well, i know the problem with the modern wheat, we in italy have some regional variety but the prevailing is the "creso", and is was created by irradiation. The other one (less diffused but still utilized) is the "cappelli" variety, that is completely natural. There's a sort of little debate in italy, but no one really care of this, because the cappelli wheat is surely more healthy, but is less productive (but his grains are way more big).
About the fat, i haven't saw that movie yet, but i think the main problem here is the conception of nutritionism for most of the people. Some are convinced that a diet without fat (not only derived from animals), calories, cholesterol and sugar is healty, and this is WRONG. The fat per se is healty, but not all the fat. The one from animal source has large quantities saturated fat, and an excess of this kind of fat lead to heart diseases (like my father). Not to mention that in (too) many farms the animals are fed with ogm and hormones to increase the muscolar mass. Even the cholesterol is really important for the organism, but in proper quantities, it is irreaplaceable for the cell wall to mantain it (a function similar to the concrete).
peppergirl mh, i don't know what to expect. The "original" movie (super size me) was very factious in some points (even if mcdonalds has to go in hell, not only for the reason he talks about), and the saturated fats are only a little piece in a great chessboard of injustice about nutritionism. I'm searching it in italian but seems non-existent .__. , i'll watch it in english if so. Anyway, i'm not expecting nothing different from the other movie (apart for the arguments)
Post by ayoungspirit on Jul 4, 2013 9:30:12 GMT -5
I tend to not really think about excess in saturated fat but more about the omega 6/omega 3 ratio problem. Animal fat, more so the ones which are feed with non-natural food sources for the specie (soy for cows, etc) contain a lot of omega 6 which are necessary in influencing the natural inflammatory process but which perturb the overall balance if there is not enough non-inflammatory omega 3. Therefore, they induce negative effect even in thin people with not cholesterol. Since what you said still is true and saturated fat and cholesterol still are necessary to the body (especially the male because of testosterone and muscles), I eat little white meat, some organic eggs produced by chicken feed with grass and partially with flax (richer in omega 3 if somewhat artificial), some fish, and no butter but olive oil (which contain no omega 3 and 6 but omega 9), some colza oil, and some nuts powder. I also take just a bit of fish oil supplements.
For the wheat, all grains are on the whole difficult to digest because it is the part of the plant that will reproduce it and therefore it has defenses. Some of them are stronger than other, there is some process to lower these defenses (bread, cooking, washing), and some of us are more sensitive to it than other (gluten intolerant, etc), but it is better on the whole to not eat too much of them, especially if one have digestive problems. Also, not all people are equal against sugar tolerance and grains still are sugar heavy. This is probably one of the major reasons the western world is getting overweight. This way, fat can be a great asset to loose weight and to block hunger, and the people who banish it are probably mislead.
Back on my Iphone :/ Heron, yes for now we can only find the movie in English unfortunately but the author is actually criticizing Supersize Me, he talks about the history of demonizing saturated fats and when and where that myth started to spread. His message is basically: eat saturated fats (it produces the good cholesterol, cholesterol is not the issue) and avoid starchy processed food. However it's much more detailed than what I said, it's really interesting and funny ^^
As far as I understand anything, it's trans fats that are the bad guys, whether they come from the animal or plant kingdom.
I'm really into moderate diet, as an ideal, especially having gone through eating disorders. I know too much about nutrition, which I think is not a healthy thing itself in excess.
I have friends who are eating mostly superfood, the others are vegans or some sort of vegetarians. Some are low-carbs, some just picky. People with allergies and intolerances. In the end it's all terribly lame, when we think of people who don't have food at all or only junk. But I'm not an angel here, no way, I'm just protecting myself from my inner dogmatic possibilities by trying to jump outside my nutrition fanaticism box.
So what is an ideal moderate diet? Well, as an Fi user, I like it personal. So for me it means ecological, ethical and health choices, but not in an orthodox way. Ecological means food preferably from the local area (although it's not that simple with veggies in the winter, for instance) and emphasis on vegetarian proteins. It means cutting down fish and meat, especially those species that are in danger of distinction or use a lot of resources and produce a lot of greenhouse gas. I'm a bit sceptical with having it "all organic", because there are differing scientific opinions about the ecological and health factors of organic grain and vegetables. Ethical means preference for animal protein that has been produced "with respect", whatever it means. Organic is usually a better choice with animal protein. The best choice with meat is game. In general, I don't like the idea of killing animals for food, so all animal protein, whether meat, eggs or dairy, is a bad choice. But as said, I'm not vegan and I'm not saying other people should have my moral preferences. Healthy comes last for me. It means a varied diet, with healthier fats, more fiber-rich carbs, enough vitamins etc. It also means I don't count calories or watch my diet or weight too much.
EDIT: The best ever advice concerning diets came from a Finnish nutritionist who said that there are only two rules. First, make sure that the ratio of good and bad fats is at least two-to-one. Second, never feel guilty of your eating.
Last Edit: Jul 4, 2013 13:53:42 GMT -5 by MsLajlaa
What i can say about this movie? I knew some of the stuff this movie talked about, other new interesting thing, but (like i was expecting) some “black” holes that need to be filled, or... enlarged?
I'm more or less chronologic in my points. My opinion with SSM it this: it was an interesting movie, but really theatrical and fatious, mostly the ones about his month of “mcdiet”, the point of the heart attack. I don't want to say that was clearly untrue, but i'm also skeptical. But it wans't all about Morgan Spurlock, it was a documentary about the life style of the americans. His focus isn't only in the fast food, but in the general alimentation, the scholar catering, and the junk food the people eat out of the fast foods. The thing that suprised me the most about FH is this: he accuses SSM of being “activist” “biased” against the “evil corporations, bad government ecc ecc, and at the end of the movie he does the same thing . What's my point here? Tom Naugton in some parts of the movie attacks Spurlock (the SSM guy), where i agree with him is for the never received fod log, and that's strange. He accuses him of different things:
“He (Spurlock) claims to be a nutrition expert” Just... no. In his documentary he wasfollowed by some nutrizionists and doctors () who've monitored his physical state, he never claimed to be an expert in that sense. In his movie Tom did the same exact thing, and i haven't thought for a moment that he was pretending to be an “expert”.
“He gives the message that poor people is stupid” I don't know where Spurlock gived that idea, but this is another untrue thing. He said that there's a lot of misinformation about the food we eat. Tom says “everyone knows that an hamburger contains many calories” and that's true, everyone knows that. But like Spurlock pointed out, not everyone knows what effectively the calorie is, so, was that a valuable statament?. He “copied” his way of interview people on the street, and did a thing that bothered me a lot, mostly because of his premises “common people is not stupid” and his superficiality: he goes to the streets with hamburger and frieds in one hand, and a carrot/broccoli in another, asking “what is more caloric?”, seriously? THIS is treat people like stupid. Taking for example a computer (given that he is a computer technician) everyone can use one, not everyone is able to code or repair the hardware disfunctions, so the fact that they “know” how to use a computer (and barely how it works) doesn't mean that they are also capable of repair it. Other thing, he made an example with a composed food (patty + cheese + lettuce + other various things) and a carrot. Alone. If he made the example with only a patty in an hand and a banana and a carrot in another, and asked “what is more caloric?” probably most of the people would have replied “hamburger”, and that's effectively true if compared with only one carrot or only one banana, but how much with the two fruits togheter? A mcdonald's patty has 90 calories, a banana 60, and a carrot 50, basically, if i eat a banana and a carrot i'm assuming more calories than an hamburger alone. A person in his documentary sayis that a carrot contains probably 25 calories, just saying. To another he asks “how do you know an hamburger contains that amount of calories?” and she replyes “i just know”, is that really a valuable answer? like he said "5000 calories of pretty much everything can make you fat", so, what was the purpose of that example? Then he says that everyone if wants to can read the nutritional informations of the fast foods trough books, internet, even in the package, but then he replies to himself saying “no one really cares of this”. So, who's stupid?
“The parents (and kids also) are capable of doing choises for themselves and for their childrens” this statament hides a moralist meaning, he seem incapacitated to put himself in other's shoes. He makes the example of his mother, asking her “what if i held my breath until i turn blue?” she replied “well you would probably have passed out”. Congratulations, this is a great example of “good mom”, but not every mother acts like this, in fact from my experience (and observing people, not watching at “how wonderfull my family was ” and “how much i've been well educated”) most of the parents prefer to ingraciate their children, not because they're evil, but because they're stressed out. Just for example, my father is always away from home, my mother works part time the morning, my little brother eats practically only meat, sweets and fruits. He isn't left alone after all, my parents teached him how is good and how is not good to eat, he also had a course in school of nutritionism, so why this happens? I'll explain this later.
