Forum whore
Originally Posted by MSTRS
It's an interesting point that can be argued on many levels. One of these is why sholuld I fail a WOF if I do not have seat belts. These after all do not endager or improve the roadworthyness of the vehicle.
Some times we have to pay extra for the common good. Installing seat belts was one of them that my generation had to pay.
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
The instructions are simple...
Bad analogy. We 'may' have paid extra way back when, but not anymore. Besides, where are the down points in using seatbelts? And we still have the choice whether to put them on. Fines not withstanding.
Better to compare, say, being told we must fit snow tyres cos it might snow, and we may not bother putting them on voluntarily. For the occasional individual, this would turn out to be a good move, but the rest of us are riding around on something un-necessary that may in fact be dangerous.
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Forum whore
Nothing wrong with the analogy. I am not aware of any down side of useing them. That is not the issue.
But since you do bring this up.
Mr Key's chief scientific adviser, Professor Peter Gluckman, last night agreed that many cases of neural tube defects were aborted or stillborn.
And he dismissed any link between folic acid intake at the levels proposed and increased rates of cancer.
from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10585506
Skyryder
Free Scott Watson.
The instructions are simple...
For every expert wheeled out to say THIS, there's another expert that can be wheeled out to say THAT.
Can't argue with the fact that not many of us are comfortable with having something put in a staple food, just because some of the populace don't partake of a balanced diet, which in some cases causes a serious birth defect. And nowhere has it been said that such serious birth defects are totally avoidable by 'adequate' intake of B9...
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Victorious
That DVD is based on the US food chain which is so far removed from ours as to make any comparison nonsensical.
The movie FoodMatters explains the background to this situation admirably. Also available from your local health supplements store
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet
Comfortably numb
I guess you haven't seen the DVD as the dietary shortfalls, nutritional choices and health repercussions are very much applicable to New Zealand. Like North America our diet is heavily based on refined carbohydrates, excessive sugar, conventionally (chemically) farmed produce and we have a drug based health system that is almost oblivious to the importance of diet to our everyday health.
Likes a good argument...
The seatbelt one is a bit iffy. In the case of paying money/time for the common good then fine, but if it's improving health in some circumstances vs impairing health in others, then it is a much finer line...
And the fact that experts are even arguing about it means that it should be treated with more caution than originally anticipated.
Whip it, whip it good!
Hallelujah brother!
Fair weather rider
OMG there are still heaps of sane people in this world!
=== Amen to that! ===
A couple of questions/points I'd have:
- it is NOT the job of the food industry to medicate like this, that's the job of a) the medical profession; b) me, by way of self-awareness and education! Why not fortify bread with, say, flouride? I mean after all, that's safe, and good for teeth, right? Or perhaps omega-3 fats - they're all the buzz nowdays...? What about vitamin D - it's implicated in reducing cancer rates...? Thin end of the wedge!
- where do they source the folate from? Natural sources? Or a lab somewhere? I think I'd prefer the former.
- isn't it stupid that we refine the life out of our food... and then end up having to put all the nutrients back into it? Can't we work out ways not to wreck our food FFS?
- it's only a small effort to become familiar with the typical additives to avoid, and then it's real easy and quick to spot stuff! OK, there's heaps of ways to get toxins into your body, but why add to it? And if you don't like all that sheit, why send the implicit message that you do by buying the stuff?
OK rant over. Work tomorrow.... better f-off to bed!
:-)
Fair weather rider
You rock! Same here: love cream on my (one) weetbix, in my coffee, etc...
I've got a contribution to this whole fat thingy....I had my cholesterol checked. You think I should be worried? Nope, not a jot. Apaprently, even though I dont give a shit about the fat content of my diet I am only just marginally over normal. Even my doctor says I dont have to worry.
Food police can piss off as far as I am concerned.
Shit, I seem to have blown another gasket
We had a Biggest Loser Contest at work in January (ie: lose weight, winner takes the entry fee pool). I thought "sounds good, should motivate me". Well, I lost 17 kgs from Jan 12 to May/June (13 kgs to end of March, then a few more - but put on a couple again due to comfort eating in this cold Wellington weather LOL).
Anyway, here's how.... I ate less. That's it. No fanfare, no low-fat bullshit, no weird diets, no starvation... just eat less. Eat until I'm "not hungry", NEVER until I feel "full". I paid attention to having less carbs, a bit more protein, more fruit and veg, and the same or possibly a bit more fatty/oily stuff. Realised that I was just being greedy and eating too much! Love my food, but being greedy is NOT the way to go.
Very interested in your comments about cholesterol in light of your fat consumption. There's plenty of debate about what contribution, if any, food itself makes to a person's cholesterol. Also seems to be debate about the correctness of avoiding all fats - especially saturated fats - like the western world has been for the last few decades.
A year or two ago (when I was heavier...) I had my total cholesterol checked. It was fine, no problems whatsoever. And that's with a diet where I eat whatever amount of fat I liked, with no regard for "lite" or "low-fat" versions of stuff.
I suggest visting Harvard School of Public Health at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ . Would be interested in what you think! Here's a couple of interesting articles to whet your appetite:
"The Nutrition Source / Healthy Eating Pyramid"
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...mid/index.html
"Fats and Cholesterol: Out with the Bad, In with the Good"
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...ory/index.html
=== Hope this information helps someone out there! ===
Excerpts:
"The Nutrition Source / Healthy Eating Pyramid"
Use a food pyramid that’s actually based on the latest and best science.
Introduction
We can’t look at a pyramid these days without thinking of food and healthy eating. There was the U.S. government’s Food Guide Pyramid, followed by its replacement, My Pyramid, which was basically the same thing, just pitched on its side. The problem was that these efforts, while generally good intentioned, have been quite flawed at actually showing people what makes up a healthy diet. Why? Their recommendations have often been based on out-of-date science and influenced by people with business interests in their messages.
But, there’s a better alternative: the Healthy Eating Pyramid, built by the faculty in the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. Based on the latest science, and unaffected by businesses and organizations with a stake in its messages, the Health Eating Pyramid is a simple, trustworthy guide to choosing a healthy diet. Its foundation is daily exercise and weight control, since these two related elements strongly influence your chances of staying healthy. The Healthy Eating Pyramid builds from there, showing that you should eat more foods from the bottom part of the pyramid (vegetables, whole grains) and less from the top (red meat, refined grains, sugary drinks).
....
under "Read more about...":
Healthy Fats and Oils
Surprised that the Healthy Eating Pyramid puts some fats near the base, indicating they are okay to eat? Although this recommendation seems to go against conventional wisdom, it's exactly in line with the evidence and with common eating habits. The average American gets one-third or more of his or her daily calories from fats, so placing them near the foundation of the pyramid makes sense. Note, though, that it specifically mentions healthy fats and oils, not all types of fat. Good sources of healthy unsaturated fats include olive, canola, soy, corn, sunflower, peanut, and other vegetable oils, trans fat-free margarines, nuts, seeds, avocadoes, and fatty fish such as salmon. These healthy fats not only improve cholesterol levels (when eaten in place of highly processed carbohydrates) but can also protect the heart from sudden and potentially deadly rhythm problems.
"Fats and Cholesterol: Out with the Bad, In with the Good"
Introduction
"Eat a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet" has been the mantra for healthful eating for decades. Touted as a way to lose weight and prevent or control heart disease and other chronic conditions, millions of people have followed (or, more likely, have tried to follow) this advice. Seeing a tremendous marketing opportunity, food companies re-engineered thousands of foods to be lower in fat or fat free. The low-fat approach to eating may have made a difference for the occasional individual, but as a nation it hasn't helped us control weight or become healthier. In the 1960s, fats and oils supplied Americans with about 45 percent of their calories; (1) about 13 percent of us were obese and under 1 percent had type 2 diabetes, a serious weight-related condition. (2, 3) Today, Americans take in less fat, getting about 33 percent of calories from fats and oils; (1) yet 34 percent of us are obese and 8 percent have diabetes, most with type 2 diabetes. (4, 5)
Why hasn't cutting fat from the diet paid off as expected? Detailed research—much of it done at Harvard—shows that the total amount of fat in the diet isn't really linked with weight or disease. (6-9) What really matters is the type of fat in the diet. Bad fats, meaning trans and saturated fats, increase the risk for certain diseases. Good fats, meaning monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, do just the opposite. They are good for the heart and most other parts of the body.
What about cholesterol in food? For most people, the mix of fats in the diet influences cholesterol in the bloodstream far more than cholesterol in food does.
Forum whore
Why would you prefer natural sources to lab sources?
Labs processes produce cleaner and more consistent products.
The greatest pleasure of my recent life has been speed on the road. . . . I lose detail at even moderate speed but gain comprehension. . . . I could write for hours on the lustfulness of moving swiftly.
--T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
Comfortably numb
To my knowledge there isn't a natural equivalent to human error. Mother nature has had a lot longer time to get things perfected, even with humans now doing their best to fcuk it up
The instructions are simple...
The other thing is that so often, for us to be able to utilise this vitamin/mineral, we have to have some of that vitamin/mineral. Nature has a strange way of providing that formula, as long as one eats a varied/balanced diet.To my knowledge there isn't a natural equivalent to human error. Mother nature has had a lot longer time to get things perfected, even with humans now doing their best to fcuk it up
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
Forum whore
A single kiwifruit contains 38mg of folate. Thats all it takes to get the RDI. The women suffering this problem are simply not eating enough greens.
The answer ? Stuff artificial vitamins in bread ?
Hardly !
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
It's time...
That's a cop-out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks