<p>MOWC - ate you talking about the letsrun.com forum? I know they tend to be petty hard core on that running forum.</p>
<p>I was way too hot walking in 52F weather in a cotton short sleeve T-shirt and long cotton pants that I had to roll up. It was not even sunny. My normal cut for not walking is 70F. Looks like this spring I will not be able to walk in warmer than 60F. It was weird to see many people still wearing winter coats while walking. How is it possible, I have no idea. Could not do certain things like climbing stairs up and down, I was just way too hot! And now I am facing swimming in 86F water. I mihgt not be able to finish.</p>
<p>ohio- No. Letsrun is a whole different animal. This is runningahead.com There are subforums (and it’s where many of us keep our training logs- free). The subforum for the 2000 mile per year aspirants is nicknamed “The Swamp” and is sometimes supportive, sometimes not so much and somewhat intense on occasion. The LLR (Ladies Locker Room) is for women only (invite required) and is a safe place for new women runners, slower runners and the rest of us. This was the meet-up group in St. Louis. I first “met” MaineLonghorn in the LLR (different name there) and, as it turned out, my H and her father played handball together many, many years ago when H was a PhD candidate at UTexas and her father was a very young professor. The general forums on RunningAhead are referred to as the GSP (Great Scary Place) by the more snobby folks. Overall, it’s an awesome forum and resource and the young man who started it and runs it is just a great guy. He has advertising to support it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, they need to establish whether or not there even is a correlation between eating red meat and coronary artery disease.</p>
<p>This 2010 meta-study by Havard School of Public Health folk published in the journal, Cirulation, found that the assumption is hardly proven:</p>
<p>[Red</a> and processed meat consumption and risk of i… [Circulation. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI](<a href=“Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed”>Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis - PubMed)
[Red</a> and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis](<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885952/]Red”>Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis - PMC)</p>
<p>This study combine the results of 20 smaller studies and totalled over 1 million people.</p>
<p>They found an association between processed meats and higher risk for coronary disease and diabetes, but NO asssociate whatsoever between unprocessed red meat consumption and coronary disease:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So here we have something that “everyone knows” (that red meat causes coronary disease) because of the media jumping on every story, when it’s not clear at all that this is even remotely true.</p>
<p>The hypothesis was that higher cholesterol is associated with coronary disease and that eating saturated fat from meat raises cholesterol and therefore must contribute to coronary disease. But, the idea that eating saturated fat causes heart disease can’t be shown to be true, even in massive population studies like the Women’s Health Initiative Study. From this meta-study, it looks like the same problems are cropping up with the meat hypothesis, too – unless you combine processed meat consumption and red meat consumption. Then, you get a mild correllation (presumably due to the processed meat).</p>
<p>The problem comes when the sum total of what “everyone knows” results in diets that make you fat and really do cause health problems.</p>
<p>Seems like to me that we really know five things about nutrition:</p>
<p>a) It’s better to eat real food and skip as much processed food-like products as you possibly can.</p>
<p>b) Eating as much fresh vegetables in your diet is a good thing.</p>
<p>c) It is better to eat healthy high quality fat than poor quality unhealthy fats.</p>
<p>d) it is better to eat carbohydrates with fiber than without fiber</p>
<p>e) It is better to cut sugar consumption as much as possible to stop drinking sugar entirely (see fiber above).</p>
<p>Beyond that, I don’t see much else that we really know as far as universal guidelines. Some people do well on lower carb diets. Others don’t. Some people do well on low fat diets. Others don’t. Some people do well as vegans. Others don’t. Some people do well eating red meat. Others don’t. So rather than try to issue guidelines about stuff we clearly don’t understand, why not stick to a few simple suggestions that are universally accepted? EVen Dean Ornish and Robert Lustig on the five simple rules above…</p>
