Kale Chips & Cashews

I’m a big fan of kale and kale chips and yesterday I discovered Alive & Radiant Foods Kale Krunch and thought both the Quite Cheezy and Southwest Ranch flavors were fantastic. One problem though,…looking at the ingredients,… right there at the top of the list after the kale of course the mix contains organic cashew….I am so allergic to cashews.

I’ve now have chapped cracking lips and this rash like a mild sunburn over my whole body and trying to sleep last night it was like someone was holding a hair dryer or heat gun on my hands and ankles.

I’ll just have to be  a little bit more careful reading ingredients on packages I guess.

Too bad though about the kale chips they were great.

Comments { 0 }

What I’m Reading, Saturday, July 6, 2013

On Cooking…

On Diet…

Comments { 0 }

This Is 200 Calories

While calories are not as important as this video may have you believe it it still very interesting and worthwhile viewing.

This Is 200 Calories – YouTube

Comments { 0 }

What I’m Reading, Sunday, June 30, 2013

On Diet Food Science & Behavior

Comments { 0 }

The 2013 Tour de France Begins

The 100th Tour de France route in 3D / Le parcours du 100ème Tour en 3D – YouTube

Comments { 0 }

What I’m Reading, Friday, June 28, 2013

From Dr. Peter Attia’s blog today On Diet

Comments { 0 }

Two (Long) Videos featuring critical discussion of Low Carb Diets

The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) – YouTube

Uploaded on May 22, 2008

January 17, 2008 presentation by Christopher Gardner for the Stanford School of Medicine Medcast lecture series.

The case for low-carbohydrate diets is gaining weight. Christopher Gardner, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, has completed the largest and longest-ever comparison of four popular diets using real-world conditions, which he discusses – the lowest-carbohydrate Atkins diet came out on top.

For some more information regarding Christopher Gardner the one time/ long time vegetarian and nutritionist who gave this lecture (and the study and lecture itself too):

Atkins vs China Study Diet. Who Won? You Decide – YouTube

Published on Apr 20, 2013

T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., wrote “The China Study” in 2005. A professor emeritus at Cornell University, Campbell was the director of the China-Oxford-Cornell study on diet and disease in the 1980s. The book chronicles his findings about diet and health from his career in basic science. While not calling himself a vegetarian or vegan, Campbell supports a whole-food, plant-based, low protein/low fat diet.

Eric Westman, M.D., has conducted clinical trials regarding the Atkins diet, made famous by Robert Atkins in 1972. The Atkins diet, sometimes called the antithesis of the China Study, suggests that lower consumption of carbohydrate and higher consumption of fat leads to better cardiovascular health. Westman is a physician specializing in obesity medicine and associate professor of internal medicine at Duke University.

The two squared off at a public debate on the campus of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) on Wednesday, March 27, 2013.

Listening to the presentations I though Dr. Campbell’s presentation was rife with logical fallacies and at time he very conveniently left out information that didn’t or wouldn’t support his position (cherry picking).

For some more information regarding the Low Carb v. China Study debate and this debate in particular:

 

Comments { 0 }

What I’m Reading, Wednesday, June 26, 2013

On Diet

The other day I was watching Morning Joe (like I do every morning) and one of the guests was David H. Freedman who was there to talk about his just published article in Atlantic…

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The article:

And then today I ran across this article in Grist about Freedman’s premise in that article…

Comments { 0 }

What I’m Reading, Sunday, June 23, 2013

On Diet

Atkins-bashing and the spirit of Bill Buckley | Richard David Feinman (The emphais is mine)

The headline read “Vascular effects of a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet.”   The article, as anticipated, was trying to trash low carb diets. This is not uncommon. Those of us who work in the field are used to it.  Low carbohydrate diets are the thing that doctors and nutritionists love to hate.  Every junior faculty in a medicine department feels obligated to write a review showing how bad such diets are, frequently by saying that they don’t conform to the recommendations of the USDA, an example of what was the original meaning of “begging the question”, namely assuming the question in deducing the answer, that is: The USDA guidelines defines healthy diets. The Atkins diet says that the USDA guidelines are bad.  The Atkins diet does not conform to the USDA guidelines. The Atkins diet is unhealthy. QED.

The paper in question, however, turned out to be especially infuriating, claiming that a low-carbohydrate  diet will cause the build-up of plaque that is characterized as atherosclerosis but the experiment was absurd.   It reminded me of the kind of articles that William F. Buckley, Jr. used to write, the kind that made you wonder: does he really not see how illogical this stuff is.  By coincidence the low carb-atherosclerosis paper appeared about the same time as Gary Wills’s portrait of Buckley appeared in the Atlantic.  It was a very sympathetic review although Wills was not blind to Buckley’s faults.  I saw in Buckley’s personality this same kind of thing that was in the atherosclerosis paper. I understood pleasure in being infuriating but you can always do that while trying to get it right. I suddenly had some perspective on it all. I could see a mindset where the truth was not the main reinforcer as we say in behavioral psychology.  Buckley was simply motivated by something else. So first, I’ll tell you about the low carbohydrate diet paper.

The thing that drives the nutritional establishment crazy is not that low carbohydrate are effective for weight loss. Everybody knows that. The earliest writers on food, Brillat-Savarin for example, made the observation that the principles of fattening your pig for market by feeding her grains applied to humans as well. What gets people nuts is that the cardiovascular risk that was supposed to follow from the increase in fat did not materialize.  In fact, when actually studied, low carbohydrate diets reduced cardiovascular risk, dramatically lowering triglycerides (fat in the blood), increasing HDL (the so-called “good cholesterol”)  and improving other risk factors.  In fact, the paper by Foo, et al. in PNAS admitted “randomized trials suggest low-carbohydrate diets may accelerate weight loss with surprisingly little negative effect on serum markers of cardiac risk such as cholesterol,” but that didn’t stop the authors who were able to come up with new warnings about atherosclerosis from low-carbohydrate diets.

(read the complete article…)

Robb Wolf a research biochemist and one of the world’s leading experts in Paleolithic nutrition responds to criticism of the Paleo Diet/Lifestyle:

From Andreas Eenfeldt, MD

  • What Happens If You Eat 5,800 Calories Daily on an LCHF Diet? | DietDoctor.com (the emphasis is mine)

    […]

    Summary

    There is a difference between overeating and overeating.

    When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.

    It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.

    Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight.

Comments { 0 }

What I’m Reading, Saturday, June 15, 2013

Cooking…

  • Shopping Low Carb: Whole Foods, Supermarket, Trader Joe’s, and Amazon Subscribe and Save | Low Carb Confidential

    Shopping low carb – at least the way that I do it, can be a pain in the ass. The reasons for this are:

    • The conventional supermarket has the most variety and the best prices generally, but the specific items I’m looking for are either unavailable or at a higher price
    • The specialty markets (ie: Whole Foods) have more of the items I am looking for and the prices are comparable or better than they would be at the conventional supermarket – the problems is that the rest of their stuff is immorally overpriced
    • The ‘value specialty markets’ (ie: Trader Joe’s) provide an eclectic selection that ranges from treasures to junk
    • Some things are only available mail order – or only economical mail order

    What this means is that I have become used to buying food at 5 different stores.

    A pain in the ass – see what I mean?

    Let’s take a tour. (read the complete article…)

  • What You Should Know About Pork Production Claims | Mark’s Daily Apple

Diet…

Comments { 0 }