A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Eat Right For Your Blood Type



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old August 26th, 2004, 04:49 AM
OceanView
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dally wrote in
:

Lictor wrote:

"Dally" wrote in message
...

I strongly disagree with your first sentence.

In my experience, most people can't tell you a wild guess
at the macronutrient ratio of what they eat within 20%.
And they have NO IDEA how many calories they eat or even
how many calories they OUGHT to eat.



Maybe that's different in the USA, I was taught basic
dietetic notions like that at school, when I was 12... The
fact remain that most people do have *some* notion of what
eating right is.


You went to school in France? I won't presume to know what
French schoolchildren are taught, but I assure you that I
grew up with no similar body of knowledge, and based on
conversations I have with British, Australian and other
North American people I would be highly suspect that only
the U.S. got rotten nutritional educations.

Have you looked at some of the
theories on obesity that were the norm a few centuries
ago? Some *doctors* believed obesity was caused by water
and salt, others that it was glandular... I mean, if you
look at some of the diets back then, some are really
scary-funny...


snip funny theories

Even knowing that eating too much will
make you fat is a knowledge that was *not* available to
most people centuries ago.


You're joking, I hope. Anyone who has ever fattened an
animal for slaughter (and that would be humans for the past
10,000 years) knows about this.

Even if you do believe the average level of
knowledge is that low, which I highly doubt, it's still
not lower than it was before.


I think you're wrong, because I think people got
side-tracked with wrong information. The USDA food
pyramid, for example, is laughably wrong. And before that
we had the "four food groups" - also wrong. My grandmother
knew more about dieting than anyone else I know and she
cited her eating regimen that her mother taught her. She
said to eat my vegetables, eat a balanced diet, that fish
was good for my brain and it was good to have a drink now
and then. Science has been catching up with my Grandma my
whole life.

Dally



I don't think the food pyramid is laughably wrong, just
difficult to follow and few people do. They are amending it,
though.

Just my opinion, but I think overconsumtion of surgar is the
overwhelming culprit in obestity. That includes all the high
fructose crap we often aren't even aware that we're consuming.

--
---------------
"Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a
literacy test."—George W Bush, Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
  #32  
Old August 26th, 2004, 04:52 AM
OceanView
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Lictor" wrote in
:

"Dally" wrote in message
...
You went to school in France?


Yes, I'm French.

I won't presume to know what French
schoolchildren are taught, but I assure you that I grew up
with no similar body of knowledge, and based on
conversations I have with British, Australian and other
North American people I would be highly suspect that only
the U.S. got rotten nutritional educations.


That's weird. I'm not claiming we got the latest
breakthrough in nutrition, but we did get *several* lessons
on basic stuff. Twice in junior high school, at the first
year and last year (same year as sexual education), and
then again during high school as part of the scientific
options (this one getting more serious with the whole
metabolism and ATP cycle). All part of the biology lessons.
In junior high school, pretty everyone learnt basic stuff
like the different macro-nutriments, our equivalent of your
FDA food pyramid (421 version here - 4 carbs for 2 proteins
for 1 fat), how calories work... My gf is a pure
non-scientist, yet she remembers the basic pretty well, so
it's not just only me And this was fifteen years ago.
Since then, they have put more emphasis on this. I will
have to ask my younger sister, but I'm pretty sure she
already received some basic lessons even in primary school.
Moreover, they also get extra-curricular information. My
mother works at a nursery school, and *all* similar
schooles have a yearly event when kids are taught about the
various tastes (what are the basic tastes, how various food
tastes, making them try various food and spices...), which
is actually a pretty good idea I think. Not to mention that
all the meals are checked by a dietitian (that's a legal
obligation), so the kids at least know how a balanced meal
is supposed to look. While looking at my 11 y.o. sister
magazines, I also noticed quite a lot (too much IMHO)
information on diets. She's very aware that eating too much
causes obesity, that obesity can kill you, that fat is bad
and stuff like that. Just like she knows smoking kills you.
I have been reminded plenty enough of all that from her!

Even knowing that eating too much will
make you fat is a knowledge that was *not* available to
most people centuries ago.


You're joking, I hope. Anyone who has ever fattened an
animal for slaughter (and that would be humans for the
past 10,000 years) knows about this.


Obviously, the doctors back then didn't know about that...
But the general populace was probably wiser... However, do
you really think that nowadays people do not even have that
*basic* knowledge? I mean, when you talk to obese people,
they are well aware that they are not eating like they
should, that they should exercise and go on a diet and
stuff like that. It's only that they somehow don't manage
to *do* it. At least, that's my experience here... If it's
not yours, then something is awfully wrong in the USA... I
mean, even wronger than it looks...

I think you're wrong, because I think people got
side-tracked with wrong information.


I didn't say otherwise I did say people have access to a
bunch of information, from their education to the
magazines. I didn't say it was the correct one. The problem
is that each generation of doctor think he has the Truth.
The doctors with the funny water theory are not different
from the doctors who prescribed fasting in the fifties, and
the ones who prescribed the proteidic diet a few decades
ago (some still do actually). But my point is that people
seemed to do better with *no* information at all. I mean,
two centuries ago, most people did not know how to read or
count, I doubt they were counting calories. Contrary to
what some people think, they also had plenty enough to eat
to become obese - back then, the average French ate more
than 1.5kg of bread a day, you could certainly get any
westerner fat with similar food. *Some* people were poor,
but not that poor.
If people managed to do fine with no special knowledge, and
without specific diets (because I doubt most people went to
see a doctor to get one), maybe we're going the wrong way
by trying to solve the problem with stuffing people with
medical information...

My grandmother knew more about dieting than anyone else I
know and she cited her eating regimen that her mother
taught her.


That's what I call "cultural eating". All cultures have
developped a set of recipes that form their culinary
culture. And if you look at them, you realize most of them
are very clever. A lot aim to lower the glycemic index
(which is important if you're hungry). The Indians managed
to create a viable vegetarian diet, without any
"scientific" knowledge, which is quite a feat. Many managed
to find a quite perfect equilibrium between the different
fat sources...
If you look at the USA (and Europe to a lesser extent),
both the food industry and the dietitians have worked at
destroying or perverting all existing cultural eating
during the past century...

She said to eat my
vegetables, eat a balanced diet, that fish was good for my
brain and it was good to have a drink now and then.


Yes, but the grandma of the futur will follow the advice of
her doctor or read women magazines... That's exactly what
the majority of the people are doing... Including the obese
ones (or at least, they're trying and repetitively
failing)...




We had "Health" once a month in place of "Gym" but it was
largely a joke and had every conceivable topic of health in 50
minutes a month!

--
---------------
"Teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a
literacy test."—George W Bush, Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
  #33  
Old August 26th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
Most diets work for a large number of people if they
follow them carefully, hence there's significant anecdotal evidence
that every popular diet works. Probably most people could take any of
the recommended eating plans in the blood type diet book, follow it,
and lose weight.


That's actually the problem. *All* diets will lead to weight loss. Even the
most stupid ones. Even the all-cookies diet. Hence, the ability to make
people lose weight is not a good evaluation of a diet quality.
The problem is with maintaining weight loss long term. And I mean really
long term (like, 5 years), not at the 1-2 years horizon where "long term"
evaluation is often done. When evaluations are performed long term, it
doesn't look good for most diets (including surgery) actually.


  #34  
Old August 26th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Lictor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Chris Braun" wrote in message
...
Most diets work for a large number of people if they
follow them carefully, hence there's significant anecdotal evidence
that every popular diet works. Probably most people could take any of
the recommended eating plans in the blood type diet book, follow it,
and lose weight.


That's actually the problem. *All* diets will lead to weight loss. Even the
most stupid ones. Even the all-cookies diet. Hence, the ability to make
people lose weight is not a good evaluation of a diet quality.
The problem is with maintaining weight loss long term. And I mean really
long term (like, 5 years), not at the 1-2 years horizon where "long term"
evaluation is often done. When evaluations are performed long term, it
doesn't look good for most diets (including surgery) actually.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Oh, brother (I roll my eyes) Eva Whitley Low Carbohydrate Diets 206 May 23rd, 2004 04:45 PM
questions about D'Amato's "blood type diet" Ted Shoemaker General Discussion 13 March 5th, 2004 08:32 PM
anyone have info on Anglea Woollcombe Weightwatchers 45 January 8th, 2004 03:19 PM
Off Blood Pressure Meds Jenny Low Carbohydrate Diets 2 December 26th, 2003 01:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.