Do You Really Need This?

[rkbabang]

I may suggest reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.  A very insightful book.

BTW, I've lost 18lbs in the last two weeks

 

You must be losing a lot of fluid?  Are you bleeding?

Fat has about 3,500 (working from memory) calories per pound.  In 14 days, you haven't lost 18 lbs of fat.

 

I never said it was all fat.  The first lbs that come off easily on any diet. Low carb or low calorie are always water, not fat or muscle.  I will not loose 18lbs in the next 2 weeks.

 

--Eric

 

[Parsad]

As a side note, Starbucks does not have a 'small' cup on their menu. 

 

If you want to purchase a small cup of coffee, you must ask for a 'short cup'.

 

I believe I am the only patron at our local establishment to order such an odd creature.

 

No James, I used to as well.  And then one day the cheap bastard in me realized that I was paying nearly as much for something significantly smaller than the Tall cup, so I switched.  I always order Tall now.  By the way, the Instant "Vias" are actually very good for those that like convenience at the office, rather than running down the block all the time.

 

You must be losing a lot of fluid?  Are you bleeding?

 

That's pretty funny!  ;D  I'm guessing a good portion is water loss, as that occurs at the beginning of many diets.  Cheers!

[ERICOPOLY]

Exceedingly high levels of calories, saturated fat, trans fats, etc per meal is the problem.

 

I think you can throw in foods with an unnaturally high omega 6 to omega 3 component.  For example, grain-fed beef and farm-raised tilapia fish.

 

Farm raised tilapia fish worse than bacon:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/health/health_article.aspx?storyid=92741&catid=7

 

Regarding beef -- this is interesting:

http://www.eatwild.com/healthbenefits.htm

 

You've got to scroll down that link to see the sub-section under the heading “Omega-6 is like a fat producing bomb...”  Look at those mice!

 

Meat and dairy products from animals fed a high-grain diet, which is the typical feedlot diet, have up to ten times more omega-6s than products from animals raised on their natural diet of pasture.

 

This study suggests that if we switch to food with a healthy balance of omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids, we will be leaner and healthier, and so will our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

 

Personally, I've noticed a huge difference in my emotional health since I've switched to a diet high in omega 3 -- it is fortunate that I enjoy eating sardines (my wife hates them).  This is the first year that I'm not suffering from seasonal affective disorder since I moved to the Seattle area from California in 1997.

 

 

From that link above:

Tilapia has higher levels of potentially detrimental, long-chain, omega-6 fatty acids than 80-percent-lean hamburger, doughnuts and even pork bacon," write the Wake Forest researchers in an article published this month in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.

 

In the United States, tilapia has shown the biggest gains in popularity among seafood, and this trend is expected to continue as consumption is projected to increase from 1.5 million tons in 2003 to 2.5 million tons by 2010, the researchers said.

[sdev]

I may suggest reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes.  A very insightful book.

 

 

BTW, I've lost 18lbs in the last two weeks

 

--Eric

 

 

You must be losing a lot of fluid?  Are you bleeding?

 

Fat has about 3,500 (working from memory) calories per pound.  In 14 days, you haven't lost 18 lbs of fat.

 

Wish more people would read about refined carbs.

[tooskinneejs]

Another good book is "Sugar Busters!"  It teaches you that with a proper diet, you don't need to diet (i.e., it isn't about limiting food intake, it's about eating the right kinds of food).  It basically explains why it is best to avoid simple sugars and their equivalents.

 

http://www.borders.com/online/store/TitleDetail?sku=0307567958

 

 

[prunes]

Let me chalk up another recommendation for Good Calories, Bad Calories. (I eagerly await reading Taubes' new book.) I think GC, BC is the kind of thing people here will love, most of us being very contrarian by nature. Seriously I cannot recommend it enough.

[roundball100]

Regarding 31 ounces of something related to coffee - the health effects depend a lot on many things not yet mentioned in the discussion on this board.  (I'm glad those who post to this board about stocks are a lot more thorough in their discussion!)  Espresso has less caffeine than drip.  Sugar-coffee drinks, especially any involving syrup stuff from bottles, have mega-calories, black coffee not so much.  Different people seem to have much different abilities to metabolize caffeine.  But in any case, 31 ounces seems a bit much unless you bring 2 empty cups to split the cost with your commuting friends - surely this will start soon. That seems to be a business opportunity even Sanjeev has overlooked.

 

And, I look forward to reading Good Calories, Bad Calories. 

[uncommonprofits]

uccmal is right. it is the refined food that is the problem

 

I recommend folks to watch this video by Dr Robert Lustig

 

 

He hits the nail on the head at the end of that video when he gives a thumbs up on the Paleo lifestyle.  Loren Cordain (PH D) pioneered much of the scientific research on the subject and any of his books or periodicals are good.  Robb Wolf is somewhat of a student of Cordain's and has a more recent book out called 'The Paleo Solution'.  I am part way through this one -- it's a very informative book. 

 

Another good one that I highly recommend is Art Devany's recent release (The New Evolution Diet).  Art Devany has been doing this since his late 40's --- he is now in his early 70's (not far behind Warren).  I have followed Art over the years (until he started charging for his blog).  Similar to Cordain - Devany has been studying this for a very long time.  His approach as to what to put in your mouth is pretty simple.  His exercise regime is very contrary to what goes on in most gyms (and actually includes a lot more rest too!). He can get a little full of himself at times -- but the guy is living proof that this does work -- here is a promo vid from his long awaited book release:

 

 

[Myth465]

Watching the video but I love sugar. Love sugar. Damn. I hope he is not too convincing.

 

[rmitz]

Watching the video but I love sugar. Love sugar. Damn. I hope he is not too convincing.

 

Like alcohol, the key is moderation.  Except that moderation is probably a lot less than most people have in a normal day.

[augustabound]

Watching the video but I love sugar. Love sugar.

 

Me too.  It's amazing sometimes how little changes can see big benefits though.  I had some congestion and at times if felt like my nasal passage was slightly constricted/inflamed.  I needed to take deep breaths often.  I got the old, "take a decongestant or sudofed" and the general, "watch your diet, specifically dairy" answers.

It wasn't until I ran out of sugar one day.  I had my coffee(s) and evening tea without sugar for the first time ever.  After 3-4 days I was breathing normally, no need for deep breaths.  

And of course I only have Coke in moderation since it has, in the area of 12 teaspoons of sugar per can.  :o    

[rkbabang]

Gary Taubes - Why We Get Fat lecture.

 

http://videomedia2.swedish.org/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=cd8c7aa15bc94a0486f4ee9b66ef8f8f

 

[Myth465]

Watching the video but I love sugar. Love sugar.

 

Me too.  It's amazing sometimes how little changes can see big benefits though.  I had some congestion and at times if felt like my nasal passage was slightly constricted/inflamed.  I needed to take deep breaths often.  I got the old, "take a decongestant or sudofed" and the general, "watch your diet, specifically dairy" answers.

It wasn't until I ran out of sugar one day.  I had my coffee(s) and evening tea without sugar for the first time ever.  After 3-4 days I was breathing normally, no need for deep breaths.  

And of course I only have Coke in moderation since it has, in the area of 12 teaspoons of sugar per can.  :o    

 

That video was amazing. Thanks for the original poster. Had my first cut of tea and coffee without sugar. Also sent it to 5 people.

 

Tough to give up, but now will be used sparingly. Will watch the Gary vid this weekend.

 

Thanks again guys.

[oldschoolsting]

I'm excited to see Taubes, DeVany, paleo, etc. discussed on this board, but not at all surprised.  I think that it is somewhat of a thinking man's diet.  I've wondered if anyone else here was into the idea, but since I'm new, didn't want to post and immediately earn a spot at the weird kids' table.  I read Mark Sisson's blog, www.marksdailyapple.com.  He follows the basic principles of the other guys mentioned.  His recommendation is a somewhat modified paleo diet.

 

I began following this last February with great results.  When I started, I did it as an experiment and didn't completely research it.  While this is definitely against my nature, it's been nice dropping about 20lbs that I didn't even realize I had to spare.  (I don't think I have lost much muscle at all btw.) I've been trying to learn more and more as I go, but don't quiz me yet!

[Myth465]

didn't want to post and immediately earn a spot at the weird kids' table. 

 

Lol

 

We definitely have that table and I think we all know who is sitting there. Hopefully im not sitting next to that guy (from you guys perspective lol).

 

Thanks for the link, will look at it as well. I will also see how the no sugar in my tea / coffee thing works. I drink about 3-4 cups a day with 3-4 teaspoons per cup. Dont drink much else though in the way of sugary drinks.

[ERICOPOLY]

Here is a good link for the thinking man once you are finished with the horrors of what the sugar and refined carbohydrates did to you:

 

http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/lipid-synthesis.html

 

It's not just the hamburger bun and 32 oz Coke that is hurting your health.

 

I hinted at that earlier in this thread when I pointed out that grass fed beef has a ratio of 2:1 omega-6 to omega-3, whereas grain fed beef (which is what you get at McDonalds) has a ratio of 14:1  -- oh, and it's not just the beef.  Grass fed (pastured) dairy has the same advantages over feed lot dairy -- so it's also the cheese you eat at the fast food restaurant and the milk you drink from fast food restaurant that compound your health problems.  If you wish to get interested in the evolutionary diet, which ratio do you think we evolved to thrive on?  Did we hunt and milk feed-lot animals?  By the way, it isn't the quantity you eat of omega-3, it's just the ratio that you intake of omega-6 to omega-3 -- the body will substitute one for the other if you are deficient... and that's when your body & mind start to malfunction.

 

It's a bit unfortunate that the Good Calories Bad Calories book doesn't touch on this.  He just talks about "fat", and suggests that fat intake isn't the problem.  This might lead you to forget everything bad you've ever heard about fat (if you think weight gain is the only risk to heart disease).  I think that would be a mistake  Here is a link that you might find interesting:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-6_fatty_acid

 

It's one thing to get thin... I suppose he is tackling one problem at a time.

 

Personally, I already had little problem with weight (I generally don't like sweet foods so I already drink my coffee black and skip dessert).  But like I said earlier I was very prone to getting depressed after I moved up north from California to Seattle.  This is the first season where the weather and light have gone unnoticed to me, and I don't feel the effects at all -- but then this is the first year that I've switched to a diet high in omega 3 rich meats and paying attention to reduction of foods that are high in omega 6 yet low in omega 3... trying to get the balance down to the evolutionary level where the range is likely 2:1 through 4:1 (it's somewhere in that ballpark).  So here is the deal... you might think that eating salmon once or twice a week is going to boost your omega 3 in your diet and therefore take care of things... but if you go and eat french fries (vegetable oil is high in omega-6 and low in omega-3) and a hamburger patty you are rolling back the benefit of the salmon meal.  

 

Excerpt from the first link:

 

It is important to denote that when discussing omega-3 fatty acids, their dietary origin is quite important. Omega-3 fats from plants, such as those in flax seed oil, are enriched in ALA. As indicated above, ALA must first be converted to EPA (requiring three independent reactions) and then to DHA (requiring and additional four reactions). Omega-3 fats from fish are enriched in EPA and DHA and thus do not need to undergo the complex conversion steps required of ALA. In addition, the conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA is inefficient in individuals consuming a typical Western diet rich in animal fats.

 

When omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids are consumed they are incorporated into cell membranes in all tissues of the body. Because of this fact, dietary changes in the composition of PUFAs can have profound effects on a cell's function because the membrane lipids serve as a source of precursors for the synthesis of important signaling molecules involved in cell growth and development as well as modulation of inflammation. Another important consequence of dietary alteration in fatty acid composition is the fact that omega-3 and omega-6 PUFAs compete for incorporation into cell membranes.

 

The most important omega-6 PUFA is arachidonic acid. When cells are stimulated by a variety of external stimuli, arachidonic acid is released from cell membranes through the action of phospholipase A2 (PLA2). The released arachidonate then serves as the precursor for the synthesis of the biologically active eicosanoids, the prostaglandins (PGs), thromboxanes (TXs), and leukotrienes. (LTs) The arachidonate-derived eicosanoids function in diverse biological phenomena such as platelet and leukocyte activation, signaling of pain, induction of bronchoconstriction, and regulation of gastric secretions. These activities are targets of numerous pharmacological agents such as the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), COX-2 inhibitors, and leukotriene antagonists.

 

Dietary omega-3 PUFAs compete with the inflammatory, pyretic (fever), and pain promoting properties imparted by omega-6 PUFAs because they displace arachidonic acid from cell membranes. In addition, omega-3 PUFAs compete with the enzymes that convert arachidonic acid into the biological eicosnaoids (PGs, TXs, and LTs). The net effect of increasing dietary consumption of omega-3 PUFAs, relative to omega-6 PUFAs, is to decrease the potential for monocytes, neutrophils, and eosinophils (i.e. leukocytes) to synthesize potent mediators of inflammation and to reduce the ability of platelets to release TXA2, a potent stimulator of the coagulation process.

 

Probably the most important role of the omega-3 PUFAs, EPA and DHA, is that they serve as the precursors for potent anti-inflammatory lipids called resolvins (Rvs) and protectins (PDs). The Rvs exert their anti-inflammatory actions by promoting the resolution of the inflammatory cycle, hence the derivation of their names as resolvins. The resolvins are synthesized either from EPA or DHA. The D series resolvins are derived from DHA and the E series from EPA. An additional anti-inflammatory lipid derived from DHA is protectin D1 (PD1). The E series resolvins reduce inflammation, regulate PMN infiltration by blocking transendothelial migration, reduce dendritic cell function (dendritic cells are potent antigen presenting cells which prime T cell mediated inflammatory responses), regulate IL-12 production and lead to resolution of the inflammatory responses. More information on the synthesis and actions of the Rvs and PDs can be found in the Aspirin page.

 

The omega-3 fatty acids DHA and EPA have also been shown to be important for normal brain development and function. Several studies have demonstrated that DHA is essential for proper development of the prenatal and postnatal central nervous system. The benefits of EPA appear to be in its effects on behavior and mood. In clinical studies with DHA and EPA there has been good data demonstrating benefit in treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, dyspraxia (motor skills disorder), dyslexia, and aggression. In patients with affective disorders consumption of DHA and EPA has confirmed benefits in major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. In addition, some studies have demonstrated promising results in treatment of schizophrenia with some minor benefits in patients with borderline personality disorder. Of significance to these effects of EPA and DHA on cognition, mood and behavior is the fact that administration of omega-3 fatty acid containing phospholipids (such as those present in Krill oils) are significantly better than omega-3 containing triacylglycerides such as those that predominate in fish oils.

[oldschoolsting]

Eric-

 

You bring up a good point and thanks for the link!  When I began my "self-experimentation" with cutting out grains, sugars, etc, I began taking fish oil and eating grass fed meats.  Also have you considered taking vitamin D as a supplement if you aren't getting much sun?

 

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vitamin-d-sun-exposure-supplementation-and-doses/

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric-

 

You bring up a good point and thanks for the link!  When I began my "self-experimentation" with cutting out grains, sugars, etc, I began taking fish oil and eating grass fed meats.  Also have you considered taking vitamin D as a supplement if you aren't getting much sun?

 

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vitamin-d-sun-exposure-supplementation-and-doses/

 

 

No I haven't.  However, you bring up a good point:  I have in effect been raising my Vitamin D intake over the past year as I've switched from deli meats to sardines on my daily lunch: 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111509588

[ERICOPOLY]

Is it the role of the Canadian government (or any government in the world) to put a limit on how much coffee people can drink? Or by extension how much food they should eat every day?

 

Probably not, but I sure see alot of kids around that are suffering because their parents choose to exercise that right.  In that regard, should we remove the role of Social Services to monitor the welfare of children? 

 

I'm not one for the government intervening in every facet of our lives, but unfortunately maybe there are certain circumstances where intervention is warranted...the mortgage industry from 2004-2007 comes to mind.  Cheers!

 

I have to agree and many thanks to the person who posted the link to the Sugar: The Bitter Truth video.

 

This is actually the most significant thing I've learned in years -- I never liked sugar much (too sweet for me), but never understood it as a poison, until now.  I didn't know that consuming fructose would raise my vLDL level, didn't know it would cause gout and hypertension, and I didn't know that food makers strip out the fiber to make it freeze and cook faster.  Dammit that's an evil combination!

 

Look, this is all raising the profits of the food makers (High fructose corn syrup is cheap) while it's raising the costs of Medicare and Obamacare.  The costs have been externalized.  Shareholders of Kraft and Coca Cola are laughing probably because the government is going after the banks instead -- how many people are dead from this financial crisis?  How many are sick?  This is making me think more about socially responsible investing.  Do you care about the money... what matters to you?  We talked a bit about lending shares to shorts and some found that unethical, but this goes way beyond that. 

 

My suggesting:  institute a tax on foods where a healthy balance of sugar to fiber is out of whack.  Would this raise the cost of food at the store?  Yes.  Could people then buy as much house or as much stuff to fill their closet?  No.  But what's more important in life?  What constitutes a standard of living... having more "stuff" or getting sick?  I can hear it now... people would argue that such a tax would be "regressive", because it would "hurt" the poorest folks the most (you know, the ones that are dying the fastest from these very foods).