<p>4.33 mi treadmill run.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wouldn’t even go as far as you do. </p>
<p>In what ways are processed foods inferior? With respect to satiety, or physiologically otherwise? How does one distinguish high quality fat from poor quality fat or healthful fats from unhealthful fats (aside from, perhaps, artificial trans fats produced during n-6 oil hydrogenation)? Should one cut consumption of all sugars, or merely the fructose-containing sugars, like sucrose? And should one cut out fruit as a result of that guideline?</p>
<p>Quite the perplexing situation modern dietary understanding is in.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, with regard to your questions about sugar, iDad has made many informative posts on the topic in the past. You could search the thread for fruit juice, soda, breakfast cereal, or insulin resistance if you’re interested.</p>
<p>Doing a quick Google search, here are a couple of the sites that come up with information about processed foods.</p>
<p>[4</a> Most Harmful Ingredients in Packaged Foods | Reader’s Digest](<a href=“http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/4-most-harmful-ingredients-in-packaged-foods/]4”>The Most Harmful Ingredients in Packaged Foods | The Healthy)</p>
<p>[How</a> to Spot Healthy and Unhealthy Processed Foods from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics](<a href=“http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6442471055]How”>http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6442471055)</p>
<p>iDad can steer you to experts.</p>
<p>11 x 400 intervals today. I have my 10k in about 7 weeks so it’s time to add these in. I haven’t done intervals since last year I think, so they felt hard at first. During the first interval I decided I would quit after 8, but once I got to 8, I kept telling myself “just one more” until I finished the planned 11. Once I was done, they felt pretty good! My times were a little slow, but not bad. And I’ve got 7 weeks to speed it up.</p>
<p>Deborah, you know you really want to come down here to sunny, sunny California. Did I mention it’s sunny here?</p>
<p>DadII, are you still running?</p>
<p>Blank, I grew up there. :)</p>
<p>“In what ways are processed foods inferior?”</p>
<p>Let me address a few points. A calorie (actually, it is kilocalories we are talking about) is a unit used to measure energy. We burn the food and calculate how much energy is produced during the process, and this is how we assign the caloric numbers to different foods.
</p>
<p>[How</a> To Determine Calories In Food | LIVESTRONG.COM](<a href=“How to Calculate Kilocalories | livestrong”>How to Calculate Kilocalories | livestrong)</p>
<p>The trouble with calories is that we, humans, are not furnaces. Different nutrients interact with our internal biochemical “circuitry” differently and in the long run can completely mess up our metabolisms, re-wire said circuitry, leading to irreversible metabolic changes. We need a complex mix of dietary components to keep our bodies performing as the nature intended. Take, for instance, fiber. While insoluble fiber has almost no energetic value for the body, it is invaluable in regulating our gut metabolism. Processed foods eliminate fiber since highly foods have a much longer shelf life without it. There was a link to the Colbert show in one of the earlier posts, and I agree - sometimes eating the box in which the cereal is sold (mmm, fiber!) could do more good for the body than eating the product that comes in this box.</p>
<p>I will try to post more of my musings on this topic later. Gotta make some phone calls.</p>
<p>California? Hmmm… There are some fantastic runs through Napa Valley and Sonoma. And adult grape beverages are plentiful for the ones who like to have a few sips. :)</p>
<p>OTOH, there is the Beer Trail in my neck of the woods that goes through the WA wine country. It is as flat as a pancake for most part, and I believe there is a half/5K organized on it every Labor day.</p>
<p>Deborah T, my post was intended more to point out that the questions remain unanswerable and that most dietary information online is pseudoscience at best. </p>
<p>In that Reader’s Digest article, for example, the four indicted “ingredients” are trans fats, refined grains, salt, and high-fructose corn syrup. (In its coverage of trans fats, it unjustifiably implies the unhealthfulness of saturated fats too.) It fails to distinguish natural trans fats from artificial trans fats, which by all accounts is key because only the latter is, based on research so far, bad for health. </p>
