Cycling and vegetarianism - Page 73 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

09-02-2004, 07:12 AM

Bob in CT wrote:

> There is absolutely no evidence that a low fat diet reverses c-v disease.

One should be absolutely wary of all absolutes. See below:

CONTEXT: The Lifestyle Heart Trial demonstrated that intensive
lifestyle changes may lead to regression of coronary atherosclerosis
after 1 year. OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of patients
to sustain intensive lifestyle changes for a total of 5 years and
the effects of these lifestyle changes (without lipid-lowering
drugs) on coronary heart disease...INTERVENTION: Intensive lifestyle
changes (10% fat whole foods vegetarian diet, aerobic exercise,
stress management training, smoking cessation, group psychosocial
support) for 5 years...RESULTS: Experimental group patients...made
and maintained comprehensive lifestyle changes for 5 years, whereas
control group patients...made more moderate changes. In the
experimental group, the average percent diameter stenosis at
baseline decreased 1.75 absolute percentage points after 1 year (a
4.5% relative improvement) and by 3.1 absolute percentage points
after 5 years (a 7.9% relative improvement). In contrast, the
average percent diameter stenosis in the control group increased by
2.3 percentage points after 1 year (a 5.4% relative worsening) and
by 11.8 percentage points after 5 years (a 27.7% relative worsening)
(P=.001 between groups. Twenty-five cardiac events occurred in 28
experimental group patients vs 45 events in 20 control group
patients during the 5-year follow-up (risk ratio for any event for
the control group, 2.47 [95% confidence interval, 1.48-4.20]).
CONCLUSIONS: More regression of coronary atherosclerosis occurred
after 5 years than after 1 year in the experimental group. In
contrast, in the control group, coronary atherosclerosis continued
to progress and more than twice as many cardiac events occurred.

-- Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Brown SE, Gould KL, Merritt
TA, Sparler S, Armstrong WT, Ports TA, Kirkeeide RL, Hogeboom C,
Brand RJ., JAMA. 1998 Dec 16;280(23):2001-7.

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

09-02-2004, 07:13 AM

"Bob in CT" <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news

psdpfq71i6snke8@news.snet.sbcglobal.net

[...]

> problem than eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total
> hogwash.

The new one is significantly less retarded than the original, although it's
still stupidly biased against red meat (although I'm reliably informed red
meat is somewhat fattier in the States than it is here because of the way
cattle are grain fed).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:13 AM

"Bob in CT" <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news

psdpfq71i6snke8@news.snet.sbcglobal.net

[...]

> problem than eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total
> hogwash.

The new one is significantly less retarded than the original, although it's
still stupidly biased against red meat (although I'm reliably informed red
meat is somewhat fattier in the States than it is here because of the way
cattle are grain fed).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:13 AM

"Bob in CT" <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news

psdpfq71i6snke8@news.snet.sbcglobal.net

[...]

> problem than eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total
> hogwash.

The new one is significantly less retarded than the original, although it's
still stupidly biased against red meat (although I'm reliably informed red
meat is somewhat fattier in the States than it is here because of the way
cattle are grain fed).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:13 AM

"Bob in CT" <ctviggen.x@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news

psdpfq71i6snke8@news.snet.sbcglobal.net

[...]

> problem than eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total
> hogwash.

The new one is significantly less retarded than the original, although it's
still stupidly biased against red meat (although I'm reliably informed red
meat is somewhat fattier in the States than it is here because of the way
cattle are grain fed).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:52 AM

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof. I don't have the time to spend
trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's sensible.
Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in sensible
quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No reason it won't
work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often people
eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your blood sugar
and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know this to be true,
both based on the science and on personal experience. I don't, however,
for a minute believe that carbs are bad. It's just what kind of carbs and
how much are you eating in total, that's the question. I wish I could ask
a question like this without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both
sides when it becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming
out and using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the
other. I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right ahead.
Far be it from me to question your need to feed your ego. I'm just trying
to feed my body the right way. All dogmatism aside, once again.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:52 AM

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof. I don't have the time to spend
trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's sensible.
Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in sensible
quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No reason it won't
work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often people
eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your blood sugar
and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know this to be true,
both based on the science and on personal experience. I don't, however,
for a minute believe that carbs are bad. It's just what kind of carbs and
how much are you eating in total, that's the question. I wish I could ask
a question like this without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both
sides when it becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming
out and using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the
other. I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right ahead.
Far be it from me to question your need to feed your ego. I'm just trying
to feed my body the right way. All dogmatism aside, once again.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:52 AM

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof. I don't have the time to spend
trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's sensible.
Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in sensible
quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No reason it won't
work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often people
eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your blood sugar
and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know this to be true,
both based on the science and on personal experience. I don't, however,
for a minute believe that carbs are bad. It's just what kind of carbs and
how much are you eating in total, that's the question. I wish I could ask
a question like this without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both
sides when it becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming
out and using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the
other. I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right ahead.
Far be it from me to question your need to feed your ego. I'm just trying
to feed my body the right way. All dogmatism aside, once again.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:52 AM

Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two from
various articles and there's your proof. I don't have the time to spend
trying to justify the way I eat. I just try to eat what's sensible.
Quality grains, quality meat, fruits and vegetables. All in sensible
quantities with lots of exercise. It's worked so far. No reason it won't
work more in the future.

And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there was
"glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often people
eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your blood sugar
and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know this to be true,
both based on the science and on personal experience. I don't, however,
for a minute believe that carbs are bad. It's just what kind of carbs and
how much are you eating in total, that's the question. I wish I could ask
a question like this without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both
sides when it becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming
out and using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the
other. I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right ahead.
Far be it from me to question your need to feed your ego. I'm just trying
to feed my body the right way. All dogmatism aside, once again.

Preston

09-02-2004, 07:55 AM

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 00:48:44 +1000, "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au>
wrote:

>> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
>> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.
>
>Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
>Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.

I'm proof of this as I lost over 70lbs my first time on LC, and couldn't
exercise at all, in fact couldn't even walk without a cane due to a hip
injury. Since I had been a gym rat all my life I had a fair amt of muscle
mass under the fat, so that helped, I'm sure. (I had gained it initially
due to a 2 year lay-off doing a big programming project).

-B