 

Besides, this isn't a nanny state kind of thing.  I grew up in a house where certain things were provided free (by my parents).  If I "wanted" something, I was free to buy it... with my own money.  Unfortunately, much of the external costs of processed foods high in sugar are being provided by our parents (or more precisely, our Uncle Sam).  Why can't our Uncle refuse to pay for these costs and just say:  "listen up kids, I provide a lot of basic services... but paying for the avoidable consequences of your high sugar and low fiber diet isn't one of them".

 

 

 

[biaggio]

Good post Ericopoly.

 

Agree 100%.

 

I think there is a lack of awareness out there- general public as well as front line health care workers-I know as I am one of them (frontline healthcare worker + sometimes not fully informed)

 

You would not believe the number of people who feed their kids chicken nuggets + juice honestly thing they are doing a good thing.

 

Even at home it has been a constant battle to get my wife not to buy juice boxes or gatorades.

 

I think a tax on every thing that will end up with higher health care cost is worth looking at. I think business do this all the time. Cost of gas goes up + all of a sudden you see a "fuel charge" on your garbage pick up bill.

 

Cigarette tax has helped decrease smoking (mind you it has increased the value of black/grey market for cigarettes)

 

How about fast food, processed food, pop tax? Could pay for OBAMA care. Better healthier choices, people less sick, less health care cost. Makes sense.

 

I am sure food companies would not be too happy.

 

I think they are in denial. They think a calorie is a calorie. When is it that they should have known?

 

When does this begin to be a legal problem for them. I can t believe there is not a class action law suit yet.

 

[twacowfca]

Is it the role of the Canadian government (or any government in the world) to put a limit on how much coffee people can drink? Or by extension how much food they should eat every day?

 

Probably not, but I sure see alot of kids around that are suffering because their parents choose to exercise that right.  In that regard, should we remove the role of Social Services to monitor the welfare of children?  

 

I'm not one for the government intervening in every facet of our lives, but unfortunately maybe there are certain circumstances where intervention is warranted...the mortgage industry from 2004-2007 comes to mind.  Cheers!

 

I have to agree and many thanks to the person who posted the link to the Sugar: The Bitter Truth video.

 

This is actually the most significant thing I've learned in years -- I never liked sugar much (too sweet for me), but never understood it as a poison, until now.  I didn't know that consuming fructose would raise my vLDL level, didn't know it would cause gout and hypertension, and I didn't know that food makers strip out the fiber to make it freeze and cook faster.  Dammit that's an evil combination!

 

Look, this is all raising the profits of the food makers (High fructose corn syrup is cheap) while it's raising the costs of Medicare and Obamacare.  The costs have been externalized.  Shareholders of Kraft and Coca Cola are laughing probably because the government is going after the banks instead -- how many people are dead from this financial crisis?  How many are sick?  This is making me think more about socially responsible investing.  Do you care about the money... what matters to you?  We talked a bit about lending shares to shorts and some found that unethical, but this goes way beyond that.  

 

My suggesting:  institute a tax on foods where a healthy balance of sugar to fiber is out of whack.  Would this raise the cost of food at the store?  Yes.  Could people then buy as much house or as much stuff to fill their closet?  No.  But what's more important in life?  What constitutes a standard of living... having more "stuff" or getting sick?  I can hear it now... people would argue that such a tax would be "regressive", because it would "hurt" the poorest folks the most (you know, the ones that are dying the fastest from these very foods).

 

Besides, this isn't a nanny state kind of thing.  I grew up in a house where certain things were provided free (by my parents).  If I "wanted" something, I was free to buy it... with my own money.  Unfortunately, much of the external costs of processed foods high in sugar are being provided by our parents (or more precisely, our Uncle Sam).  Why can't our Uncle refuse to pay for these costs and just say:  "listen up kids, I provide a lot of basic services... but paying for the avoidable consequences of your high sugar and low fiber diet isn't one of them".

 

 

 

 

 

Right on, Eric !  Healthy Eating is the most popular theme of the books we publish.  May I suggest reading a book we don't publish: Blue Zones by Dan Buetner.  It's about the healthiest and longest lived communities of people in the world: what they eat, and don't eat, and how they live and exercise.

