News & Media

TV show about wheat flour and gluten

It feels like a healthy fan to let go of the fat versus carbohydrate debate for a while, and instead watch a decent informative TV element about a subject that is more paleophantic to us than the heart, namely the problem of cereals and especially wheat with its gluten.
I do not know any of the people in the panel since before, but feel a bit sorry for the nutritionist who must stand alone with his views that it is probably no greater danger to eat wheat flour, and that many actually feel good about it. Personally, I would say that some tolerate the wheat better than others, but I am still convinced that no one has an actual need to eat wheat, and that many who feel good despite the wheat would feel even better if they chose to remove. the.
The nutritionist also says that there is no scientific value in just trying on himself, but even if an experiment with a single test subject cannot lead to clear evidence for an entire population, it can lead to a clear conviction for the person who chooses to conduct such an experiment. So thumbs up for self experimentation!

The element also carries out an experiment in which a man reacts immediately to the wheat by giving the body priority away the muscle capacity to take care of the bread he puts in his mouth. How it works, or even if there is any value in it, I do not know. Someone who is familiar with similar experiments is happy to inform me.

Do you die prematurely of red meat?

Yes, possibly if the meat in question comes in the form of close contact with an agitated, aggressive bison oxen, crowded in its chin and with bad morning humor. I have heard of people who have died in this horrible way in the flesh, and of course I do not wish anyone to go this way.
On the other hand, dying prematurely as a direct result of eating good quality red meat is more questionable. Another new one study claims, however, the opposite, and of course it has received a great deal media attention worldwide. Unfortunately, in most cases, critical scrutiny is lacking on the part of the media, and the study is entirely sonicated as if it were the truth of the day.
Fortunately, there are many knowledgeable doctors and others out there who dissect the studies for us, pointing out its shortcomings. In this case, there is much to look Doctor has written a good post about the latest meat alert, as well as the docent Ralf Sundberg, and also Denise Minger has written a detailed and good guest post at MDA.

What does the study report, and how has it been conducted?
What you have done this time is not a completely new study, but you have analyzed data from two (numeroone and two) earlier major studies conducted over the past three decades, one on women and the other on men. These have since been divided into about 120,000 people five different groups, based on how much red meat they say they have eaten. These data have since been compared with mortality within the test group, and what has been determined is that the intake of unprocessed red meat increases the risk of premature death by 13%, while processed red meat increases the risk by 20%. It doesn't sound useful at all.

Why the red meat warnings can be matched to the sparkling wood even this time
With the help of statistics you can produce all kinds of truths, and therefore it is of course a good idea to take a closer look at the study in its entirety, how it has been performed and what other factors can play into the result. Here are some examples.

Take salt advice with a pinch of salt

Most people have heard that salt should be kept low, as it is said to contribute to increased blood pressure, osteoporosis and risk of heart disease as well as kidney damage. But is salt really something dangerous that we should all avoid?
As with so much else, it is the amount that matters most. "The dose makes the poison" is an expression that can be remembered, since large amounts of basically anything involve risks.
Today writes DN an article on the latest research on salt, and there we see that in the first place there are some people who should cut down on the salt, namely those who stop in themselves very processed ready-made food, chips and other scrap. Prepared foods contain a lot of sodium, not because they have to do it for quality reasons, but because the person instinctively appreciates salt, and thus it makes the product taste better. I have also heard some conspiratorial speculation that some soft drink manufacturers are encouraging the industry to put more sodium in their products, because the more salt you eat the thirstier you become.
Personally, I am of the opinion that if you eat a lot of ready-made food, not the salt bowl is the first thing to remove from the table, but everything else on the plate (in the carton).

Does more salt always have an increased risk of heart disease?
Not according tosome studies. Most people seem to agree that a large salt intake can lead to increased blood pressure, which is considered a risk factor for heart disease. But just because something possibly increases a risk factor does not mean a direct relationship to the disease state itself. According to the study I linked to, there were more heart problems in those who ate a little salt than in those who ate a lot.

Is sugar a bigger threat to the heart than fat?

Yes, if I can express my own opinion extremely brief and concise, which I get because it is my blog. Especially if we talk about fast carbohydrates and naturally occurring fats. A new Swedish study sponsored by Heart-Lung also points out that it is true, but since we paleolists are often quick to downsize other observational studies, we do well to keep the little calm here as well, and instead see how the study is designed and if it will lead to any rewarding discussion. Media has already reported a lot about it, for example DN, SVD, GP, and Sweden's Radio.

So what does the study say?
What has been done is to test the blood fat profiles of 4031 normal healthy people aged 46 - 68 years, of which 60% are women, and then divided them into four groups depending on how good or bad the people had. Information on the dietary habits of the individuals has been collected and their intakes of macronutrients (fat, proteins and carbohydrates) compared to their blood values.
The result showed that those who had the worst values ​​were also those who ate the most sugar. These individuals had a larger proportion of small LDL particles in the blood, and it is these particles that primarily account for the plaque formation in the blood vessels. The study also states that the intake of fat does not appear to have a negative effect on cholesterol, and that a moderate amount of alcohol appears to be positive.
To quote the leader of the study Emily Sonestedt, PhD in medical science at Lund University:

“It's a little surprising. It seems more important to avoid sugar than fat ”

Video series about the paleodiet on CBS

It feels very fun every time the paleo food gets media attention, as the goal is not only to eat healthy yourself, but also to make more and more aware of good and bad eating habits.
CBS Healthwatch medical reporter Kim Mulvihill reports on her diet for a few weeks (or what she had initially thought for a few weeks), and follows up her results with a doctor. The elements also talk about exercise and exercise in the way that is often advocated by me and others who have snowed in on Stone Age food. The elements were broadcast as a series for five days and are a few minutes long. Here they come, closely followed by my comments.

As always when talking about living as a caveman, eating like the Stone Age or exercising as our ancestors, it becomes easy to dismiss as rather ridiculous and hilarious claims, perhaps especially when reported in American media. But if you just realize that it is basically about eating real, unprocessed food and activating your body, then hopefully you can overlook everything talk about cavemen and stone age. Some, like myself, like the whole concept of imitating the lifestyle of our ancestors and I would love to have a "fire pit" in my future garden where I can cook whole grilled pork, but that commitment is obviously not necessary to achieve the health effects of this type of diet.
The first feature shows a photo from this yearAncestral Health Symposium which went off in August, which I wrote a little about here. Among other things, brief interviews with professor are seen Loren Cordain, Mark Sisson and Dr. Boyd Eaton.

I, caveman

Discovery Channel har i sin serie Curiosity broadcast TV coverage on everything from the question of God created the world to whether we are ready for a space invasion. One of the last sections was about a topic, of course, this blog is close. How does modern man manage in a stone age environment? There, among other things, our familiar friend Robb Wolf Figures.
See the section below.

In the comments on the TV element, many reactions to the hunting scenes are seen, where animals are killed in the participants' hunt for food, and then some moral questions are obviously raised.
Do we have the right to kill another living being? Should all people be vegetarians? Do we have a greater value than the animals?

About diabetes and dietary advice in the world of science

Thanks to the LCHF movement's driven and convinced followers, there has been a turbulence in the food debate in Sweden, which I think is very positive, as every forum discussion, TV element, debate or, for that matter, twisted leaflets hopefully leads to increased interest and awareness of diet. among the population in a way that is not yet happening in many other countries.
So far, it is mainly about macronutrients such as the amount of fat vs. carbohydrates, but I can also see how food quality is becoming more important to LCHF advocates, which in the long run will lead to discussions about improvements in our food production, animal breeding and additives, etc.

Most newspaper articles and TV shows have been fairly cautious or even negative about the low carbohydrate diet, but here we see a element in the world of science which actually gives a much more positive image.
The program starts with a report on space travel and fast trains that may be interesting enough, but fast forward about 18 minutes and 30 seconds to see the report on age diabetes and the contradictory dietary advice.

The butter sold out

The natural the fat is becoming increasingly accepted. Lovely to see, and good it is! The downside, of course, is that it can be empty on the shelf when it's time for me to pull out with the shopping cart.

DN: Low carbohydrate diet effective against diabetes

Eight doctors and researchers write in an article in Today's News wonder about the link between carbohydrate-rich diet and age diabetes, or diabetes of both type 1 and type 2 for that matter.
It is pointed out that people with these diseases should avoid putting carbohydrate-rich foods such as bread, pasta and rice on the plate, and instead eat themselves saturated on more fat and protein-rich diets.
They also point their finger at the pharmaceutical industry when they write that the warnings about fatty foods in favor of more carbohydrates are one of the most serious mistakes in modern medicine.

In recent years, only a few people with the honorable doctorate have dared to criticize the dietary recommendations that are common today, or who dare to say that saturated fat may not be so dangerous, after all. The one who made the most of himself in the media is of course Dr. Annika Dahlqvist, The front figure of the LCHF diet in Sweden. For her statements she has been appointed Confused of the Year 2009 by the Society for Science and Education, and received sharp criticism in the evening newspapers, so that doctors, researchers, dietitians and others are afraid to speak out is not so strange. It is rarely a smart career move to speak out against common beliefs.

Although I personally think that LCHF advocates place a little too much focus on the distribution of macronutrients, I am still very happy that Annika and now also more doctors are starting to raise their voices. Hopefully this will lead to more, larger, and more serious dietary studies.
Besides, it's something that never ceases to amaze me. How can we know so little about nutrition and nutrition when it is something we have lived with and researched at all times?
Almost so, one begins to suspect that there are organizations with financial interest behind many of the "independent" studies😉