SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The "good bacteria," or probiotics, that fill the pomegranate drink are everywhere these days, in pills and powders marketed as super supplements. Probiotics are said to improve digestive and immune health. They're touted as potential treatments for conditions ranging from inflammatory bowel disease to eczema to tooth decay. Some marketing campaigns even hint that they can prevent the flu.
Scientific evidence, however, does not necessarily support those claims.
Studies in rodents and small groups of humans point to possible health benefits of consuming probiotics. But there have been only a few large human trials — in large part because Food and Drug Administration rules have dissuaded food companies and federally funded researchers from conducting the types of studies that could confirm, or refute, the proposed benefits of consuming "good" microbes.
http://www.statnews.com/2016/01/21/probiotics-shaky-science/
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:44PM
And low carb is, itself, only an easy mental wrapper on the general function of eating fewer calories. You see a lot of claims about ketosis and how it causes weight loss, but these effects tend to be marginal compared to the calorie-cutting effect.
Carbs are an easy way to get a lot of calories fast, only pure oils and fats are faster. And unlike oils and fats, normal carb consumption includes eating them in near pure form.
Once you cut out carbs like bread, rice, potatoes, and sugar, the remaining options are either low-calorie or meat.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:54PM
That was sort of my point. It was basically a low carb diet. Not a 'pill' diet. Like I said I was being a goof and doing a 'wth' trial. I knew it would not work.
Once you cut out carbs like bread, rice, potatoes, and sugar, the remaining options are either low-calorie or meat.
Very good points. Another one I would like to make is 1 calorie of sugar is not the same as 1 calorie of meat. Your body will snork up the sugar quickly. The meat takes time for you to digest and by the time it is at the intake level it is much less than 1 calorie. The way a calorie is calculated is sort of misleading. We basically set something on fire and boil water then measure the time. It is a 'good' correlation but a rather imperfect one.
Also many people do not do much credence to the relation of weight vs age. As you age your body changes. Its ability to process food changes. Also your activity levels may change too. You need to keep that in mind. This does not hold true in all cases but it is there. For example in my family in their late 40s to mid 50s weight gain becomes an issue. Up until then they are relativity skinny. So finding a good diet does mean rolling with changes as you age too.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 27 2016, @04:57PM
Glycemic index is indeed a thing, but it's not particularly important to weight-loss. It can matter a fuck-ton if you're a diabetic.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:47PM
with everyone being fat and diabetic or pre-diabetic, doesn't that boil down to "everyone" anyway? Its not like low GI foods would impair a skinny athlete anyway.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 27 2016, @05:56PM
Its ability to process food changes. Also your activity levels may change too.
I've noticed this with my own low carb experiments, where crap tier food like a stereotypical thanksgiving dinner with 500 grams of carbs minimum makes me feel tired but a nice low carb meal and I've got tons of energy.
You starve yourself on a high carb diet and you feel starved, exhausted, lay on couch and watch TV.. get fat. You starve yourself on low carb diet and feel like you drank an extra cup of tea, go out hiking, take the kids to the park and run around.. get thin. Then some dude tells you "its just calories in equals calories out" yeah sure, but there's this slight subjective difference, like the difference between feeling like a refugee looks vs feeling ten years younger, as if that has no impact on the likelihood of the diet's long term success.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 27 2016, @07:27PM
A chunk of carbon probably has a very high calorie number. However, my bodies absorption of it is probably very low.
My wildly wrong point is I personally use calorie as a rough gauge of what is going on. Next stop is the carbs. Next stop after that is the ingredient list. What ticks me off to no end is the number of different names for sugar and the substitutes that are equivalent to sugar.
If you come across something where 1 serving is 1500 calories. Something is going on (probably not good). The devil is in the details. Also the dosage makes the poison. It is sort of like smoking. 1 cigarette is not going to instantly give you stage 3 lung cancer. 2 packs a day every day for 25 years probably will.
And tonight I am eating at 5 guys. I am a sucker for good fries (damn you potato sugar carbs!!! :) ).
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday January 28 2016, @05:41AM
True, but not exactly.
First, carbs promote overeating. One gets hungry again very soon after say rice or potatoes, while fat takes more time to digest. For me it is almost impossible to overeat meat.
Second, one can eat say lean chicken, non-fat greek yoghurt and so on bringing down animal fat intake - the biggest argument against Atkins.
Third, whatever calorie deficit is easily replaced by better fats - nuts, avocado, olive oil.
The bottom line, it's much easier to cut carbs than to keep so called low calorie balanced diet.
Besides, most carb foods are carcinogenic, especially whole bread, fries, cookies - basically anything starchy cooked at high temps (acrylamide is known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in the state of California:)
Oh, and speaking of reproductive, carbs at night bring testosterone way way down.
Government or doctors on the other hand will never recommend it simply because there are not enough food out there without carbs.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28 2016, @06:10AM
"One gets hungry again very soon after say rice or potatoes [...]"
—https://abcnews.go.com/Health/10-filling-foods-weight-loss/story?id=21153507 [go.com]