 

You might also find interesting: Nudge! by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.  It's about how to preserve the choices of free markets but still nudge people through public and private policy to do the "right" or most beneficial thing.  :)  

 

You may also find The Omega Three Connection by Andrew Stoll to be interesting.  I heard him speak at an autism conference in San Diego a few years ago.  He's a Harvard Medical school prof who's had great success treating manic depressive patients with N-3 fatty acids.  (N refers to the terminal or "omega" end of the fatty acid molecule).  It seems that many people with other or less severe types of depression also benefit from N-3 fatty acids.  Interestingly, the people from Japan and NZ have much in common, but their diets are different.  Japanese have much more omega 3 on their diet, and they have one tenth the rate of major depression of New Zealanders.

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric, I believe a vote to increase tax on candy/juice failed in WA state? The tax was already in place, the vote wants the tax repealed on "food".

 

 

In Washington State we have a guy named Tim Eyeman who fights just about every tax increase and gets voter initiatives started for repealing the tax.  Anyways, everybody in the state knows his name.  If you search seattletimes.com for the words "Tim Eyeman initiative" you'll get the picture.

 

So anyways, my thinking is that a tax geared around the fiber:fructose ratio while also taking into account volume.  Obviously the tax would be heaviest on candy, soft drinks, and juice because of the low fiber content.

 

The reason why I think a fiber:fructose ratio tax would be more effective than Washington State's approach is that the problem isn't just in candy and drinks.  There is also a broken incentive structure found in the fresh fruits that are sold.  They intentionally cultivate sweeter apples with lower fiber for example.  A Golden Delicious apple is to a crab apple as a french bulldog is to a wolf.  The tax would encourage producers to cultivate less sweet varieties with more fiber.   Watermelon is high in sugar yet low in fiber -- it's going to get more expensive on a relative basis!

 

Want to make the fruit cheaper under the tax?  Cultivate them for less sugar and more fiber -- undo a part of the problem.  Make it healthy once again to eat a diet rich in fruits -- you shouldn't go to the grave early for eating fruit salad for goodness sakes!!!

 

It also encourages frozen food producers to stop stripping out the fiber on purpose, because that's a big part of the problem once you move away from candy, soft drinks, and juice.  Sorry, if it didn't freeze well or cook quickly -- live with it or actually prepare from fresh ingredients and cook (gasp) a meal for a change.

 

The sweet varieties of fruit are sort of like vitamin fortified candy grown on trees.   Until then, my favorite fruit has always been avocado anyhow.

 

Now back to my reading -- I had an idea today in the car that exposing kids to sugar early on might make them enjoy alcoholic drinks more later on as adults (the hypglycemic thing).  Clearly, somebody has already thought of that so I have found plenty to read about quite easily.  The alcoholism runs in families -- but I wonder if it's related to the food on the table.  After all, if alcoholics crave sugar it stands to reason that they'd put a ton of sugar on their breakfast cereal, drink lots of juice or soda with meals, coffee with heaps of sweetener, etc...  Just a thought, and perhaps garbage...

 

Another random thought:  I remember strawberries tasting less sweet as a child because they'd pick them long before they'd produced their full complement of sugar.  Today, we bought strawberries from the Costco in Kamloops, BC and they were among the sweetest and best I've ever tasted.  It's the middle of fricken winter in Canada folks...  I don't remember hunter gatherers flying fresh fruit in by jet during winter (the bullshit argument that fruits are nothing but healthy in large quantities because that's what hunter-gatherers ate).  

 

[ERICOPOLY]

You may also find The Omega Three Connection by Andrew Stoll to be interesting.  I heard him speak at an autism conference in San Diego a few years ago.  He's a Harvard Medical school prof who's had great success treating manic depressive patients with N-3 fatty acids.  (N refers to the terminal or "omega" end of the fatty acid molecule).  It seems that many people with other or less severe types of depression also benefit from N-3 fatty acids.  Interestingly, the people from Japan and NZ have much in common, but their diets are different.  Japanese have much more omega 3 on their diet, and they have one tenth the rate of major depression of New Zealanders.

 

Thanks for tips.  I will certainly pick that one up given my own experiences with adding omega 3.

 

Incidentally, have you hear of any studies done comparing a population like the Japanese who got the omega 3 through the diet, versus a New Zealander who tries to "cheat" by taking omega-3 supplements?