“No one forces anyone to eat in the fast foods” another quote “If mcdonalds wants to sell me a bucked of french fries for 50 cents and i want to buy it... that's between me and mcdonalds, it's really not his business” yes that's true, absolutely. Even the smokers does the same, no one constrict them to buy cigarettes, they know this is unhealty, but they do this anyway. No, i'm not getting mad, this is a good comparison, but for the same reason of the previous topic i'll explain this later. 1:15 heart attack teasing and “have i erectile disfunction?” question to the wife, the parts like this in the movie were a bit contradictory with what he said before, basically in all the movie he sayis “i do wathever i want to do, i make my own choises”. But if Spurlock want to set a camera after having a heart attack (i'm not saying that is really happened anyway, like i said i'm skeptical about it) wasn't it a personal choice? If his wife decided to talk about his erectile disfunction, wasn't that a personal choice? If Tom defends the other's personal choices why attack the ones made by Spurlock and his wife?
One of this stataments is not like the others: “This food is so awful, it makes me vomit” he vomited not because he found the food awful, because he ate too much, that's it, where he interpreted that thing? “I think i'm getting addicted to this food” like the two other points, in another moment. And the other is just a statement, not too much to understand.
I've been on a low carb + high fat (primal) diet for 3-4 years. (but I wouldn't call it primal or paleo because our ancestors never really ate this way; their food choices were much more limited!) I hide this from my vegan friends, and eat in secret, in like, their bathrooms.
Heron wow that's long lol, I have not read everything, I will come back later if I have time and can use my computer. I just wanted to say that this movie is intended to be both informatory (obviously not a hardcore scientific documentary) in a thought provoking way and also interactive and funny (casually interviewing people in the streets and making animes about the evil vegan association ^^ he just wants to warn against food fanaticism). The food restaurants, contrary to the government will, dont pretend to sell healthy food, they respond to people's demand (fatty rich food will always be more popular than lean vegetables). I don't think fastfood per se is a problem, it is individual people choice and their lifestyle. Personally I go sometimes to McD but Im not addicted to it in anyway like Spurlock said. On the contrary. It's not my complete answer, but if you want to discuss it serously, you can comment directly Tom Naughton's blog, he seems way more honest to me than Spurlock. He can answer you directly.
I wanted to add that this movie is meant to be more mainstream a la Sipersize Me, not for nutrition geeks. Personally I had no idea that saturated fats were actually healthy, if not a remedy against coronary disease, really the opposite of what we're told by mainstream media, and it seems also the case for people from my surroundings. It made me search more infos about this issue and I realized it was more complex than I thought. The problem is that science is not settled but our government (he's not evil but mistaken) pretends to teach us how to eat what kind of food we must eat etc whereas there's no real consensus about it in the scientific circle, it's a controversial field where people add their own political/moral biais. After all it's about lifestyle...
Last Edit: Jul 5, 2013 8:45:10 GMT -5 by peppergirl
After seeing the movie, i noticed some other things. Some of the accuses he moved on SSM were wrong by start. Basically, Tom accuses Morgan to demonize the saturated fats, saing nothing about the fault of carbohydrates. That he made mathematical errors in the calories calculation. At the start of the movie he accuses him also of fake conspiracy of the corporations and government. Then emphasizes (not only him but also some doctors in the movie) the fact that his wife is vegan. Where was he wrong?
Morgan's opinion on the right diet: Morgan Spurlock isn't vegan, and, so they can underline the diet of his wife how much they want, but Morgan himself isn't (talking about “everyone can make his choises” i see a great respect for the choice of his wife). He talks about the importance of meat on a diet, more than one time in the movie (i've also a book wrote by him, he always talks about the meat as “healty”). And, for second, his focus isn't only on mcdonald's and fast foods (as Tom claims). They two talk about the fault of the general alimentation in america, in some topics they say the same exact thing about fats and carbohydrates. In many points of SSM is underlined the high assumption of carbohydrates in america, even in the book. An important topic of SSM is the school canteen, where kids and teenagers are fed with food full of dangerous carbohydrates, and with hypercaloric/full of sugar drinks. How did Tom lost that detail? Why he concentrated that much his focus on his beloved saturated fats?
He made mistakes with the calories calculation: This point is explained better in the book, he didn't used the informations gave from mcdonald's. He brought the food to a laburatory where they made an indipendent analisys of it. As he wrote in his book, the laburatory never gave him the permission to say what laburatory in particular. Of course, his counts are still indefinite (and he may simply have lied), but this was to give in idea. Mcdonald's is the only fault of every disease in humanity: Like i said before, his focus wasn't only on mcdonalds, but also in other food companies, in a great part for personal consume. He used mcdonald's mostly because is the most diffused fast food in the world, like Tom used SSM to drive a more general message. That's it.
i'm sorry if this (incomplete) chapter can make someone angry, but i hate when i notice that kind of things:
Fat Head part 3
What's seemed strange to me in Fat Head.
