Tweet
Today we will talk about the myths that relate to fat, and then smoothly move on to the misconceptions about glucose. Promise a revolution not in modern nutrition, as in the minds of individual personalities. Don't you believe it? Just in case, get ready!
The most important danger in the modern world is not global warming or natural disasters, not wars or even obesity. There is no greater threat to humanity than myths that have become so firmly rooted that they have become axioms, brought irreparable harm, and then were debunked.
Today we want to talk about the denigration of fat and its disastrous consequences for several generations of people, then smoothly move to the second "axiom" - the only source of human energy is carbohydrates.
Click on the image to see Video: Are FATS BAD For You? (Real Doctor Reviews The TRUTH)
HARM OF ANIMAL FATS: MYTH OR TRUTH?
In 1961, Dr. Ansel Keys published an article in the authoritative American publication TIME, in which he launched a war against fat, a war to the death. He argued that animal fats are the main cause of excess weight and cardiovascular diseases.
The American Heart Association has armed itself with his arguments. Representatives of the Association made a statement that saturated fats should be removed from the menu of every sober person, as they lead to heart disease.
The Association did not stop there, but joined forces with the Procter & Gamble Corporation, after which a large-scale offensive began on animal fats.
Didn't they have anything to do? – you might think so, but it's just the opposite. Procter & Gamble was at that time one of the largest producers of vegetable fats in the United States, and it was getting harder to sell its products. This is how the phobia of animal fat consumption and the love of vegetable fats was born and spread around the world.
Click on the image to see Video: Dr. Paul Mason - 'Saturated fat is not dangerous'
Theoretically, after giving up saturated fat, people should have switched to a full-fledged balanced diet: vegetable fats, lean proteins, vegetables, quality slow carbohydrates and start practicing other healthy lifestyle, but this was not the case.
Animal fats were replaced by cookies, sweets, soda, preservatives, and all sorts of fast food. Immediately a reinforced concrete logical chain was drawn: fat-enemy, in sugar and fast carbohydrates-zero fat, so carbohydrates-it's good!
So the era of diabetes and metabolic disorders began, and fat-hating existed for no less than 50 years, until our days.
We don't know what happened but in 2014, Time published a material called "Eat butter. Scientists labeled fat the enemy. Why they were wrong." The article described how for 50 years natural fatty foods of animal origin (fat meat, fat dairy products) were replaced by industrial analogues.
At the same time, artificial additives did not always reduce the fat content of food, but even more contributed to the appearance of various diseases.
Click on the image to see Video: Unsaturated vs Saturated vs Trans Fats, Animation
I do not even want to imagine how much trouble this strategy has brought, and attempts to assess its harm begin to move the hair on my head.
It would seem that is one pathetic little article may influence the worldview of entire continents?! But such materials are supported by scientific research, various associations and conglomerates make loud statements, a number of events are carried out and a MYTH is created. Everyone accepts it as the truth, and no one thinks to question it.
From this myth we will pass to another closely connected with it.
THE ONLY SOURCE OF HUMAN ENERGY SUPPLY IS CARBOHYDRATES: MYTH OR TRUTH?
In addition to solar energy, as well as good and positive, the human body consumes three nutrients:
- proteins (used as building materials)
- fat (used as a reserve and to protect internal organs, they also perform other additional functions);
- carbohydrates (used for energy supply of the body).
The main source of energy supply is carbohydrates, and reserve fats and proteins: energy in our body comes primarily from carbohydrates, and when they are insufficient – from fat.
Carbohydrates are a more "convenient" fuel for the body for a number of reasons.
As we have already written, glucose plays a key role in energy production. It is important to understand that 50 % of all glucose entering the body is intended for the brain, if it does not receive it for 4 minutes, the person will die (we will talk about exceptions to this rule below).
There are two ways to avoid this: constantly chew sweet candies or form a mechanism that could provide the necessary level of glucose in the blood for the body in non-stop mode (we hope you have a sense of humor at the right level, and you realized that we were joking about candy).
Or you can eat fatty food and fat will turn into a necessary fuel for the brain thanks to glycogenesis.
But not everything is so simple: if carbohydrates are consumed together with fat, then fat is stored in the "depot", while carbohydrates are used as a source of energy. In other words, if you eat bread with lard, then the bread is transformed into energy, and the fat – into fat.
Fats are easier to store, and their stock is created in case of unforeseen circumstances, when the fuel in the body either stops coming, or comes in limited quantities. Conversely, if carbohydrates enter the body in an amount sufficient to maintain its vital functions, fat reserves will remain intact.
Conclusion # 1:
for fat burning, it is necessary to organize the supply of carbohydrates to the body in such quantities that they are used only for the energy supply of the brain and nervous system. In this case, the body will draw the energy necessary for the functioning of the rest of the body and life from fat.
But then the most interesting thing begins.
WHAT HAPPENS IF CARBOHYDRATES COMPLETELY STOP ENTERING THE BODY?
Above, we mentioned the exception to the rule that the brain and the central nervous system desperately need glucose.
Evolution has done a titanic work and thought everything out: if a person is starving for a short period of time, the brain and the central nervous system are provided with glucose due to the supply of glycogen.
But people go hungry for weeks, and during this period all the glycogen reserves are used, but they do not die. The fact is that our mother evolution had a hand in this: in the absence of carbohydrates (glucose), the body produces ketones (ketone bodies) from fat. They are full-fledged sources of energy for the brain and the central nervous system, as well as for the entire body.
The process of producing ketones from fat is called ketosis. The resulting ketone bodies are used by the brain instead of glucose.
If you completely stop the supply of carbohydrates to the body, the body switches to using energy from fat. When the diet is deficient in carbohydrates (glucose), the body produces ketones (ketone bodies) from fat. Usually, it takes a week for such a switch, but even here everything is individual and there may be exceptions.
But sooner or later the body switches to "fat energy supply", which means it begins to burn fat very actively as the main source of energy.
Conclusion # 2:
There are 2 types of energy supply for the body:
1. Glucose (when the body receives carbohydrates in sufficient quantities)
2. Ketones (energy is taken from fat, with the complete absence of glucose (carbohydrates) in the body.
The "scheme" is, in fact, not so complicated, and anyone interested in nutrition should know about it. But what do we see in practice?
People with diplomas say that without glucose, the body will die, in two days, if you are lucky, you can last a week.
Trainers who want to lose weight, intuitively limit the level of carbohydrate consumption, sometimes even sit on the keto diet, which is based on the use of fat. At the same time, they do not even suspect the mechanism of its operation.
It is very sad that we did not get rid of narrow-mindedness and rehabilitated the fat only half, or even a quarter. Do you think these are empty words?!
Then look around: the vast majority of people who are losing weight or who believe they are eating right are cutting back on carbohydrates and eating lean proteins. At the same time, they consume very little fat, because they think that "this "enemy" is very high in calories". Hence the overabundance of protein, breakdowns and other unpleasant moments.
It is strange that in the XXI century, almost no one knows about the "fat" mechanism of energy supply, and for those who know it-this mechanism remains a dark horse, a phantom or a fad for food freaks.
Once again, the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates. Does it really exist and is it so important?
Few people nowadays question the rule that loudly states that products from whole grains are not an example of a healthy sweet white bun. Any doubter will be considered a moron and instantly shut up. In this article, based on new scientific research, we will look at the difference between good and bad carbohydrates, find out which of them is more harmful and how much.
And yet, universal evil is not a sweet bun but firmly rooted myths and limited thinking. The bun will come and go, and narrow-mindedness is eternal. By confessing to erroneous patterns year after year, we are doomed to failure and do not even guess the reasons for it.
So, which carbohydrates are really bad and which are good? And what's the difference between them?
The headline issue for its popularity is second only to the debate about the primacy of the chicken and egg. Yes, the world is a kaleidoscope, and any subject of discussion has a dozen solutions and as many armies of adepts who defend their point of view with cleavers.
However, in the modern world, there are rare dilemmas on which the world community has come to a consensus. This is, in particular, the statement that fast carbohydrates – the universal evil and enemy, and complex-a source of health and longevity, a surge of energy.
This idea has long been an axiom, it is so ingrained and has become so popular that even grandmothers from the entrance do not need to explain what "complex" and "simple" carbohydrates are. It is so widespread and indisputable that it is the basis of the prevailing majority of modern diets.
For many years, it has been believed that the main thing in carbohydrates is the glycemic index: complex (whole-grain products) have a low index, while simple ones, on the contrary, have a high one. It is generally believed that carbohydrates with a low glycemic index have a positive effect on blood sugar levels, optimally regulating blood sugar and insulin levels.
Based on this, diets that are based on the use of complex carbohydrates are much more effective, lower the level of cholesterol in the blood and save from cardiovascular diseases.
The claim that whole-grain porridge will increase blood sugar is not as critical as a plate of potatoes or a piece of white bread and would still remain unshakeable if it were not for the scientist Frank Sacks.
This scientis investigated the difference between complex and simple carbohydrates. He published the results of his research, in which he came to the seditious conclusion that the glycemic index of products does not affect the effectiveness of the diet and health indicators at all.
Here's how the experiment went.
Human subjects were fed enough for five weeks according to the classic dogmas of proper nutrition. They were given food rich in vegetables, fruits, legumes, meat, fish, eggs, and cereals.
For the next five weeks, rations were cut and their carbohydrate intake significantly reduced.
Then the subjects were divided into two groups and for five weeks they still ate according to the recommendations of nutritionists, but some ate only slow (complex) carbohydrates, and others were allowed to eat fast carbs - white bread, sweets, pastries. It is important that the total number of calories and carbohydrates in both groups was the same.
Research results:
- the participants' health indicators improved only during the five weeks when they ate fewer carbohydrates;
- after dividing the subjects into two groups and allowing them to consume carbohydrates, blood pressure increased in both groups, and the level of cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood jumped. Interestingly, the indicators of the subjects in the two groups did not differ: complex carbohydrates with a low glycemic index clearly did not have a positive impact on health.
This is not the first study to prove that there is not much difference between fast (simple) and slow (complex) carbohydrates.
Sure, whole grains and cereals contain a lot of nutrients and vitamins, but do not be fooled into thinking that they are a panacea. It is a mistake to believe that slow carbohydrates do not increase blood sugar, protect against heart disease, and are the basis for building an optimal nutrition strategy.
Our traditional vision of" simple "and" complex " carbohydrates is dangerous. We bake wholegrain pancakes, eat rice loaves and devour cans of porridge, but we are indignant when we are offered a piece of white bread. What about it? Harmful!
We hope we got you thinking.