3 ms·

Here's the problem with diet studies in general - they take ages to pan out. Because of that, there's varying degrees of belief in whether or not something is c

Here's the problem with diet studies in general - they take ages to pan out. Because of that, there's varying degrees of belief in whether or not something is correct or incorrect, and even in cases where some breakthrough has been made, it takes ages to determine whether or not the choice was a correct one or not. This is the same reason why certain food products sales largely come down to packaging - how can I really know the effect a protein supplement is making on my muscle growth due to the many other HUGE factors that come into play? Could I have done better without it? Same with insurance plans, investments, etc - at the end of the day many of these products end up getting bought and sold due more to the marketing savvy of their business departments more than the efficacy of the products themselves. I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel immediately afterwards. If I eat too many carbs, I feel like crap. If I eat a Carl's Jr burger, I feel like crap. If I eat lean meat and fruits, I feel great. If I go overboard, I can hardly feel it. If I drink soda, I feel like crap. And so it goes. I really think it's that simple - don't pollute your head with varying degrees of this stuff - if it makes you feel good, and that feeling STAYS even if you don't eat/drink it (see: withdrawals) it's probably damn good for you and you should keep consuming it. Similarly, reverse the points to decide what you SHOULDN'T be consuming.

wvl 16y ago
Which is why the message in The Paleo Soltuion makes sense: "Eat real food". Any food that has an ingredients list likely also contains sugar, salt, and/or ingredients with names that you cannot pronounce. I think you also have to take a bit of a longer term picture. How you feel immediately afterwards is important, but days, weeks are important too. I would advise people to read this book, and give it a try for 30 days. If, after 30 days you decided to start eating your grains again, you might find like I did that inflammation becomes quite noticeable (such as achy joints).
ohmygodel 16y ago
"I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel immediately afterwards... I really think it's that simple." Sorry, this really doesn't make sense to me. Do you think people eat fatty, sugary, salty foods because it makes them feel bad? No, it makes them feel great. But, you may say, that is only temporary pleasure. They won't feel great a few hours later when their blood sugar crashes. One should, you could argue, look at how you feel all day. But then why stop at one day? Why not look at your happiness over years. Maybe that diet that makes you feel good during the day slowly causes a disease, such as cancer, that REALLY makes you feel bad later. This could, for example, be the effect of eating a lot of red meat. "Eat what makes you feel good" is simple and appealing advice. Like most complex issues, however, a simple and appealing solution is not likely to be the best.
- InfinityX0 16y ago
  Fatty, sugary, and salty foods do not make you feel good shortly afterwards. They make you feel bad. If there is any sort of bad sensation at any point, you shouldn't be consuming that food. There's something to the cancer argument but like I said previously, the determinates behind that stuff are so hard to figure out - and I would say that likely, the foods that keep us feeling good day to day - ALL DAY - are not the ones causing us to have cancer - but I'm no scientist.
  - ohmygodel 16y ago
    First, I dispute that good-tasting foods all make you feel bad shortly afterwards. Just as one example, sugary foods make you release all kinds of happy chemicals as you eat it, and that high alone lasts for a while. Second, simply eating any food AT ALL that keeps you feeling good all day probably increases your risk of cancer. Calorie restriction looks like it does increase our longevity in part due to a decreased risk of cancer.
    - InfinityX0 16y ago
      Sugary foods cause a crash after consuming them. So yes, there is a negative fall associated with it. The thing with calorie restriction is if you eat all good foods that make you feel good, likely your "calorie restriction" situation occurs anyways. If you have enough of the good-feeling foods to not be in a state where calorie restriction is actually happening, you begin to feel bad (full/bloated). And thus, fulfill the scenario where "feeling bad" actually is again bad for your long-term health.
      - hugh3 16y ago
        The two of you seem to be using different definitions of "shortly afterward". Two seconds after chocolate cake you feel better, two hours after chocolate cake you'll probably feel worse. Sugar affects different people in different ways, though.

wvl 16y ago

Which is why the message in The Paleo Soltuion makes sense: "Eat real food". Any food that has an ingredients list likely also contains sugar, salt, and/or ingredients with names that you cannot pronounce. I think you also have to take a bit of a longer term picture. How you feel immediately afterwards is important, but days, weeks are important too. I would advise people to read this book, and give it a try for 30 days. If, after 30 days you decided to start eating your grains again, you might find like I did that inflammation becomes quite noticeable (such as achy joints).

ohmygodel 16y ago

"I'm slightly ranting but I think, food wise, the best way to judge whether or not something is good for you is quite simply, how it makes you feel immediately afterwards... I really think it's that simple." Sorry, this really doesn't make sense to me. Do you think people eat fatty, sugary, salty foods because it makes them feel bad? No, it makes them feel great. But, you may say, that is only temporary pleasure. They won't feel great a few hours later when their blood sugar crashes. One should, you could argue, look at how you feel all day. But then why stop at one day? Why not look at your happiness over years. Maybe that diet that makes you feel good during the day slowly causes a disease, such as cancer, that REALLY makes you feel bad later. This could, for example, be the effect of eating a lot of red meat. "Eat what makes you feel good" is simple and appealing advice. Like most complex issues, however, a simple and appealing solution is not likely to be the best.

InfinityX0 16y ago
Fatty, sugary, and salty foods do not make you feel good shortly afterwards. They make you feel bad. If there is any sort of bad sensation at any point, you shouldn't be consuming that food. There's something to the cancer argument but like I said previously, the determinates behind that stuff are so hard to figure out - and I would say that likely, the foods that keep us feeling good day to day - ALL DAY - are not the ones causing us to have cancer - but I'm no scientist.
- ohmygodel 16y ago
  First, I dispute that good-tasting foods all make you feel bad shortly afterwards. Just as one example, sugary foods make you release all kinds of happy chemicals as you eat it, and that high alone lasts for a while. Second, simply eating any food AT ALL that keeps you feeling good all day probably increases your risk of cancer. Calorie restriction looks like it does increase our longevity in part due to a decreased risk of cancer.
  - InfinityX0 16y ago
    Sugary foods cause a crash after consuming them. So yes, there is a negative fall associated with it. The thing with calorie restriction is if you eat all good foods that make you feel good, likely your "calorie restriction" situation occurs anyways. If you have enough of the good-feeling foods to not be in a state where calorie restriction is actually happening, you begin to feel bad (full/bloated). And thus, fulfill the scenario where "feeling bad" actually is again bad for your long-term health.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      The two of you seem to be using different definitions of "shortly afterward". Two seconds after chocolate cake you feel better, two hours after chocolate cake you'll probably feel worse. Sugar affects different people in different ways, though.