Posts Tagged “ diet ”

Written by Gabriela Segura, MD
Monday, 20 February 2012 07:26

The size 12 hour-glass figure, an endangered body shape.

If you love old movies, you’ve noticed that women back in the old days tended to have beautiful hour glass body shapes, a la Marilyn Monroe. Nowadays, such figures have become a rarity because women have become “boxy” in shape. Research suggests there are now five times as many “rectangular-shaped” women than those with the classic Marilyn Monroe hourglass shape. Almost one in two British women fall into the rectangle category, a boy-ish body shape where there is little difference between the bust, waist and hip measurements.

According to the CDC, about one-third of U.S. adults (33.8%) are obese and approximately 17% (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents aged 2 – 19 years are obese. In 2010, no state had less than 20% obesity prevalence. Another statistic tells us that over two-thirds of adults in the United States are overweight or obese.

Two thirds! In the country where the USDA food pyramid and low fat eating has guided food choices for at least two generations!

Worldwide, with the spread of Western lifestyle (including diet), obesity has more than doubled since 1980. In 2008, 1.5 billion adults, 20 and older, were overweight and nearly 43 million children under the age of five were overweight in 2010.

According to MyPyramid.gov, you should be consuming at least 3 oz. of whole grain cereals, breads, crackers, rice, cereal or pasta; ideally 6 oz. A lot of people consuming exactly the recommended amounts see no weight loss at all and might actually see their weight go up.

Could there be a relationship between this dietary advice and the obesity epidemic? Could it be that the root of the obesity problem is due to our health advisers who believe that animal fat causes heart disease and high cholesterol, and that carbohydrates in grains and vegetables are The Healthy Solution? Based on this, it follows that a diet restricted in carbohydrates and rich in fat is going to be discouraged by them. We are supposed to be consuming at least 45% of our calories as carbohydrates where most of it should come from vegetables, fruits, and whole grains. This diet philosophy is dominant in our world today despite the facts cited above, despite the fact that the obesity epidemic has come upon us in lock-step with this dietary philosophy.

The Staff of Life

Of all the grains in the human diet, wheat constitutes the main source of so-called nutrition in the human diet. It is our staff of life. People have wheat for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks. It is even found in shampoos and medicines and most processed foods. What many people don’t know is that wheat stimulates the appetite because wheat gluten is a morphine-like chemical that creates havoc in our brains. Wheat produces blood sugar surges that trigger cycles of satiety alternating with heightened appetite; it promotes glycation (“caramelization”) in our bodies that is at the root of disease and aging; it activates unbalanced immune responses, and more. Wheat consumption is related not only to celiac disease, but also to neurological disorders, heart disease, arthritis, peculiar skin rashes,schizophrenia and many other conditions.

In Wheat Belly, Dr. Davis describes how wheat strains have been hybridized and crossbred to make the wheat plant resistant to environmental conditions, such as drought and pathogens, and to increase yield per acre. The average yield on a modern North American farm is more than ten times greater than that of only a century ago. This is because during the latter part of the 20th century, an upheaval in hybridization methods transformed wheat into a frankengrain whose safety for human health is highly questionable to say the least. As Dr. Davis argues, small changes in wheat protein structure can spell the difference between a devastating immune response to wheat protein versus no immune response at all. He reports: Read more…

Written by Gabriela Segura, MD
Wednesday, 13 July 2011 10:09

Everywhere I look in my adventures of dietary reality checks, I find Gary Taubes. I thought I would add the epilogue to his book Good Calories, Bad Calories to give you an idea as to why. He gives a glimpse of the corruption in the medical science in a very considering way. In this sick society, I wouldn’t be as gentle as Taubes was though.

EPILOGUE

The community of science thus provides for the social validation of scientific work. In this respect, it amplifies that famous opening line of Aristotle’s Metaphysics: “All men by nature desire to know.” Perhaps, but men of science by culture desire to know that what they know is really so.    ROBERT MERTON, Behavior Patterns of Scientists, 1968

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.  RICHARD FEYNMAN, in his Commencement Address at Caltech, 1974

ON FEBRUARY 7, 2003, THE EDITORS OF Science published a special issue dedicated to the critical concerns of obesity research. It included four essays written by prominent authorities, all communicating the message of the toxic-environment hypothesis of the obesity epidemic and the belief that obesity is caused by “consuming more food energy than is expended in activity.” The one article that offered a potential solution to the national and global problem of burgeoning waistlines—other than the promise of future obesity-fighting drugs—was written by James Hill of the University of Colorado, John Peters of Procter & Gamble, and two colleagues. Hill and Peters introduced the concept of an “energy gap” that could purportedly explain the existence of the obesity epidemic and illuminate a path of action by which it might be halted or reversed. By their calculation, the obesity epidemic represented an energy gap of a hundred calories per person among the American public per day that had been consumed but not expended.To undo the epidemic, Hill and Peters suggested, Americans would have to make either comparable increases in daily energy expenditure—walking one extra mile, perhaps—or decreases in energy consumption, such as “eating 15% less (about three bites) of a typical premium fast-food hamburger.” Two years later, when the U.S. Department of Agriculture released the sixth edition of its Dietary Guidelines for Americans, it offered similar advice based on the identical logic: “For most adults a reduction of 50 to 100 calories per day may prevent gradual weight gain.”This proposition should evoke a distinct sensation of deja vu, because it is the precise argument that Carl von Noorden made over a century ago. Hill, Peters, and the USDA authorities, like von Noorden, were treating the regulation of body weight as though it were a purely arithmetical process, in which a small excess of calories consumed, day in and day out, accumulates into pounds of flesh and then tens of pounds, and a small deficit, day in and day out, does the opposite. That this argument is now the cornerstone of the official U.S. government recommendations for obesity prevention made the single caveat in Hill and Peters’s Science article all that much more remarkable. Speaking of the hundred-calorie energy gap, they said that their “estimate is theoretical and involves several assumptions”—in particular, “Whether increasing energy expenditure or reducing energy intake by 100 kcal/day would prevent weight gain remains to be empirically tested.” Read more…