Carbs are Killing You (infographic)

I would have to disagree on the peanut oil being healthy. While it might be slightly better than canola and some other vegetable oils, being reasonably high in monounsaturated fat, it is still highly prone to rancidity and is not stable when used to fry foods -- unlike coconut oil, butter and pork fat.

I also have a hard time wrapping my mind around bread being healthy. Even the kind without sugar gets broken down to sugar once it's in your body. I don't know if this applies to bakery rolls, but I do know a bagel has more sugar than a candy bar once you consider its glycemic load. When you eat bread, what isn't fiber pretty much immediately gets broken down and converted into glucose.

 

LOL I know, right?...it's been a while, I may have to make myself a nice hamburger this weekend.

 

I do believe that whole grain lean breads (as in no added sugar or fat) leavened with the sourdough method and hearth baked, are healthier than say, wonder bread. Crusty, tough and chewy as opposed to soft, doughy, and void of fibre

 

So, PR (and anybody else of course who has an idea), what do you think is the best stuff to deep fry in? I love my deep fried potato sticks (not fast food chain french fries).

I obviously wasn't talking about homemade burgers or quality meat. And I'm not sure you asking how deep fried frites is junk food is a serious question?

 

Coconut oil is the best thing to deep fry with. The only thing, really, because it maintains stability even at high temperatures. I don't really deep fry my food, but if I did it would be with coconut oil.

Olive oil is great in raw form, but turns bad as soon as you subject it to high heat. It goes from being very healthy to being very unhealthy.

 

Yeah, I understood that about olive oil. But you can still heat it I understand? Just not too high. I would never deepfry with it

 

Yeah well alcohol is unhealthy. You drink beer, so there you go!

Studies have shown that alcohol interferes with all three sources of glucose and the hormones needed to maintain healthy blood glucose levels.

I'll take my chances eating bread, pasta and Greek fries, thank you

 

Pure alcohol is indeed unhealthy for consumption. Beer however is not, especially in moderation.

 

Beer is pretty much pure carbs-sugar. Although you can get gluten free beer. I have seen it before at a craft shop but have never tried it.

 

Nothing wrong with a little bit of carbs if you enjoy a beer or 2. It's better than a sugary soda. Maybe some peeps should anticipate on it if they have a beer belly (and don't like it) by eating less carbs or something. And who wants to try gluten free beer for fun?

 

As far as meat goes, there's a lot of research pointing to the fact that although a certain amount of red meat may be good, poultry good too, processed meats of all kinds are not.
Bacon, sausages, ham, low quality burgers etc

I recently watched a 2 part BBC Horizon documentary about all this, and that was pretty much the conclusion. It's chemicals which are formed during the processing which make it bad. Can increase the likelihood of colon disease, and accelerate the clogging of blood vessels. Fats found in whole meats may have the same effect in excess, but the process is much slower.

No idea if this will work outside the UK but here's a link to pt.1. I found it quite interesting. If it works or not, I'd like to know - as if it does that opens the door to me posting more content from the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04fhb90/horizon-20142015-1-should-i-eat-meat-the-big-health-dilemma

 

Even worse than those things is lunch meat and hot dogs.

 

I did try a gluten free beer a while ago, tasted ok but was 10 times the price!

 

I would try it out of interest but am pretty convinced it's not gonna be a regular.

 

The article below is a good summary of how the three macronutrient types affect the efficiency of digestion, which affects how much of the food calories are used to run the body and how much get dissipated as heat due to inefficiencies in metabolic processes. The heat dissipation is known as the thermic effect. The thermic effect can have a significant effect on how many of the food calories end up actually being used to run the body after all the inefficiency losses. It's true that a calorie isn't a calorie when it comes to living organisms compared with laboratory tests that measure calories in a calorimeter in an equilbrium state, because living organisms aren't in an equilibrium state much of the time. It's also true that a calorie deficit is still needed to lose caloric body weight and that the laws of physics aren't being defied by the thermic effect. For a diet that has a high thermic effect, it's possible that the body can achieve a calorie deficit while consuming an amount of daily calories that is higher than that of a diet that has a low thermic effect, all else being the same. The calorie deficit is still there in the high thermic diet and is needed to lose weight.

The timing of meals relative to exercise periods affects how the food calories are partitioned to various tissues (muscle, fat), which is as important as how food calories affect overall body weight. This is another factor that is often neglected in weight loss studies. The weight loss may have been substantial but a significant loss of lean body mass may have occurred instead of body fat loss (the skinny-fat phenomenon).

Most macronutrient-limited weight loss diet studies (low-fat, low-carb) don't sufficiently document all of these factors, which is part of the reason why there are so many discrepancies and anomalies in the results.

http://www.ironmanmag.com.au/nutrition/weight-loss/8-burn-calories-while-you-eat-the-thermic-effect-of-food

 

No, I DID drink beer. I haven't had a beer (or any alcohol) in over six months. I don't plan on going back to it anytime soon, either.

 

I really think it depends on the quality/source of the bacon, sausage, etc. Some are more processed than others. I personally think bacon and sausage are just fine as long as they're not loaded with additives and are made with animals that have been properly raised.

I have found little evidence for meat alone clogging arteries in the absence of carbohydrates.

 

All of the chemical content in processed meats (nitrates/nitrites, combustion products from the smoking process of burning wood, and whatever other preservatives that might be in the meat) may not even show up in the blood markers used in a weight loss study, yet still be a significant health risk for cancer and other diseases. This is why some level of rationality needs to be maintained when interpreting a diet study. Someone may see that a low-carb diet was better than a low-fat diet for weight loss and yielded good blood markers and use it as an excuse to consume 85% of their daily calories as a processed meat such as bacon and smoked sausage.

 

Couple things-first of all bacon.... my inlaws make their own bacon from pigs they kill and it's not highly processed and it's freaking delicious.

Sausage, same thing... if you go to the regular grocery you're likely gonna get some nasty, disgusting "meat" (meat product, ick.).... but sausage can be made from quality parts of an animal too so it's all in what parts it's made with, etc.

Nitrates in hot dogs and lunch meat is extremely unhealthy. I'm not even currently allowed to eat either one of those things, unless I heat up the meat to steaming but to me it's not worth it so I just don't. You CAN buy lunch meat without nitrates in it though... I got some at Target the other month. It wasn't bad BUT it wasn't really worth it to me... it was rather expensive for enough meat for like two sandwiches (and btw, I usually make my sandwiches in romaine lettuce instead of bread but that's just me)--- so now if I want a sandwich I'd rather just use meat from a turkey or chicken or a roast or something and slice it super thin myself.
You can get hot dogs without nitrates too.

 

I cannot think of anyone who consumes 85% of their calories from bacon and smoked sausage.