Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
IMO, noone who wants a healthy diet should ever drink soda or anything containing high-fructose corn syrup or indeed, any other processed junk.
+1
I was at the gym last night and two girls working for Red Bull were handing out free samples of their product. I did my best to educate them.
I mentioned high fructose corn syrup to them but they had no idea what I was talking about (and Red Bull over here just uses sugar). I have since learned that there's a very low production quota of HFCS here in the EU (but it not low for health reasons).
The one girl asked me what I do if my sugar level is a little low and I start getting light headed, no doubt asked as a way to give sugar drinks a more positive light.
I just said I eat an apple. Yea, well apples have sugar. Yea, but they also have fiber which helps to keep the sugar level in my blood from spiking. ... and so on
Milk. Milk (even skim) is excellent for low blood sugar, works quickly , has low glycemic index AND you get protein (not to mention Ca++ for the over 40ish crowd) to boot!
I don't care too much for money. For money can't buy me love. -the Beatles
piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
Everyone is predisposed to gaining weight - if they are surrounded by plenty, which we are now. 20 years ago, there were hardly any obese people in China: go to Beijing and see what it's like now. Not quite as bad as in USA and UK, but they're catching up very quickly. The same for the big rich cities in otherwise poor countries (including all African countries). The genes haven't changed - it' the environment that has. But homo sapiens haven't adapted: it now requires an effort (controlling the amount we eat) to stay slim.
I don't think the rise in obesity means that people are predisposed to gaining weight - it just means that if the environment and culture changes in certain ways, the general population will gain weight. But that is not a predisposition to gain weight, genetically speaking.
Said differently - if eating a lot of junk makes a person fat, it may be because they are eating junk, rather than because they have some predisposition towards weight gain.
piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.
It's not really convenient for other species to do that, is it?
piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.
It's not really convenient for other species to do that, is it?
Apart from the milk industry, I wonder why we do it.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
Ah, that video again lol. There plenty of research that contradicts that man's findings, and with far less sensationalism. The science is far from being conclusive. Cut it out of your diet if you wish, but as bad as the tobacco industry? No.
piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.
It's not really convenient for other species to do that, is it?
Apart from the milk indistry, I wonder why we do it.
Over 60% of the world's population are lactose intolerant, i.e. they've lost the capacity to digest milk sugar soon after they're weaned. In other words, for most of the world, cow/goat/sheep/anyone else's milk isn't a normal part of the human diet, just as milk from another species isn't a normal part of any other animal species' diet. Evolution over millennia, after farming of cattle etc became prevalent, allowed humans of European ancestry (and a few other parts of the world) to retain the capacity to digest lactose into adulthood.
But milk contains a high percentage of saturated fat, which leads to high cholesterol and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Humans still haven't evolved to cope with this problem......
piano joy, I'm not a health nut but it does seem odd that only humans continue to drink milk beyond childhood ... and the milk isn't even from our own species. I never gave that any thought until I started reading about nutrition.
It's not really convenient for other species to do that, is it?
Apart from the milk indistry, I wonder why we do it.
Over 60% of the world's population are lactose intolerant, i.e. they've lost the capacity to digest milk sugar soon after they're weaned. In other words, for most of the world, cow/goat/sheep/anyone else's milk isn't a normal part of the human diet, just as milk from another species isn't a normal part of any other animal species' diet. Evolution over millenia, after farming of cattle etc became prevalent, allowed humans of European ancestry (and a few other parts of the world) to retain the capacity to digest lactose into adulthood.
But milk contains a high percentage of saturated fat, which leads to high cholesterol and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Humans still haven't evolved to cope with this problem......
Not true of skim milk (and I buy organic, btw...) I understand the opposite view, however, I believe skim milk ranks # 3 in terms of healthy liquids. ( water & a good margarita ranking 1st and 2nd ! )
I don't care too much for money. For money can't buy me love. -the Beatles
bennevis, But milk contains a high percentage of saturated fat, which leads to high cholesterol and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Humans still haven't evolved to cope with this problem......
You know, I consume a fair amount of fat in my diet ... all kinds of animal fat, dairy fat, and vegetable fat. It's interesting that my blood chemistry is excellent.
When I went back to my family doctor three weeks ago to pick up the results of my blood work, the doctor's assistant advised me to watch the amount of fat I consume but she only mentioned that after I told her about the diet I follow ... low carbs, high fat (and no starches).
I had the results of the blood work in my hand and just waved them at her. If animal fat is so bad, why is my blood chemistry measurably excellent?
There's an explanation for that ... and I have a life outside of this forum.
Yamaha AvantGrand N1X | Roland RD 2000 | Sennheiser HD 598 headphones
I saw an interesting documentary once where they recreated a historical (and controversial) experiment in which a group of people increased their daily calorie intake from normal to more than triple for several weeks, including all sorts of junk food they wouldn't normally eat. In both experiments, the results were that a few people gained a lot of weight, a few people put on an inch or two around the waist, and a few saw no changes to their body whatsoever.
Everyone is predisposed to gaining weight - if they are surrounded by plenty, which we are now. 20 years ago, there were hardly any obese people in China: go to Beijing and see what it's like now. Not quite as bad as in USA and UK, but they're catching up very quickly. The same for the big rich cities in otherwise poor countries (including all African countries). The genes haven't changed - it' the environment that has. But homo sapiens haven't adapted: it now requires an effort (controlling the amount we eat) to stay slim.
I don't think the rise in obesity means that people are predisposed to gaining weight - it just means that if the environment and culture changes in certain ways, the general population will gain weight. But that is not a predisposition to gain weight, genetically speaking.
Said differently - if eating a lot of junk makes a person fat, it may be because they are eating junk, rather than because they have some predisposition towards weight gain.
Numerous studies have consistently shown that when people (of any age) are given easy access to a large variety and amounts of appetizing foods/junk, they'll eat more. Which is what we're faced with today. It's not just junk food either. Excess calories cannot be 'disposed of' - the body has to store it, as fat. If necessary, we'll develop more fat cells to accomodate (which won't disappear when we no longer require them). We'll even store fat in organs like the liver: NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) is becoming almost an epidemic in Western countries, and overtaking alcohol-related liver disease in some areas...
I saw an interesting documentary once where they recreated a historical (and controversial) experiment in which a group of people increased their daily calorie intake from normal to more than triple for several weeks, including all sorts of junk food they wouldn't normally eat. In both experiments, the results were that a few people gained a lot of weight, a few people put on an inch or two around the waist, and a few saw no changes to their body whatsoever.
I saw that programme too. It was not a proper controlled experiment - the subjects were free to get on with their normal lives, which made all the difference between how much weight they put on, and how they put it on.
If subjects were made to eat all their meals in front of the experimenters and their exercise routines monitored, and they stayed under surveillance throughout the experimental period, the results would be much more valid.
Unfortunately, many so-called 'studies' are flawed in this way, which is why the food industry can 'justify' themselves so easily. And, not to put too fine a point on it, why so many people can claim that their weight problem is due to 'low metabolism' or something similar (rather than eating too much).....
I saw an interesting documentary once where they recreated a historical (and controversial) experiment in which a group of people increased their daily calorie intake from normal to more than triple for several weeks, including all sorts of junk food they wouldn't normally eat. In both experiments, the results were that a few people gained a lot of weight, a few people put on an inch or two around the waist, and a few saw no changes to their body whatsoever.
I saw that programme too. It was not a proper controlled experiment - the subjects were free to get on with their normal lives, which made all the difference between how much weight they put on, and how they put it on.
If subjects were made to eat all their meals in front of the experimenters and their exercise routines monitored, and they stayed under surveillance throughout the experimental period, the results would be much more valid.
Unfortunately, many so-called 'studies' are flawed in this way, which is why the food industry can 'justify' themselves so easily. And, not to put too fine a point on it, why so many people can claim that their weight problem is due to 'low metabolism' or something similar (rather than eating too much).....
How conclusive can a dietary study be that lasts only "for several weeks"?