While watching the movie i started to inquire about the doctors Tom interviewed (and only mentioned) in his movie, mainly because he advertized their books. He didn'd said that in any part of the movie but ALL the doctors are supporters and promoters of the paleodiet. Alongside the Dukan diet, macrobiotic diet, and blabdsdbalsbdasasbdlabsdalbsd, all the diets that became popular for a maximum of 15 years. Reading things about that diet i discovered that all that kind of diets are nicknamed “fad diets”, like wiki says “observations that prompt explanations are used as evidence of the validity of the xplanation" and “no openness to revision”.
Generally, they follow that schedule: 1:i used to ate carrots 2:the day after i felt ill 3:the carrots made me ill 4:i will wrote a book where i explain why carrots has to be avoided from your diet, obviosly, buy my 30 books where i say the same exact thing!
So, in my opinion, Fat Head imitated and attacked SSM (wich has his dark sides) using his popularity to make a “propaganda movie” for that diet. When i discovered this, my opinion about this movie changed drastically. All the annedocts of the movies are mostly the common procedure for the followers of that diet, some things are just anachronistic, what i want to point out:
Paleolithic diet: The promoters of this diet claims the paleolithic man ate mostly from hunt (meat), gathering (nuts, fruits, berries, dried fruits), avoiding all the food from agriculture and all the non/natural food and this is the right way to eat, today. They also argue when humanity started with agricolture also started with illness, lower stature and other various problems.
Do we really know what our ancestors used to eat? All the anthropologists say: no. We don't have all the elements to say what exactly our ancestors used to eat. Other this, in the paleolithic age the Homo Sapiens Sapiens didn't yet exist, because we're talking about 2.5 millions of years ago, the homo.S.S. started to be 60,000 years ago. Since that time, hominids (and humanity) evolved, many things are changed. And if the so called “paleo diet” is so healty, why for the studies in the paleolithic age the average age was 35 years? Like Eskimos today, they have a diet based only on saturated fat, that's their average.
Grains made us stupid/ill? Another no. As we know, humanity started his progress when started to settle down and made for the first time towns, agricolture and breeding. There are many theories that confirms that has been breeding the cause of diseases we had in history and we have today. Casually, in america the breeding wasn't a common procedure, when the western men started to spread, the native populations started to experience diseases. Some other diets says that the celiac people are the rappresentation of the danger the cereals make. Yes, said that, the people with lactose intollerance are the rappresentation of the danger of the milk, the people who is allergic to flowers are the rappresentation of the danger of the flowers in humanity and etc. The main explanation to that is: variability among the members, and is one pivotal point of evolutionism.Other thing, the diet (and the documentary) don't make any distinction between refined flours/cereals and wholemeal flours/cereals. The first is effectively dangerous, because is deprived of most of his nutrients, what remains is almost only the vegetal fibers, so: is not nutrient enough and you're pushed to eat more. In the integral wholemeal we have also an huge amounts of vitamines, proteins and minerals. Where i live, Sardinia, whe have the culture of wheat. Almost everything is made with wheat, my ancestors ate meat only once a week. So, for this diet/movie we must be all stupid and weak. No, because the average age in sardinia is 80, and we have the greatest amount of centenarians in the world, if you ask them what they eat the most obvious reply is “"You just keep working and you eat minestrone, beans and potatoes.", if you want more informations, you can google it. Every food has its healty agents and his dangerous ones, even drinking too much water can induce to physical problems, so, is really water a problem?
What is natural to eat? In the movie is said “oil and bread is not a natural diet for humanity” and i find this quite funny, because for the paleolithic diet the butter and cheese is “natural” when is an human invention just like oil and bread. They say “mother nature isn't stupid, if you like salty, fatty and sweet food is because you need it”, this is a superficial statament. Just a little example: Cats are completely carnivores, why they do like milk? Most importantly: why do they drink when you offer it them if it doesn't match with their diet? How we can establish what is natural and what is not? The Paleodiet is based on the assumption that everyone in every angle of the world had the same history, it does not take a genius to know that is untrue (like i said in the other part, up here, read the last part, now, go, come on!). We are under the constant effect of evolution, what was natural 10,000 years ago isn't natural still in the present days.
What i found in a website (foodsafetynews): Another problem with the Paleo Diet is that it’s not environmentally sustainable if adopted on a mass scale — not to mention expensive (grass-fed, pasture-raised meats that the Paleo Diet encourages are more expensive and less available than conventional meats). Ninety-nine percent of farmed animals bred, raised and slaughtered for human consumption in the U.S. don’t roam on grassy fields, but are confined in factory farms – -a far cry from the animals that our ancient ancestors hunted and consumed. Animal agriculture is also considered the greatest contributor to global warming — producing more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined.