tumours need to have to survive? Glucose. Lots and lots of glucose.

Even bodybuilders are converting over to low carb diets en masse, because they work at keeping body fat low and muscle intact. Not that I think bodybuilders are necessarily paragons of health.

For myself, I strive to eat a mostly paleo diet. Meat, limited fruit, nuts, lots of low-starch veggies, seeds. That's pretty much it. I avoid dairy and grains.

Did you hear about this one? Bet you didn't, for some reason anything that finds a link between high fat and good health never gets air-time:
The relevance of this is that eating a carb-rich diet can cause elevated levels of insulin and changes in the levels of a substance known as insulin-like growth factor which have been linked with an increased risk of cancer. This issue was discussed in more depth in my blog post which reported a study which found higher levels of white bread intake associated with an increased risk of kidney cancer [click here].

What I personally find curious about this recent study is how little publicity it got. In fact, I only found this study because I happened to notice it while looking at another study in the same edition of the American Journal of Epidemiology. Compare that to the general hullabaloo that followed the poor piece of science published at about the same time which was said to find a link between red meat and breast cancer.

This disparity in publicity has an important bearing not just on what the general public believe, but the medical profession too. High profile studies with a lot of attendant publicity tend to embed themselves in the minds of doctors. And such studies are also the ones that will tend to be referred to in subsequent research and reviews. This phenomenon – referred to as ‘quotation bias’ in the scientific community - only serves to reinforce a concept or belief that may not reflect the balance of evidence at all.

I believe there’s quite a few nutritional notions have become dietary dogma not because of good science, but because of poor science compounded by quotation bias. Whenever possible, I’ll use this site to attempt to separate fact from fiction.
High fat diet better for some women at preventing breast cancer (http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2006/11/27/for-some-women-high-fat-diets-are-best-for-the-breasts/).

A high-carbohydrate diet increases the risk of heart disease.

* THE STUDY AND RESULTS

Harvard University researchers surveyed 75,521 women between the ages of 38 to 63 participating in a larger Nurses' Health Study. The women did not have any history of diabetes or heart disease. Using dietary information the women provided, the researchers calculated a value they called the glycemic load for each woman, based on the carbohydrate content of the foods consumed and calculations of how that food would increase blood sugar. The calculations also controlled for the amount of fat the women ate. Ten years later, 761 women had developed heart disease, 208 of whom had died from the disease. Glycemic load was associated with the risk of developing heart disease. When the researchers divided the women into five groups of increasing glycemic load, the women in the highest group had twice as much risk of developing heart disease as those in the lowest glycemic load group. In addition, women with average and above-average weights had an increased risk. Starchy foods, such as white rice and potatoes, heavily contributed to the glycemic load, while fruits and vegetables did not.

* WHAT'S NEW

This is the first study to investigate the association between the amount and type of carbohydrates in diet with the risk of developing heart disease in humans.

* CAVEATS

The study relies totally on the memory of the participants. The results need to be verified in men.

* BOTTOM LINE

Women who consume a high-carbohydrate diet may increase their risk of developing heart disease. This does not mean the recent low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet fads are necessarily healthful. The researchers did not study the effect of protein in diet.

* FIND THIS STUDY

June issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; abstract online at http://www.ajcn.org/current.shtml.

Study Links High Carbohydrate Diet To Increased Breast Cancer Risk (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040806094822.htm)

High carbohydrate diet implicated in pancreatic cancer (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7364/566)

Is the Low-Fat, High-Carb Diet Mantra a Myth? (http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123869) If you're feeling like mainstream media pablum.

And Wikipedia actually does a pretty credible job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet

Oh here we go, here's one study that is about 60% carbohydrate and heart disease: Effects of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease in postmenopausal women [published erratum appears in Am J Clin Nutr 1997 Aug;66(2):437] (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/4/1027)

Lets see, we've got studies that show low-carb diets raise HDL cholesterol (the kind you wants lots of) whereas high-carb diets lower it.
Crawford P, Paden SL, Park MK. Related Articles, Links
Abstract What is the dietary treatment for low HDL cholesterol?
J Fam Pract. 2006 Dec;55(12):1076-8.
PMID: 17137545 [PubMed - in process]

And finally, is diet what helped Ghengis Khan rule Mongolia?
Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (Paperback) (http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/0609809644/sr=1-1/qid=1164212265?ie=UTF8&s=books&tag2=proteinpowerc-20)
The Chinese noted with surprise and disgust the ability of the Mongol warriors to survive on little food and water for long periods; according to one, the entire army could camp without a single puff of smoke since they needed no fires to cook. Compared to the Jurched soldiers, the Mongols were much healthier and stronger. The Mongols consumed a steady diet of meat, milk, yogurt, and other diary products, and they fought men who lived on gruel made from various grains. The grain diet of the peasant warriors stunted their bones, rotted their teeth, and left them weak and prone to disease. In contrast, the poorest Mongol soldier ate mostly protein, thereby giving him strong teeth and bones. Unlike the Jurched soldiers, who were dependent on a heavy carbohydrate diet, the Mongols could more easily go a day or two without food.

This doctor is a cardiologist who does heart scans, to actually look at the plaque in heart blood vessels, versus trying to be a fortune teller (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Fortune%20teller) with cholesterol readings. Here's what he thinks about low-fat diets:
Another Ornish casualty (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search?q=another+ornish+casualty)

Back to the original topic, a chef took on the Transfat challenge (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=361). The results: Crisco makes the most appealing looking product, but not the tastiest one.

Wait I am getting here that someone thinks there were no fat people before 1970?In 1960, the adult obesity rate was about 15% (http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/22/606/FINALfactsandfigures2.pdf). Today it's over 30%. In 1960, the childhood obesity rate was about 5%. Today it's about 15%.

If you look at a graph of obesity in the United States, it shoots upward year by year since the late 70s. Graphs of obesity-related diseases (e.g., Type 2 Diabetes) show even more dramatic trends.

So yes, there were fat people since the advent of industrialization, but it was relatively level until the late 70s, when it began to spiral out of control.

Well, I think you've only got to look at what happens to populations of indigenous people when they're exposed to the products of modern agriculture for that answer. They become diabetic and subsequently fat. They start dying from diseases that their people never had before like heart disease.When they are exposed to the <b>AMERICAN</b> diet.

Please, show me what they ate. Was it fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, or was it white bread, white rice, and high fructose corn syrup?

Please try to distinguish between the unhealthy, junk-food-laden American diet, and a healthy high carb diet.There was a significant correlation between the low-fat diet fad and a startling uptick in obesity in America. It makes sense.ROFL. So, the obesity crisis was caused by low fat diets. Which begs the question, how did they get fat in the first place? It also begs the question, why didn't they stop getting fat in the late 90s with the death of low-fat diets and the rebirth of low-carb diets? Instead of losing weight, since 1999, they've been getting fatter than ever.Eating carbohydrates causes you to produce insulin to take the glucose out of your blood and store it as fat. That causes a quick decrease in blood glucose which kicks off hunger. So the more carbs you eat, the hungrier you get.That depends on the Glycemic Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic).

If you eat super-high-GI white bread, yes, you're going to get a spike of insulin and fat storage.

If you eat low GI vegetables, fruits, beans, and coarse, whole grains, you're going to get a slow, sustained release of insulin, and a more constant blood sugar level throughout the day.At least eating protein and fat keeps you feeling full longer. Fat keeps your stomach from emptying so quickly and so reduces the glycemic load of carbohydrates.I agree, fat is good, so long as it's healthy fat. So is fiber. So are unrefined grains. Try eating a vegetarian diet, it's about the opposite of an American diet. You have to struggle to not feel full.

I'll read your studies later.

The upswing coincides with the advent of the minivan, and with it the very first stock cupholder.

Tuda, if you want initiate or get behind a campaign to make cupholders(in any car) and minivans illegal, I will support you on it.

I agree, fat is good, so long as it's healthy fat. So is fiber. So are unrefined grains. Try eating a vegetarian diet, it's about the opposite of an American diet. You have to struggle to not feel full.
I went through that phase in the 1990's. It was ugly, I had to eat every couple of hours because my blood sugar was so unsteady. That was my McDougal/Ornish phase. Terrible, terrible, diet. The best I've felt is on my current diet. Rock solid blood sugar, no digestive issues from grains and dairy. I can miss a meal or two and not be woozy from low blood sugar. My brain fog is gone, my A1C readings are low, my HDL is high, my tricglycerides are low, C-reactive proteins low, my autoimmune arthritis is less painful and rarely flares, my IBS is cured, I don't emit noxious gasses after every meal, no more ezcema, no more GERD. Everyone else in my family, even my vegan brother, were on high blood pressure by the time they got to be my age (younger even). My BP is perfect. And that is thanks to a low carb diet. It sure as hell isn't good genetics, because before I went low carb I was on a pretty healthy diet (lots of fruits, vegetables and "whole grains") and I had more than my fair share of problems.

If I slip off the diet and start eating stuff like rice, even brown rice, my BP reacts almost instantly. You can bet my triglycerides are skyrocketing too. I was clearly headed down the path to metabolic syndrome.

Whole grains... especially wheat. That's a lovely pandora's box that is going to open up and get exposed in the next 10 years or so.

There's a guy doing research on a newly discovered hormone called "zonulin" that has discovered that 30% of the population he has tested produce zonulin when they consume wheat. That should lead to some interesting research. It certainly is creating a lovely market for a new type of drug to inhibit the release of zonulin. I'm sure the side-effects will be fun. :p

yes, I'm sure wheat is bad for humans...we've only been consuming it for a good five thousand or more years.

Bah, silly people change their minds about what is good and bad to eat every seven years.\

In the good old days, people who couldn't eat wheat died and left the gene pool like proper defectives! The same with people who couldn't drink milk.

Everyone else in my family, even my vegan brother, were on high blood pressure by the time they got to be my age (younger even). My BP is perfect. And that is thanks to a low carb diet.Last time I checked my blood pressure, it was about 105/60. That's about perfect, right?It sure as hell isn't good genetics, because before I went low carb I was on a pretty healthy diet (lots of fruits, vegetables and "whole grains") and I had more than my fair share of problems.You might be allergic to certain grains. There's also a disease, which I forget the name of, that makes people unable to digest the gluten in wheat.Whole grains... especially wheat. That's a lovely pandora's box that is going to open up and get exposed in the next 10 years or so.Yes, I'm sure the drug companies are already funding research for the next invented condition, for which they will no doubt provide the next magic pill.

Health care stocks are cheap now, snap them up while you can, before the population is a bunch of fat, pill-popping zombies. If you can't fight American stupidity, you might as well cash in on it.

A lot of times you get to reproduce before you die. Especially nowadays, I don't see how evolutionary process are going to weed out people who get diabetes from eating high carb diets, they'll live long enough to have children and then be a burden on society for the next 20 years. Give them some metformin, or insulin injections and their degenerative disease will crawl along somewhat slowly.

Even bodybuilders are converting over to low carb diets en masse, because they work at keeping body fat low and muscle intact. Not that I think bodybuilders are necessarily paragons of health.Bodybuilding is an unfairly maligned sport, because of the pros who are walking pharmacies.

Natural (drug-free) bodybuilding is actually extremely healthy. It strengthens muscles, bones, and connective tissue, increases flexibility, and is a decent form of high intensity interval training cardio. Studies (which I can dig up for you, if you like) show that people who go on diets combined with strength training do far better than those who go on diets alone.

It is also one of the best ways to increase your metabolic rate, because muscle mass is extremely expense metabolically, even if it's just sitting there, unused. As you become more advanced in the sport, your problem will not be losing weight, but gaining weight.

Combine it with normal cardiovascular exercise a few times a week, and you will be in excellent health and athletic shape and very lean.

There's also a disease, which I forget the name of, that makes people unable to digest the gluten in wheat.

Heheh.

It is generally referred to as Celiac Disease.

But gluten is protein, not carb.

But gluten is protein, not carb.Wheat is not 100% carbohydrate. Even the heavily refined white flour is only about 85% carbohydrate (by total calories, not weight), and over 10% protein. So, if you can't digest the protein, wheat is a bad idea. If you can, though, seitan can be quite tasty and an excellent protein source.

Yes, I'm sure the drug companies are already funding research for the next invented condition, for which they will no doubt provide the next magic pill.
It isn't an invented condition, a Dr. who researches Celiac disease (that's the gluten "allergy" you were refering to) was trying to figure out how to help Celiacs when he discovered that the hormone zonulin. The protein in wheat, gliadin, causes zonulin to be produced and tight junctions in the intestinal barrier to open. This happens in everyone but those tight junctions stay open longer in celiacs. The thinking is that autoimmune disease are caused, in many cases, by a normally impermeable intestinal barrier to become permeable and allow autobodies that would normally be restricted to the gut, into the blood stream, in addition to nasty things like pathogens. Then moleculear mimicry causes the body's autoimmune system to turn on itself and you get nasty autoimmune diseases like RA, type 1 diabetes, thyroid disease, and much, much worse. There's always been a strong link between celiac disease and autoimmune disease and finally, we might have a reason why.

But it is also a very interesting puzzle because zonulin also opens the barrier to the brain and the skin barrier too. And yes, there's a new but growing field of research into people who suffer neurological damage from wheat, as well as a skin form of celiac disease as well. But those people can't be diagnosed by the sorts of tests they run today because their intestines check out just fine.

I'd buy stock in Alba Therapeutics but they're privately held. :( Not only will they have drugs to possibly block the intestinal barrier back up and let people abuse wheat again, but opening the blood/brain barrier to allow drugs to get to the brain is something medicine always has a hard time doing.
Health care stocks are cheap now, snap them up while you can, before the population is a bunch of fat, pill-popping zombies. If you can't fight American stupidity, you might as well cash in on it.
Yeah, I made some seriously good money in my health care sector mutual fund since the 1980's. I share your philosophy in making money off of other people's stupidity.

But gluten is protein, not carb.
One of the biggest mistakes I've ever made is eat low carb bread. It is basically a high gluten bread. Ow!

Bodybuilding is an unfairly maligned sport, because of the pros who are walking pharmacies.
Well, it depends. I've read articles by people who go on these crazy diets where they pump themselves full of extremely high carbohydrates and eat all manner of unhealthy and nasty things. Not to mention some of the "natural supplements" they take can be pretty dangerous.

I think healthy body building is excellent too but the claims about how many calories muscle at rest burns have been vastly over-inflated. I've heard people say things like each pound of muscle burns 20-60 calories an hour. The reality is it is slightly more active than fat.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm

If you really want to burn a lot more calories every day, grow an extra brain, liver or set of kidneys!

Organ or tissue Daily metabolic rate
Adipose (fat) 2 calories per pound
uscle 6 calories per pound
Liver 91 calories per pound
Brain 109 calories per pound
Heart 200 calories per pound
Kidneys 200 calories per pound

Oh gosh, what a timely find!
Heart scan doctor fingers wheat. (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/warning-this-product-may-contain-wheat.html)

Track Your Plaque expert, Dr. Loren Cordain of Colorado State University, tells us that, in his reconstruction of the history of human illness, there was an extraodinary surge in disease just about the time when humans began cultivating wheat around 8000 B.C. (Track Your Plaque members: Read Dr. Cordain's fascinating interview at http://www.trackyourplaque.com/library/fl_04-005cordaininterview.asp

I think healthy body building is excellent too but the claims about how many calories muscle at rest burns have been vastly over-inflated.Maybe the claim of 50 (from your link) is, but there is definitely a very large effect. For example, the average sedentary American male needs about 2,200 calories per day as maintenance, i.e., to neither gain nor lose weight. I need a minimum 3,500 calories per day just to maintain, only about 500 (maybe 700 max) of which can be attributed to extra activity. To gain, I need at least 4,000 and sometimes more. And I am no ectomorph who can naturally eat anything and stay skinny.

Think about how big the metabolic difference is here. If the average American male ate as much as I do, he would gain over two pounds per week, over 100 per year. Conversely, if I ate as much as he did, I would wither away pretty quickly. With such a huge effect, you can see how trivial it is simply to maintain a healthy weight (if that's all you want).

Part of this metabolic increase is just muscle tissue using energy. Another part is the residual metabolic effect from intense exercise. (Intense weight training is in itself high intensity interval training, a type of exercise which is incredibly effective at burning off fat.) Another small part is proper nutrient partitioning, i.e., 5-6 meals per day instead of 2-3, low GI meals, and so on. All of it adds up to a huge effect.If you really want to burn a lot more calories every day, grow an extra brain, liver or set of kidneys!That's because they're working for most people, the kidneys at a minimum. Obviously, muscles use a ton more energy when they're active. Heavy compound bodybuilding lifts consume more than 1000W (~860 Kcalories per hour) of energy. Vigorous running, particularly on a slope, can require similar energy expenditures.

Well, you must be godzilla like if you're getting that sort of burn from your muscle mass. At 6 calories per hour your muscle mass would have to be... 216 pounds.
Another small part is proper nutrient partitioning, i.e., 5-6 meals per day instead of 2-3, low GI meals, and so on. All of it adds up to a huge effect.Yeah, gotta keep that insulin and blood sugar nice and high all day long on that high carb diet you're eating. :p

Your muscle mass probably causes you to burn a lot more calories WHILE you're exercising. But if you stopped exercising your metabolism would most likely plummet, unless you've got something else going on that is causing you to not absorb nutrition, a number of GI issues can do that. Celiac disease, IBD, stuff like that.

I don't think your diet is bad, by the way. Not compared to most Americans. But I do think you're seriously mislead about the importance of fat. I've just been reading this blog by a cardiologist who does heart scans and finds that people who are mislead into avoiding fat, ala Ornish and McDougal, end up with fine looking cholesterol readings, until you look at their Lipoprotein(a) levels and HDL levels and do a heart scan on them.
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search?q=ornish
Of course, this same doctor thinks saturated fat is bad, but I think he just needs to look at it in the absence of too many carbohydrates.

But I do think you're seriously mislead about the importance of fat.When did I say fat is bad? I think fat is really good, if it's healthy fat. Fat promotes joint health, keeps your hormone levels high, and has numerous other health benefits. About 20% of my diet is fat, with a large emphasis on omega-3 sources, and I always make sure to include some saturated fat, plant-based of course.

Just because I'm against "low carb" doesn't mean I like "low fat" diets. I think they're both bad, although I think the low fat ones are less harmful.

By the way, my fat free body mass (FFBM) is only about 185-190. The average 6 foot male's is around 135-140, and a serious 6' bodybuilder might have 220-240. It doesn't take a massive amount to reap huge benefits.

Pana, I'm pretty sure we can find a food science doctor who would finger just about any substance as a potential killer. I think after it's all said and done, pretty much every single food out there will be on the sacrificial chopping block. No more grain, no more meat, no more additives. I'm sure one day we'll find out that veggies are even bad for us, even the ones without ten pounds of pesticides.

I've gotta bow out of this thread for awhile. It takes too many hours out of my day to be mythbusting. I just wish it were something I got paid for!

Enjoy!

Just curious if anyone knows about MSG labeling?

I know that many places that use MSGs include a warning (?) that the food may contain MSGs because many people suffer from allergic reactions to the stuff. I was just wondering if the MSG label was a "required by law" thing, or just a voluntary thing.

Either way, I'm sort of surprised they jumped right from using to banning with trans fats, I sorta would have thought they would just force the diners to put a warning on the items or something.