<p>It’s simple. In the olden days, people walked. My great grandmother walked 10 miles carrying her grandson over a mountain to town, routinely. Does anyone do that anymore except for hiking recreation? Now we’d hop in our cars.</p>
<p>We moved to the city from the burbs because it is easier to walk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What wrong with that? :)</p>
<p>^^^LOL.</p>
<p>Actually, I’ve felt a bit better about lard since I heard a gourmet chef say that lard is absolutely the best for pie crusts. Sorta defeats the point of this thread. Heh, heh.</p>
<p>I switched to lard for frying a over a year ago, when it became apparent that the industrial oils (like the canola I had used for years) offer no health advantages and are probably worse. And, that doesn’t even begin to talk about the millions of people who were harmed by the public health campaigns to get people to switch away from butter and lard to trans fat margarine and Crisco. Yikes. Those trans fats literally kill you and generations were urged to replace healthy real food fats with those poisons. I’ve reached the point on nutrition that, if the USDA or any other government agency gives nutrition advice, I start with the premise that it’s more than likely completely wrong. Two groups that I would never turn to for nutrition advice are bodybuilders and dieticians… :)</p>
<p>Now I know why my 90 year old grandmother shook her head and said “well…” in a dismissive tone when I told her I made her fried chicken recipe with canola oil. Lard fries so much better. It’s night and day.</p>
<p>@ Interesteddad-
You are correct, and the doctors are some of the worst offenders, the whole “saturated fat causes cholesterol build up and heart disease” has been a mantra for decades,. and suddenly they have discovered “ta da” that saturated fat intake has nothing to do with heart disease, the whole ‘low fat’ craze was way off (cholesterol levels are genetic, by what the liver makes)…it doesn’t mean you eat a ton of butter or saturated fat, but margerine and canola oil are not healthy, while there are more healthy fats in nuts and olive oil, using things like butter and lard and duck fat sparingly is not going to be the death knell the doctors have claimed. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with eating meat, as long as it is lean protein.</p>
<p>The causes are many. The meat most people eat, especially prepared food, uses hormones and antibiotics to fatten the animals up fast, and on top of everything else, it lacks nutrition (grass fed beef is loaded with Omega-3’s and also is quite lean, for example). Chickens used to be expensive, thanks to hormones and selective breeding, they have created monster chickens that literally cannot stand, they have such huge breasts. </p>
<p>Then, too, public policy often supports the wrong things, for political reasons. Take a look at FDA guidelines, and they emphasis grains as the main component of diets…and even whole grains are problematic, they should not be the prime thing we eat, vegetables should be, with lesser amounts of lean protein and even less grains. So why do they do this? Because of the agra industry, the farm belt congressmen and senators make sure that the grain farmers are taken care of. Likewise, the government subsidizes the growing of corn which is used for animal feed (because it is cheap thanks to the subsidy) and High Fructose corn syrup, which because it is so cheap, is used not just in Soda, but is used in a lot of processed foods as a filler (take a gander sometime at ‘low fat’ muffins, will scare you how much HFC is in there). </p>
<p>Processed foods in general are eaten more and more, and they are the disaster to end all disaster.They are made with all kinds of crap, and are often full of empty calories, they may be cheap, but they also are not great nutrition. The cheap meat in a Mickey Dickey’s burger, the bun that is full of HFC and genetic altered grain and so forth is loaded with calories, and most of them are empty. And thanks to cheap, subsidized meat, and grain products, we now have the supersize me phenomena as well, restaurants give huge portions cause the products are cheap enough to do so. Our tax dollars are not subsidizing healthy fruits and vegetables, it is subsidizing agribusinesses and farming practices that are lucrative, but a disaster</p>
<p>The wheat we eat is not the same wheat they ate generations ago, the kind of wheat we eat is a hybrid, that while it holds incredible yields and also is easy to be harvested (no longer amber waves of grain, now short, stubby plants) but nutritionally has all kinds of problems with it. Then, too, Corn is in everything,studies have show how pervasive corn is in things we eat. </p>
<p>And what we eat matters, 80% of health and fit bodies stems from nutrition, eat a crap diet and no matter how much you exercise, you won’t get that healthy. We are too sedentary, but it is being made worse by processed foods that are full of junk, and a diet that is full of the wrong things, and that has changed from when my parents grew up, or even I grew up. </p>
<p>^^^There is definitely an economic component at play here. I was at a baseball game last night in another part of my state - a public school comprised of mostly working class families. Looking at the bleachers, almost all of the parents of the other school were significantly overweight, while most of the parents of my son’s private school were trim and fit looking. Good food is expensive and it takes more time to prepare…if you don’t have a lot of money or time, it’s fast or convenience foods. Kids who grow up eating this stuff are at risk for a lifetime of obesity, although there are a few initiatives locally to educate kids about eating healthily, this is a huge generational problem the country faces.</p>