<p>As for refined versus whole grains, the claims of the article are just not well-supported. If one’s fiber is otherwise sufficient, I don’t see a compelling reason for the inferiority of refined grains. Glycemic concerns are not pertinent in real-world conditions of mixed macro-nutrient feedings. Regarding salt, I am increasingly convinced that most people these days get too little, especially if their potassium intake is as high as it ought to be; I personally function well off sodium intake well above the RDA. Finally, high-fructose corn syrup is negligibly different from sucrose, yet only the former is mentioned.</p>
<p>BunsenBurner, I agree with you almost word for word but don’t see how you’ve indicated the inferiority of processed foods. Certainly, a diet of entirely processed foods would be inferior to one full of whole foods, but assuming appropriate micro-nutrient and fiber intakes overall, why is a diet replete with processed foods inferior to one with fewer processed foods?</p>
<p>Silverturtle, it would be helpful if you cited sources for your claims.</p>
<p>silverturtle, are you getting trained to be an astronaut? :)</p>
<p>Short answer: Because the human organism is so complex, that we are still discovering the substances that it needs for proper functioning, and diet of Coke and Cheerios supplemented with fiber and a set of known to date vitamins and minerals might lack said substances. And besides nutritional value, there is the taste aspect… I’d rather have a bowl of ripe strawberries and a slice of multi-grain bread for a snack than that yucky strawberry preserve filled whatchamacallit toaster thingy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Re: need to distinguish among trans fats: [Beneficial</a> effects of vaccenic acid on postprandial lipid metabolism and dyslipidemia: Impact of natural trans-fats to improve CVD risk - Wang - 2010 - Lipid Technology - Wiley Online Library](<a href=“http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lite.201000016/abstract]Beneficial”>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lite.201000016/abstract)</p>
<p>Re: glycemic irrelevance: [Effect</a> of Source of Dietary Carbohydrate on Plasma Glucose and Insulin Responses to Mixed Meals in Subjects With NIDDM](<a href=“http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/10/4/395.abstract?ijkey=cd328a886ca3753b9e1d3035dde0a4e774e941ef&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha]Effect”>http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/10/4/395.abstract?ijkey=cd328a886ca3753b9e1d3035dde0a4e774e941ef&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)</p>
<p>Re: high-fructose corn syrup versus sucrose: [Enzymatic</a> production of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) containing 55% fructose in aqueous ethanol - Visuri - 2004 - Biotechnology and Bioengineering - Wiley Online Library](<a href=“http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bit.260300715/abstract]Enzymatic”>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bit.260300715/abstract). (Describes the modern process by which HFCS is produced, yielding a fructose concentration of .55 compared to .5 for sucrose. Some HFCS may still have as low as .42 sucrose concentration.)</p>
<p>The weatherman says that the spectacular weather today won’t last into the week, so I had to pull an impromptu schedule change. Pulled on the running tights and the neon yellow 1/2 zip and headed out for my usual hilly 5K walk/jog route. Nothing fancy. Just walked when I felt like walking, jogged when I felt like jogging. Still can’t wear my new shoes – too muddy where the bulldozers have been – but, it didn’t matter.</p>
<p>I’ve still got MOWC in my sights. She ran 39 miles this weekend. I figure I can catch her this year if I can average 1 mile per week for the rest of the year! I’m at 2.5 miles for the year and closing fast!</p>
<p>I can’t compare times or distances, but, subjectively, I feel like running is easier than it was last fall.</p>
<p>Silverturtle, you go ahead and eat a full array of junk if you like, but trying to claim it’s a healthy choice with no proof to back it up isn’t convincing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, but you neglect illustration of its scrumptious icy coating. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But let’s say one did eat some processed alternative to strawberries and white bread instead of multi-grain, though still eating enough whole foods to get in the fiber and micro-nutrients without supplemental consumption. Is that diet still less healthful in your reckoning?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My gist is that dietary science has no clear answers on what is junk, if by junk we mean unhealthful food. I certainly think one should strive to eat as healthfully as he or she can, but the state of affairs requires almost total rejection of popular dietary thinking.</p>