Posted on 05/18/2011 6:16:22 AM PDT by Jemian
I'm sitting in a comfortable chair, in a tastefully lit, cheerfully decorated drug den, watching a steady line of people approach their dealer. After scoring, they shuffle off to their tables to quietly indulge in what for some could become (if it hasn't already) an addiction that screws up their lives. It's likely you have friends and family members who are suffering from this dependence—and you may be on the same path yourself. But this addiction is not usually apparent to the casual observer. It has no use for the drama and the carnage you associate with cocaine and alcohol. It's slower to show its hand, more socially acceptable—and way more insidious.
I'm in a Panera Bread outlet.
(Excerpt) Read more at details.com ...
Thanks for posting that video link - just got done watching it.
It is interesting that obesity was apparently seen to increase when that food pyramid kicked in.
Julia Child had it right: Everything in moderation - her pyramid was most likely a rectangle.
I’ll be bookmarking Taubes’ blog page:
http://www.garytaubes.com/blog/
I can’t believe that.
Guess you didn't read/comprehend the entire article.
In the absence of carbs, your body will burn fatty acids for energy. It's how you sleep through the night without eating for eight hours. "The brain does indeed need carbohydrates for fuel," Taubes says, "but the body is perfectly happy to make those out of protein, leafy green vegetables, and the animal fat you're burning."
Most pasta is what I’d consider junk food. That’s not to say I don’t eat it; I eat it recognizing it for what it is.
Ever wonder about “enriched” pasta? “Enriched” bread? “Enriched” flour? The reason it’s been enriched is because it was impoverished during processing.
Flour from nature is ground whole wheat. Not wheat from which the bran has been stripped in order to sell that back to you as bran flakes to keep you regular when you get constipated from eating highly-processed pasta and bread and so forth.
Wheat also loses a vast amount of its nutrition value (i.e. vitamins and minerals) within a couple days of being ground into flour. If it’s not used within that time, therefore, much of its wholesomeness is lost. That’s clearly impractical in our modern food industry, so manufacturers attempt to compensate by “enriching” it (replacing the natural nutritiousness with artificial). But can that really make up for the loss? I’m not convinced. (This is the same debate as whether vitamin supplements can substitute for actual food, nutritionally.)
I’ve been grinding my own flour for several years now. and eat lots of bread, muffins, waffles, cornbread, etc., getting the fiber and nutrients the body needs to function properly. Yes, I still eat the “junk-food” pasta, but I do so seeing it for what it is.
What I have been allowing myself recently is a sandwich/thin bread. They are 100 calories, made from whole wheat (19 grams whole wheat, 5 grams fiber, no corn syrup). If you saw them, you would laugh because it looks like you took a hamburger roll and drove over it till it was flat. I can eat that type of bread with a lean meat and still lose weight. Although I love pasta of every sort, I think I will see it now as an “occasional” treat. By occasional, I mean a few times a year at most. My body just doesn’t seem to appreciate it as much as my taste buds do.
bttt
The salty crunchy food group is the tastiest. And cholesterol is a delicious spice. Thus is our cross to bear.
Guess you didn't read/comprehend the entire article.
Here's what was written at the bottom of the first page of the article:
The article offered no follow up to this this statement. Is Taubes an endocrinologist or an epidemiologist from Harvard? Nope, Taubes is just a guy who studied applied physics and aerospace engineering. Somehow though, he believes this qualifies him as an expert in human nutrition and nutrition biology. So my take on this really has nothing to do with reading or comprehension. It does, however, provide an excellent example of bad journalism on the part of the author.
All that notwithstanding, I will admit that the Harvard doctors are correct. There is no absolute requirement by the human body for carbohydrates. People have been known to live for a long time without carbohydrates. But that begs the question why? Why would anyone want to live without carbohydrates? I mean, if they want to be healthy. It makes no sense and is, really, just plain stupid. And, in the context of the article, it is absolutely absurd for these doctors to make such a claim or suggest that it is perfectly ok to do so.
Living without carbs would put an unnecessary strain on the body and would leave you less healthy and less competent as you would be with a diet that included carbohydrates. If you want quick energy, you're going to need the glycogen stores in your muscles at maximum capacity.
A diet too high in fat could lead to ketosis, and over a longer period of time, could lead to some serious physical problems. A diet overly high in protein could lead to high nitrogen excretion issues and result in kidney stones and gout. Great.
In the absence of carbs, your body will burn fatty acids for energy. It's how you sleep through the night without eating for eight hours. "The brain does indeed need carbohydrates for fuel," Taubes says, "but the body is perfectly happy to make those out of protein, leafy green vegetables, and the animal fat you're burning."
Uh, huh. It is true that protein and fat can back up out of the Krebs cycle and re-synthesize as carbohydrates. But, again, for someone wanting to live a healthy lifestyle, why would you even bother? It doesn't make any sense -- just like the rest of the article.
Given Taubes' background, he is uniquely unqualified to be offering advice on human nutrition. History has shown us that you can sell diet advice more easily if you claim that fats or carbs are the problem – while the (admittedly rather obvious) idea that calories are the problem seems to be something that few are prepared to pay for. Taubes learned this lesson early on in his career as a seller of books. The demonization of one macronutrient over another is a common trait of diet fads and the charlatans who hustle them.
This article is mostly garbage, but it does serve as an exceptional example for what's wrong with our understanding of nutrition in this country and for why we are so screwed up when it comes to this topic.
“The advice came about as early nutrition scientists rallied around a misguided maxim that remains embedded in the fabric of our attitudes toward food to this day: Eating too much fat makes you fat. But science never bore out this pre-Galilean view of nutrition. What is now clear is this: At the center of the obesity universe lie carbohydrates, not fat.”
Ayup.
Sophia Loren said she owes everything she has to spaghetti.
Belgian bread is the best. Incredible variety and baked fresh by the hour.
Nothing like artisan olive bread.
You’d also be amazed at the variety of potatoes that are sold in the markets. There are even days when one can sample free wine in the grocery stores.
I do not like American bread - at least what you buy on the shelves.
>> “Are Carbs More Addictive Than Cocaine?” <<
.
Yes, and far more dangerous too
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.