Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Off Topic Thread...

  • 30-11-2009 3:30pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    This thread is for any off-topic subjects & chat. If threads are going off topic the mods will move those posts into here. Any (light-hearted!) arguments should be here -just keep it civil and within the charter rules....


    Khannie wrote: »
    Anyway, the only real difference that I can see versus normal white bread is that you're fermenting your own yeast instead of using packaged yeast.
    There was a thread a good while ago saying sourdough had lower GI figures, maybe even lower than brown.
    It seems the store bought sourdough isn't fermented so it's good your making it yourself.
    The only widely available one I have seen is "la brea" which is got in tesco.


«13456734

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    rubadub wrote: »
    There was a thread a good while ago saying sourdough had lower GI figures, maybe even lower than brown.

    I'd be mighty surprised. It's still 3/4's white flour.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Yeah, it is, but lets not mention the war ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Off topic alert!

    Ah we should just sort it out once and for all. I'm interested. Both sides of that debate said things that made sense to me.

    For the most part I think the sensible thing is to generally avoid simple carbs and eat a LOT of veg and fruit. Beyond that I think your lifestyle should dictate what percentage of your macronutrients are carbs.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    LOL, I enjoy the debates too, but I don't think anything gets sorted once and for all when two people have opposing views that they are quite keen on keeping. Members of the nutritional science community often disagree with one another, and there are huge gaps in the science still, so all we can do is give our different interpretations of the evidence that is there, and that's never going to be conclusive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Khannie wrote: »
    Off topic alert!

    Ah we should just sort it out once and for all. I'm interested. Both sides of that debate said things that made sense to me.

    For the most part I think the sensible thing is to generally avoid simple carbs and eat a LOT of veg and fruit. Beyond that I think your lifestyle should dictate what percentage of your macronutrients are carbs.

    TBH I still think that there should be an off topic thread where these debates could go on all day! i reckon it can be very frustrating for a lot of people when topics get dragged down the low carb vs otherwise road .. it is clear by now that both sides of the fence feel strongly :D


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Off you go and start one then.. pubmed at the ready :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    I think there should be a thread about how to use pubmed. Worst site in the history of the internet IMO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Khannie wrote: »
    I think there should be a thread about how to use pubmed. Worst site in the history of the internet IMO.

    +1 !!

    seriously , can we have an O/T thread?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    Not my call. I'd say just start one though. I don't see any harm.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    As per request!


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Khannie wrote: »
    I think there should be a thread about how to use pubmed. Worst site in the history of the internet IMO.

    It's not so bad when you get used to it. It's best to search via MeSH headings to get more relevant results. Good aul' google scholar isn't too bad, you have to dig a bit more though.

    Here's a tutorial:
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/pubmedtutorial/020_720.html

    Don't know how helpful that would be.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    Great idea this thread about time! Sticky sticky sticky! :p


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Ok, I'll start with a quasi-controversial statement. Someone mentioned to me on another forum that you could view obesity as a consequence of malnutrition, rather than excess calorie consumption, or rather one causes the other.

    It makes sense as there are traditional cultures around the world that consume radically different diets, but they all have a few things in common, they maximise their intake of nutrients (minerals, vitamins, essential amino acids and essential fats in the correct ratios) and minimise their intake of anti-nutrients (lectins, phytates, and I would add gluten and oxidised fat to that list too).

    It seems plausible that if a body does not get the requisite nutrients from the calories it consumes then the body will continue to send the signal to eat food as a way of procuring the necessary vitamins and minerals.

    Let's look at what has happened to the food chain in the past century:
    • Vast increase in the consumption of processed food that is completely vitamin depleted.
    • Most vegetables are grown in soil that has been leached of minerals due to intensive farming practices.
    • Most fish is farmed with drastically reduces it's Omega 3 content, wild fish contains mercury and other heavy metals.
    • Traditional fats such as butter, lard, olive and coconut oils have been replaced with industrially extracted vegetable oils, destroying fat soluble vitamins and potentially becoming oxidised. This along with an increase in refined sugar consumption will burn up any anti-oxidant vitamins that are available.
    • Vast increase in the gluten content of bread.
    • Introduction of unfermented soy products (phytates) into lots of processed food (check the labels it's in almost every thing nowadays)
    • Animals being fed an unnatural diet in a confined cruel setting

    It's an intriguing theory which I think is worthy of discussion.