 

I had a long drive to Sun Peaks today, and did a lot of thinking on that topic.  Suppose you eat a big helping of french fries (high omega-6 yet low in omega-3) and then wait twenty minutes and chase it down with omega-3.  Does that work?  If your cells will take in the omega-6 in the absence of omega-3, will they hold out the "NO VACANCY" sign when the omega-3 comes floating by in the blood stream?  Or conversely, suppose you waited longer before taking the supplement.  Now all of your cells are holding out the "VACANCY" sign, but this time it's the omega-3 getting gobbled up.

 

How do supplements really work in these systems where the body will accept one in lieu of the other?  If you have too high a ratio in reverse (omega-3 to omega-6), what happens?  Could you perhaps do even worse harm?

 

I'd love to do research on this kind of thing.

 

[uncommonprofits]

Another random thought:  I remember strawberries tasting less sweet as a child because they'd pick them long before they'd produced their full complement of sugar.  Today, we bought strawberries from the Costco in Kamloops, BC and they were among the sweetest and best I've ever tasted.  It's the middle of fricken winter in Canada folks...  I don't remember hunter gatherers flying fresh fruit in by jet during winter (the bullshit argument that fruits are nothing but healthy in large quantities because that's what hunter-gatherers ate).  

 

Fruits are definitely sweeter than when we were kids -- and tremendously sweeter than the paleolithic period (prior to agriculture).  An era of agriculture ushered in our present culture of economics --- hence the modern science that have made these goods sweeter.  Go back 10-50,000 years ago and fruits would have been much less sweet and far more fibrous.  Vegetables have had a similar impact but it has been much less so.  Art Devany presents this in his book very well and strongly suggests placing vegetables at the base of the food pyramid with the fruits higher up.  He has studied this and fully backed it up with scientific evidence -- and suggests to be more moderate with the fruits (than veggies) because of this trend they have had toward sweetness.  It is a very good book and I highly recommend it. 

 

The other problem with the strawberries you found in Costco is some would call strawberries more of a dirty fruit in terms of pesticides, etc that they retain.  But despite this + the fact they are sweeter than what we might find in the wilderness .... they are a far better alternative than the french fries.  But addiction sells and it is part of our culture -- you wont find many people throwing out their bun and requesting strawberries instead of fries -- unless of course they are contrarian type folks!

[twacowfca]

You may also find The Omega Three Connection by Andrew Stoll to be interesting.  I heard him speak at an autism conference in San Diego a few years ago.  He's a Harvard Medical school prof who's had great success treating manic depressive patients with N-3 fatty acids.  (N refers to the terminal or "omega" end of the fatty acid molecule).  It seems that many people with other or less severe types of depression also benefit from N-3 fatty acids.  Interestingly, the people from Japan and NZ have much in common, but their diets are different.  Japanese have much more omega 3 on their diet, and they have one tenth the rate of major depression of New Zealanders.

 

Thanks for tips.  I will certainly pick that one up given my own experiences with adding omega 3.

 

Incidentally, have you hear of any studies done comparing a population like the Japanese who got the omega 3 through the diet, versus a New Zealander who tries to "cheat" by taking omega-3 supplements?

 

I had a long drive to Sun Peaks today, and did a lot of thinking on that topic.  Suppose you eat a big helping of french fries (high omega-6 yet low in omega-3) and then wait twenty minutes and chase it down with omega-3.  Does that work?  If your cells will take in the omega-6 in the absence of omega-3, will they hold out the "NO VACANCY" sign when the omega-3 comes floating by in the blood stream?  Or conversely, suppose you waited longer before taking the supplement.  Now all of your cells are holding out the "VACANCY" sign, but this time it's the omega-3 getting gobbled up.

 

How do supplements really work in these systems where the body will accept one in lieu of the other?  If you have too high a ratio in reverse (omega-3 to omega-6), what happens?  Could you perhaps do even worse harm?

 

I'd love to do research on this kind of thing.

 

 

Healthy eating is definitely better than trying to neutralize junk food by taking supplements.  Nevertheless, there is a substantial benefit from taking certain supplements, especially omega3, vitaminD and dietary fiber from natural sources.  For example, taking omega3's with or immediately after a high fat meal results in a better blood lipid profile.  Short or long chain omega3's are both taken up into the heart muscle as an energy source that helps the natural pacemaker work better, reducing irregularity,