<p>Because in the 30s and 40s there just wasn’t enough food to go around. In the 50s people were used to living on the diets they did in the 30s and 40s. Today there is plenty, more than we need. I don’t know how surprising this should be.</p>
<p>It’s not just that Vladenschlutte, back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s, most women stayed home and spent hours cooking meals from scratch. Nowadays people don’t want to work all day then go home and cook an elaborate meal. People have very little free time and they don’t want to spend it in the kitchen…I think most people today feel a significant time crunch. They value their time and they are very hesitant to waste it doing something they see as a mundane chore when quick food is available…and that quick food may taste better to some palates. </p>
<p>Having lived in Europe for the last year, I had forgotten how huge American portions are. When I go back to the US, I am shocked by how much food is on the plate. For example, a small drink at McDonalds in the UK is 250ml. In the US, the small is about 473ml. Even the US child’s drink is over 300ml.</p>
<p>People also smoked more back then. Note that K-rations for soldiers in the 1940s contained cigarettes as well as food.</p>
<p>Food is abundant and cheap. Throughout most of history–up to the last two generations–most people lived close to the edge of starvation. I know that there was strict portion control and no leftovers when my parents were growing up (in poor families in the 30s-40s).
People eat too much and don’t exercise enough. I am skeptical when people blame particular foods or additives. (I think many people don’t want to take responsibility for their own overeating and unwillingness to exercise.) I think total number of calories consumed combined with a sedentary lifestyle is the biggest factor. We have 24 hour shopping, convenience foods, microwaves, drive-thrus take credit cards. Nothing can stop us from getting anything at any time. Even small deterrents, like the store or bank being closed, not having cash, not wanting to make the effort to prepare (cut up, cook on stovetop) and clean up (wash pots/dishes) used to stop some consumption. Now it is everything, all the time, with virtually no effort. And we sit in front of the TV or computer while we eat. </p>
<p>I agree with atomom. Scientific evidence suggests that the amount of expended calories hasn’t changed in the past forty years, but the amount of calories consumed has risen dramatically.</p>
<p>You don’t have to blame additives or antibiotics; if these play a role in the growth of obesity, it’s a small one. Mostly we (as a country) eat too much and move too little. </p>
<p>The Coca Cola Company certainly wants us to believe that all calories are the same and that it’s all just a matter of consuming fewer calories and burning more calories:</p>
<p><a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube;
<p>They don’t want us to think about whether a calorie of Coca Cola or Minute Maid juice or Powerade sports drink is really the same as a calorie of milk or cheese or broccoli or salmon or roast beef. </p>
<p>Coca Cola’s calories are, indeed, very different. So different that they aren’t even metabolized by the same organs in the body as other calories. But, the food industry doesn’t want us to consider the implications of that.</p>
<p>It’s not even possible to accurately track calories consumed within 100 calories a day. Even less precision for exercise calories. So, trying to rely on meticulous tallies of calories to stay weight stable is a virtually impossible task. The admonishment to “eat less and move more” simply does not work as a diet strategy. If people could will themselves to do that, they wouldn’t need to lose weight.</p>
<p>I agree that WILL is what is lacking. And being honest with yourself about how much you are really eating/drinking and how much (little) you are exercising. Certainly the sweet taste and caffeine lift of Coke and other sodas is tempting if not addictive for some. (Not saying protein is the same as sugar, etc.) But there is nothing special about Coca Cola itself. If you recognize that it is bad for you, don’t drink it. </p>
<p>InterestedDad said this: “Coca Cola’s calories are, indeed, very different. So different that they aren’t even metabolized by the same organs in the body as other calories.”</p>
<p>I’m afraid I simply can’t stand this. It makes absolutely no sense, biologically. Sugar (sucrose) is sugar is sugar (is sugar), as far as the body is concerned. The massive dose of sugar represented by a Coca-Cola will certainly cause massive physiologic effects (insulin release, etc.) as the body attempts to maintain homeostasis, but sugar is metabolized as sugar, regardless of whether it comes from Coca-Cola or cake. </p>
<p>If InterestedDad means that the combination of sugar and caffeine represented by a soft drink has effects on the brain that cause massive amounts of hormones to be released–that is true. But the effect can easily be duplicated with a cup of coffee with a few too many teaspoons of sugar.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s correct. Sucrose is sucrose. Sucrose is one molecule of glucose and one molecule of fructose, joined together by a chemical bond that is broken immediately in the stomach. The glucose molecules can be metabolized by virtually every cell in the body. The fructose molecules must be metabolized by the liver. No other cells in the body metabolize fructose. A calorie of fructose is VERY different from a calorie of glucose. For example, glucose leads to an insulin response. Fructose does not.</p>
<p>Most real foods contain little or no fructose. The exception is fruit, but even there, the fructose is accompanied by large amounts of fiber, so the fructose is absorbed slowly – very different from the huge fructose load that comes from drinking sugar drinks. The liver’s ability to metabolize the slow release of fructose from real fruit is very different from the liver’s ability to metabolize the fructose from a 20 ounce bottle of Coca-Cola. A calorie is not a calorie.</p>
<p>iDad–A calorie is a calorie by definition; it’s defined by burning an organic substance. What you are trying to say is that the human biochemical response to different forms of sugar varies depending on the kind of sugar and that that response helps determine whether or not weight gain results, and that fructose does in fact lead to an insulin response: while it doesn’t raise insulin directly, its consumption may lead ultimately to insulin resistance, which is an impaired insulin response. (rat studies from 2002 here:<a href=“http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/5/911.full”>http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/76/5/911.full</a> (2002))</p>
<p>However, that research was done primarily on rats eating a diet extremely high in fructose. Human studies using actual foods (in which sucrose–glucose AND fructose is prominent) indicate that the human response may in fact be different: <a href=“http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full”>http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/246.full</a> (from 2013). </p>
<p>Fundamentally, I agree with you: refined foods are not healthy foods, because the refining process strips out factors that may inform the brain about the real caloric value of foods. (Both of these articles mention the effects of sugars on the brain and on hormone levels.) </p>
<p>Hey, come to think of it, you’re right Megpmom! When I traveled to France I was a bit surprised (and actually a little annoyed) at how small the portions were. We weren’t there for haute cuisine but the food on the plates was definitely much smaller than what we had back at home. Though I do remember one night at a ‘all you can eat’ buffet the Frenchmen (and Frenchwomen) nearly mauled us in their rush to get to the shrimp platters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. A calorie is measured by placing a quantity of food in a bomb calorimeter and burning it. That is a very poor representation of what happens to food in the human body, where different foods are subject to many different metabolic processes. For example, excess fructose is turned into fat by the liver. Fructose in bomb calorimeter does not turn into fat. 100 calories of fructose and 100 calories of lard do not have the same effect on the human body. Heck, 100 calories of fructose will have very different effects on the SAME human depending on whether he or she is glycogen depleted at the time the fructose is consumed.</p>
<p>Trying to estimate “calories” for physical exercise is even more problematic. A crudely estimated “100 calories” of walking has a very different effect on the human body than a crudely estimated “100 calories” of weight lifting or high intensity sprinting.</p>
<p>BTW, the 2013 article you cited has the following author disclosures:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is standard practice for the junk food industry. Pay consulants to put enough stuff out there so that they can claim that the evidence is contradictory. It’s the same playbook the tobacco companies used for decades. I don’t begrudge them defending their product, but we all have to be very careful to look at whose research we are considering. One of the huge reasons for the horrible state of nutritional recommendations over the last 50 years is that the junk food industry is so tightly integrated into the research and public policy institutions. Public policy becomes a marketing tool. For example, after 40 years of beating the low fat drum, they can actually sell Red Twizzlers with a “health claim” right on the package: FAT FREE.</p>
<p>Here’s an article by Marion Nestle expressing concern about the corporate influence on the American Society of Nutrition that presented the symposium with the fructose presentation and published the article in their journal:</p>
<p><a href=“Conflicts of interest in nutrition societies: American Society of Nutrition - Food Politics by Marion Nestle”>http://www.foodpolitics.com/2013/11/conflicts-of-interest-in-nutrition-societies-american-society-of-nutrition/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ASN has a “sustaining member board” that consists entirely of scientists representing corporations providing significant sustaining sponsorship of the Academy. Play for Pay for Coca Cola and PepsiCo and Kelloggs, etc.</p>
<p>Here is a list of the 2012 corporate sponsors of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the accrediting organization for registered dieticians:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/New-Picture-2.bmp”>http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/New-Picture-2.bmp</a></p>