    The story of the Pima Native American Indian tribe illustrates the point well.

    In 1846 the tribe was documented as extremely affluent due to their trading with the new settlers, they hunted and fished extensively and had an abundance of food, enough to trade the excess. They were observed to be 'sprightly and in excellent health'.

    Fast-forward 100 years and after being marginalised to a reservation and forced to live off government rations of beans and wheat flour, 2/3 Pima indians are obese and 1/2 is diabetic. Women do the majority of the physical labour and yet exhibit the highest rates of obesity. Children are incredibly thin from malnutrition despite having obese mothers.

    Now you can either believe that these mothers are starving their children while stuffing their own faces, or you can see that malnutrition and obesity are intrinsically related.

    Any thoughts?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Ok, I'll start with a quasi-controversial statement. Someone mentioned to me on another forum that you could view obesity as a consequence of malnutrition, rather than excess calorie consumption, or rather one causes the other.

    It makes sense as there are traditional cultures around the world that consume radically different diets, but they all have a few things in common, they maximise their intake of nutrients (minerals, vitamins, essential amino acids and essential fats in the correct ratios) and minimise their intake of anti-nutrients (lectins, phytates, and I would add gluten and oxidised fat to that list too).

    It seems plausible that if a body does not get the requisite nutrients from the calories it consumes then the body will continue to send the signal to eat food as a way of procuring the necessary vitamins and minerals.

    Let's look at what has happened to the food chain in the past century:
    • Vast increase in the consumption of processed food that is completely vitamin depleted.
    • Most vegetables are grown in soil that has been leached of minerals due to intensive farming practices.
    • Most fish is farmed with drastically reduces it's Omega 3 content, wild fish contains mercury and other heavy metals.
    • Traditional fats such as butter, lard, olive and coconut oils have been replaced with industrially extracted vegetable oils, destroying fat soluble vitamins and potentially becoming oxidised. This along with an increase in refined sugar consumption will burn up any anti-oxidant vitamins that are available.
    • Vast increase in the gluten content of bread.
    • Introduction of unfermented soy products (phytates) into lots of processed food (check the labels it's in almost every thing nowadays)
    • Animals being fed an unnatural diet in a confined cruel setting

    It's an intriguing theory which I think is worthy of discussion.

    The story of the Pima Native American Indian tribe illustrates the point well.

    In 1846 the tribe was documented as extremely affluent due to their trading with the new settlers, they hunted and fished extensively and had an abundance of food, enough to trade the excess. They were observed to be 'sprightly and in excellent health'.

    Fast-forward 100 years and after being marginalised to a reservation and forced to live off government rations of beans and wheat flour, 2/3 Pima indians are obese and 1/2 is diabetic. Women do the majority of the physical labour and yet exhibit the highest rates of obesity. Children are incredibly thin from malnutrition despite having obese mothers.

    Now you can either believe that these mothers are starving their children while stuffing their own faces, or you can see that malnutrition and obesity are intrinsically related.

    Any thoughts?

    obesity is a result of excess calories though, whether the consumption of these calories is related to the body crying out for nutrients or not is a matter of opinion.

    IMO (aside from major lack of physical activity nowdays) one of the main causes of obesity is excess calories from processed and convenience foods. If you roll back 50 years to a typical dinner of bacon, cabbage and a couple of potatoes - this would prob set you back 400cals at most where as some of the micro meals i have seen are nearly hitting 1000cals and you are probably getting a smaller portion of food ...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    It's not an area I've done much on but it makes sense in a not particularly scientific way to me.
    We're frequently reminded in college that obesity and malnutrition often coexist in particular in the third world.
    When you consider pica and other seemingly bizarre eating habits observed in animals and humans alike (like eating clay etc..) it's not hard to comprehend that on a biochemical level the body responds to deficiencies or nutritional needs by instigating cravings or hunger sensations and I don't see why it might not be a plausable explanation behind over eating by some people.
    Theres always the potential for micronutrient deificency to play a role in obesity by interfering with other functions such as gene expression that may play a role in weight gain or appetite regulation. It's not as simple as people over consuming calories though, I eat a much healthier and lower calorie diet that some other people my age and despite their not excercising at all really enough of them are much slimmer than me. If it was that simple I don't think it'd be such a problem worldwide. It's a multifactoral condition with many elements feeding into it's development like nearly all topics in nutrition. Genetics is a significant part of the story,anyone with a moderately curvy mum and two sisters all with the same body fat distribution pattern (who all exercise lots and are total health freaks) can testify to that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    It seems plausible that if a body does not get the requisite nutrients from the calories it consumes then the body will continue to send the signal to eat food as a way of procuring the necessary vitamins and minerals.
    That makes sense to me and I have heard it put forward before. It should then logically follow that multivitamin pills could act as appetite suppressants, but I have not heard of this being examined.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    obesity is a result of excess calories though, whether the consumption of these calories is related to the body crying out for nutrients or not is a matter of opinion.

    IMO (aside from major lack of physical activity nowdays) one of the main causes of obesity is excess calories from processed and convenience foods. If you roll back 50 years to a typical dinner of bacon, cabbage and a couple of potatoes - this would prob set you back 400cals at most where as some of the micro meals i have seen are nearly hitting 1000cals and you are probably getting a smaller portion of food ...

    You're right in the sense that if you took a survey of 100 obese people today they'd be eating more calories than people of normal weight.

    What is driving that excess calorie consumption though?

    I'd dispute that a dinner of bacon and cabbage would be 400cals though, my grandmother used to make it all the time and the whole family would eat the fatty parts of the bacon and cover their potatoes and cabbage in butter. People were not afraid of fat 60 years ago, they used it liberally. Here is a graph that illustrates fat consumption in the last 30 years:

    totalfat.JPG

    So as total fat consumption has dropped we have been eating less calorically dense food, but more of it. You could blame fast food portions, but they did a study that showed people consumed on average 200 fewer calories when eating a meal at mcdonalds than when eating a home-prepared meal. My theory is the home prepared meal would contain far more nutrients that would satisfy the body for a much longer time and be less likely to disrupt endochine signalling.

    A robust scientific theory should be able to explain all observations. The case of the Pima indians is one of many examples where the cals in cals out theory comes up short. Another example would be people who can't gain weight despite stuffing their faces. Or people with thyroid issues who cannot lose weight on an isocaloric diet.

    I would argue that fat accumulation and energy expenditure is ultimately controlled by hormones, and hormones are affected by the quality of food and nutrient intake. This seems to be an adequate explanation for all the observations.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    rubadub wrote: »
    That makes sense to me and I have heard it put forward before. It should then logically follow that multivitamin pills could act as appetite suppressants, but I have not heard of this being examined.


    This occurred to me too. But a multivitamin would encompass a very limited spectrum of required nutrients though, and would be neutralized completely if enough anti-nutrients were consumed. I don't even think we are aware of all the nutrients the body requires, the importance of vitamin K has only recently come to light. Plus vitamins are in symbiotic doses in food (for example A and D). There is so much we don't know that it will be a while before we could formulate a nutritionally complete synthetic diet, in the mean time, it's best to eat real food. :)

    But some nutrients do have a measurable effect on appetite, magnesium and chromium along with several amino-acids.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Genetics is a significant part of the story,anyone with a moderately curvy mum and two sisters all with the same body fat distribution pattern (who all exercise lots and are total health freaks) can testify to that.

    Oh very good point, and don't forget that food intake can actually influence genetics for generations to come. For example, in the animal kingdom, if you feed cats an improper diet, the first generation will have infertility rates of about 20%, the second generation about 70% and the third generation will be almost completely infertile. I think the saying 'genetics loads the gun but lifestyle pulls the trigger' is apt in that case and dietary choices have the potential to reverberate across generations. I think each generation has the potential to become fatter than the last, that is what has happened in America, and we'll see the same thing happen here, unless something is changed, which given how backwards I believe the current guidelines are, is unlikely. :(

    I was a complete sugar-fiend as a kid, it was literally a drug for me, it would be all I would use my money to buy and I was skinny as a rake. I think a lot of kids nowadays have the metabolic and food environment cards stacked against them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    You're right in the sense that if you took a survey of 100 obese people today they'd be eating more calories than people of normal weight.

