To let you know where I'm coming from on this subject, my brother/roommate is working on becoming a Nutritional Therapist, so we've been inundated with nutrition information in our household lately. I've learned A LOT.
Yes, they did say "junk food," which is way different from healthy fats. I have actually come to agree with Nora Gedgaudas that there is no such thing as an ok amount of junk food. http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/top10-nutritional-mistakes.html The problem is, society has defined junk food as anything with a high fat content. I know people who won't eat avocados because they have too much fat. In fact, I used to be one of those people. (Well, I'd have a quarter of one, on occasion.) I know better now.
As for people who can't digest meat, that's actually indicative of overall digestive problems. Avoiding meat does not mean they are avoiding other health concerns. If someone told me they could not digest meat, I would point them to this website: http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/ReferralList.htm# Having problems with sugar is different. We can live without that. (I know we can also live without meat, but it's a good way to get a lot of essential nutrients, so I'm a fan.)
So, bottom line, any study that says junk food is bad supports what I believe to be true. I just think the article was worded in such a way that it would be easy for the people who say all fats are bad to latch onto as support of their view. Again, people who cut out fats usually increase carbs and sugar. Those have already been shown to have an addictive quality in studies, so I think it's important to make the distinction.
By the way, heating vegetable oil hot enough to deep fry anything turns it into a transfat, so restaurants that deep fry in anything but lard or coconut oil cannot truthfully say "transfat free." If the rats were eating deep fried food, or the equivalent, that would, indeed cause all sorts of problems, just as it does for humans. So, yeah, french fries are off the menu for me, but good cultured butter and avocados are back on the menu, so I'm a happy camper.
Re: Hmm...
Date: 2010-03-29 05:58 pm (UTC)Yes, they did say "junk food," which is way different from healthy fats. I have actually come to agree with Nora Gedgaudas that there is no such thing as an ok amount of junk food. http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/top10-nutritional-mistakes.html The problem is, society has defined junk food as anything with a high fat content. I know people who won't eat avocados because they have too much fat. In fact, I used to be one of those people. (Well, I'd have a quarter of one, on occasion.) I know better now.
As for people who can't digest meat, that's actually indicative of overall digestive problems. Avoiding meat does not mean they are avoiding other health concerns. If someone told me they could not digest meat, I would point them to this website: http://www.nutritionaltherapy.com/ReferralList.htm# Having problems with sugar is different. We can live without that. (I know we can also live without meat, but it's a good way to get a lot of essential nutrients, so I'm a fan.)
So, bottom line, any study that says junk food is bad supports what I believe to be true. I just think the article was worded in such a way that it would be easy for the people who say all fats are bad to latch onto as support of their view. Again, people who cut out fats usually increase carbs and sugar. Those have already been shown to have an addictive quality in studies, so I think it's important to make the distinction.
By the way, heating vegetable oil hot enough to deep fry anything turns it into a transfat, so restaurants that deep fry in anything but lard or coconut oil cannot truthfully say "transfat free." If the rats were eating deep fried food, or the equivalent, that would, indeed cause all sorts of problems, just as it does for humans. So, yeah, french fries are off the menu for me, but good cultured butter and avocados are back on the menu, so I'm a happy camper.