Tää olikin oikeastaan aika mielenkiintoista luettavaa. Tuolla itse sivustolla olikin sitten kans aika mielenkiintoisia juttuja.. Mitä mieltä olette näistä? Eli kolesterolipitoinen ruoka ei vaikuta kolesterolitasoon ja eläinrasvat on terveellisiä?Griy kirjoitti: Tiukkojen karppiruokavalioiden eräästä kääntöpuolesta kannattanee lukea Matt Damonin blogista 180 degree of healt, ainakin Carb Wars I, II ja III -postaukset. Liika tiukistelu ei välttämättä kannata, vaikka se saattaisi alussa toimia hyvin...
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/200 ... ode-i.html
Ja muutenkin hiilarieden ja rasvan yhtäaikainen tiukistelu ei ole karppia, vaan kituuttamista.
http://www.180degreehealth.com/index.ph ... holesterol" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Strangely, many people feel that foods that contain cholesterol: such as butter, red meat, and eggs, will contribute to high cholesterol levels if consumed. It’s strange, because even in the infancy of the “beware of high cholesterol levels” craze, no one ever accused dietary cholesterol of raising blood cholesterol levels.
No one accused dietary cholesterol of this because dietary cholesterol does not do this. Even Ancel Keys, virtually the sole creator of the anti-cholesterol era, knew quite well that dietary cholesterol did not influence blood cholesterol levels.
The message that cholesterol was bad, but that you could eat all the cholesterol you wanted; however, was obviously too confusing. Still to this day, even the most astute medical professionals still believe, like the general public, that there is good reason to avoid cholesterol – that dietary cholesterol is dangerous. “Eat egg whites, but not the yolk.”
http://www.180degreehealth.com/index.ph ... ietary-fat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In the middle of the 20th century, up and coming scientist Ancel Keys developed a theory that fat caused heart disease, which was, and still is, the leading cause of death in modern nations despite its extreme rarity before the 1920’s. He found plenty of data to support his theory, most notably that Japan and a handful of other countries that consumed less fat than America had lower rates of heart disease. He only picked seven countries that backed up his theory, but that was evidently enough for Keys to pronounce, “case closed,” and parade around spreading the new gospel that the reduction of fat consumption could prevent heart disease.
But there were complications. By complications, I mean dozens of exceptions that disproved that fat could be causal of heart disease. For one, countries like France consumed lots of fat, mostly in the form of butter, cream, cheese, and fatty liver (foie gras). Yet heart disease risk, to this day, is but a fifth of what the United States endures. Furthermore, Dr. George Mann of Vanderbilt University traveled to Kenya to study the Masai tribe, who consume the highest-fat diet in the world – the equivalent of four sticks of butter a day in the form of high-fat milk, meat, and little else. Mann found no traces of heart disease whatsoever though. Their hearts and bodies were undeniably in better condition than even that of the Japanese on their practically fat-free fare (as low as 10% of caloric intake).
The famed Eskimos, while living on their native diets, had perhaps the most superb health of any humans ever discovered. They had no heart disease, no tooth decay, had unparalleled physical hardiness and vigor. Even cancer, in its many forms, was never documented amongst an Eskimo living on his native fare. The Eskimo diet, by the way, was the highest-fat diet humans have ever been documented as consuming – about 80% of caloric intake came in the form of dietary fat – all of it from animal sources. It’s awfully hard to blame fats for disease with these kind of exceptions.