    What is driving that excess calorie consumption though?

    I'd dispute that a dinner of bacon and cabbage would be 400cals though, my grandmother used to make it all the time and the whole family would eat the fatty parts of the bacon and cover their potatoes and cabbage in butter. People were not afraid of fat 60 years ago, they used it liberally. Here is a graph that illustrates fat consumption in the last 30 years:

    totalfat.JPG

    So as total fat consumption has dropped we have been eating less calorically dense food, but more of it. You could blame fast food portions, but they did a study that showed people consumed on average 200 fewer calories when eating a meal at mcdonalds than when eating a home-prepared meal. My theory is the home prepared meal would contain far more nutrients that would satisfy the body for a much longer time and be less likely to disrupt endochine signalling.

    A robust scientific theory should be able to explain all observations. The case of the Pima indians is one of many examples where the cals in cals out theory comes up short. Another example would be people who can't gain weight despite stuffing their faces. Or people with thyroid issues who cannot lose weight on an isocaloric diet.

    I would argue that fat accumulation and energy expenditure is ultimately controlled by hormones, and hormones are affected by the quality of food and nutrient intake. This seems to be an adequate explanation for all the observations.

    I wasnt implying that people followed low fat diets previously, but if you look at calorie consumption trends overall there is a huge increase in calorie consumption. Its also fair to say that a lot of the people consuming very high ammounts of calories from ready meals and other crap are not in the least bit afraid of fat!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    It's been observed in the past that a lot of very obese people don't actually eat as many calories as normal weight people and yet they fail to lose weight despite their best efforts to go to the gym so what's that all about!
    My boyf is 33 in Jan and is in the dangerously underweight BMI category and I stuff him silly! His brothers and dad are the exact same and they eat loads of junk so I can't imagine that genetics doesn't play a part in predisposing you to being obese or skinny. It's just not fair for some :mad:


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    I wasnt implying that people followed low fat diets previously, but if you look at calorie consumption trends overall there is a huge increase in calorie consumption. Its also fair to say that a lot of the people consuming very high ammounts of calories from ready meals and other crap are not in the least bit afraid of fat!

    Here is a surprising graph from the statistics on the British Heart Foundation Statistics Database at http://www.heartstats.org/

    calories.JPG

    This is the amount of kilocalories consumed per person in the UK since 1975 and it really shocked me, because like you I believe weight gain occurs in a positive energy balance, although we may disagree about how that occurs.

    But then I started to think that both the graph and the the positive energy balance could be true at the same time.

    Because energy in and energy out are not independent variables. Because the body can control 'energy out' far beyond us just deciding going to the gym everyday. Energy out can be increased or decreased by increasing body temperature a few degrees, excreting calories or increasing energy levels, diverting fats and proteins to repair muscle and organs.

    If you think that all those functions wouldn't compare in calorie consumption to hardcore exercise, realise that the body consumes as many extra calories sitting naked in a cold room as it does flat out running. So a few degrees difference in body temp can burn up 100's of extra calories.

    If you think about it, 'too many calories' is a circular argument. If you eat a certain amount of calories and you gain weight, then you are eating too many calories. But if you eat the exact same amount and stay the same weight then you are deemed to be eating the right amount of calories. 'Too many calories' is defined by the fact that you are gaining weight.

    The decision to accumulate excess fat is not decided by calories, but by hormones. It makes complete sense to think that if you eat too much, you're body will store the extra in the adipose tissue for using later and this happens to an extent, but there are hormones that have complete control over this process and regulate the fat tissue in the same way your body regulates body temperature.

    We don't have to go around constantly making sure we are always in a room at the right temperature when our body is functioning correctly, if it's slightly chilly then our body will use more energy to maintain the internal temp of 37.5. Similarly we don't have to constantly make sure we are eating the correct amount of food if the system is working correctly. If we consume more energy than we need then the body will use it up or waste it, if (and this is a very big if) the hormones are in balance.

    We constantly see examples of what happens when this balance of hormones is disrupted.

    T1 Diabetics will lose weight if they don't take sufficient insulin (sometimes teenage T1 girls do this deliberately sadly and dangerously)

    Women gain weight on the contraceptive pill

    Women gain weight or find it very difficult to lose weight after menopause.

    Men who have been castrated gain weight.:eek:

    SSRI's like prozac cause weight gain.

    Chronic stress causes high cortisol which causes weight gain.

    Polycystic Ovary Syndrome is caused by a hormonal imbalance and one of the symptoms is weight gain.

    All hormones have an effect on weight. Growth hormone, endorphins, testosterone, estrogen, thyroxine, epinephrine, cortisol, seratonin, melatonin, insulin, leptin, ghrelin and glucagon to name a few of the major players.

    Your conscious mind may decide to pick up the food and put it in your mouth but it was hormones that created the desire for it in the first place and it's your hormones that decide what to do with it and are ultimately affected by it's quality.

    Anyway.. that's my meandering theory on the subject!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    This is the amount of kilocalories consumed per person in the UK since 1975 and it really shocked me, because like you I believe weight gain occurs in a positive energy balance, although we may disagree about how that occurs.
    Have you a link to the page on the website where this graph is from? the figures seem extraordinarily low, I had read before the average intake for adults in Ireland was 3400kcal.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    rubadub wrote: »
    Have you a link to the page on the website where this graph is from? the figures seem extraordinarily low, I had read before the average intake for adults in Ireland was 3400kcal.

    I know, I was really surprised too..

    http://www.heartstats.org/temp/DopaspChaptersp1spDietspweb06.pdf - Page 18

    All the graphs I have seen for the US show the opposite trend. .

    I know in the US it's done on a formula of total food purchased minus an estimated average wastage. In this case it's survey based. Neither are the most reliable things in the world, but I guess they might be considered 'consistently unreliable' for the purposes of establishing trends.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,485 ✭✭✭✭Khannie


    So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

    (*raises hand*)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    Khannie wrote: »
    So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

    (*raises hand*)

    Lol Just got a big box of munchies in the post from my parents so I had homemade chocolate chip cookies and those posh health food shop crisps for breakfast :eek:!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Khannie wrote: »
    So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

    (*raises hand*)

    of course not.. well, seeing as were being honest, YES!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,602 ✭✭✭celestial


    Interesting discussion. I reckon it comes down to a number of societal factors - changes that have occurred over the past 20-30 years or so. Think about it:

    -More junk food on our shelves than ever before.

    -2 for 1 offers to beat the band on the same kind of junk in shops

    -More TV advertising for junk food than ever before (did you know that Hunky Dorys sponsor Pro Box live on RTE 2 and even UFC pro-MMA have Burger King sponsorship?!)

    -Bigger portion sizes ('super size me' / 'go large' offers in the likes of McDonald's, extra large Snickers/Mars bars in Spar etc).

    -Massive infiltration of 'low fat' products on supermarket shelves and a largely ignorant public blissfully unaware that in its place they've just bumped up the quantity of a far more deadly ingredient - sugar.

    -Food producers messing with our food - MSG, high fructose corn syrup, aspartame, the list goes on - bound to have an effect on our hormones, etc

    -Increased alcohol consumption leading to greater consumption of junk food

    -Less exercise being taken overall due to the following:

    --Less need for manual work, new inventions replacing human effort, manufacturing plants closing down, heavy machinery replacing human effort etc

    --Better public transport and increased car usage meaning fewer people anywhere anymore

    Think about this one - over the past couple of decades the amount of TV channels has EXPLODED! It's something you might miss in a discussion like this but people are just watching a lot more TV, sat on their couch with their 2 for 1 offers and low fat sugary food :)


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Khannie wrote: »
    So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

    (*raises hand*)

    Not pigging out just yet.. have been sort of sliding off the wagon gradually over the last week, having nibbles of this and that..I will however be indulging on Christmas day in potatoes roasted in duck fat, sage and onion stuffing and cherry trifle. I fully expect to feel fecking awful by new years!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,772 ✭✭✭Jwacqui


    Khannie wrote: »
    So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

    (*raises hand*)


    Thats a bit more like it! OT I mean not the pigging out! :D

    I'm not just yet! Have 2treat day over 3week xmas period (No weightwatchers for 2weeks). So I've yet to have them! Looks good so far! I want to lose over xmas! Hoping to hit the 60lb mark over xmas! Even maybe get 63lb which would be 4.5st! But think thats a big ask!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,382 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Khannie wrote: »
    So who's pigging out? Come on....be honest.

    (*raises hand*)
    Been pigging out pretty much all year! and interestingly have not put on too much fat.
    celestial wrote: »
    changes that have occurred over the past 20-30 years or so. Think about it:

    -More junk food on our shelves than ever before.

    -2 for 1 offers to beat the band on the same kind of junk in shops
    When I was a kid I remeber I got 50p pocket money and would usally spend it on sweets. I remember a twix being 22p and going up to 25p that would be about 30 euro cent now. Now I recently was getting 5packs of bars for €3 in tesco, so that is the same price as 20+years ago -and I imagine kids are getting a lot more pocket money nowadays.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    rubadub wrote: »
    When I was a kid I remeber I got 50p pocket money and would usally spend it on sweets. I remember a twix being 22p and going up to 25p that would be about 30 euro cent now. Now I recently was getting 5packs of bars for €3 in tesco, so that is the same price as 20+years ago -and I imagine kids are getting a lot more pocket money nowadays.

    I dunno.. I could make 50p go a looong way back in the day. 2 5p packets of crisps. 10 cola bottle sweets, 10 golf ball sweets, chocolate chew bar and 2 woppa bars.. I'm really surprised I have any teeth left :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,602 ✭✭✭celestial


    Yeah - sure I remember getting a pound coin on occasion back when I was 10 or 11 and being absolutely made up cos it meant I could go to town in the shop!! You'd get maybe 1000 cola pips for a quid!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭metamorphosis


    25p got me 2 packets of crisps, a dan bar and a packet of frosties ... oh blissfull childhood memories


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    Lol those cola frosties were savage way to wreck the roof of yer mouth though!
    My 20p binge would have been some combo of burger bites, wheelies, frosties, mr Freeze etc.. God things have changed so much (and I'm only 24!) How much does a penny sweet cost these days?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,291 ✭✭✭eclectichoney


    rubadub wrote: »


    When I was a kid I remeber I got 50p pocket money and would usally spend it on sweets. I remember a twix being 22p and going up to 25p that would be about 30 euro cent now. Now I recently was getting 5packs of bars for €3 in tesco, so that is the same price as 20+years ago -and I imagine kids are getting a lot more pocket money nowadays.

    In real terms 25p (32 cent) in 1990 would be worth about 48 cent today (given 2% inflation - probably an awful lot higher in reality - as incomes have increased at a much faster pace)

    Interesting I think crisps have appreciated more than chocolate over the years. i seem to remember a typical cadbury / mars type bar being dearer than a 'proper' bag of crisps (e.g. perry / Tayto C&O were around 15-17p when bars were around 25-30p) but now in a typical convenience store there are similarly priced. Obviously the deals in Supermarkets / multipacks at the moment make such differences harder to quantify / measure.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Thought I'd pop this in here in case people would like to debate any of the finer points.

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2009.27725v1?papetoc
    Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD [Heart disease] or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

    This is huge, Krauss is one of the world's leading lipid researchers and he's basically pulling a 180 on his opinion of saturated fat. Good on him for letting the data influence his opinion. As per usual, the blogosphere knew this a while ago:

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/dirty-little-secret-of-diet-heart.html

    No need to be afraid of REAL butter anymore.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    Ooh I LOVE this stuff thanks Temple! Yay another excuse to put coconut milk in everything!
    Butter's so good did you ever try making Gee?
    fraid I can't debate with ya here as I agree from reading the diet delusion but I'll have a read and Im sure Ill have a few questions anyway! :)


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Dr. Krauss is ON A ROLL!!

    Check out his latest article:

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2008.26285v1

    Now he's turning on refined carbs as the source of CHD. Someone is channelling Gary Taubes!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Dr. Krauss is ON A ROLL!!

    Check out his latest article:

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajcn.2008.26285v1

    Now he's turning on refined carbs as the source of CHD. Someone is channelling Gary Taubes!

    thanks god you bought this to the O/T thread - seriously :)

    just to add a bit of fuel to the debate - my belief is that fats are OK(some exceptions) and carbs are OK (some exception) but not together.

    whats your take on:
    Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events


  • Advertisement
  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    thanks god you bought this to the O/T thread - seriously :)

    just to add a bit of fuel to the debate - my belief is that fats are OK(some exceptions) and carbs are OK (some exception) but not together.

    whats your take on:
    Clinical trials that replaced saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat have generally shown a reduction in CVD events

    Hehe :)

    There is some evidence that fats + carbs together can exacerbate the insulin response compared to carbs alone, so at least we agree on something :D

    Is that a paper title? Can you give me an author if so?

    Here is an excellent breakdown on all the prospective trials done on the 'saturated fat leads to atherosclerosis' hypothesis.

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/dirty-little-secret-of-diet-heart.html

    Over 20 studies (not all listed in the article) haven't been able find an association between saturated fat and heart disease, and just 4 that did and none of those studies controlled for refined carbohydrate. I find it amazing how entrenched the dogma about 'artery clogging saturated fat' is that researchers with access to the exact same data as me can come to the opposite conclusion.

    Couple that with all the trials that show that high fat dairy, eggs and coconut oil is heart protective along with the fact that the french eat far more saturated fat than we do and yet have low CHD and you start thinking that something else is causing the death of two thirds of our population.

    I don't have a beef with all polyunsaturates, I'm quite partial to my omega 3's. But the fact remains that we get too much omega 6 in a western diet down to industrially produced veg oil.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    Hehe :)



    Is that a paper title? Can you give me an author if so?

    .

    eh, thats a piece from the dr krauss article you posted? woops, lol :pac:


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    eh, thats a piece from the dr krauss article you posted? woops, lol :pac:

    Yeah, the article isn't perfect, for example, they cite the Finnish Mental Hospital trial which has a bizarre crossover design, so you don't know what's causing what.

    They also openly acknowledge some contradictory data, but they left out the Sydney diet-heart study and the Rose et al. corn oil study (full free text), both of which showed greatly increased mortality from replacing animal fats with polyunsaturated seed oils.

    Once again, it depends how you divide up the polyunsaturated fat. If your talking about replacing sat fats with marine-based PUFA, which there are a lot of studies on, then sure your going to see a reduction in mortality, but only because most of us are horribly deficient in omega 3. But replace sat fats with seed oil and bad things happen, most if not all trials concur with this.

    But even if you reduce sat fats in diet, you'll make it from fibre in your gut anyway, if it was so harmful, why would your body do that? Why would your body store most of its energy as saturated fat? Every time your on an isocaloric diet, you are 'consuming' lots of your own saturated fat.

    The wheels of scientific consensus move at a snail's pace, 1st step is acknowledging that saturated fat is harmless (I'd go one step further and say it's highly beneficial) with is what Krauss is saying in the first paper I posted.

    2nd Step is acknowledging that refined carbs make the situation much worse and..

    3rd is coming to realise the metabolic disaster that is lots of omega 6 from seed oils. Watch this space!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    My major problem with saying saturated fat is good is that it can be taken out of context. saturated fat might not be as bad if eaten as part of your diet, but lets face it your diet may not be the typical daily diet of most people. it can give people an excuse to eat breakfast rolls (one of the worst foods known to man IMO) because lots of saturated fat is good for you .. just think its important to keep the context .. a doctor who imo knows his stuff said to me previously that thousands of people are in a pre diabetes / insulin resistant state due to combining lots of BAD carbs and saturated fat, when I read up on it I came to the same conclusion


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    corkcomp wrote: »
    My major problem with saying saturated fat is good is that it can be taken out of context. saturated fat might not be as bad if eaten as part of your diet, but lets face it your diet may not be the typical daily diet of most people. it can give people an excuse to eat breakfast rolls (one of the worst foods known to man IMO) because lots of saturated fat is good for you .. just think its important to keep the context .. a doctor who imo knows his stuff said to me previously that thousands of people are in a pre diabetes / insulin resistant state due to combining lots of BAD carbs and saturated fat, when I read up on it I came to the same conclusion

    That's like being afraid of saying fruit and vegetables are good for you in case people eat 12 oranges a day. Breakfast rolls are bad but because of the refined flour, the margarine spread and the sunflower oil that the components were fried in. I think people are smart enough to know the difference.

    Sorry, but I would take decades of systematic research over the opinion of a single doctor. He says that he sees all these people that are eating lots of saturated fat, but I bet they all eat more omega 6 than saturated fat.

    Take a McDonalds meals, all are cooked in PUFA where possible. Most other fastfood chains and junkfood (crisps, donuts) are cooked with 100% PUFA. Every food consumption survey around shows a drastic reduction in saturated fat in favour of PUFA.

    I think your doctor friend is confusing physiological insulin resistance with clinical insulin resistance. Easily done but the former is temporary and spares glucose for the brain and the latter is a precursor to diabetes. That's how sat fat got wrongly implicated in diabetes.

    I don't see how you can reconcile the fact that these studies of diets including unrestricted amounts of saturated fat but restricted carbs on diabetics show drastic improvements in glucose control.

    Here's a graph showing the improvement in HbA1c. Each line represents one individual:
    Low-carb+glucose+control+2.jpg

    The one who didn't improve was a drop-out.

    The fact remains that everyone should make sure that the fat they do eat is saturated and ditch the chemically derived crap. That's what we've been doing for centuries before now and this diabetes epidemic is a very recent phenomenon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,114 ✭✭✭corkcomp


    I don't see how you can reconcile the fact that these studies of diets including unrestricted amounts of saturated fat but restricted carbs on diabetics is a very recent phenomenon.

    thats the point i was making in a round about way, but you mis interputed I think. the studies involving saturated fat consumption LIMITED the carbs and this is my point - if the subjects consumed lots of saturated fats and lots of carbs - the results would probably have been different. even though you may not like it, the fact is that most of the irish population consume lots of carbs and telling them to consume saturated fat also is not a good thing. In the past i ate a diet of about 75 - 80% carbs and continuted to lose weight and i reckon it was because I was limiting fat intake, where as people who cut out carbs also lose weight for a similar reason i.e. not consuming a mix of carbs and fat


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    You'll find those people who eat plentiful fat and carbs and develop heart disease or diabetes, eat too many refined carbs and plenty of PUFA.

    The 20 or more prospective trials that found that reducing saturated fat had no impact heart disease weren't low carb at all, they were people eating regular amounts of carbs.

    The argument that saturated fat becomes harmful in the presence of sufficient carbohydrate doesn't hold water for heart disease or diabetes.

    Saturated fat, independent of anything else is at worst benign and at best highly beneficial due to increases of HDL and bouyant fluffy LDL, and it's liver cleansing ability.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Just found this awesome graph:

    Sat-Fat-CHD.jpeg

    From data compiled from the British heart foundation (do those guys even look at what they publish?)

    This is a breakdown of percentage sat fat consumption and CHD and stroke by country. No countries included eat low carb per se.

    Now I know that observational data can't prove anything, but it can sure as heck can put a big gaping hole in a hypothesis.

    Is it just me or does it look like the more saturated fat you eat as a percentage of your diet the less your risk of heart disease and stroke? Why would that be?

    Edited to say that the y axis is number of incidences of the disease and and the numbers above each country name are the % saturated fat consumption. All available data from each country was included.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Sapsorrow


    Just found this awesome graph

    Tehe you're an even bigger nerd than I am! :D
    Sorry I'll butt out now ;)


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Haha, guilty as charged!

    Do butt in, what's your opinion on the subject?

    Is it wise to advise people to not reduce their saturated fat intake as a healthy eating strategy?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement